Grand Committee
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Arrangement of Business
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen)
My Lords, before the first Motion is considered, I remind noble Lords that in respect of each statutory instrument to be considered today, the Motion before the Committee will be that the Committee do consider the statutory instrument in question. The Motions to approve the instruments will subsequently be moved in the Chamber in the usual way. If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.
Local Digital Television Programme Services Order 2012
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Rawlings
That the Grand Committee do consider the draft Local Digital Television Programme Services Order 2012.
Relevant documents: 37th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
Baroness Rawlings
My Lords, the UK’s media and public service broadcasting is widely regarded as among the best in the world. We enjoy plurality in newsprint at all levels and have a diverse commercial and community radio sector. Yet the UK’s media market has never properly developed in one significant respect: that is, local television. This is despite Ofcom research showing significant interest from UK consumers—80 per cent of people rate local news as important to them.
The Government have carried out extensive consultation and studies to identify how local TV can work in the United Kingdom. This culminated with our recent announcement of the first 20 locations expected to receive a local TV licence this year. The Government are now taking the necessary steps to implement an innovative new framework, some of the components of which are before the Committee today. We are not imposing new burdens on business but, instead, removing barriers to entry and creating new incentives. The two instruments before the Committee today need to be considered collectively. A third instrument to secure electronic programme guide prominence for local TV has also been laid by the Government but is not before the Committee today. We hope that the local television channel will be channel 8 in England and Northern Ireland.
For local TV to feature on the digital terrestrial television platform—that is, Freeview in lay man’s terms—it needs access to suitable spectrum. Therefore, the Secretary of State is directing Ofcom, through the Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006 (Directions to OFCOM) Order, to make sufficient spectrum available for local TV. Spectrum is already available to public service broadcasters. The beauty of our proposals is that we will be using spectrum available in the space between existing transmitters. This “geographic interleaved” spectrum allows different services to be broadcast in different locations—perfect for local television—instead of reserving portions of valuable nationally available spectrum. However, this spectrum does vary in signal strength across the UK. The list of pioneer local TV towns and cities identified by Ofcom are those with good spectrum coverage. Where spectrum coverage is inadequate, the Government expect that local TV services will develop online and, in the future, be carried through internet protocol television as this market develops. This instrument will meet the needs of local TV, which is low-cost and offers incentives to potential local multiplex operators. In most places, the amount of interleave spectrum being made available for local TV purposes is less than 10 per cent overall—meaning that there is plenty of spectrum remaining for other purposes.
The Local Digital Television Programme Services Order modifies the Broadcasting Act 1996 by creating a new licensing regime for local television, administered by Ofcom. The order provides for licensing the operator of the multiplex that will hold the spectrum being made available and for licensing the individual local television services. The multiplex operator will manage the spectrum and associated infrastructure to enable transmission of local TV services. We are preventing the multiplex operator from taking advantage of the local TV providers. It cannot charge local TV services transmission rates above cost recovery. The multiplex licence holder must also co-operate by meeting the minimum coverage obligations. Local service licensees will be obliged to provide content of interest to local audiences, suited to the local population’s needs and public service in nature.
Finally, the instrument provides for the establishment of an industry body for local TV. This could take a number of functions, such as measuring audience viewing numbers, and it could even bid for the multiplex licence if it became available, thereby helping to align the commercial interests of the multiplex operation with those of local TV services.
Collectively, the measures in these two instruments offer certainty of access to spectrum and equip Ofcom to license local TV. I hope the Committee agrees it is essential that we address the local TV deficit in the media marketplace, help create new opportunities for business and give audiences the plurality in content that they desire. I assure the Committee that we are satisfied with the orders and that they are compatible with Convention rights. I commend these orders to the Committee. I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her explanation of the two statutory instruments. The theory behind local TV is laudable; people are interested in what is happening in their local community and should be encouraged to become more knowledgeable and play a part as active citizens, including holding their local representatives to account. If local TV can successfully go some way to achieving those objectives, then it should be supported and welcomed. However, decisions like these are not made in isolation: we also have to look at the wider context—particularly as in this case, where there is public money involved through the proposed subsidy from the BBC.
In particular, I would like to explore further whether the demand for this service really exists. Would the service stand any real likelihood of long-term success once the subsidy is removed? Would a local TV service have a negative impact on existing local media outlets? Are there any adverse media ownership and plurality issues? What guarantees of quality would really exist when the scheme is up and running?
First, I would like some further evidence that there is sufficient demand for local TV to make it viable. The Minister said—and it is recorded in the impact assessment—that the Ofcom research identified that 80 per cent of people rate local news as important. I do not doubt that to be the case. However, does this not need to be measured against the evidence of consumer behaviours where local TV has been on offer in the past? The previous experiments with local TV in the UK have all failed, in part because they could not sustain the viewing figures. At the same time, local newspapers around the country are closing or being produced less often. Surely if there really was sufficient demand, this would not be the case.
Given that the Government have supposedly championed evidence-based policy, I am surprised that the department has not carried out more specific research into demand for this model of local TV. The Minister referred to extensive research. I should like more information about that. For example, what proportion of the local population do we know would seek out one or two hours of local TV programmes on a channel on which the overwhelming level of content was unconnected to the local area? Is there a preferred time for local programmes and can these slots be guaranteed when they will be competing with more commercial productions in primetime? If we do not know the answers to these questions, would it not have been safer to pilot the initiative in one or two cities rather than roll out the scheme nationally to 20 providers and then a further 24 conurbations with the associated costs? What research exists and what reassurance can the Minister give us that the scheme is viable?
Secondly, I should like to pursue the issue of the longer-term sustainability of these programmes. As we know, the BBC is providing £40 million over four years, including £25 million start-up costs. As I understand it, this money will be used to set up the infrastructure of the multiplex system, the licensing system and local production start-up costs. Meanwhile, the report from Nicholas Shott identified that, in the longer term, local TV would probably be delivered by internet protocol TV—the Minister made reference to this—and this is a widely held industry view. This begs the question of why we are investing so many of our scarce resources in a local TV system which will be overtaken by changes in digital technology almost before it has had time to become established. Would we not have been better off working with the sector to embrace these changes and be prepared for a new digital age rather than setting up what appears to be a convoluted bidding system, which will then have to go through an awkward transition into the eventual internet protocol scheme?
Incidentally, the Shott report also places great emphasis on the viability of local TV depending on high listing in electronic programme guides—again, the Minister made reference to this. I know that we are not debating this today, but I am not sure that that would be easy to achieve, as the listing system is highly competitive and there are other worthy candidates for front-page listing. I am not sure that we can guarantee that local TV stations would be given a listing on the first page of EPGs.
Thirdly, I should like to explore further the impact of the proposals on existing local media outlets. The reason that many local newspapers are struggling is that advertising revenues are down, as people switch to the internet to access details of local shops and services. I understand the argument that some businesses might be more attracted to advertise on, let us say, Brighton local TV than on Meridian TV, as the catchment area is more aligned to the smaller Brighton area, but we are talking about the same consumers who no longer read the Brighton Argus or look for adverts in it. I am not sure that it would make commercial sense. How will existing media outlets, including local newspapers and commercial radio, avoid fighting over a declining pool of advertising revenue, putting them all at greater commercial risk?
This brings me on to ownership and plurality. In a number of debates in your Lordships' House, there has been a cross-party consensus that plurality in media ownership is the bedrock of a healthy democracy. On the face of it, local TV could add to that diversity, which would be welcome, but is there not a danger that it could have the opposite effect? The relaxation of the cross-media rules, combined with more intense local competition for market share, could result in one organisation or one person controlling all the local commercial media outlets—newspapers, radio and TV. The Shott report seemed to suggest that this would be welcome, as there could be pooling of news gathering and advertising resources. Is that a potential or desirable outcome? Perhaps the Minister can clarify what controls will be in place to guarantee local plurality.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury
My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend for her presentation. The provision of local news is very important, and we support steps being taken to promote the local democratic process through greater access to information, but there are a few areas of concern which it would be helpful if my noble friend could clarify.
It is clear that local television stations, as commercial enterprises completely unsubsidised by government, will be very much dependent on advertising revenue. Can my noble friend tell us what is being done to promote local television to advertisers? It is also clear that the key motivation for advertisers will be the audience viewing figures, but, at present, there is no trusted audience measurement system proposed, as I understand it. It would be helpful to know whether there are any plans for the creation of a local audience measurement system.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, mentioned, many are concerned that any local television advertising revenues which are realised will come from cannibalising existing local providers operating in radio and print. Although we recognise the importance and potential benefits of local TV services, they must not come at the cost of other forms of local media.
Finally, the department has said that £25 million of local TV infrastructure costs will be met from the BBC licence fee, with a further £5 million of licence-fee money to be spent annually for three years on local content. Can the Minister offer any insights as to what will happen after those three years? How can the Government ensure that taxpayers will not continue to fund these stations if they are unable to earn sufficient advertising revenue? Does the noble Baroness agree that BBC local radio must also be protected, and does she support the chairman of the BBC Trust’s recent direction to the executive that cuts to BBC local services should be reassessed? Have any discussions taken place with the BBC to encourage it to share its skills and knowledge with local television services as they are set up? Given that the BBC as an organisation holds a wealth of creative and technical talent that uniquely is spread across the country, it would seem sensible for such a resource to be shared, where possible.
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, I entirely agree with everything that my noble friend Lady Bonham-Carter has said, and perhaps I may ask the Minister a quick question about detail. Will local television be entitled to an average of nine or seven minutes’ advertising an hour?
Baroness Rawlings
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this short debate with many very valid points and interesting questions. I will try to respond to as many as possible.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, asked about the declining pool of advertising revenue. Local television is expected to take less than 3 per cent. We are creating new opportunities for existing local media to diversify their business through television. Local television has the potential even to grow in the television advertising market.
Why do we include London, which has a large population compared to many other places? London’s local licence is separate from the BBC and ITV regional offer. London TV will be required through licence obligations to meet the needs of local London viewers. Like all such programmes, they will be tailored to local needs and requirement.
Regarding ownership of local television services, the Ofcom beauty contest, which will be starting quite soon, means that the bidders offering content that is most relevant to local viewers will be more likely to win a local licence. Licence conditions will include localism criteria, so that licensees will need to provide content of interest to local audiences that will support local democracy. Any local cross-media mergers will be subject to competition law and to the media public interest test.
The noble Baroness asked several questions about regulating the content of local TV. The broadcasting code will apply to local TV services, which will therefore have to make certain that any news programmes are impartial and accurate—the same as applies to other television news programming. These new services will be a way to increase the provision of quality local content supported by licence conditions imposed by Ofcom.
Regarding the impact on the wider local media, we do not expect local television to take away large amounts of local newspaper advertising revenues. Research by Enders Analysis, which the noble Baroness might have seen, suggested that local TV could take approximately 3 per cent of the existing local advertising market. We also expect that local newspapers may well be interested in bidding to run local television services as a way of diversifying their portfolios.
The noble Baroness asked about quality and impartiality. Ofcom’s scrutiny process will produce incentives to competition and to bidding for local television licences, thereby driving up quality. All news shown by local television will have to be impartial and comply with the broadcasting code, which is very important.
The noble Baroness asked whether there was demand and why previous attempts failed. Ofcom research clearly shows high demand for local content. As she mentioned, Nicholas Shott looked very carefully at commercial validity. Previous local television providers were available but low on the EPG list, and on analogue. Our proposals secure high EPG listing and create incentives through the spectrum and licensing. This is a new framework, which was not previously available.
What happens when the BBC funding runs out? We have worked hard to understand the issues around commercial viability for local television. The framework that we are putting in place offers the best chance for viability, with assistance from the BBC, EPG prominence, an appropriate licensing framework and the reservation of spectrum. With all these factors in place, and an enthusiastic local market, we expect local television to be viable.
My noble friend Lady Bonham-Carter asked about audience measurement. Through the licensing regime, we are enabling the creation of and participation in a local TV body. This body will be able to invest in audience research, such as BARB. My noble friend also asked what will happen after three years. Local television will be in a commercial position and the advertising offer should be in place after three years to make long-term sustainability certain.
My noble friend Lord Clement-Jones asked about timing. No decision has yet been made. Whether local television will be entitled to seven or nine minutes of advertising an hour is a matter for Ofcom. It will rule on that, along with all the other areas on which it will be rule.
Finally, I reiterate that this legislation creates new opportunities for businesses and audiences. The strategic framework being put in place means support from the BBC, prominence on electronic programme guides, allocated spectrum and a new fit-for-purpose Ofcom licensing regime. This will help local television to become a fundamental part of the broadcasting landscape in the UK, which will in turn support local democracy, increase local public service content and act as a driver for growth in the local media market. I am most grateful for all the clarifying questions that the noble Baroness asked.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
Could I press the noble Baroness on one point, which I asked about but which I do not think she answered? I understand that when the licences are given out, it will be to a provider who will then be able to broadcast 24 hours a day. The local element is envisaged to be only ever a couple of hours a day, give or take one to three hours. Certainly, the provider will not just broadcast local news over that 24-hour timescale. I am still not clear as to what controls will be on the producers to guarantee quality for the other—let us say—20 or 22 hours a day. They could end up on the front page of the electronic programme guide for producing cartoons or something of poor quality—not what we would regard as decent-quality public service broadcasting. I just want some clarification on what controls there will be on that element of a channel’s broadcasting.
Baroness Rawlings
That is a very important point and one that should be considered. This will vary according to the local TV provider and Ofcom will assess bids on the basis of the offer. Local content could run over 24 hours but there are quality controls, and this will be part of the Ofcom licensing regime. If there are any further details that I have not addressed fully, I shall of course write to the noble Baroness. I commend the order to the Committee.
Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006 (Directions to OFCOM) Order 2012
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Rawlings
That the Grand Committee do consider the draft Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006 (Directions to OFCOM) Order 2012.
Relevant documents: 37th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
Housing (Scotland) Act 2010 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2012
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
That the Grand Committee do consider the draft Housing (Scotland) Act 2010 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2012.
Relevant documents: 37th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness)
My Lords, the draft order was laid before your Lordships’ House on 10 January 2012. In asking your Lordships to agree that it should be considered, I shall provide the Committee with a brief summary of what the order seeks to achieve.
The order is made under Section 104 of the Scotland Act 1998, which allows for necessary or expedient changes to UK legislation in consequence of an Act of the Scottish Parliament. The order is made in consequence of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2010, which I shall refer to as the 2010 Act. The Lords Merits Committee has reviewed this order and has not noted it as being of special interest.
The 2010 Act made provision for the regulation of social housing in Scotland, including the establishment of the Scottish Housing Regulator. The 2010 Act repeals Scottish Ministers’ regulation and inspection functions under Part 3 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001. In their place, it establishes the Scottish Housing Regulator as an independent body with the objective of safeguarding and promoting the interests of persons who are or who may become homeless, of tenants of social landlords, and of recipients of services provided by social landlords. The Scottish Housing Regulator will operate within a set of priorities agreed with Scottish Ministers but will be accountable to the Scottish Parliament for the efficient use of public resources.
The order will make the Scottish Housing Regulator a part of the Scottish Administration. An important effect of this arrangement is that staff of the agency who presently discharge functions on behalf of Scottish Ministers under the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 and are currently civil servants will transfer to the Scottish Housing Regulator and continue to be civil servants. The order will ensure that UK legislation is updated to reflect the changes made in the 2010 Act, and will ensure that UK legislation can continue to operate where it interacts with the new devolved legislation. It will also ensure that the Crown Suits (Scotland) Act 1857 does not apply to the Scottish Housing Regulator, with the effect that the Lord Advocate cannot be sued in the place of the Scottish Housing Regulator.
The order demonstrates the Government’s commitment to working with the Scottish Government to make the devolution settlement work. I hope that the Committee will agree that this order is a sensible use of the powers in the Scotland Act to achieve a practical outcome. I commend the order to the Committee and I beg to move.
Lord Browne of Ladyton
My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for his words of introduction. I should say at the outset that I have no issue of principle with, or any objection to, the order before the Committee. I shall take only a few minutes of the Committee’s time to make some points of context and to raise one point for clarification.
As the noble and learned Lord and indeed the Explanatory Memorandum make clear, the order is consequential on the provisions of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2010—unusually, I suppose, for an Act of the Scottish Parliament, which among other things makes provision about the regulation of social housing in Scotland. It is unusual to the extent that it is not normal for regulations to be made here in consequence of an Act of the Scottish Parliament when there are provisions, as the Minister has pointed out, to ensure that where necessary consequential provisions require Acts of this Parliament they will be carried out in the context of the Scotland Act 1998.
In turn, the 2010 Act is just the legislative leg of a journey that started back in October 2007 with the publication of Firm Foundations, the discussion document on the future of housing in Scotland that set out the new SNP Scottish Executive’s proposals for reform and their policy ambitions for Scotland. The SNP entered government with an ambition to increase the rate of new supply of housing in Scotland to 35,000 units per year from the 25,000 per year that they inherited from the previous Scottish Executive, and they had an election pledge to build 6,000 socially rented houses for each year in government. However, they are far from realising their primary target; indeed, today the website of Shelter Scotland, drawing on the Scottish Government’s own statistics, shows that in 2010-11 just over 16,000 new homes were built in Scotland, which, as anyone who knows basic arithmetic will see, is 9,000 per year fewer than what they inherited. As a result of the SNP’s cuts to the affordable housing budget, the social sector will fall by 30 per cent this year, which will choke off growth in social housing. At the same time, the SNP has rejected Labour’s five-point plan for jobs and growth in Scotland that would use the revenue generated from the bank bonus levy to create jobs and fund the construction of 2,500 affordable homes in Scotland. Instead, the nationalists have slashed new build approvals to an unprecedented low and seem to have scrapped their manifesto promise and previous targets.
My second general point is that, to the extent that the order reinstates the independent regulation of social housing in Scotland, we support it. However, the real disappointment of the 2010 Act is the missed opportunity to improve the regulation of the private rental sector in Scotland. A strong and responsible private rental sector is vital to delivering affordable housing, and we are committed to rooting out rogue landlords and placing stronger duties on all landlords to maintain standards in the properties that they rent. Those who have represented constituents in Scotland will know that the conduct of these landlords is the bane of many communities there.
I make all these points because, despite the fact that a whole chapter of Firm Foundations was devoted to the rented sector, since then the SNP Government have focused on restricting the right to buy and restructuring the administrative arrangements, of which the set of regulations before the Committee are but a part. They have avoided completely the problems that arise from the private rental sector in every single community in Scotland, and have substantially failed to address the fundamental problem of the crisis in social housing in Scotland.
Despite all that, the changes that the order makes are uncontroversial from the perspective of these Benches. Primarily the changes ensure that civil servants who at present perform the regulatory functions of the existing Scottish Housing Regulator as an agency of the Scottish Executive continue to hold the status of civil servant when they transfer to the new Scottish Housing Regulator, which will be a body corporate. As the Minister has said, this is done by making the new Scottish Housing Regulator a part of the Scottish Administration.
As your Lordships will realise by now, the serious questions that I have in relation to this whole policy are not properly addressed to the Minister at all; rather, they are addressed to the Scottish Executive. As there is an opportunity to put them on the record, though, I could not resist it. I have one relatively simple question for him regarding the second part of the regulations. Article 3 relates to the application of the Crown Suits (Scotland) Act 1857. As I understand it, as this is a body corporate—an independent body, part of the Scottish Administration but not part of the Executive—if one has to sue it, one will not have the benefit of being able to sue the Lord Advocate. In other words, one will not have the option of suing the Government for any action that one has against them.
I should just like the noble and learned Lord to take the time to ensure that those who may at some stage have to read this record are clear that it is the Government’s expectation that that body will have sufficient resources to meet any liabilities generated in relation to anybody who has cause to sue it. It may not be an issue that he is able to address directly without some form of inspiration, so I should be happy for him to write to me about it.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, for his response and for generally welcoming the principle that underlies the order. As he indicated, it has three functions. One is to ensure that the Scottish Housing Regulator becomes part of the Scottish Administration. That is something that the Scottish Parliament does not have the legislative competence to do—hence the need for this order. Again, the Scottish Parliament does not have the competence to change UK legislation beyond the devolved competence, and an order such as this allows that to happen. We will come back to the point about the disapplication of the Crown Suits (Scotland) Act 1857.
The noble Lord said that he thought it was somewhat unusual for us to be here discussing secondary legislation that is essentially an Act of the Scottish Parliament. I understand that since 2000 there have been 51 orders under Section 104 of the Scotland Act. Indeed, I think that since I took office I have brought to a Committee orders under Section 104 on at least three or four occasions. In spite of some of the furore and some of the headlines that one sees about relationships between the Westminster and Holyrood Governments, there is in fact considerable co-operation between the two Governments over a large area of work. There is certainly also a willingness to give the legislation of the Scottish Parliament full effect in areas which it has not been able to tackle as they have been beyond its legislative competence. In such cases, through co-operation and negotiation it is possible to bring forward orders such as this to give effect to the intention of the Scottish Parliament.
The noble Lord clearly raised matters of policy. Tempted though one may be to follow him down that path, although I have many responsibilities, one is not to answer on behalf of the Scottish Government, for which mercy I should probably be very grateful. However, he has taken the opportunity to highlight important housing policy issues relating to building to meet housing need and the importance of ensuring that the private rented sector is well regulated. From his former experience as a constituency Member, he has obviously identified many cases where proper regulation is needed.
It is also fair to point out that when the consultation took place on the Firm Foundations document there was overwhelming support from the stakeholders who responded that there should be a high degree of support for the principle of independent regulation, which of course is what is sought to be done by the establishment of the Scottish Housing Regulator.
The noble Lord, Lord Browne, also asked a specific question about the Crown Suits (Scotland) Act 1857. As he indicated, as a result of the body becoming a body corporate, it was deemed more appropriate that legal action should be taken against the body itself and not against the Lord Advocate. He asked what would happen. I am more than willing to write to the noble Lord with a fuller answer but the short answer is that the public purse would pick up the costs if, for example, there was a judicial review. Clearly, that would be a matter for budget negotiations. It would be a question of whether the Scottish Housing Regulator had the resources for that and whether the budget would have to be adapted in other ways. However, I shall certainly give greater clarification to the noble Lord on that point. I think that only if the board acted well beyond its competence or unreasonably would the costs would fall upon it, but I shall seek to clarify that point.
I hope that I have responded to the noble Lord’s points and I therefore ask the Committee to agree that it has considered this order.
Revenue and Customs Appeals Order 2012
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sassoon
That the Grand Committee do consider the draft Revenue and Customs Appeals Order 2012
Relevant documents: 38th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Sassoon)
My Lords, the order before us today makes a small but important change to the Tax Credits Act 2002. It inserts a reference to the First-tier Tribunal in Great Britain into Sections 63(5) and 63(8) of the Tax Credits Act. This corrects an error in the Transfer of Tribunal Functions and Revenue and Customs Appeals Order 2009.
As the legislation currently stands, the settlement process at the review stage of the appeals process for tax credits applies only to appellants living in Northern Ireland. This order will update the legislation so that appellants in Great Britain are also covered, just as they were before the functions were transferred from the former appeals bodies to the new tribunals.
Let me provide further detail on the appeals review process. There has been an appeals review process in place since April 2003, when tax credits were first introduced. When a claimant lodges an appeal against a tax credit decision, the first step is for HMRC to confirm whether the information used to make the tax credit decision is correct. This is a substantial undertaking on the part of HMRC. In 2010-11, for example, HMRC had to deal with around 40,000 appeals against a tax credit decision. By actively seeking settlement, however, around 80 per cent of those cases have been revised and agreed at the settlement stage. Where HMRC’s review indicates that the original decision is incorrect, HMRC will revise it, but if the appellant does not agree to settle then the appeal will be sent to the tribunal to decide.
Once the tribunal receives the appeal request, it will contact all parties to arrange for the case to be heard and may require the appellant to present his case. Even at this stage, if the parties involved agree a settlement, then the case will not proceed to the tribunal and the appeal is withdrawn. Of the 20 per cent of cases that go to the tribunal, HMRC’s decision is upheld 87 per cent of the time.
This brings me to the need for this order today. According to the appeals process as it currently stands in legislation, all tax credit appeals in Great Britain should be sent directly to the First-tier Tribunal, without HMRC having the opportunity to review the case and offer the possibility of a settlement. As I am sure your Lordships will appreciate, the settlement process saves appellants from going through what can be an emotionally demanding and challenging process in the tribunal. I reassure the Committee that HMRC none the less has continued to review cases since 2003 and has aimed for settlement of appeals in the normal way.
The order before us today embeds that process in law for the whole of the United Kingdom, not just Northern Ireland. It ensures that the legislation is restored to the intended policy position in the whole of the UK, when the former appeals bodies in Great Britain were abolished and their functions transferred to the new First-tier Tribunal. This important reference to the First-tier Tribunal in Great Britain was inadvertently omitted when tax tribunal functions were transferred to a new tribunal system in 2009. The omission occurred when amendments were made to the Tax Credits Act 2002, and came to the department’s notice only early in 2011.
I therefore hope that noble Lords will recognise the need for this order so that individuals appealing tax credit decisions in Great Britain do not by law have to have their case heard by a tribunal. It ensures that we embed a fair, efficient and transparent system of tax credit appeals across the entire UK, and it avoids the unnecessary and burdensome process of taking tax credit appeals to tribunal, freeing HMRC time to focus on its core function of collecting tax revenue. I commend the order to the Committee.
Lord Eatwell
My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for introducing the order in such a thorough manner. Of course, no impact assessment was made in the explanatory information but there was a helpful reference to the impact assessment made at the time of the Transfer of Tribunal Functions and Revenue and Customs Appeal Order 2009. The questions that I wish to put to the Minister arise from assessing the arguments made in that impact assessment, or from attempting to project them on to this case.
First, the impact assessment made the point that the transfer to the new tribunal system would involve what it described as,
“a slight increase in administrative burdens on small businesses and individuals”.
Here, with respect to tax credits, we will be talking predominantly about individuals. The description of the regularisation of the process of tax credit appeals that the noble Lord has put forward will still contain the 20 per cent of appeals going on to the tribunal. Has there indeed been an increase in administrative burdens on tax credit appeals and, if so, how significant is that burden assessed to be? Moreover, since it is now nearly three years since the general transfer was made, I wonder whether the recognition that there has been an increase in administrative burden in general for income tax appeals was indeed forthcoming; and what the impact on appeals has been.
Secondly, at the time of the transfer, a strong case was made by many stakeholders that the transfer from the general commissioners of income tax to the tribunal system involved a significant increase in the burden on appellants, given that there was a reduction from 400 geographic divisions to just 130. Has this affected the appeals with respect to tax credits? If so, what is the assessment of the impact on appellants?
Thirdly, in the impact assessment there was some general assessment of the economic advantages of the new appeals system. It was argued that costs would be reduced from £3 million to £2.75 million per year. Has that cost saving been realised? It was also argued that the set-up costs would simply be £1.25 million. Was that the figure, or was it greater or lesser? What is the estimated cost, if any, of the introduction of this order?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, for his focused contribution, even if it sets me some challenging questions about the burdens involved.
The easy question to deal with is the one on burdens. There has been no increase in administrative burdens or in the burden and costs on appellants. That is key, I think, for the narrow discussion this afternoon—
Lord Eatwell
My Lords, can the noble Lord tell me how he can confidently assert that there has been no increase in burden on appellants? What evidence does the Treasury have?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, these things are tracked by HMRC, which put together the underlying information in the original impact assessment.
In essence, I think that we need to look at two aspects of these questions. First, what continued to be done as a matter of administrative practice by HMRC was in line with what had happened before the new system came in and what was intended by the policy set out by the previous Government. In that sense, what we are doing this afternoon is neutral in terms of burdens and costs, as the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, recognises—I see him nodding. I hope that he accepts that that is indeed the case. The assessment is that there has been no increase in burdens on appellants and no increase in costs.
On the question of the set-up costs and annual costs given in the original impact assessment, which is a perfectly fair and more broadly relevant question but does not, I suggest, touch on the narrow question of costs relating to sorting out the wording provided by the order this afternoon, if it would be acceptable to the noble Lord, I will see what other information is available at reasonable cost. I hope that he will understand that, on the narrow point, I have given him the assurance and, on the wider one, we will look at the matter and, if the information is available without inordinate cost, I will see what other information I can give him on the costs of the new regime.
The critical issue, which I come back to, is to reassure the Committee that no claimants have been affected by this missing reference in the Tax Credits Act. HMRC has continued to seek settlement for appeals in the normal manner in Great Britain as well as Northern Ireland. Where the appellant agrees with the settlement, the appellant is asked to withdraw the appeal; it is only in cases where the appellant does not wish to settle a case that it is passed to the tribunal to decide and, even then, there remains the option of reaching a settlement. So, in that sense, this is a neutral piece of tidying up. This order seeks legally to embed that process for the whole of the UK and to ensure that legislation is restored to the intended policy position for the whole of the UK. I commend the order to the Committee.
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, in view of the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Coles, who is to open the next debate, I suggest that the Committee do adjourn during pleasure until 4.40 pm.
EUC Report: Agriculture
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Carter of Coles
That the Grand Committee do take note of the report of the European Union Committee on Innovation in EU Agriculture (19th Report, HL Paper 171).
Lord Carter of Coles
My Lords, I declare an interest as a farmer in receipt of payments under the common agricultural policy.
“Sometimes we talk about agriculture as something very old and traditional; it is not competitive and we can forget it. We really don’t understand how strategic agriculture will be in the future … We have left the era of surplus and come to the era of scarcity. We need to refocus what an Innovation Union is … agriculture is at the centre of an Innovation Union and the new global challenge”.
Those of your Lordships who have our Innovation in EU Agriculture report to hand will know that these are not my words but those of Mr Paolo de Castro MEP, the chair of the European Parliament’s Agriculture Committee, who gave evidence to our inquiry. We quoted Mr de Castro’s words at the start of our report because they encapsulated the key concerns of the committee, which I am sure are widely shared in the House.
The committee sees a future characterised by risk and uncertainty. The first risk is that of climate change, which threatens more extreme weather events; the second is that of demographic change, which means more mouths to feed and more complex diets to satisfy; the third is the multiple uncertainties which surround the economic health of states in Europe and elsewhere. It is imperative that policy-makers in all areas have their eyes open to these risks. Our inquiry left us in no doubt that agricultural policy is no exception; indeed, we suggest that it is of central importance in meeting the challenges ahead.
Since our report was published, the European Commission has presented its proposals for the common agricultural policy from 2014. I shall say more about that and our assessment of it later on. For us, the key test is how they measure up against the need to orientate the CAP towards the thoroughgoing support of innovation in agriculture, because, if we do not increase productivity, we face some very serious challenges.
It is almost exactly a year since the Government Office for Science published the Foresight report on global food and farming futures. I was pleased to chair a seminar here in the Palace last February at which Sir John Beddington, the Government Chief Scientific Adviser, presented his findings to us. Against the background of projections that foresee an increase to 9 billion in the world’s population by 2050, the Foresight report highlighted six important drivers of change. The first, obviously, is the global population increase; the second is the size and nature of per capita demand; the third is the governance of the food system; the fourth is climate change; the fifth is competition for key resources, as we can see in Africa now; and, the sixth, is changes in consumers’ behaviour.
The committee was able to take evidence from Professor Charles Godfray, one of the lead experts for the Foresight report, about the need to bring about what we call the “sustainable intensification” of agriculture. Your Lordships will no doubt recall that the Royal Society has supported this aim and explained it as the process of increasing agricultural yields without adverse environmental impact and without the cultivation of more land. We also supported it when we reported on adapting EU agriculture to climate change in March 2010. In his evidence to us, Professor Godfray said that, given the certainty of increasing demand for agricultural output, sustainable intensification was,
“almost a deduction rather than an argument”,
and he described innovation as critical to sustainability.
As your Lordships know, CAP represents more than 40 per cent of the EU’s budget expenditure. For the period 2007 to 2013, the agricultural policy budget is around €400 billion, which is split roughly 80:20 between direct payments under Pillar 1 and rural development measures under Pillar 2. There are, of course, powerful arguments that this level of EU expenditure is too high, but we must face the political reality that while the overall level may be reduced, the EU will continue to offer major financial support to European farmers over the next budgetary period from 2014.
Our report maps out ways in which future CAP expenditure should be directed towards promoting innovative agriculture, and, in particular, we call for money to be switched out of the CAP and into increased funding for agriculture and the EU’s research programme. We argue that when payments are made under Pillar 1 of the CAP, this should be in return for the delivery of environmental benefits by the recipients. We also call for a higher share of CAP funding to be reallocated towards innovation under the rural development fund in Pillar 2. I should like to talk about each of these changes in turn.
First, regarding agricultural research, we were struck by information making global comparisons in agriculture. The OECD and the FAO co-operate in analysing agricultural markets over a 10-year horizon. In our report, we quote the OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2010-2019 and highlight projections for increased agricultural production over the next decade in different parts of the world. We found the numbers particularly compelling. In Brazil, the forecast increase is more than 40 per cent; in the United States, growth of between 15 and 20 per cent is forecast; yet the projected increase in Europe is a mere 4 per cent—hardly adequate to deal with the challenges that the continent faces.
A mix of factors underlies these comparisons and the starting points for farming in these different areas vary widely. However, anyone looking at these comparisons must surely share our view that the options for the future of EU agriculture would not include a steady-as-she-goes approach. It is just not good enough to carry on as we are. Again, I use a quotation from one of our witnesses—a most impressive witness— Mr Georg Häusler, Head of Cabinet of the Agriculture Commissioner. He spelt out the need for the European Union to look beyond its boundaries and respond to the fast-changing world we are in. He said:
“We in Europe are sitting here saying, ‘Agriculture is the old economy’, in what I call an innovation-hostile environment”.
We have heard this before. He continued:
“A lot of political groups are telling us to farm as we did in the 19th century, selling our tractors and doing it in the old way because it will be good for the environment”.
Yet, he continued:
“This is the strategic debate. Does Europe say that it can provide food for 500 million rich Europeans and import what we do not have, or does it play a role in feeding 9 billion people, including 1 billion people in China and India who are starting to eat meat?”.
As a committee, we are in no doubt that Europe has the intellectual resources to kick-start EU agriculture into the 21st century. Witnesses described the UK and the EU as a powerhouse of creating knowledge. In this country, the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, the BBSRC, spends around £470 million a year on research in biotechnology and biological sciences. In France, the National Institute for Agricultural Research, INRA, has an annual budget of just over €800 million—that is, about £670 million. In the EU’s current framework agreement for the years 2007 to 2013, funding of some €2 billion is earmarked for food, agriculture and biotechnology. These are very large sums, but our report makes it clear that it is not enough.
As far as this country is concerned, we received compelling evidence that while the quality of basic research in biotechnology is high, much of the potential for its practical impact is being wasted because gaps occur in the research pipeline. We are clear that the Government urgently need to support efforts to translate scientific findings into agricultural practice much more consistently.
As regards the EU, we said in our July 2011 report that we found it unacceptable that the research budget allocated just under €2 billion to agricultural research over seven years while the agricultural policy budget was around €400 billion. The ratio is just not appropriate.
Your Lordships may know that, in the proposal which the European Commission has more recently published for the EU’s financial framework from 2014, funding of €4.5 billion has been proposed for research and innovation on food security, the bioeconomy and sustainable agriculture. That is a step in the right direction, but we remain of the view that there needs to be a much more radical shift in funding away from simple farm support payments towards the promotion of agricultural innovation.
I turn to the Commission’s proposal on what is called the European innovation partnership on productive and sustainable agriculture. Your Lordships will know that in 2010, the Commission presented its commitment to making the EU an innovation Union. European innovation partnerships are to be established under this commitment in a range of policy areas. They are intended to strengthen co-operation in innovative research, bringing together all the key stakeholders across the EU, from those conducting basic and applied research all the way through to the final users, such as farmers and businesses, and every step in between.
There will be those who understandably question the need for yet another pan-European initiative; we have a lot of those. Our inquiry shows, however, that there is still a considerable lack of co-ordination across Europe among those many excellent researchers whose efforts are key to the future success of our agricultural sector. We have seen the issue of unnecessary duplication. The problem—and the potential solution to it—was clearly described to us in evidence we received from the InCrops enterprise hub at the University of East Anglia. We support the idea of a European innovation partnership which is characterised by effective action-based co-operation. It should not be an aspiration: we need to see the action attached to it and we urge the Government to play their part in bringing this about.
I turn to the CAP itself. Here, I think it makes sense if I link what we said in our July 2011 report with the views that we have now expressed on the reform proposals published by the European Commission in October last year. In their totality, the proposals seem to us to fall short of the commitment to radical change which we think is needed. We consider that the Commission has missed the opportunity to introduce the new approaches to EU agriculture policy which current—and, above all, future—circumstances call for. As I have said, we favour both a reduction in the overall budget and, within a smaller budget, a redistribution of funding away from direct payments towards environmental protection and sustainable innovation.
As for the Commission’s proposals for the greening of Pillar 1 payments, we sympathise with its underlying objective, which is close to our report’s recommendations that payments under Pillar 1 of the CAP should be made in return for delivery of public goods, responding to issues such as climate change, protecting biodiversity, and encouraging agricultural innovation. However, as we see it, it is problematic that the Commission’s greening proposal is a one-size-fits-all approach because it lacks flexibility. Our view is that it would be far better if greening measures for direct payment were identified at the national or regional level and if they build on the cross-compliance requirements while recognising the substantial efforts already made by farmers.
There is understandable concern in the farming community that stepping up the environmental considerations attached to Pillar 1 could result in greater bureaucratic complexity; that is a great concern across Europe. Our answer to that rests on our conclusions about what are called agricultural knowledge transfer systems.
In drawing my remarks to an end, I want to mention those conclusions, particularly on knowledge transfer. Across the EU, there are many channels through which advice flows to farmers, and those include public sector agencies and commercial providers. Our report acknowledges the diversity of methods used to transfer knowledge—this most important thing—and recognises that no one single solution is applicable everywhere; knowledge transfers must be fine-tuned, as I have said, to national and regional practice.
Under the CAP, member states are required to operate a system for advising farmers on land and farm management—the so-called farm advisory system—for which some financing is available under Pillar 2. The FAS was set up at the time of the last CAP reform in order to offer advice, which must relate to cross-compliance but may go beyond that. However, we understand that in practice, in most member states, the FAS’s role has not developed beyond providing just minimal levels of advice. The FAS cannot become the sole source of advice to farmers, but we are clear that the time has come to extend its role beyond cross-compliance. Given the importance of effective knowledge transfer, we consider that, under the CAP, member states should be required to ensure that comprehensive farm advice is available throughout their territories, geared towards meeting the new challenges of food security, climate change and the need for sustainable intensification.
We are pleased that the Commission’s proposals from last October echo this call and foresee that the FAS should extend beyond cross-compliance, and we look to the Government to work with the grain of this proposal. However, our report was particularly critical of the position in this country. We are concerned that the provision of farm advice in England has become fragmented and overly complex. We see the urgent need for the levy boards to play a central role in broadening and deepening the range of advice currently offered in England. In this context, we very much welcome the Government’s recent announcement that, from January of this year, the new farming advice service in England will provide advice on competitiveness, nutrient management and climate change adaptation and mitigation, in addition to continuing to offer advice on cross-compliance. We also look forward to hearing in due course about the outcome of the integrated advice pilot project that the Government launched last year, which we regard as very important. The pilot shows that the Government are listening to us. We think that that is good and, if it shows that they are listening to the farmers, frankly, that is even better.
I offer your Lordships one final thought on this topic. Our report highlights that agriculture innovation is a complex business. It is complex and difficult because it requires interaction among scientists, the farming community, food processors, retailers, government and consumers. That requires systems to be put in place that promote communication among all those actors. When the EU level group on agricultural knowledge and innovation systems reports, it will be very important that member states give that group’s conclusions the highest priority.
In conclusion, having spoken today on behalf of my committee, I pay particular tribute to the committee’s members, whose engagement with the subject gave our inquiry both great energy and great effect. I also thank the committee’s specialist advisers on the inquiry— Dr Julian Clark, of the University of Birmingham; and Dr Jonathan Wentworth, of the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology—whose support was invaluable. In the months that have passed since the report was published, we have seen encouraging reflections of a number of our recommendations in proposals from the European Commission and in announcements made by the Government. However, we remain concerned that the changes now envisaged to the CAP and to the support given to agricultural innovation, in the lab and on the farm, fail to rise to the challenges that we see in the future. Of course, we support the steps being taken towards innovation in EU agriculture, but, frankly, those modest steps need to turn into determined strides if we are to reach the right destination. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow our chairman. In doing so, I declare my interests as a member of the EU committee on agriculture that produced this report and as a trustee of a trust that owns agricultural land and receives payments from the EU in relation to its agricultural activities.
I also thank our chairman for the very comprehensive way in which he introduced this report. It is, as he said, a hugely complex subject, and I do not think that he could have produced such a good report without the help of our clerk and specialist adviser, whom I should like to thank, as well as those who gave us evidence. It was a fascinating subject on which to take part and a fascinating report to put together in a comprehensive framework.
I always think it is rather sad that Europe is increasingly becoming the granny of the world. We realise that as we get a little older we become a bit more granny-like and the rest of the world passes us by. The chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Coles, explained exactly what was happening in other countries with the growth of agricultural production. I believe that what is happening in Europe is utterly unacceptable. If we do not have radical change, we will get left behind even more and that will lead to disastrous consequences.
Farming is increasingly in the spotlight, as your Lordships know. It is facing pressure from all sides and from many different interests. Besides the Foresight report, which concentrates not just on producing more food but on producing food sustainably, there are the other interests of biodiversity, habitats, energy and indeed water, which is the subject of our current report and is vital to all of us. Therefore, farmers are in the pressure pot yet again with the world looking on.
That highlights that any future help and support for the farming industry and in a wider sense must be much more co-ordinated than it has been to date. You cannot look at farming separately from the impact of forestry, biodiversity or habitat, because that solution has failed. There has to be a much more comprehensive approach to see the implications of carrying out reform in one sector and how that might affect our needs. The situation is therefore much more complicated, and the EU bureaucratic structure is ideally placed to stymie anything going down that line.
The EU has to change. The noble Lord, Lord Carter of Coles, was absolutely right to say that CAP reform was a fundamental factor in all this. All of us in the committee were disappointed at the lack of imagination in the CAP reform. It is all very well to perpetuate the current system—to an extent, it has worked tolerably well, given the position from which we started—but in moving from an era of surpluses to an era of scarcity one has to adapt and be much more bold in one’s thoughts, particularly if there are to be the added pressures of coping with water shortages and different temperatures.
Where does this leave the farmer? It leaves him with one key ingredient: he needs good scientific advice and he needs his hand to be held at the right time—not to restrict him but to help him to adapt and produce the food that we all need in a sustainable way, as well as keeping the environment healthy.
It was interesting to see how the research for this science varied within the UK. It was evident that, in Scotland, liaison with universities and with the Scottish Agricultural College is much better and takes place on a much higher place than is the case in England. However, we are hugely spoilt in the UK. If one looks at appendix 1 on page 88 of the report, one will read some devastating comments about work that has been carried out on the constraints on agricultural innovation cross Europe. I refer to the two extracts from a report by the European Standing Committee known as SCAR in 2008. Our report comments on this:
“The lack of co-ordination between national agricultural knowledge systems is a significant weakness for Europe and means that the potential of its investment in World class research is not being optimised”.
That is a condemnation of the current system but it is very hard for the Minister to reply positively to it because it is a charge against the EU. It is the Commission that must adapt.
Albeit that the research budget has been doubled, that is not enough. There is not enough within the CAP reforms to make certain that the right research is being linked and can be produced on the farm. There is not just one way. A huge amount of research is being undertaken on farms that needs to be transferred back to the universities to be enlarged and developed. It is very much a two-way process.
My noble friend the chairman—if I may call him my noble friend—mentioned the CAP reform and the emphasis that we would like to see on Pillar 2, with more greening of it and more environmental benefits coming that way. I totally support that but I have a worry at the moment. With much of Europe bankrupt, one must remember that ‘under Pillar 2’ 50 per cent of the cost must be paid by the member state. Although we are right in principle to say that there should be more in Pillar 2, I cannot quite see how Greece and other countries will be able to give it the right amount of attention. It is laudable in its aims but I fear that we will not get quite the advance that we wanted there.
I turn to something that the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Coles, did not specifically mention in detail—GMOs. Immediately, memories come to one’s mind of headlines in some of our worst tabloids. That is one end of the spectrum. The other is that this could help us. I do not by any means say that GM is the complete answer but it is a possible way forward and would help us to some extent. It is very depressing that the EU has taken the line that it has so far. I was interested in the Government’s response to our recommendation on this—recommendation 33. I thoroughly support what the Minister said in his response, which was, “By allowing decisions”, to be made against producing GM crops “on non-safety grounds”, the EU,
“would undermine the current science and evidence-based assessment process”.
This takes me back to where I started. It is utterly key that we move forward in a scientifically proven and acceptable way. If the EU is going to put further spanners in the works, we will certainly not make any of the progress that we should. This is far too important a subject for us not to focus our minds. I hope that today’s debate will be read in Europe and that it will help the Minister in his negotiations there. It is in Europe, rather than in Westminster or Holyrood and the other devolved areas, that decisions have to be made.
Baroness Parminter
My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the sub-committee. As our chairman, Lord Carter of Coles, said, our starting point was the issue of feeding the rising global population—as he said, rising to 9 billion by 2050. We should not forget that in the UK the population by 2030 will have risen to more than 71 million. In response to that challenge and the challenges of climate change, it is clear that we will have to use fewer of our planet’s finite resources to feed our nation. However, the challenge is also an opportunity in the UK. One opportunity is to grow our food and drink industry, which buys two-thirds of all that our UK farmers produce, has a turnover of more than £76 billion and a growing export market, and is the largest manufacturer in all sectors in the UK. Innovation in agriculture will be key to meeting that challenge, and our committee’s report is, I believe—as I suppose one would say with slight self-interest—a timely response to that debate. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s closing remarks and hope that he will address the four issues that I shall highlight.
The first is how in this difficult economic situation, as my noble friend Lord Caithness mentioned, we will find the necessary extra funding for innovation. Science is key and the Government should be congratulated on protecting the science budget in the 2010 spending review. That was a welcome sign of the Government’s commitment, but none of us is under any illusion that that will be sufficient funding. The sub-committee was pleased by the Commission’s proposals for the reform of CAP that were published subsequent to our report, which double the funding for innovation in agricultural research under the Horizon 2020 budget, and by the cap on the level of single farm payments. The cap is important because of the signal it sends to the public on how their money supports small and medium-sized farmers delivering public goods competing in a global market. It could deliver extra funds into innovation. With what appears to be growing support across member states in Europe for the idea of capping single farm payments, can the Minister outline the Government's views on any capped funding payments being hypothecated towards innovation-related measures under Pillar 2?
Secondly, does the Minister agree with our report’s reference to the innovation-hostile environment of Brussels? I think it is fair to say that there was some debate in our committee about the language that we might choose with which to term that issue. Does the Minister believe that the precautionary approach to developing new technology still holds good? If so, how does he feel that the legitimate views of public citizens can be effectively heard in debates about innovation which will impact on their lives every day through the food they eat? Is it the role of the British media to articulate strongly held views about the impact of innovation in agriculture, or should a more sophisticated debate be held with European citizens at an earlier stage of developing new technologies? To that end, what are the UK Government doing now to make clear to the public their support for growing GM crops in the UK, given the current debate in the EU on the national decision-making proposal that could in future allow member states to grow crops in their countries, unlike the present EU-wide ban?
Thirdly, in order to deliver food security, does the Minister agree that innovation in tackling waste in the food chain should be an equal priority to innovation in increasing food production? Estimates show that 30 per cent of all food grown worldwide may be lost or wasted before or after it reaches consumers—30 per cent. As Europe considers introducing biowaste targets, the Government are urging the adoption of a voluntary approach to reducing food waste. In doing so, results here are being closely watched by interested parties around the globe, including the UN, which is looking at the global potential of our Courtauld agreement. But could more be done? Recently announced phase 2 results of the Courtauld agreement show glacial progress by the supply chain in delivering waste reduction. Despite the commitment and hard work of WRAP and the progress of individuals, it is in the agriculture and food supply chain where there has to be further progress. Large manufacturing companies, often with European and global reach, must be used to put pressure to ensure that supply chains deliver progress from top to bottom. Without that, the case for European targets to reduce food waste will be strong as a means to deliver food security, alongside a focus on greater agriculture innovation.
Finally, and perhaps with a rather more UK-centric view than this debate might allow, I beg leave to mention the issue of whether the Government can do more to support further innovation in UK agriculture, which, in addition to contributing to our food security, supports public health goals. We know that, with the rising tide of obesity and health problems, we want more people to eat fruit. To that end, it is welcome that the Government are investing in a strong “five a day” campaign to promote it. We know that people want to buy British fruit and support local producers. Indeed, Sainsbury’s is now looking to source 50 per cent of its fruit from the UK by 2020; the figure is presently only 10 per cent. We know that rising temperatures in the UK, as identified in the UK 2012 climate change risk assessment, could mean an opportunity in future to grow blueberries, apricots, grapes and peaches. We know that people want more convenient food, such as bagged and easy-peeling fruit.
Knowing all this, surely we should be investing in further research into innovation in fruit growing here in the UK. However, one of our principal research centres for fruit and vegetables, East Malling, now employs 40 staff, as opposed to 400 staff 30 years ago. It is true elsewhere, such as in Warwick, where we once had a much greater staffing capacity than we have now. Clearly, we cannot turn the tap on just like that. However, I would ask the Minister what the Government can do to co-ordinate the work of all partners, in both the public and private sectors, to identify gaps in research in areas that not only will increase the production of food with fewer resources and increase the tax to the Exchequer from a highly successful food and drink manufacturing sector, but will meet public health goals. If funding choices in innovation have to be made, both here and in the EU, it is those areas of agriculture that should be prioritised.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle
My Lords, I am very pleased that this report is being debated today and grateful to the committee for its publication. It is not only timely but on an extremely important subject, as we have heard, and is worthy of debate. May I say what a great honour it is to be a Member of this House and to find myself in the company of so many eminent and highly respected noble Lords? May I also add how grateful I am to the many friends I have on all sides of the House for the very warm welcome I have received? I am particularly grateful to my friends, the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, and the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, my supporting Peers, for their wise counsel and enthusiastic support. The noble Baroness is, I am thankful to say, still rescuing me when I get lost or step out of line.
I should like, with noble Lords’ permission, to say a little about myself. I gather that it is not uncommon to do so on the occasion of a maiden speech. I come from a farming family background in Northumberland. In 1971 my wife and I secured the tenancy of a farm situated in mid-Northumberland in the hamlet of Kirkharle, hence my title. I assume that many noble Lords will know that Kirkharle is the birthplace of Lancelot Brown, who became known as Capability Brown, the great landscape architect—a notable heritage indeed. However, what may not be as well known is that I am not the first Baron of Kirkharle. A family named Loraine owned the lands of Kirkharle for centuries and was granted the barony. William Loraine gave Capability Brown his first job in 1728, clearly recognising his emerging talent. There is a stone in the middle of a field to mark the death of one of his predecessors, a Robert Loraine, who was,
“barbarously murdered … by the Scots in 1483 … returning home from the church where he had been at his … devotions”.
Family records state that he was chopped into pieces, put in his saddle bags and the horse sent home.
Kirkharle was, and still is, in border country. I remind those who, as a contribution to the current debate on Scottish independence, suggest rebuilding Hadrian’s Wall, that most of Northumberland, including Kirkharle, lies north of Hadrian’s Wall and we wish to remain part of the United Kingdom. Sheep stealing was the cross-border currency then, and my early business experience at Kirkharle was in farming sheep and beef cattle—not stealing them, I hasten to add. My wife ran a very successful farmhouse bed and breakfast business during that time. We were there for 12 very formative and enjoyable years, and it was then that my interest in agricultural, food and rural policy was determined—which brings me to the debate before us today.
I compliment the sub-committee for this valuable report and the recommendations contained in it. This topic is of critical importance and needs to be taken very seriously indeed by the House. As has been mentioned, it follows a number of recent reports: the follow-on from the foresight study led by Professor Sir John Beddington, the EU Commission’s Horizon 2020 document, the Royal Society report, and others, including one for which I was responsible 10 years ago, which drew our attention to the huge global pressures we face and the need to find sustainable solutions.
Innovation is certainly going to be required and the recommendations in the report are important. The well documented rise in the global population has been referred to already; it is now 7 billion and is forecast to rise to 9 billion by 2050. In addition, there is the impact of climate change, leading to increased desertification and weather volatility. There is a direct link between global weather patterns and commodity price volatility. Even here in Britain with our temperate climate, the Environment Agency is deeply concerned about water table levels in the south and east of England in the depth of winter. River flows are exceptionally low and rainfall has been between 30 per cent and 40 per cent lower than normal, which has led to restrictions on extraction that will have serious consequences for this year’s growing season, unless the position changes.
These issues have rightly heightened our concerns about food security. As Professor Bob Watson reminded us, the challenge is not one of feeding the world today. There is enough food, although the margin between supply and demand is finely balanced. Sadly, there are still more than 1 billion undernourished people in the world and about 1 billion who are obese. We waste more than 30 per cent of our food here in Britain, and I suspect that the figures are similar throughout the western world. The challenge today is one of governance, logistics and distribution, and of finding ways of providing today’s technology to sub-Saharan Africa.
We have been incredibly successful in our ability to increase food production in parallel with the increase in the global population, and I am fairly confident that we will continue to do so, provided that we increase our investment in science and technology, as suggested in the report. The subject of research—how we determine our priorities, and how we mend the pipeline to ensure that scientific knowledge is translated into practical solutions—is of course a high priority in the report, and rightly so. I know that it is a high priority for the Minister, who conducted his own study. For that, we should be very grateful. As he knows, I am keenly interested in this subject and will be doing what I can to further the cause. The impact of these global challenges and the role of science will need to be front of mind as the imminent CAP reform negotiations begin in earnest. The eventual outcome will be critical in shaping how we respond to these issues. As the noble Lord, Lord Roper, and other noble Lords know, I chair the Better Regulation Executive, and one of my deep concerns is that out of the CAP reform process we may find ourselves lumbered with significant additional bureaucracy. That, under the current proposals, is a serious risk that will itself stifle innovation—the very subject that we are trying to encourage.
No, in my view the challenge is not just whether we can grow enough to feed the world but whether we can reduce our environmental impact at the same time. Our ecosystems are fragile; our greenhouse gas emissions, including carbon emissions, are too high; and we are too reliant on expensive inputs to support current production levels. We need to find new tools and innovative solutions to help us produce more from less. To address this challenge, we need to continue to invest not only in science but in people. Investing in one and not the other will not achieve the outcomes that we are looking for. We need to invest in schoolchildren so that they have an understanding of these issues, and we need to invest in career development opportunities so that we attract young people who can help deliver the sustainable systems necessary—whether they be scientists, teachers or technicians who want to work in agriculture because it is such a fascinating challenge, and an exciting opportunity at such a pivotal point in history.
Baroness Byford
My Lords, it is a huge joy, if I may use that expression, to follow a friend of mine of many years’ standing, the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle. I first met him many years ago when he was chairman of the Meat and Livestock Commission. Noble Lords who have had a chance to look at his CV will have seen that his slightly casual introduction of himself very much understates his record over many years.
The noble Lord said that he came from a farming family, but he has held many important positions for us within the wider context. He was first appointed a commissioner of the Meat and Livestock Commission in 1986. He then went on—he did not mention this—to become a board member of the NFU Mutual insurance company. He became its chairman, a post from which he has only recently stood down. He also chaired, as he did mention, the commission on the Future of Farming and Food, reporting to the Government in January 2002. It was very important and the first one of its kind at that stage. He chaired other things as well, including the Leckford Estate Management Committee and the Better Regulation Executive, to which he referred. His work within his own particular interest and, even more, within the community has been recognised on two other occasions. He was awarded the CBE for his services to agriculture in the 1997 New Year’s Honours List and a knighthood in the Birthday Honours List of 2001. He was appointed a Cross-Bench Peer in the House of Lords in October 2011. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Curry, is in no doubt that he is warmly welcomed to this House and we look forward to hearing from him on many future occasions.
I should go back to the beginning and declare my family’s farming interest and the fact that we receive money from the CAP allocation.
It was a great pleasure to be part of this group and, although I was missing for some months because I was unwell, I congratulate the chairman, my noble friend Lord Carter of Coles, and all our advisers who supported us. I particularly congratulate those who gave us evidence. Some did so via an inter-country link, which was quite an interesting way of doing it rather than fetching people over. One of the challenges faced by EU committees is how to take evidence when looking at an EU problem without being able to get people from those countries to give direct evidence. I think it is something that the committee needs to reflect on a bit more overall. I am well aware of the cost and time involved, but certainly the telelinks help, and we were grateful for that opportunity.
I should like to put this report into the context of where we are on producing food and, in particular, on food security. Last May, the NFU briefing stated that agriculture provides £7.169 billion of gross added value and supports some 500,000 jobs in this country. In addition, the food chain contributes over £88 billion per year—7 per cent of GDP—and is responsible for over 3.7 million jobs. Sadly, agriculture and farming are often talked of in a silo but they certainly should not be. The facts and figures speak volumes and they really should get better recognition than is currently the case. It is a huge challenge for all of us throughout the EU and the world to produce enough food in a sustainable manner in the long term.
The Government’s response to the report, however, is not quite as clear on some aspects as it might be, so I have some questions for the Minister. In their response, they say that £400 million will be allocated for research and development, but I am not clear how it will be spent, which people are responsible for it and who will oversee the efficacy of it. The Minister may not have the precise figures with him today but it would be enormously helpful to all of us if a timetable could be brought forward. The response talks very much in terms of “this is going to happen” and “that is going to happen”, but from reading it—and I read it quite carefully—I could not quite tie it up as I would like to have done.
As other noble Lords have said, in the UK we face falling or static yields in crops and in milk and protein production. Water shortage is with us in large parts of the country; water excess in others. The effects of Europe—all the other regulations, the NVZs, the pesticide rules, animal recording systems and so on—place increasing costs on farmers and on the Government.
Sixty years ago today, when the Queen acceded to the throne, agriculture was a genuinely labour-intensive employment area. Automation has drastically reduced the numbers involved. The sectors providing inputs, such as seed suppliers and fertiliser and machinery manufacturers, and those handling outputs—food processors and retailers—employ a high proportion of graduates, and research is an important part of their activities.
The number of specialist agricultural colleges has declined over the years and the proportion of places available for agricultural, as opposed to small animal or pet-related, studies has fallen. I wonder how often schools’ career advisers recommend agriculture as something for students to follow. The noble Lord, Lord Curry, referred to that. FACE, whose strategy group he chairs, tries to put information into schools to help teachers, let alone their pupils, understand how food is grown. It is an enormous challenge not just for our Agriculture Minister but for those involved in education to encourage young people to come into the industry, which offers a tremendously wide variety of opportunities in the long term. More people should be enthused to come into it and given information as to how to go about it.
The world is facing starvation. During the past two or three years, high-level investigations have resulted in several reports, already mentioned, and they all agree. The Lords’ committee stressed three areas of great concern: the need to increase spending on scientific research in agriculture; the communication of its findings to those working in agriculture; and the alteration of the attitudes of Brussels bureaucrats—I hope that I am allowed to say that.
Reforms coming to the CAP give us an opportunity to think again. I pay tribute to the EU Select Committee, which has just issued a fairly strongly worded press release supporting our thoughts on the opportunities for innovation that lie in looking at the way in which the CAP is delegated. The government response acknowledges the problems, but I should be grateful if the Minister could go further and tell us about what is proposed and how it will be implemented.
The quality of evidence given to the committee, the depth of the analysis of the problems, the revelation of the range of work that is going on and the levels of achievement are enlightening and heartening. One finds in any journal related to food production articles on pest-resistant crops, water-saving cultivation methods and the use of inedible plants for the production of energy. There is no shortage of innovative ideas. However, as the report states, bringing them to fruition is fraught with difficulties, not least of which are duplication in development and fragmentation in application. One obvious route is to encourage larger-scale farming, where most of these innovations will take place, but that produces the problem of what happens to smaller farmers. They, too, are a vital part of producing food, particularly in eastern European countries.
I am well aware of the difficulties being experienced in establishing such concerns even within the EU regarding large versus small, and I wonder whether there is a role here for government. I particularly refer the Minister to the whole question of large-scale animal husbandry, which is one way in which we could produce more food. However, there is huge resistance and education will have to play an important role as a result. That is within our own country but I suspect that it is replicated across the whole of Europe.
My noble friend Lord Caithness raised the question of the GM debate. GM crops have many advantages to offer, but I would be glad to hear whether European co-operation has resulted in the start of an investigation that will add greater balance to how GM may develop in the longer term. It has been suggested that member states can make those decisions for themselves, but that is not the basis of the argument; rather, it should be about whether the science is right, whether it will produce the right food and how we should go about it. I should be glad if the Minister could reflect on that a little from the UK perspective and also from his experience of it across Europe.
I am proud to be president of LEAF—Linking Environment and Farming—and I am convinced that UK agriculture has demonstrated that it has the right tools to increase yields, improve animal welfare, preserve biodiversity and conserve natural resources, all with the enthusiastic backing of consumers. However, progress needs to be faster. One way that we can make this happen—to go back to the point that my noble friend raised—is to think about how to attract more people into this industry. I also raise the question of how we give them continuous professional development in the same way that people in other trades and professions expect. I should like to see a recognised route from school through GCSEs to apprenticeships to a diploma and, if wished, to graduate status to match the opportunities being offered by other industries such as the Armed Forces, retail and manufacturing.
If I may digress, I have the great honour of being a liveryman of the Worshipful Company of Farmers. I should also reflect to the Committee that here is a practical example of the way in which the livery tries to encourage and support young people coming through. We give awards each year to students at agricultural colleges. We also run two leadership courses. One has just been completed and the other is still going on. They are for the more mature student, if I may reflect it in that manner. This point is crucial, and although we did not touch on it quite so much in the report, I hope that my colleagues recognise that somehow we have to make agriculture and food production a much more lively and desirable vocation to follow. It is crucial because all the other industries depend on us producing worldwide enough food for future populations.
I would like to see an increase in the movement of people between the various sections of food and production, particularly between research and practical farming. I have no doubt that it can and will be done, but we need to move from the old image of farming in the early 1920s with long hours in the dirt and the cold to reflecting the industry as it is—one that responds to innovation, that uses technology and relies on science. We have a wonderful opportunity, and I thank the Committee for giving us a chance to look at this important report on innovation in agriculture.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford
My Lords, I, too, declare an interest as a member of the sub-committee that produced the report. As the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, has just said, it is an extremely interesting report to participate in. In many senses it was a logical development from some of the other reports that we have been working on in the sub-committee. This is my fourth session on the sub-committee so I shall roll off. During this time we have looked at, among other things, the development of forestry and the impact of climate change on agriculture. Central to our deliberations has been the common agricultural policy and the reform of that policy. Innovation fitted in extremely well with all those reports and now we are looking at water, which is yet another aspect of the problems that we currently face and fits in with the whole question of innovation in agriculture. Above all, this report picks up on the challenge of climate change to agriculture. Our previous report on climate change and agriculture led us to be aware of the need to renew the research effort, not only in this country but in Europe as a whole, and to develop new processes and new technologies for agriculture.
We have been very much aware of the challenges facing the global environment. As the sub-committee chairman the noble Lord, Lord Carter, mentioned, we began by looking at the Foresight report on global food and farming futures, on which one of our witnesses, Professor Charles Godfray, had been the leading researcher. Of course, that report picks up what the Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir John Beddington, has described as the “perfect storm” now confronting the global environment through the combination of four elements: global population growth, which we have already mentioned and which is expected by 2050 to increase to 9 billion from the current 7 billion; the fact that climate change will shift the potential of different areas around the world to produce food; the exhaustion of fossil fuel energy sources; and the increasing competition for water resources. As all four of those issues coincide and come together in the course of the next 30 to 50 years, that will create a real urgency about how we are to feed all these people.
Therefore, the whole question of food security will become not only an issue but a very urgent issue. It is interesting that when we came to look at our report summary, we strengthened some of the conclusions. In relation to this challenge, we said:
“The response to this challenge has to start now. Decisions have to be taken, and actions implemented, with urgency”.
The issue of food security is an urgent issue that needs to be addressed and we have not time to dilly-dally for too long in responding to it.
It is interesting to reflect that, in the course of the 20th century we faced a similar population increase and, during that century, we fed that population really very amply. We used fossil fuel energy and made extensive use of fertilisers, but we also brought into play large amounts of land—on the one hand, through the destruction of rainforests and, on the other, through the expansion into wilderness areas. In much the same vein, we have used water to irrigate agricultural areas where water is scarce. For example, one need only look at how important irrigation is to Spanish agriculture and the Spanish fruit and food industry to recognise the difficulties that people will face as a result of climate change, given the problems that arise even with current water resources. However, we can no longer resort to the solutions that we had in the 20th century, as we now need our forests and our wilderness areas to absorb the CO2 emissions that we are creating, and we are running out of fossil fuel energy. In any case, the pollution caused by the excessive use of fossil fuels creates its own problems and, in terms of CO2, our water resources are increasingly scarce and costly to clean up.
Nevertheless, as has already been reflected in our discussion, those who have studied this issue are relatively optimistic that we can feed the increased population. As my noble friend Lady Parminter mentioned, one-third of the food we produce is wasted. If only we made use of what is wasted, we would have little difficulty feeding the mouths where hunger currently pervades. There is an enormous amount to be done. As the noble Lord, Lord Carter, mentioned, what is termed sustainable intensification of agriculture is required. Essentially, we can produce more from the same resources. The definition given of sustainable intensification is increasing agricultural yields without adverse impact on the environment and without bringing more land into cultivation. As Professor Godfray told us, it makes innovation critical to sustainability. If only we make use of the technologies and the processes out there, the combination of saving what we currently waste and making use of new technology gives us the answer to how we can feed the increasing population. If we can harness the potential of those new technologies and developments in agriculture, we are quite capable of feeding the growing global population.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, mentioned projections of agricultural productivity: in Brazil, an increase of 40 per cent, in the USA, of between 15 and 20 per cent, but in Europe, 4 per cent. We asked ourselves: why is the potential productivity increase in Europe so low? Why, as Mr Häusler mentioned, is Europe such a hostile environment for innovation? The answer we came to is that it is a complex issue, a mix of very different things.
Traditionally, the CAP aimed to increase production more or less regardless of cost in order to make Europe as self-sufficient as possible—indeed, at one point, Europe was well more than self-sufficient—hence the heavy direct subsidy to the production regime. That was not broken until the early 1990s, 15 or 20 years ago, since when, if anything, the swing has been in the other direction towards limiting production and increasing the emphasis on public goods of agriculture: carbon sequestration, landscape and biodiversity. The new support mechanisms in that direction—Pillar 2, as we call them—were nevertheless still dominated by the old support mechanism, Pillar 1, which paid farmers directly in relation to their production. That gives farmers a degree of security—one issue that we have been debating in our committee in relation to CAP reform—but does it also breed complacency, and is that complacency in itself a barrier to innovation?
Another barrier to innovation is that Europe has a large number of small farms in relation to North America, South America and Australasia—but not in relation to Asia, which has many very small holdings—so despite subsidies, there are low incomes. Farmers cannot afford to innovate and experiment with new ideas; they are innately conservative. The European Commission is well aware of this challenge and currently consulting on reform of the CAP. Our report has been grist to that mill. It sees it as a timely input into the debate.
The report came up with five main solutions, which have already been mentioned. The first was to boost research; mention has been made of the fact that of the €400 billion spent on the CAP in the current financial framework, only €2 billion is spent on agricultural research. As we have also heard, in the next framework, which will be called Horizon 2020 instead of “Framework Programme 8”, it is projected that that will more than double to €4.5 billion and will be characterised not only by joint programmes but by the development of the European innovation programmes and various joint programme initiatives that are to take place.
That will still be just over 1 per cent of the total spend on agriculture. As a whole, the EU has a target of spending 3 per cent of GDP on research and development. If we were to spend 3 per cent of what is spent on agricultural support by the CAP, it would be something like €12 billion. If we were looking to spend 3 per cent as a whole, the total within the EU would rise considerably.
Much research is financed at member state level rather than funded by the Commission. As others have mentioned, the BBSRC, spending somewhere in the region of just less than £500 million a year, is one of the big spenders. France and Germany spend more. In the UK, much of the money from the BBSRC is for what I call the top end of the research—a great deal of genetics and genomics research—and not very much is for applied research. We highlighted the fact that it would be a good idea if more were spent on microbiology and research into soil.
Much money is spent at member state level but there is not nearly enough co-ordination. This was something that we were very much aware of, particularly the concept of the European innovation programme and the joint programme initiatives. As I understand it, the joint programme initiatives are bilateral whereas the European innovation programmes are promoted by the Commission and are essentially to bring member states together and allow them to co-ordinate and collaborate. We were aware of how very fragmented the effort was at the moment, and for that reason we very much welcomed the input of Incrops and the model that it suggested for how the European innovation programmes might be put to work and how they might work themselves out.
Is collaboration itself enough? We noted the example of the Netherlands, which has targeted excellence in the agrifood sector as a national objective and developed a very clear strategy nationally to achieve this. Do we want something stronger from the Commission, a European strategy for the agrifood sector that puts agricultural innovation within the broader context?
Is research itself enough? If it is going to be useful, it must be used—hence the emphasis that we put on knowledge transfer and, above all, knowledge exchange. Those using the developments in science and technology must be able to understand and, for that matter, influence the research so that it is user-friendly. That is why we put so much emphasis on the development of the Farm Advisory Service. Here, it is a mixed picture across the European Union and within the UK itself. Some countries, such as Denmark, France and the Netherlands, have very strong advisory services that help farmers adapt and develop new products and processes. In the UK we found much disappointment at the dismantling of the old ADAS service and its replacement with the mixed-consultant industry-based services, and much hope that the new levy-based AHDB and the new integrated advice pilot would work themselves out.
Generally, the government response seems to have been positive, backing up our recommendations. As the noble Lord, Lord Carter, has emphasised, the key issue is that of carrying through the recommendations into the reform of the CAP. I am particularly glad that the Government have responded so positively to our suggestion that we need to look at research within the broader strategic framework and the reorganisation of farm advisory services.
There is danger in assuming that the market will deliver when necessary. Sadly, the market has chosen the way often only after crises have overtaken events. To go back to where we started, innovation is the key to developing a sustainable agriculture sector, which in turn is the key to future food security.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Colwyn)
My Lords, there is a Division, but I have a feeling that the noble Baroness is coming to the end of her remarks. Would she like to finish in 30 seconds?
Baroness Sharp of Guildford
Yes. If we wait too long, we may have lost the opportunity to prevent that crisis.
Lord Cameron of Dillington
My Lords, I am delighted to be speaking in the debate in which the noble Lord, Lord Curry, has made his maiden speech. As we have already heard, his CV in the agricultural and rural world is both comprehensive and stellar in quality. It has long been known that there are few to compare with him in terms of knowledge and experience of all parts of our agricultural and food industry, but equally important, to me, is the way in which he understands how all these parts fit together and how important they are to the economic, social, cultural and environmental fabric of life in both our rural and urban communities. I feel sure that we will all benefit from his words of wisdom on many future occasions, as we have done today.
I must first declare an interest as a farmer in receipt of a single farm payment and as a Lawes trustee at Rothamsted Research Station. I also chair the Strategy Advisory Board of the Government’s Global Food Security programme. However, today I want to explain that the problems facing the agricultural industry are global and that the solutions lie not only in pan-European and trans-world partnerships but in a variety of cross-discipline research projects that must cover the whole length of the food chain. Innovation is not just about growing two blades of grass where there was once only one.
Other noble Lords have mentioned the problems facing the world and, if the Committee will forgive a bit of repetition, I should like to put a bit more flesh on the bones of some of them. The first is the growth in the world’s population from 7 billion to 9 billion-plus. The more serious problem here is the fact that the population of sub-Saharan Africa is going to rise from 1 billion to 2 billion over the next 30 years. This is serious because there are very grave agricultural shortcomings there.
Secondly, world GDP is going to rise by 400 per cent between now and 2040. It sounds good but it means that most people will be changing to a more meat-eating diet, with more consumption of resources—much more than with a vegetarian diet. China is a prime example. Over the past 40 years, its arable area has almost halved and its meat-producing area has more than doubled. In spite of that, its balance of payments now suffers from major imports of both milk and beef, not to mention soya to feed its beef herd. In fact, the current annual trade of soya from Brazil to China is the biggest movement of a single food product from one country to another in the history of the world.
Climate change is another threat which has been mentioned by other speakers. The equatorial belt may become too hot to farm and, if sea levels rise, some of our most productive deltas will disappear. With only a 15 centimetre rise, in India alone some 150,000 farmers will be displaced.
Another problem area is world water supplies. Even with today’s population, the reality is that a child dies as a result of poor sanitation every 20 seconds. Total world water demand is projected to rise by over 30 per cent by 2030 and there are problems even now. Many river systems already run dry due to excess irrigation. Indian farmers, for example, are now taking 100 cubic kilometres per annum more from their aquifers than are being recharged by rains. The most important aquifer under China’s grain belt is falling at the rate of 3 metres per annum. In Africa, already people die in skirmishes between tribes over water. The trouble is that water and rivers do not recognise political boundaries. There are between 250 and 300 rivers and lakes in the world that transcend national boundaries. The dangers are enormous.
There is now a realisation that political unrest might be caused by water and food shortages in the future and that these possible conflicts or anarchy represent a greater danger to the world than the actual shortages themselves. The Government’s new co-ordinating research programme is well named as the Global Food Security programme because, while food shortages in the EU probably feel remote to most people, its citizens’ security could well be threatened by nutritional problems in the wider world.
The point of my very brief coverage of some of the future concerns is not only to show how serious they are but to show how multifaceted and global are the issues. These are worldwide problems. We have to ensure that we are all pulling together. We need scientific partnerships and co-ordination not only between research establishments in the UK—and I am very pleased to say that that is happening with this Global Food Security programme—but across the world. We need trans-European co-ordination and information exchange. We need partnerships in the wider world such as with the US, Brazil and China, where some of highest spending takes place.
I like to think that we in the UK can still contribute in scientific excellence, even if our budgets have been slashed over the years. Judging by the international partnerships that already exist, it would seem that others on the world stage share my confidence.
We also need north/south partnerships, so we can all focus on some of the developing world’s problems and at the same time hopefully enhance the credibility and importance of its scientists, particularly in the eyes of its politicians, so that they, too, pick up on the agenda.
As I said at the beginning, the food chain touches on a wide range of disciplines. Clearly, we need soil scientists, plant pathologists and others involved in the actual growing of the crop; we need hydrological engineers to provide us with water; we need mechanical engineers to provide us with efficient machinery; we need veterinary scientists to maximise livestock production while minimising livestock inputs and greenhouse gas outputs; we need a range of biologists and chemists to cut down on waste both before and after harvest; and we need social scientists to cut down on waste at the consumer end of the food chain, mentioned by several other noble Lords. I came across some research recently indicating that every year in the USA, which also wastes 30 per cent of its food at the consumer end, 300 million barrels of oil and 25 per cent of all man-used water go to produce food that is then thrown away. That is a pretty horrifying statistic.
We also need nutritionists to help achieve the right food intake at the right price to prevent millions of youngsters in the developing world remaining physically stunted or cognitively damaged for the rest of their lives. In this respect, many people think the GM debate is all about producing more food for less cost, but to me the most exciting aspect of these potential scientific advances is where the food is being improved for better health. Of the 10 million-plus kids who die each year in this world, 2 million die from shortages of iron, proteins and vitamins in their diet, while, for instance, only 1 million die from malaria. There is much potential for improvement here, and innovation could be at the heart of it.
We need land-use and planning research to ensure that we optimise our production of food and energy from land while not endangering other species and their habitats. Incidentally, that includes the responsible use of our marine environment, a whole area of research that is probably related more to the art of the politically possible than cutting-edge science. We have to get all these scientific disciplines working together if we are to address the perfect storm outlined by our chief scientist. We have to co-ordinate and ensure that there are no gaps in the chain. That is one of the roles of the global food security programme and the strategy advisory board that I chair.
Talking of gaps in the chain brings me finally to one of the conclusions of our sub-committee report which has been mentioned by several noble Lords already. As the Minister is only too aware—and we thank him warmly for his previous interest in this subject—there is no point in doing any science unless the information gets out to the practitioners, nor will the science be of much use unless the scientists have learnt what is needed from the practitioners. I chair the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Agriculture and Food for Development, which has recently produced a report on African agriculture called Growing out of Poverty—for all those interested, it can be found in the Printed Paper Office. During the evidence-taking sessions, we were again and again reminded that the greatest poverty in Africa is a poverty of information, yet agricultural extension services remain absurdly underprovided for in almost all African and other developing countries. Furthermore, as Sub-Committee D discovered, this underprovision is not limited to Africa but is only too apparent across much of the UK and EU. As others have said in this debate, this situation needs to be urgently rectified if the recently revived interest in agricultural and land-use science is, if you will excuse the pun, to bear fruit.
Lord Plumb
My Lords, first I share the joy and pleasure on this occasion in having the noble Lord, Lord Curry, with us. He is an old friend of mine; we worked together and shared many platforms over many years. We have not always agreed, but we have been mighty near agreeing most times. It is great to see him here and I know, as do all who know him well, that he will make a great contribution to this House, not just on agriculture but on many other issues as well. We are delighted to have him here on this day.
I declare my interest as a farmer, one who has witnessed working in the dirt and the cold many years ago, and I have seen all the changes in policy, structure, technology, science and production methods since the 1947 Act and under the CAP since 1973. I was often told that it was my fault that we had all those surpluses of food not so many years ago; no one can claim the credit for bringing that into some sort of balance, so that we now talk about not surpluses but security. That is a big change—not just a change in attitude, but a change in the general situation.
I did not have the privilege of sharing in the preparation of this report, but I congratulate the chairman, the members of the committee, the clerks and their adviser on producing what I believe is an excellent document—a wide, proactive report on the importance of science, technology and innovation in the practice of farming and horticultural systems. The team of witnesses, as one reads the document, is very impressive. The contribution they made and the way they have been reported has been absolutely first class, and it makes this one of the best documents I have read on agricultural development for some considerable time.
As has been said already in this debate, the European Union has to be competitive in the global marketplace, not forgetting its social and environmental responsibilities. It cannot be assumed that innovation will happen incidentally, due to the nature of farming, different sizes of farms and different techniques and methods. When one assumes that they are all in one lot, I always say that the only sensible definition of a “small farmer” is a chap about five feet tall.
Farming as we know it is often risk averse and isolated, facing difficulties in investment and producing unbranded commodities. I often regard fellow farmers as frustrated research workers, instinctive experimenters and innovators who are prepared to use new products and practices to be more efficient and productive, following of course—as they do—scientific approval.
One impressive side of farming that is not just related to this country is our agricultural colleges and universities. They are providing excellent training and skills for a new generation of farmers, many of whom are keen to become leaders in the industry, with conviction and passion. Nothing gives me more pleasure than to visit those colleges, to talk to young people—and to wish that I was 40 years younger. Both the noble Lord, Lord Curry, and my noble friend Lady Byford have said it was important that we do not just relate this to product. It is investment in people, particularly young people—Care was mentioned as an organisation that is doing a great job in that respect.
My son has near his farm 44 schools, which have adopted, if not him, the farm. They visit it on a regular basis, which I know gives him a lot of pleasure. He has two people carriers, which take the children around the farm while he talks to them. The same schools come back time and again. He even gets them planting potatoes, other vegetables and all sorts of things. They put their names on the plants so that they can come back and see the growth of the product, which they are keen to do.
We see those changes. Today we talk about the use of precision farming with satellite-guided machinery, yield mapping, conservation tillage, which is increasing, on-farm bioenergy equipment, heat and power units, anaerobic digestives—all the sort of things that were unheard of a few years ago but are now becoming commonplace on many farms. In future we will see new crop varieties developed through the process of further improved management and possible use of genetic modification and so on.
We know that, to be innovative, farming must be profitable so that it can invest in the future. Farmers have to be confident that they can remain in business. As I read this document—and I have read it more than once—one thing struck me in particular. It is worth quoting from box 2, above paragraph 40, which cites three theories of innovation as applied to agriculture. I thought that they said it all and they are:
“Innovation as a top-down dissemination of new technologies … Innovation as a bottom-up process”,
in which,
“local context and farm-level networks shape innovation outcomes”,
and, thirdly,
“Innovation as a socio-technical process”,
in which farm businesses mix with all the other bodies and organisations that are involved in the business. That is the big change as I have seen it over recent years. It is a welcome development because different producers can better see the part that each of them plays in the production of food.
Therefore, I hope that in replying to this debate the Minister will agree that there is cautious optimism for the future. It will depend a lot on the simplification of policy under the CAP. We want less red tape and fewer regulations. Above all, in the reform of the CAP— I agree entirely that it must be radically changed this time, rather than tinkered with, as it has been over the years—it is imperative to keep a sensible balance between the support of Pillars 1 and 2, which allow famers a margin to compete in the global marketplace.
Lord Bilimoria
My Lords, there are some out there who would raise their eyebrows at the idea of a report about innovation in agriculture. Far too many people, in both business and politics, consider agriculture to be an antiquated, backward industry with no place in the 21st century economy, to which the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Coles, alluded in his opening speech. This view is, of course, completely wrong. I am delighted that the EU Committee has tackled the subject of innovation in agriculture and produced a report that makes the case for a reinvigorated, stronger British farming industry.
My business is of course beer. I am sure that many noble Lords know that the most important ingredient in any beer is barley. I can proudly say that 100 per cent of the barley used in Cobra beer comes from Britain. The second most important ingredient is water. Needless to say, the water for the beer that we produce in Britain is 100 per cent British, too—there is no Evian in our beer. As the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, told us, the food and drink industry consumes two-thirds of what our farmers grow in the UK.
In a recent debate on the creative industries, I mentioned that I was brought up throughout my childhood being told that I was not creative because I was useless at art. I have realised that being creative and innovative are two crucial skills for business. That applies whatever industry you speak of, including agriculture. Over the past three decades, Britain has evolved into one of the most open economies in the world. That has been wonderful and one of our great competitive advantages. However, one of the downsides of that evolution is that we have an economy based far too heavily on services, where manufacturing makes up barely 13 per cent of our GDP, and agriculture barely 1 per cent.
We constantly complain about too much power being exerted on us by Europe and Brussels. The extreme example, the industry that is most crushingly regulated by Brussels is agriculture; and the single area of expenditure in the EU budget that is bigger than all others and makes up well over 40 per cent of the budget is agriculture. As has been pointed out so many times in this debate, of that, the budget for research is a mere €2 billion for five years. It is good news that it will be doubled, but surely we all agree that that is a drop in the ocean. Do the Government agree that more should be invested by the EU and the UK in R&D in agriculture and, if so, what are the Government going to do about it?
There is no question that we have to innovate to cope not only with the increasing global population, as has been pointed out, but the rise of India and China, whose consumption of food, especially meat and dairy products, will rise exponentially as they grow wealthier. We know that Malthusian theories have been proved wrong. In the so-called green revolution of the 1960s in India, a country which for centuries had catastrophic food shortages, innovative farming methods were used to increase crop yields and almost completely eliminated famines forever. One of the key catalysts of the green revolution was widespread adoption of genetically modified crops.
Fast forward to today, and we see that some of our European partners are seemingly blind to those innovations and insist on sticking to a backward precautionary approach. Rather than promoting innovation in GM, the current practice of the EU forces GM to prove that it is 100 per cent safe beyond any reasonable doubt before it can be used. I fully agree that caution must be a priority, but one must look at the scientific evidence and weigh up the risks and benefits. In a court of law, you are innocent until proven guilty. In the case of GM in Europe, the perception is that it is guilty until proven innocent. Are the Government for promoting research and use of GM crops?
Global food security is a serious issue, and I have personally seen the havoc created by food inflation, which unfortunately has existed regularly in India over the past few years. The European Union has been fantastic in promoting trade and peace between our member nations, but there is no doubt that one of its worst manifestations has been the CAP, which has been unbalanced and unfair within the EU, with countries such as France benefiting disproportionately compared to countries such as Britain.
Furthermore, although the EU has been one of the best manifestations of globalisation, the CAP has made us in the European Union hypocrites. We preach free trade to the world and yet, through the CAP, we practise protectionism. We subsidise our cows in the European Union by $2 a day, when we know that there are 1 billion people globally living on less than $1 a day. The European Union is the second-largest overall agricultural producer in the world after China, but our output would increase so much more if we could be more productive. That means investing in innovation and research and encouraging our youth to enter agriculture
On that note, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Curry of Kirkharle on his excellent and authoritative maiden speech. He informed us that Kirkharle is where Capability Brown hails from. Some of us may have noticed that there has been a resurgence and renaissance in Capability Brown gardens in Britain today. I hope that there will also be a renaissance in agriculture in Britain today.
Of the 7,000 plant species that have been used for food in the world, just 150 have been commercialised on a large scale and only three—wheat, maize and rice—supply half of the world's daily food. There is so much potential here. The noble Lord, Lord Plumb, spoke of young people. Just look at how the world has changed. Now, young people aspire to be techies and geeks, thanks to the internet revolution. In the same way, it is great to see the new policy encouraging the youth in Europe to go into farming. However, they have a lot of competition. Last month, I was speaking at an annual conference in India—the Pravasi Bharatiya Divas, the Indian Government’s conference for the 30 million-strong global Indian diaspora—to an audience of 700 members of India’s youth, including university students, senior schoolchildren and medical college students, and I was utterly inspired by their enthusiasm, brightness and aspirational attitude. This is India’s future. This is the future with which we in Britain and Europe will have to compete.
When people say that British manufacturing is dead, I and others like me in the manufacturing sector defiantly say that it is definitely not dead, and that we have world-class, cutting-edge, high-end advanced engineering, be it in aerospace, automobiles or pharmaceuticals. This enables us to partner on an added-value basis with the growing economies of the East. We must ramp up investment and innovation drastically if we are to do the same with agricultural innovation. In fact, just yesterday the Chinese Premier, Wen Jiabao, said:
“Now that Europe is facing a [sovereign] debt crisis, we must consider our relations with Europe strategically … On the one hand, our largest export market is Europe. On the other hand, Europe is our biggest source for importing technology. From this perspective, helping to stabilise the European market is actually also helping ourselves. We must let all parts of the society understand this”.
The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, pointed to a lack of co-ordination, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, also spoke of this. Britain and Europe should be at the cutting edge of innovation and research, exchanging ideas between our 27 nations, making Europe the most fertile hotbed of agriculture creativity. We have the diversity of all our nations, and in Britain we have the best higher education institutions in the world, along with the United States. In spite of higher education funding having been cut—and I am sorry to say I hugely disagree with this; I think it was very short-sighted of the Government—and in spite of our R&D expenditure being a fraction of that of a country such as the United States, we continue to punch above our weight. As the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, said, protecting the science budget is not sufficient. Do the Government, on reflection, agree with this?
Last year, I was privileged to write the foreword for Big Ideas for the Future, a book by Research Councils UK and Universities UK illustrating about 200 world-beating, world-changing innovations in several sectors from universities throughout the UK, including in the area of food security. In fact, I quoted from this book earlier, referring to the 7,000 varieties of food-bearing plants, of which just a fraction have been commercialised; and the book points out some examples. Reaping the Benefits by the Royal Society in 2009 predicted that, as we have heard, the global demand for food will double by 2050. A great deal of innovation is necessary to tackle this challenge. The report refers to a “virtual root” which has been developed by a group of researchers at the University of Nottingham, supported by the BBSRC, as a predictive model to simulate root growth accurately. Results from the model are already being translated for crops such as barley, which of course is of great interest to me. This could result in improved varieties being available to farmers in 10 years’ time. Another example is that at the University of Birmingham researchers, also supported by the BBSRC, have been identifying key genes that control meiotic recombination, a process that allows genetic modification to occur. Once identified, this information will be an important tool for plant breeders, enabling them to breed improved plant varieties in a shorter period of time. Just imagine the effect of that.
This sort of research is going on all over the country and, indeed, across the European Union. However, in order to face the future we need to invest in it multifold. The developing world, led by India and China, needs innovation in order to feed its growing populations. The question is whether Britain and other EU members will be leading partners in this process or whether we will let over-regulation, politics and underinvestment keep us on the sidelines.
In conclusion, I should again like to quote, because it is so important, the excellent report of which we are taking note. The introduction to Chapter 6 cites Georg Häusler, Head of Cabinet, DG Agriculture at the European Commission, who asks this question:
“Does Europe say that it can provide food for 500 million rich Europeans and import what we do not have, or does it play a role in feeding 9 billion people, including 1 billion people in China and India”,
many of whom,
“are starting to eat meat?”.
It is indeed a pressing question, and one that only the EU itself can answer. I am hopeful that we will choose the latter path but I am worried that the EU may be wandering the wrong way.
I shall end where the report begins:
“Regulation should help, not hinder. Politicians … must not be afraid of new properly tested technologies … Benefits and risks must be clearly articulated, recognising that too precautionary an approach may pose risks to global food security”.
Lord Knight of Weymouth
My Lords, I start by warmly thanking the European Union Committee for what was an extremely interesting and, as I found out over the weekend, highly readable report—that is not always the case. In particular, I thank my noble friend Lord Carter of Coles for leading on this piece of work and for leading the debate so ably earlier this afternoon. I certainly join in the joy in welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, and in complimenting him on his excellent maiden speech. As the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, has just reminded us, Capability Brown was also from Kirkharle, so it would appear that capability is in the water there, and we look forward to many more capable speeches and contributions from the noble Lord, Lord Curry. I also take the opportunity to pay tribute to the work that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, has personally done in the area of science and agriculture, and I very much look forward to hearing his wisdom when he winds up.
I do not want to provide a commentary on all the many and interesting areas covered by this report— I am sure that we have other things that we want to do this evening—so I will pick out just a few themes. First, this is clearly a report about not just the future of agriculture but the future of food, where it comes from and how we consume it. The report is about more than just guarding against the future; it is about how we shape the future of agriculture. That is the basis on which I have been trying to think about this—the Foresight report was also certainly very welcome in helping us to think about these issues.
We face an uncertain future: world population growing, as we have heard, from 7 billion to 9 billion; increasing food prices; changing diets; more pressure on land and water; and climate change—I take this opportunity to thank the Minister for the briefing that we had a week or two ago on the department’s assessment of the implications of climate change. Agriculture needs to contribute by less input and more output, and it needs to make a contribution to sustainable energy production and consumption. In addition, there is the uncertainty over future CAP reform, which has been discussed and debated this afternoon. All this was excellently set out by, in particular, the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, who reinforced the sense of urgency on these issues.
To shape this future and to harness the potential for growth and jobs in the agriculture and food manufacturing sectors, I think that we need: a pro-science climate in which to discuss these issues; international co-operation; and active, strategic government. Those are the three things that I want to touch on in my comments. Paragraph 183 of the report states:
“We welcome the fact that greater prominence is being given to agriculture in the deliberations of the European Commission, and we urge that it should be given a similar priority in political debate in the UK”.
I would be interested to hear both whether the Minister agrees and, beyond the high profile given by a debate in the Moses Room on a Monday in February, how we should do that. If we are to move forward and discuss issues such as GM and biotech, do we not need to try to fashion a more pro-science environment in the media in particular? I do not underestimate the challenge in doing so, but any comments on how we might do that—given the Government’s excellent ability to spin for the media—would be most welcome.
At paragraph 130, the report states:
“Many of our UK witnesses considered that the UK Government should take the lead in communicating scientific innovations as regards food. Professor Moloney was clear that the only way to offer clarity to consumers ‘is through national leadership’ and Dr Bushell suggested that politicians have ‘an amazing opportunity to shed light on the real risks associated with food and not the imaginary ones’”.
The report goes on to say that the Minister in the other place, Jim Paice,
“took a contrary view, suggesting that Government are the worst source to offer such advice”.
I have some sympathy with the view that perhaps trust in politicians is at its lowest possible ebb, but there is certainly a role for government in trying to stimulate that debate and ensure that we give a platform to scientists—government scientists—in trying to extend and inform the debate.
The report also wanted more done in schools. Of course, as well as spending a year as a Defra Minister, I had three years as Schools Minister. Paragraph 177 of the report talked very much about the importance—as did the noble Lord, Lord Plumb—of engaging with young people and attracting them into the industry. Does the Minister think that the narrowing of the curriculum in the English baccalaureate predicates against that engagement and makes it even tougher for schools? What are the Government doing, probably in combination with Lantra, and perhaps with the Minister’s noble friend, the noble Lord, Lord Baker, to develop university colleges for agriculture? They are an interesting development in 14 to 19 education, but I have not yet heard whether more is being done with the land-based industries in trying to go upstream and attract younger people into the industry than we are doing through the FE sector and its land colleges.
The report states in paragraph 61:
“When we put this concern to Mr Paice, he agreed that there was a need to make the food and farming industry an attractive industry, but saw the Government’s role as to ensure that the industry could ‘deliver a satisfactory income and terms and conditions’”.
I agree with the committee when it states:
“We see this as necessary, but not sufficient”.
We need to go further than what the Minister said in his oral evidence. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, I very much support the work of FACE led by the noble Lord, Lord Curry. I should like more of this in our education system.
I move on to international co-operation. The EU’s framework programme for research is the world’s largest research programme, with funding of €1.9 billion earmarked for the area of food, agriculture and biotechnology. There is differential development in this sector across Europe, given its different geographies, and it is certainly the case that no one size fits all. However, different development needs a more sophisticated differential approach by the EU. The UK has an advanced and relatively mature sector, and we have heard about the interesting work that the Netherlands is doing. However, such work in parts of eastern and southern Europe is far less developed, and we have heard about the very small farm units in some of those areas. Like others, I feel frustration at the projections of only a 4 per cent growth in productivity across Europe. The continent as a whole needs to meet future challenges, grasp opportunities and work together to ensure that the single market area achieves sufficiency.
How much is the Minister concerned about UK food security in isolation? If that is the aim, how will he shift consumer demand to seasonal UK food, especially given that what is seasonal and local changes with the climate? How can the UK use what residual influence it has left on the margins of the European Union to encourage co-operation and convergence of the agricultural economies across Europe? Surely, it is only then that we can do more for less, as is essential, and achieve food security within the single market. As the climate changes and the geography of food production migrates north, how can we develop co-operation between producers across borders so that we can learn from each other’s innovative practice? That sort of co-operation is essential.
Finally on international co-operation, what are the Government doing to encourage higher education co-operation, perhaps through the Bologna process, in these areas? I understand the scepticism articulated by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and others, but we need to redouble our efforts on co-operation rather than on isolation so that we can address these challenges.
I turn to the question of active, strategic Governments. There was a difference between the evidence given by the Minister of State, Jim Paice, and the Government’s official response to the report, which read very well. One was the voice of the Minister and the other, from my experience, was the voice of officials signed off by the Minister. The Government’s response to the report is helpful but I would rather look at the Minister’s choice of words.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, I was concerned about continued government spend on research. I note that the response to a Parliamentary Question in the other place on 20 January at col. 925W of Hansard was that core Defra research and development spend for the last five years is contained within the evidence budgets, and that while the proportion of R&D and the evidence budgets is to remain the same as a proportion of the total programme, that will reduce by 29 per cent in real terms. The figures show a reduction from £210 million in 2010-11 to £167 million in 2014-15. The department’s evidence investment strategy also shows reductions in spend in this area, and that has to be a concern when we are thinking about these issues.
I also have a concern about whether there is a difference in philosophical approach. Paragraph 27 of the report says that the Minister—not the noble Lord here but Jim Paice—said that,
“the present Government had no plans to publish any new document, and that he did not believe in ‘some Government-determined plan’; and he saw no conflict between the Government’s emphasis on localism and the need to respond to the challenges outlined in the Foresight report”.
I disagree with that. It suggests a hands-off Government who believe in getting out of the way rather than enabling, but we need a more strategic approach than is reflected in the Minister of State’s words. I acknowledge the dominance and the vital importance of the private sector in this industry, but surely there is a role for Government in this area, as I detect being strongly argued in this committee’s reports.
The committee says that most farmers are understandably risk-averse. The committee quotes in paragraph 109 Philip Richardson, who said:
“the great deal of uncertainties (weather, disease and price volatility) inherent in farming … make farmers more risk-averse than other business people”.
We all understand that, hence the committee’s view that innovations need a sound business case for farmers to take them on, but innovation needs a higher appetite for risk to make necessary investment than farmers are going to be willing to make in that sort of environment. Hence the importance of the supply chain—and I noted the interesting evidence given by Morrisons. We need either direct top-down investment or investment via the common agricultural policy. We also need other activity from government. I would be interested to know whether there is any progress on the grocery adjudicator to help give us some leverage over that supply chain and address some of the waste reduction issues that the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, rightly raised.
I will not take any more of your Lordships’ time. This is an interesting area that needs action from the EU and from the UK Government. It needs the urgency that the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, talked about. I very much commend the report and look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Taylor of Holbeach)
My Lords, it is my personal pleasure as well as my governmental responsibility to reply to the debate. I join others in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Coles, and the committee, as well as those advising it, on the thoroughness of their inquiry and the subsequent report on innovation in EU agriculture. It really is a first-class report which has informed this debate, as I hope it will the wider public.
I was pleased to be able to attend part of the seminar in November. As I indicated then, and as noble Lords have generously pointed out, this subject is very much up my street. It is an important one, too, and I hope that the response from Defra, which is full and detailed, does credit to the quality of the report. The report will also be useful in reinforcing the Government’s position vis-à-vis their European colleagues, as my noble friend Lord Caithness hopes.
I had intended to start my speech by quoting from the opening paragraph of the introduction to the report. The noble Lord, Lord Carter of Coles, used those words to open his speech today. Mr Paolo de Castro encapsulated the essentials of our current position, and the report is unafraid to present the challenge that faces all policy-makers and innovators in science and on the farm. This debate, too, has risen to the challenge, not least because it has served as an opportunity for us to hear the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, who brings to this Grand Committee, as he will to the House in general, knowledge, expertise and an ability to inform. This will be of great value to the House on this and, I hope, many subjects. The noble Lord is welcome as a Member of this House. He reminded us, as did my noble friend Lady Byford, that we must not in our enthusiasm for innovation forget the people and the skills that we need in addressing this topic—I hope to come to that shortly.
Many noble Lords pointed out that but a short while ago we saw ourselves as being in a land of plenty, but Sir John Beddington’s Chatham House speech changed all that, showing us the threat that mankind faces from a perfect storm of resource pressures, climate change and population increase. This was followed by the Royal Society’s Reaping the Benefits, which showed how science could provide solutions if we were prepared to take the opportunities that it offered and, ultimately, by the Foresight report, which placed the challenge in a global context. Many noble Lords talked of this, none more graphically than the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington. My own Taylor review was designed to look at the need to provide on-farm solutions here in the UK. The sub-committee not only recognises that but also points to the pan-European dimension of its solution.
At the seminar in November, I was given the opportunity to put forward to the European Commission the Government/Defra position on agricultural R&D and to ask for more information from it, particularly on European innovation partnerships and operational groups. Innovation in agriculture is very important to the UK Government. The Government Office for Science’s Foresight report on the future of farming clearly laid out the global challenges for the agriculture sector. Investment in research and innovation at both national and EU level will play an important role in supporting sustainable intensification and climate-smart food systems that will improve food security for Europe and globally.
If I may talk about one of these systems, my noble friend Lady Byford asked about animal welfare standards as a factor in good farm management, independent of the size of the unit. Animal welfare standards and business efficiency can be mutually supportive. We recognise the concerns about such standards creating a competitive disadvantage; we have had discussions in the House about the egg-laying directive, and I have pointed out that the department is concerned to ensure that the sow stall directive is properly enforced. These initiatives and high standards are something that we in this country are not prepared to jeopardise, but they do not necessarily conflict with the strategy for larger-scale production units.
The Government invest £400 million a year on agrifood research, including collaborative work with industry. As noble Lords have pointed out, that is mainly through BBSRC. Defra itself spends £65 million per annum on agricultural R&D, including animal health and welfare. I will not deny that I wish that as a department we had more, but deficit reduction must be addressed. Meanwhile, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Knight, that we are actively leveraging our limited funding.
This investment is coordinated by the UK cross-government food research and innovation strategy published by the Government Office for Science. The cross-government and research council programme on global food security will be a key vehicle for driving this agenda forward.
Perhaps I may comment on my noble friend Lady Parminter’s view, which she expressed very cogently, about the precautionary principle and how it fits with a policy of innovation. The Government agree with the committee that the precautionary principle remains relevant to decisions on food and environmental safety, but it must be applied sensibly and not as an unjustified barrier to new technologies. The noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, reminded us eloquently about our global responsibility to use technologies to address food supply throughout the world.
I would like to think that we can build on the shared respect for science that has been evident in this debate to move forward in the court of public opinion. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Knight, for his willingness to develop cross-party consensus on these issues.
Through the Technology Strategy Board, Defra and BBSRC, the Government invest in the Sustainable Agriculture and Food Innovation Platform, worth £90 million over five years, which matches funding by industry. It is worth noting that the TSB’s contribution of £50 million to this pot is new investment in innovation. The Government are also reviewing R&D tax credit support for innovation as part of the Dyson review recommendation to boost innovation in Britain.
It might be useful at this point to talk about agricultural skills. Several noble Lords mentioned this, and I shall build on the question that my noble friend Lady Byford asked. The national curriculum review is currently looking at essential knowledge that should be studied pre-16. Studying agriculture should be seen as a front-line activity of central importance to ensure that its relevance to the challenges of food security and sustainable intensification can be supported by a skill base. Lantra, the skills council for the environmental and land-based industries, offers information and careers across the agri sector and determines standards to ensure that qualifications meet both employer and learner needs. I know how important this is. Motivation and enthusing people to enter our industry will be vital if a new generation is to take this agenda of change forward. I should like to point out that in Holbeach itself there is a secondary school, which has now developed academy status, working alongside Lincoln University and the National Food Research Centre—an educational institute—to try to develop this in the heart of perhaps one of the most productive areas of UK agriculture. Therefore, I have first-hand knowledge of what is being done and what can be done on a much broader scale.
However, to tackle the challenges of creating a more innovative, profitable and competitive EU farming industry that can better withstand shocks and recover from them quickly, we also need to work in partnership with other countries in Europe and further afield. This is a factor that runs through the report and was reinforced by contributions throughout this debate. We therefore welcome European Union mechanisms that support this approach, including the European Research Area Networks—ERA-Nets—as well as supporting the Commission in its provision of the joint programming initiatives, or JPIs, of the member states.
My noble friend Lady Sharp mentioned the importance of awareness in the Commission of the need to remove complacency and to invest in innovation. At a wider international level, the UK’s proactive engagement with the Global Research Alliance on Agricultural Greenhouse Gases is an example of where a partnership approach can be used to address common global challenges and add value to our own £12.6 million greenhouse gas R&D platform to identify greenhouse gas mitigation options and monitor them more effectively.
The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, talked about global research partnerships. The Global Research Alliance on Greenhouse Gases includes the USA and Brazil, as well as many EU member states. UK researchers, including those from Rothamsted, which the noble Lord will know well, are actively collaborating with their counterparts in New Zealand and Australia as well as the US. This is all co-ordinated by Defra, which is also collaborating under the sustainable agricultural innovation partnership through the action plan for UK-China co-operation on food security. The noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, reinforced the importance of this global approach to research projects if we are to meet the global challenge of feeding the world.
As we enter the final years of the EU’s seventh research and development framework programme, we welcome the Commission’s recent proposals for Horizon 2020, a research and innovation programme for Europe between 2014 and 2020. Horizon 2020 should play an important role in addressing the key societal challenges that we face today. We are pleased that food security and sustainable agriculture are among the grand challenges to be addressed by the programme. Indeed, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, Caroline Spelman, is due to sign it off today.
EU-funded research must deliver value over and above that of our national programmes, and the impact of Horizon 2020 will depend on the active translation of research outputs as part of effective knowledge-exchange mechanisms. We therefore welcome the aim for Horizon 2020 to cover the knowledge spectrum from fundamental research through to demonstration activities.
Importantly, ambitious CAP reform would provide opportunities for agriculture to become competitive with less reliance on subsidies, releasing funds to encourage the cost-effective delivery of public goods and stimulate innovation in the agricultural sector as it grapples with global challenges to provide sufficient food to feed a growing population in a way that impacts less on the environment. I believe that the current package of proposals will fall short of this aim. I assure my noble friend Lady Parminter that we recognise the need for the identification of funding within the CAP for research and innovation.
We therefore broadly welcome the Commission’s proposal to establish a European innovation partnership, or EIP, for agricultural productivity and sustainability that will bring together relevant actors across the research and innovation chain. We also support the establishment of operational groups—OGs, as they are called—to test out emerging findings and to drive forward the adoption of new ideas and technologies. However, we await further clarification from the Commission on how the EIP networks and OGs will operate in practice and how they are to be funded, and we look forward to working closely with the Commission and others as these proposals are developed.
A number of noble Lords challenged our position on GM. I include my noble friends Lord Caithness and Lady Byford, but it was mentioned in a number of noble Lords’ speeches. The EU controls are the strictest in the world and robust enough to ensure that any approved GM products will be as safe for people and the environment as their conventional counterparts. Although ensuring that safety is paramount, we also need to be open to the potential benefits of GM technology. That is important, given the challenges ahead on food security and sustainability. My noble friend Lady Byford is right in her appraisal of the current proposals. A sustainable resolution of this issue must be based on science and be established across all 27 countries of the European Union.
In its inquiry, the committee has also examined the provision of farm advisory services to support agricultural innovation and competitiveness. I am delighted by this as it featured in my own report to the Government, then in opposition, to encourage greater collaboration between the public and private sectors in funding research and ensuring that a more effective knowledge transfer takes place.
A number of noble Lords mentioned the climate change risk assessment. I see this as an opportunity. Published last week, it presents the very real challenges posed by climate change. The scenario as painted for British agriculture is that there are opportunities within this agenda, but the assessment points particularly to the resource challenges of water. This will continue to be an increasing challenge not only in this country but across the world if we are to increase the capacity of our existing arable soils to produce crops and our grasslands to sustain livestock.
I am pleased to report that, as from 1 January—as noble Lords have mentioned—the new farming advice service will provide advice on competitiveness, nutrient management, climate change adaptation and mitigation and cross-compliance. The provision of the new service, secured by open competition, will be delivered by AEA Technology in active partnership with industry-related bodies such as the NFU, the CLA, the AHDB, LEAF, the West Country River Trust and ADAS. Farmers wanting professional advice will no longer have to ring round dozens of organisations before getting through to the right source. After all, good advice is essential to the running of any business, and this new advice service will make sure that farmers can get the most out of their farms.
I therefore wish to encourage any future industry-led initiatives that will stimulate co-operation between industry bodies, innovation, applied research and the effective translation of science and technology into practice. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Curry, will be chairing a meeting shortly to encourage the levy bodies, colleges and other stakeholders to work together to deliver innovation. That mission has my blessing.
I have not gone into a lot of detail about something that was mentioned by my noble friend Lady Parminter and the noble Lord, Lord Knight: the reduction of waste in the food chain. I see that as a very important aspect of any strategy to increase the efficiency of the food chain and reduce the needless waste of important foodstuffs. As noble Lords will know, this is also a part of my portfolio. I am working very much towards this end and have the considerable resource of WRAP, an excellent body that has provided advice throughout all of this. My noble friend Lady Parminter also mentioned nutritional and health values in foodstuffs. We should also not ignore the quality of food and its effectiveness in nutritional terms when talking about the capacity of industry to produce food.
It was good to listen to my noble friend Lord Plumb and to have the debate that we are conducting today put into a historical perspective. My noble friend is rightly credited with presiding over this industry in its golden age. I would not describe the future in quite such terms but the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, talked of a renaissance in this industry. I share with him and the committee a sense that we have an opportunity—a renewed opportunity—to address the challenges of the future to build a sustainable and more productive agriculture by the use of science, technology and innovation. The committee, along with our farmers and growers, looks to the Government to provide a lead both here and in Europe to do just that. I thank the noble Lords for their participation in this report; it has served as a very useful catalyst for us to be able to reiterate that objective.
Lord Carter of Coles
My Lords, I conclude by thanking all noble Lords for their contributions. We have been debating a very important issue this evening and all the contributions have served to underline that fact.
I noticed a number of themes emerging from noble Lords’ remarks. The first is the issue of people: the fact that the population of the world is going to rise and requires feeding imposes a moral, political and economic responsibility on everybody who can help in this. That is one of the noblest things we could focus on. The noble Lord, Lord Curry, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter and Lady Byford, mentioned how we can get people to engage in agriculture, how we can motivate them, educate them and up-skill them. These are very important factors; those things together drive that along.
The second theme is the issue of science: the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, about the renewal of science, and the fact that renewal of interest in agriculture generally is a wave to ride, something to pick up on and to drive forward. On the subject of science, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness—in his usual to-the-point way—drew our attention to GMOs. This is not to be ducked; it is an issue to be debated and it is an issue the European Union needs to get clear on. We need to address the issue of GMOs if we are to close that gap between productivity in our continent and in other parts of the world.
The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, drew our attention to the challenges we face on a global scale, as did the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria: the challenges of moral responsibility, of feeding Africa and involving Europe beyond its boundaries by actually going out and serving and helping solve the problems of the world. The noble Lord, Lord Plumb, with his great experience, raised the most pressing question of all: how is it going to be made to happen? How will it happen? How will we influence the CAP and how will it go forward?
The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, in her questions about research and waste, asked for specifics about how we are going to address those issues, which are really pressing. We need to maintain the pressure—both on our Government and through the Governments of the European Union—to deal with those challenges and not to duck the issues that we have to deal with out there. That is very important.
Looking beyond that, we have the sense of urgency referred to by a number of noble Lords. There is a time, and it is now, and we have to make the voice heard, most specifically around the CAP. We are not going to get another chance for another seven years if we do not do it now. It needs to be pressed on extremely hard to get this done—a point made, again, by many noble Lords. It is pretty straightforward; the policy is pretty simple, but it is the Government’s responsibility as well as ours to come up with the strategy in order to deliver those aims.
In thanking noble Lords, I would also like to echo the welcome extended to the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle. I just read a biography of Capability Brown, so it did not come as a surprise about that. I would really like to thank him for his erudite remarks; they were very insightful and clearly, like other Members, I look forward to hearing more of his views in the Chamber as we go forward. I would also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, for setting out the views of the Government. Some may refer to the noble Lord as a poacher turned gamekeeper, but I think I am not alone in hoping that his role in Government will actually be a game changer for us here—to get out there and do this and drive towards the innovation in agriculture that we have discussed.
Finally, I am going to seek your Lordships’ indulgence to quote from Ecclesiastes 1:19 in the King James Bible:
“The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun”.
It may well be that all the changes we want to see in agriculture have all been done on a small scale. We will find these examples in one area or another in different parts of the world and things like that. However, to bring these changes together, to build on them with intellectual and financial support and apply them across the EU agriculture generally—and then out into the world—that would be a new thing under the sun, under the rain, and under the changing climate that we are going to have to live under.
House of Lords
Cities: Economic Development
Baroness Quin
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what proposals they have for economic development in city regions.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham)
The Government want powerful, innovative cities that shape their economic destinies—engines of growth that will boost entire regions. We have already created 38 local enterprise partnerships, invested £2.4 billion in the regional growth fund and created enterprise zones in 24 cities and their wider local enterprise partnership areas. We are working with cities and their surrounding areas to agree bespoke city deals, supporting innovative local strategies to deliver growth.
Baroness Quin
My Lords, while I agree that cities can do much to drive our economy, there are other areas that do not fit well into city regions and that need economic development. I am thinking, for example, of parts of the former northern coal-field areas which, geographically, are not close to cities and which are not well linked with effective public transport, even though they include areas of high youth unemployment hotspots as identified in today’s ACEVO report. Given that, and given that regional development agencies which were able to address the needs of such areas have been abolished, will the Government give a firm commitment that areas on the fringe, or, indeed, outside city regions, will not be overlooked in their policies?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, as the noble Baroness knows, we are currently developing city regions which will be within the local enterprise partnerships and will cover most of that. We are aware, of course, of the problems that the noble Baroness identified. I am sure that there will be further discussion on that in due course.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, while I strongly support what the Minister said about the Government’s approach to city regions, perhaps I may draw her attention to the fact that public expenditure per head is higher in Northern Ireland, London, Scotland and Wales than in any English region. Might not one possibility be for the Government to look again at rebalancing public spending and consider what the Lyons report said about decentralising Civil Service jobs from Whitehall to the English regions?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, as I am sure the House knows, the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, has been appointed as a government adviser on cities, and so will speak with authority. I want to look further at the matters he has raised and, if necessary, I will write to him.
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham
I welcome the noble Baroness’s creation particularly of the Birmingham-Solihull local enterprise partnership under the chairmanship of Andy Street, of John Lewis Partnership, with whom I am having a fruitful discussion about social inclusion. Will the Minister comment on the importance of social well-being for the achievement of the LEPs’ goals and indicate to which areas of social policy we should give priority in achieving a high quality of life for all?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, the first thing that we must do is to get growth in the cities and get our economy moving. Without that we will not be able to do what the right reverend Prelate is suggesting. Social well-being is part of the life that we hope to lead in the cities and their regions and I know that that will be taken into account. As I say, however, first we must ensure that we get the economy moving. That is what the cities programme is about.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, it is all very well for the Minister to say that we must get growth in the cities, but she will be all too well aware that the distribution of resources from central government is to the disfavour of our northern cities, in particular, in favour of southern shire counties. Is she not greatly concerned that northern cities are not only losing out on the devolution settlement, which helps Wales and Scotland, but in fact are being disfavoured compared with the rest of England?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, there are many northern cities that are involved in the cities programme—the cities deal. I know that consultation discussions are taking place with them on what is required for the future. The distribution of the grant, of course, is done against our formula.
Health: Children and Young People
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the NHS Confederation report Children and Young People’s Health—Where Next? on the impact of the Health and Social Care Bill on children’s health.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)
My Lords, last month my right honourable friend Andrew Lansley launched the development of a health outcomes strategy for children and young people. An independent children and young people’s health outcomes forum will inform the development of this strategy and will consider the findings of this report alongside the wider views of children, young people, their families and the professionals who support them. It will report back to government by the summer.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
I thank the Minister for his Answer. However, as this report makes clear, under government proposals up to six different commissioning bodies will have responsibility for commissioning child health or child public health services. Will the Minister tell the House how the Government will prevent the fragmentation of those services to ensure that children do not fall through the gaps, and whether the Government will therefore now consider placing a specific duty on all those commissioning bodies to improve outcomes and reduce inequalities in children’s and young people’s health?
Earl Howe
My Lords, the outcomes framework that I have just referred to should assist in the latter regard. I think the noble Baroness would agree that the system we have at the moment is not sufficiently joined-up, and in that sense does not adequately serve the needs of children. The approach we have taken to the proposed NHS reforms is to promote the importance of the integration of care and service provision for everyone, including children. We believe that strong partnerships at a local level, supported by professionals and local leaders, are the way forward, not top-down direction. The health and well-being board provides the forum for repositioning the joint strategic needs assessment into a truly joined-up strategy for local people.
Baroness Walmsley
I welcome what my noble friend the Minister has said about getting the views of children, but does he think that giving the commissioning of the excellent Healthy Child programme to local authorities is going to bring about the universal dissemination and delivery of that programme?
Earl Howe
The role of local authorities will be pivotal in this because it is at local-authority level that public health, social care, and indeed the discussions that will go on in the health and well-being board context will bring together policy in a way that informs NHS commissioning. I think that the approach we have taken has been widely welcomed, and we are absolutely determined that all sectors of society, including children, are included in these processes.
The Lord Bishop of Blackburn
My Lords, my northern diocese of Blackburn scores heavily on the deprivation indices for children’s health outcomes. Does the Minister share my concern that if phase 3 children’s centres become self-financing—as I understand they are to—and a children’s centre is deemed not viable, surely the health impact on the community and of course on the health services will be immense?
Earl Howe
The right reverend Prelate is right to draw attention to this issue. I simply say to him that the process that I have described at health and well-being board level is specifically designed to enable local people to determine the priorities that they see as most important for their area. It is right that these decisions are taken locally. I do not argue in the slightest with his analysis of the importance of these centres; I think they do a tremendous amount of good. I am sorry to hear that there may be some threat to the one that he mentioned, but I hope he will also tell me that discussions are going on at a local level to try to find a way forward that will suit the needs of local children.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
My Lords, given the emphasis on local-level decision-making, will the Minister explain how the Government intend to monitor fairness of access for children with less common conditions who at a local level may not appear to have a great need because there is a lack of awareness of the complex nature of their needs but whose outcomes can be greatly improved with highly specialised care?
Earl Howe
The noble Baroness raises an important point. She is right that it is all too easy for children or indeed any patient with a less common condition not to have their voices heard. That is why we are absolutely clear that local healthwatch should be configured in a way that reaches out to hard-to-reach groups. We are looking in particular at patients with specialised conditions to ensure that there is a mechanism for them to have their voices heard at the local level.
Baroness Massey of Darwen
My Lords, first I will say how much I welcome the new outcomes framework for children. Will the Minister say which proposed structures in the Health and Social Care Bill will benefit children, and who will have overall responsibility for child health?
Earl Howe
My Lords, the Secretary of State will retain ultimate accountability for children's health services. Under the Bill, as the noble Baroness knows, the functions will be conferred directly by Parliament on specific organisations. That will strengthen accountability. In answer to the first part of her question, the reform of the health system offers a real opportunity to address some of the well documented challenges that the current system presents. We are moving, through the Bill and through our reforms, to a system that will focus on promoting good health, which we see as important as delivering good care. Informed and expert knowledge will underpin the commissioning of integrated services, where we will measure success on improvements in the outcomes that are achieved. Treatment will be evidence-based and children will be involved in decisions about their care. All these things are embodied in the Bill.
The Countess of Mar
My Lords, recent research at Bristol indicated that as many as one in 100 children who are absent from school long-term suffers from CFS/ME. There is a dearth of centres for the treatment and diagnosis of children with CFS/ME. Does the Minister envisage this improving under the new proposals?
Earl Howe
My Lords, it is yet to be decided finally which services will be commissioned at a national level. I cannot give the noble Countess a definitive answer on where services for CFS/ME will be commissioned. However, we are sure that the arrangements will provide much better, more locally responsive ways of commissioning services generally. Whether clinical commissioning groups join together in commissioning services, whether lead commissioners do that or whether commissioning takes place at a higher level, we are clear that in all services this needs to improve.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
Will the Minister tell me what the position is with accident and emergency services? We have all read in the papers that we should not get sick at weekends and how desperately people are treated in some hospitals. Are children’s services as adversely affected as those of adults, or are no figures kept on the difference? What does the Minister propose to do to increase cover, because misdiagnosis is a major worry in some cases?
Earl Howe
My Lords, accident and emergency services will be commissioned at a local level. I am afraid that I do not have in front of me detailed information on the split between adult and children's services in an emergency context. If I can get the information, I will be happy to write to my noble friend.
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, given that responsibility for commissioning for 0 to five year-olds will be at a national level, and commissioning for six to 19 year-olds will be the responsibility of local arrangements, as the noble Earl described, what are the risks for the continuing responsibility for safeguarding the health of the most vulnerable children in our society?
Earl Howe
My Lords, the two main outcomes frameworks relevant to this are the NHS and the public health outcomes frameworks, which we are trying to align as far as possible. They set a clear direction for the health and healthcare of children and young people, but there is more to do. As our data improve, we need to ensure that the outcomes measured are the ones that matter most to children and young people. That is why we are developing a health outcomes strategy for children. This will be the first example of an outcomes strategy as part of the health reforms model.
Baroness Tonge
My Lords, would the Minister remind us—in fact, more than that, would he make it absolutely clear—who will treat children whose families are not registered with a general practice?
Earl Howe
My Lords, as my noble friend knows, it will be the legal responsibility of clinical commissioning groups to commission care on behalf of all patients living in their geographic area, whether or not they are registered with a GP. That means that arrangements have to be made to ensure that those patients are treated when needed.
Universities: Non-EU Students
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Hanworth
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the UK Border Agency’s activities on the ability of non-European Union students to study at United Kingdom universities.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Henley)
My Lords, the latest figures published by UCAS show an increase of 13 per cent in the number of university applications from students resident outside the European Union. Our original impact assessment forecasts no impact on universities.
Viscount Hanworth
I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he not recognise that the measures designed to combat bogus institutions are also having a severe effect on reputable institutions in the higher education sector? Would he not agree that, if the Government wish to reduce the headline figure of net immigration, it is inappropriate to include non-EU students in these figures? Under normal circumstances, without the impediments created by the Government, their numbers would be expected to follow a steeply upward trend, which would be highly profitable for the UK.
Lord Henley
My Lords, I thought that was exactly what I just said in announcing a 13 per cent increase in those applying for universities. That strikes me as a very good thing indeed. It is quite right that we should stamp down on what the noble Viscount refers to as “bogus institutions”—I use his words, but I have previously used them myself. It is not fair on individuals coming to this country to come to an institution that is not providing them with proper education, and is being used merely as a vehicle to get around the immigration rules. What we have done is quite right. We are getting a grip on net migration figures but we are also seeing a growth in the number of genuine students coming to genuine universities.
Lord Taverne
My Lords, is it not true that there has been some decline in the market share of overseas students, particularly from India, who are a very important section? If students were not treated as migrants for the purposes of immigration policy, as happens in Australia and the United States, would this not be of great benefit to industry and to our universities; make it possible for the Government to meet their immigration targets comfortably; and make a difference of billions of pounds to the Treasury? Is this not a no-brainer?
Lord Henley
My Lords, it is right that we should stamp down on those institutions which are trying to get round immigration by means of the bogus college route. My noble friend is also right to draw attention to the fact that there are some areas, such as the Indian sub-continent, where we are losing market share. There are, however, areas where there have been significant rises, particularly from Australasia where there has been an increase of some 20 per cent and from Hong Kong of some 37 per cent. We wish to continue to see those students coming in, but I also think they should be treated as part of the migration statistics. It is important that we get to grips with those, but we want to see them because they are a valuable export for this country.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe
My Lords, the Government have recognised the considerable economic and wider benefits that international students bring to this country and that is enormously welcome. However, in a speech on 2 February, the Immigration Minister, Damian Green, suggested that,
“the debate on student immigration needs to move on”.
He also said:
“There needs to be a focus on quality rather than quantity. The principle of selectivity should apply to student migration just as it does to work migration”.
Can the Minister explain what is meant by “selectivity” in relation to student migration and reassure the House that, on the basis of what he has said previously, it does not herald a further tightening of visa arrangements for international students in bona fide institutions?
Lord Henley
My Lords, I welcome the intervention from the noble Baroness, particularly as she used to chair Universities UK. I will remind her that Universities UK said recently that our reforms will allow British universities to remain at the forefront of international student recruitment. We want that to continue, and that is what my honourable friend was making clear in his remarks. I want to underline again why we have seen an increase in the number of undergraduates coming in, but at the same time, we think it is right to tighten up on those coming in for other reasons and trying to get around the immigration rules.
Baroness Coussins
My Lords, will the Government support student mobility in the opposite direction and extend the fee waiver to students who want to spend a year studying or working abroad in a non-EU country in the way that is available now under the Erasmus scheme only to students spending their year abroad within the EU?
Lord Henley
My Lords, the noble Baroness will appreciate that that is a completely different question from the Question on the Order Paper. We are discussing the actions of the Home Office and the UK Border Agency and the effect they are having on students coming in. If the noble Baroness wishes to put down a Question on that subject, I am sure that one of my noble friends will be more than happy to answer it.
Lord Flight
My Lords, when talking to the Cambridge Vice-Chancellor’s office a few months ago, it raised with me a problem about senior research students aged 28 or 30 who it wanted to attract from India, but who were mostly married. The problem was about their spouses coming in and I encountered the same issue in India. Has this issue been resolved?
Lord Henley
My Lords, the restriction on bringing family members applies to undergraduates. The sort of senior research students who my noble friend refers to would be allowed to bring partners or members of their family with them, so I think I can say to my noble friend that that issue has been resolved.
Baroness Blackstone
My Lords, is the Minister aware that contrary to what he has said some bona fide institutions—universities—have lost as many as 20 per cent of their overseas students, particularly from India? Is he aware that the restrictions on employment when graduating will put us in a very unfortunate position compared with our main competitors, the United States and Australia, which have much more generous arrangements for students who wish to work in the UK, for a temporary period, when they graduate?
Lord Henley
My Lords, as I said, the overall figures show an increase, particularly in undergraduates. It might be that some particular institutions are losing out, and particularly on those from the Indian subcontinent, but we have seen proportionate increases elsewhere. I do not know whether the noble Baroness is old enough to remember the changes we announced back in the early 1980s when, again, there were cries that they would cause fatal damage to all the universities for ever. However, as the noble Baroness might be able to remember, on that occasion we saw an increase in the numbers of those attending universities, just as we will see one now.
Tobacco
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Faulkner of Worcester
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how they are ensuring the cross-government implementation of the World Health Organisation Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)
My Lords, the Government take very seriously their obligations as a party to the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. The convention encourages parties to take a comprehensive approach to tobacco control to improve public health. The United Kingdom is a recognised leader for tobacco control internationally. The Government’s tobacco control plan sets out a government-wide approach to tobacco control, as well as what will be done to support local authorities to reduce rates of tobacco use.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that the reason that the United Kingdom Government and 173 other Governments have become parties to the WHO’s Framework Convention on Tobacco control is because the tobacco industry has had a uniquely malign influence on health policy in all countries where tobacco is sold. Does he agree that its record in the United Kingdom since the 1950s has consisted of first denying the link between tobacco smoking and ill health, then suppressing the results of its own research on the addictive properties of nicotine, then denying the harmful effects of second-hand smoke and now funding front organisations to oppose tobacco control legislation such as the point-of-sale restrictions, which I am delighted that the Government have embraced? Are not all these powerful reasons for sticking to the framework convention and ensuring that the tobacco industry has no influence whatever over the formulation of health policy relating to tobacco?
Earl Howe
My Lords, yes, the vested interests of the tobacco companies are well recognised. The Department of Health is careful to ensure that the Government’s obligations under the framework convention are met, including the treaty obligation to protect public health policies from the vested interests that he referred to. For example, I hasten to reassure him that the tobacco industry was not involved in the development of the Government’s tobacco control plan, which was published last year.
Lord Ribeiro
Can my noble friend outline what steps the Government are taking to reduce the promotional impact of tobacco packaging, particularly that which is targeted at vulnerable young girls?
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, it was as a direct result of the evidence of the underhand tactics of the tobacco industry that the UK very wisely adopted Article 5(3) of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. In 2008-09, the noble Earl’s noble friend Lady Northover successfully asked the then Secretary of State Alan Johnson to write to all his ministerial colleagues drawing attention to and outlining the importance of Article 5(3) and asking for their assurance that they were abiding by the article in their dealings with the tobacco industry. I invite the Minister to agree to ask his right honourable friend the Secretary of State to do the same with this Government.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I can reassure the noble Baroness that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, and indeed all Ministers in the department, have had no direct dealings—or indeed indirect dealings—with the tobacco industry since coming to office. However, I am sure that the noble Baroness’s message will be very warmly received by my colleagues.
Baroness Hussein-Ece
Is my noble friend aware that almost 50 per cent of loose tobacco sold in the UK comes from illicit and illegal traders on the streets, which makes it more affordable for children and young people? What progress is being made in cracking down on the illicit tobacco trade? As my noble friend will know, it is an industry controlled and funded by an international network of organised crime gangs.
Earl Howe
My Lords, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the UK Border Agency published a renewed strategy in April last year to tackle the illicit trade in tobacco products. Our tobacco control plan complemented that strategy by stressing the importance of cracking down on illicit tobacco sales, which will in turn reduce tobacco consumption and organised crime, and support legitimate retailers. In fact, the latest figures show that fewer and fewer people are using illicit tobacco. The market for illicit cigarettes was down to 10 per cent in 2010 from 21 per cent in 2000.
The Countess of Mar
My Lords, some years ago I was given a statutory instrument, the Sheep Scab Order, which was dated about 1914 and had an excellent recipe for sheep dip made from tobacco. I wonder whether the current tobacco problem could be relieved by diverting tobacco from smoking to sheep dip.
Lord Naseby
My Lords, the Minister says that the control of illegal importation of tobacco is showing progress. Is it not the reality that the vast majority of illegally imported tobacco and cigarettes is being consumed by young people, and that while the official statistics may show one thing, all the evidence, when I inquired of the tobacco industry on this particular aspect, is that this is still the major problem in terms of young people taking up smoking?
Earl Howe
My noble friend is absolutely right that that is where the problem principally lies: 320,000 young people experiment with smoking or take it up every year. That is a very serious rate of incidence and it must be tackled at every possible level. The tobacco control plan sets out a concerted programme of action to try to do just that.
Lord Rea
My Lords, on 11 July this year the noble Earl said to the House,
“we will make sure that we publish details of policy-related meetings between the tobacco industry and government departments and we are currently exploring the most effective and appropriate mechanism for doing that”.—[Official Report, 11/7/11; col. 560.]
Could the noble Earl please say what that mechanism is, and whether it is now being implemented?
Earl Howe
My Lords, since 2010 the Government have published details of hospitality and gifts received by Ministers and special advisers, ministerial meetings with external organisations, and all overseas trips by Ministers across government. These details are published on each department’s website. The information is published quarterly to promote transparency and to provide the public with up-to-date information.
Protection of Freedoms Bill
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:32 - Division on Amendment 37ZA - Ayes: 206 / Noes: 194 - Amendment 37ZA agreed.
Lord Marlesford
“(3) A further safeguard shall be that, unless explicitly provided for in the statute providing for the power of entry, all powers of entry shall be exercised by agreement with the premises occupier or by warrant.”
Lord Marlesford
My Lords, in moving Amendment 37ZA, and speaking to Amendments 37ZB and 37ZC, on powers of entry, I must say at once that, crucially, the three amendments all go together.
I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for circulating to us all on Thursday the Home Office view on my amendments. Normally one learns of objections only in the winding-up speech of the Minister, but this useful form of pre-debate negotiation has enabled me to meet at least two of the Home Office points with changes to my amendments. However, I did notice one rather surprising statement in the Home Office brief, and in fact if it were not in both the summary and the main argument I would have been tempted to see it as a misprint. The brief states:
“The Government supports action to remove necessary or unjustified powers of entry”.
That is not what I seek. It is perhaps rather sad to note that the Home Office retains its historic belief in its own omniscience, which I well remember from my days in Whitehall, but it seems to be losing its reputation for accuracy.
The first amendment makes the main point that powers of entry should be used only by agreement with the occupier of premises or with a magistrate’s warrant. The second amendment allows for exceptions where it is obviously necessary to continue with routine inspections and checks without notice being given. The third spells out specific areas where I am not seeking to change existing practice in the use of powers of entry: trading standards, the police and security services, protection of children and vulnerable adults.
The Trading Standards Institute explained to me why it needs its existing powers for its job of protecting consumers; for example, by checking goods in shops or the accuracy of a petrol pump at the petrol station, and so on. I am glad that the institute has been able to assure me and the Official Opposition that it is now content with the amendment, which would enable it to continue with its important and valuable work.
Although the essence of my argument is that powers of entry should be subject to the same constraints as the police who normally and traditionally have to have a warrant, the Home Office has helpfully pointed out to me that the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 has given constables certain new powers to enter without a warrant. That is why I have added Amendment 37ZC to cover the police and security services.
It is also, of course, necessary to continue to allow unannounced entry to those charged with responsibility for the protection of children or vulnerable adults. Thus inspecting old people’s homes, checking on children at risk or similar crucial monitoring functions must be allowed to continue without either warrant or agreement. However, I feel I must emphasise the principle underlying my amendments and why I am doing this at all.
In our country, the right to privacy and to enjoy property or conduct legitimate businesses without state intrusion has been a long-standing freedom. Indeed, it has echoes going back 800 years to Magna Carta, which sought to protect individuals from the Crown and from officials of the Crown. The fact that the police cannot, in general, enter people’s homes or businesses without a magistrate’s warrant is a cherished freedom well-known to the public and has given rise to the ancient phrase, “An Englishman’s home is his castle”, which was coined by the great English jurist Sir Edward Coke, who was responsible for the Petition of Right in 1628.
The law should protect the individual and must never be defied. In 1977, that great icon Lord Denning quoted Thomas Fuller’s 1732 dictum, “Be you ever so high, the law is above you”. The lesson in that, of course, is the huge responsibility that legislators have to ensure that the laws they make enhance and enshrine liberty rather than erode freedom. This, of course, is what this Protection of Freedoms Bill should be seeking to do.
I was disappointed, but perhaps not surprised, that the Minister should have so completely rejected my first two amendments on powers of entry when they were debated, with support from all sides, in Grand Committee, but I am well aware that the Home Office expects to have the monopoly of any improvements to its legislation. However, it is a pity that Ministers in this coalition Government should not have seen their prime duty when this Bill was drafted as being to extend real freedom rather than seeking to protect the territorial rights of the bureaucracy.
For years legislation has surged liked a tidal wave. No Government seem to have the power or even the will to stem it. More and more laws have been passed which give officials of every rank and type the right to enter premises without so much as a by your leave to inspect, check, observe, search or test whatever perfectly honest citizens are doing in their own property. This is something that the public are increasingly aware of and apprehensive about.
The real hero behind my small attempt to reinforce our ancient liberties is my noble friend Lord Selsdon. Over a period of more than a decade he has been accumulating details of the legislation which justifies my amendment. In spite of starting with some obstruction rather than co-operation from Whitehall, he has succeeded in producing a dossier in which there are more than 1,200 separate pieces of legislation giving powers of entry, in most cases without the safeguards we have the right to expect and indeed demand. They cover every sort of issue, right down to demanding entry to a private house to see whether a TV is switched on or, where a person has left a child with the people next door while they go to the cinema, to check whether those people have got a child minder’s licence. I hope that my noble friend will tell us something more about the legislative background to this debate.
Most of these provisions are in secondary legislation—statutory instruments—and it is only recently that Parliament has had the power to examine the merits rather than just the vires of statutory instruments. It does so through the House of Lords Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee, which was established in 2003. This supplements the Statutory Instruments Joint Committee of both Houses. The Merits Committee is doing an excellent job and, interestingly, it has had cause to draw the attention of the House to proposals for fresh powers several times during the past few months.
On 15 December 2011 in Grand Committee the Minister told me that the Home Office felt that my amendments were,
“going a bit too far”,
and suggested that,
“we want to look at all the powers we have and are asking all departments to do so”.—[Official Report, 15/12/11; col. GC 379.]
With more than 1,200 pieces of legislation, noble Lords will realise how little progress would be made. Indeed, I anticipate that the bureaucrats would find a reason why powers should be retained in their existing form in nearly every case. There has been widespread support for my amendments from Liberty, which I much welcome.
I would remind my noble friends on this side of the House that the Conservative manifesto specifically undertook to,
“cut back the intrusive powers of entry into homes. Public bodies (other than the police and emergency services) will require a magistrate’s warrant, and approval for such a warrant will be restricted to tackling serious criminal offences or protecting public safety”.
My amendments seek to support and implement that commitment. I would have expected my noble Lib Dem friends, with their proud commitment to civil liberties, to be chasing the Government on this issue.
Following the principles of the 18th century Whig statesman Edmund Burke, I fervently believe in the role of the state to hold the ring: to protect the population from ill treatment or exploitation. Those who may need such protection include the old and the infirm, children, employees, consumers, savers, investors and many other groups. I would never deny to the state the powers that it needs to provide this protection, but many of the powers of entry as they exist today can intrude, intimidate and even oppress. That is why they need to be constrained.
As this will probably be the last occasion for a decade or so that we have a Bill which is tailor-made for this reform, I shall, if necessary, ask your Lordships to support me in the Lobby on what I hope we can all agree would be a significant step forward for the right of privacy, individual freedom and democracy. As always, the wording of my amendments may not be precisely what the Home Office needs, but provided I can get a commitment from the Minister to do so, I will be happy for the Government to tidy them up at Third Reading. I beg to move.
Lord Borrie
My Lords, first, I declare an interest as having been honorary president of the Trading Standards Institute, the trading standards officers’ professional body, for a period of five years, since which I have also been one of several vice-presidents.
Secondly, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, on two things. The first is his persistence, both through the work on this Bill and earlier, in questioning the rights and powers of entry by numerous public officials. He has correctly congratulated his noble friend Lord Selsdon on the massive amount of work that he put in over the years in working out how many powers of entry exist. The second thing I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, on is his evident willingness, both in Committee, which I regret I was not able to attend, and at this stage, to compromise, especially by reference to trading standards officers, whose powers of entry are obviously in the public interest. The powers of entry of trading standards officers are, to my mind, a necessary complement to powers to prosecute traders of all kinds, big and small, for misleading claims and descriptions, including pricing and the selling of unsafe and counterfeit goods. Trading standards officers could hardly do a decent job for the consumer unless they were able to make unannounced visits. However, local authority trading standards officers are undoubtedly proud of the fact that good relations with traders in their locality enables them to make, by agreement, many visits and changes in the descriptions and so on of goods being sold. The power of entry—unannounced, from time to time—is a necessary complement to those occasions. I hope that trading standards officers’ need to enter premises without previous agreement would be on a minority of occasions.
In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, was willing to say that trading standards officers should not need the agreement of the occupier of the premises or a warrant if they could demonstrate that that would frustrate their powers. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote, also spoke in Committee, and I hope that we will hear from him in the debate this afternoon. He was rather less amenable to compromise than was the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, and seemed to suggest that it was so easy to get a magistrate’s warrant that there should never be any real problem—warrants would be forthcoming as and when they were needed. The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, realised that trading standards officers would still be weakened in their work unless, today, on Report, a further concession or compromise was made—hence his new amendment. He realised that they are in a special position, as I have sought to indicate myself. He sets that out in Amendment 37ZC.
There is a slightly odd reference to a “Constable”, with a capital letter. The noble Lord probably meant any police officer, not just someone with the honorific title “Constable of Dover Castle” or those who have capital letters to describe their particular job. If he meant a trading standards officer and any member of the police force or Security Service acting under legislation that permits a person to exercise power of entry, then that would have no restriction. My worry here is why trading standards officers have been picked out. As I explained in my declaration, I have a special interest in their consumer protection powers and so on. Most of us know that local authorities also have, for example, environmental health officers concerned with health and safety in their area. They have powers of entry and they are not specially mentioned.
I understand and value the real willingness of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, to compromise, but reference to the Home Office to tidy things up before Third Reading does seem to have some merit. From what I know of trading standards officers—and I know them quite well—I have no doubt that they have been assiduous in discussing matters with the noble Lord. However, that does not necessarily suggest that they ought to be picked and others, thereby, just as obviously left out. I welcome what the noble Lord is doing but would not wish to support him in any vote that we might have today on the unamended, or not fully amended, version of what he has concerned himself with.
Lord Butler of Brockwell
Before the noble Lord sits down, could he give the House an example of a situation in which a trading standards officer would need to enter premises without a warrant?
Lord Borrie
One has to examine the word need. Trading standards officers are given powers by various statutes for the public benefit—usually consumer protection—and the benefit of other legitimate traders who are not engaging in what appears to be illegal conduct. The trading standards officer wants to examine that. He needs to do it to fulfil his duty.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote, has suggested that because magistrates are available literally night and day in order to get warrants when needed, there is no problem. However, the trading standards officer still has to prove something. No magistrate worth his salt is going to accept what a public official says without question in all circumstances. Therefore the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, seeks to introduce is good for trading standards. It might also be good for other equally legitimate work done by other public officials.
Lord Scott of Foscote
My Lords, this is an important series of amendments. In particular, the first proposed amendment seems essential to a country that believes itself to be governed by the rule of law. Your Lordships have heard 1,200 mentioned as the figure of the separate powers of entry on to private property granted by primary or secondary legislation. That figure is confirmed by the Explanatory Memorandum produced to accompany the Bill. Therefore, it is not a figure which is contentious or simply argumentative.
The 1,200 separate powers of entry were conferred by 580-odd pieces of primary or secondary legislation. The powers of entry are not simply powers of entry. They almost invariably include powers of search so those who enter can rummage through the premises in question. The powers apply not only to business premises where they may very well be needed, but also to homes—to domestic premises. The law of this country has developed so that it is well recognised that the police may sometimes need, without notice to the owner of the premises, to enter private premises to enforce the law and for the purposes of search and removal of material from the premises in question.
However, the powers of entry in the Bill are not the powers of the police; they are powers of officials and regulators in numerous areas of public life, conferred by various instruments of public law. The notion that officials can be given power to enter the premises of private people, search those premises and remove what they believe to be relevant to their regulatory function without any authority from a judicial body seems quite contrary to how the rule of law ought to operate. For that reason, I particularly welcome the first amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford.
I believe that the public will understand the need of the police to exercise powers of entry without warrant. Less well understood and certainly less acceptable to the public at large is the need for general regulatory officials to have those powers. My noble and learned friend Lord Browne-Wilkinson said judicially in a case that was heard in 1991:
“Search and seizure under statutory powers constitute fundamental infringements of the individual’s immunity from interference by the state with his property and privacy”.
In my respectful opinion, those are incontestable statements of opinion. It follows that proper safeguards to be associated with the exercise of these powers of entry, search and seizure are essential if the rule of law is to be available to retain the respect that a healthy society requires.
Baroness Eaton
My Lords, I declare an interest as a vice-president of the Trading Standards Institute and of the Local Government Association. I wish to raise some concerns regarding Amendment 37ZC, which is in the name of my noble friend Lord Marlesford.
I share the anxieties of my noble friend and many others of your Lordships about the perception that is held by many people that too many officials have access to the homes of private individuals. I welcome the fact that he has amended his original amendment to try to deal with one of my key concerns, which was that trading standards officers could no longer enter premises unless they had a warrant. Unfortunately, this area of the law is remarkably complex. I am not a lawyer, but the proposed amendment would not be feasible, as trading standards officers are not defined in the law and therefore could not legally be made exempt. Technically, in the law, they do not exist.
Even if they did, the problem itself also relates to environmental health officers, who equally need access to premises for the same reasons. As the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, has said, councils use powers of entry to protect the public across a range of statutory activities. Powers of entry are essential in order for councils to carry out their responsibilities and to seek evidence to prosecute offenders, thereby protecting individuals and local businesses from harm. Without a routine power of entry on to business premises, council officers would not be able to carry out their basic day-to-day functions, protecting the public and their local communities. Officers would also not be able to act in a swift manner where necessary.
Councils cannot enter premises used solely as a private residence without a court order or the owner’s permission, and only routinely have the power to enter business premises to collect evidence. Most existing legislation already contains safeguards to ensure that the existing powers of entry are not used inappropriately: for example, where premises are used solely as a private dwelling place, council officers can enter those domestic premises only with the consent of the occupier or when a warrant to enter has been obtained from a justice of the peace to do so. Council officers do not currently have, and have never had, a routine power of entry into premises used solely as a private dwelling place. Equally, should the premises owner refuse entry, the council must leave and seek a warrant before returning. In instances where the business premises are also a personal residence, councils will often obtain a warrant to ensure privacy is protected.
It might be helpful if your Lordships had some examples of just how these investigations take place. I should like to refer to events in North Yorkshire County Council, where the trading standards team receives around 260 reports of doorstep crimes a year: namely, traders cold-calling at the homes of consumers—most often elderly and vulnerable people—offering to carry out property repairs such as roofing or gardening work, or to sell products such as fish or mobility aids. Given the number of incidents and the fact that many of the offenders target a specific area and then rapidly move on, the service introduced a rapid response service to incidents. Two officers are therefore on call every day to immediately attend incidents where offenders are still at the home of elderly victims, still in the vicinity or are due to return to collect payment. Often, multiple offences are committed, such as: failing to issue the householder with a notice of their cancellation rights; and making false, misleading statements regarding what work is required or what a reasonable price for the work is.
When a call is received by the rapid response unit to attend such an incident, officers will often want to carry out a search of the vehicle being used by the offenders. In such circumstances, a vehicle is defined as “premises”. A search will be conducted to identify and seize evidence relating to the business or to other potential victims, et cetera. Officers are solely reliant on their powers to enter the suspect’s vehicle as “premises” to do this. The need to attend such incidents immediately is very clear; if suspects were aware that a report had been made to the police or trading standards, they would just disappear.
There is no time in these situations or in a situation where a vehicle has been stopped to consider an application for a warrant. It is also extremely unlikely where suspects often deny any connection to the alleged offence that any permission would be given to carry out a search with consent. Removing the powers of entry for enforcement staff in such situations would thus be seriously detrimental to their ability to tackle such offences, which often involve elderly and vulnerable victims being targeted for their life savings, often on a repeat basis.
Multiple complaints were received by the trading standards team over a number of months from consumers regarding a business that operates a council tax refund service. The complainants alleged that they had not been provided with copies of any paperwork by the firm; they were not told what percentage of any rebate recovered would be taken by the company, or that VAT would also be charged by the company. Repeated efforts were made by the council’s business advice team to get the company to comply with its legal obligations. However, complaints continued to be received. Action under the Enterprise Act was then commenced, but that did not prevent numerous further complaints being issued.
A decision was taken to institute an investigation into the company, and the files were passed to the fraud and financial investigation team. Warrants for the registered offices of the business were obtained to facilitate the seizure of paperwork and because it was anticipated that the company would obstruct any investigations. During the warrant executions, it became apparent that the firm was also making use of a further unit in the same building. Officers therefore used their statutory powers of entry to access the unit, which was not covered by the original warrant, and seized relevant documentation. It also became apparent that company staff were keeping documents in their vehicles and at their home addresses, including copy contracts. As a result of the definition of “premises” including any vehicle, again officers were able to use their statutory powers to enter the related vehicles and homes to seize relevant documentation. This would not have been possible without the power of entry. Had they required further warrants to access these additional premises, it would have given the company and their employees an opportunity to remove or destroy relevant evidence in the period of time required to obtain warrants.
The evidence seized during the use of powers and the warrant application has substantiated the claims made by consumers regarding the companies’ failure to comply with their statutory duties and proved that multiple offences have been committed. This would not have been possible without the use of these powers. I welcome the wish of my noble friend Lord Marlesford to address the needs of these services by this amendment but, regrettably, it would not solve the problem. I hope that he and the Minister will be able to reach an accommodation and understanding of his concerns and find a solution.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
My Lords, I am a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. We reported on this Bill last October. I do not know to what extent Members of the House have had a chance to read that report. I do not think that it has been referred to in previous debates on this subject, but we dealt with this issue in chapter five of the report. The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote, have reminded us of my next point. It is ancient common law that there should be effective protection of our right against arbitrary search and seizure. For me it goes back at least to Entick v Carrington in the days of George III and the famous statement of principle by Lord Camden, which was adopted last week by the American Supreme Court in interpreting the Fourth Amendment to its constitution. Everyone knows that the sanctity of the home and the right to be protected against arbitrary search and seizure is enshrined in our common law. It is also enshrined in our constitutional law through the Human Rights Act and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 8 guarantees the fundamental right to be protected in respect of one’s private life, one’s home and one’s correspondence. That has been repeatedly interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights as giving effective safeguards against abuse of the powers of search and seizure. Section 3 of the Human Rights Act requires all statutes, including this one, to be read and given effect, if possible, so as to comply with that convention right. Therefore, we are not legislating in a vacuum.
The Human Rights Act ensures that anything in this Bill which becomes law is subject to the right of protection in Article 8 of the convention. In addition, Section 6 of the Human Rights Act requires every public authority—this would apply to a police officer, a trading standards officer or anyone else exercising public powers—to use those powers in a way that is compatible with the convention right in Article 8. Therefore, the fears that have been raised in this debate should be understood in the context of the safeguards that have been put in place across parties by the enactment of the Human Rights Act.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights drew attention to that in its report. Paragraph 116 states:
“We welcome the recognition in the Bill that powers of entry should be strictly limited to those circumstances in which such a power is justified, necessary and accompanied by appropriate safeguards. The decision to review all existing powers of entry is a welcome one … We consider that a review of existing powers of entry offers a clear opportunity to identify where powers of entry continue to be justified, proportionate and necessary”.
We also consider that it would provide greater legal certainty. We said that,
“at a minimum, each power of entry should be strictly defined, including clear limits on the circumstances when the power may be exercised and the identity of the person or body exercising the power”.
That, of course, would be a way of giving more concrete support to what is already in the Human Rights Act and the convention. I should be grateful if the Minister were able, even though I have not given him notice, to deal with this in his reply. We regretted,
“that the review of existing powers was not completed”,
before this Bill was introduced, and in paragraph 118, we said:
“We are concerned that since the review has not yet been completed, the legislation proposed is overly broad and creates a risk that delegated legislation may be used in future”,
in ways that are basically against the public interest.
It would be helpful to know, if possible, the Government’s response to that review. Nothing that I have said leads me to support the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, even though I understand his reasons, which I fully respect, for tabling them. I do not think that they are very well drafted or necessary. I think that the safeguards referred to are sufficient but I would be grateful to know more about the review that we asked for as long ago as last October. If the House were asked to divide on this, I would have to vote against the amendment.
Lord Neill of Bladen
My Lords, I would have wanted to vote for the noble Lord’s first amendment, but I can see that there are difficulties and that maybe more time for thought is required. It is perfectly true, as the noble Lord, Lord Lester, said, that a report has been produced that emphasises the sovereignty, as it were, of the human rights convention, which intrudes—I mean that in a good sense—into earlier legislation and the rights and the protection that are not visible there.
My concern is that the ordinary man or woman in the street does not understand the scope of the Human Rights Act and would be outraged to hear that there are 1,200 instances when officials can enter your house—your home—and certainly your business and would wonder how that could have arisen over the years. In the absence of a ministerial explanation, I would be inclined to infer that it would become a habit that if you wanted a power that might be useful one of these days for some of your officials, you stick in a power of entry. Parliament is bereft of any power either because that power is in a statutory instrument and we do not amend statutory instruments, or it is in a bit of primary legislation that goes through with that clause unattacked.
Something clearly has to happen as a result of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, the research by the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, which has produced the figure of 1,200, and 500 separate pieces of legislation, as I understand it, from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote. My present state of mind is that I am very anxious to hear what the Minister has to say and what amelioration of the situation can be produced. It is not satisfactory at the moment and some quite sweeping amendments will be required, no doubt making due reference to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lester.
Lord Cope of Berkeley
My Lords, I, too, have sympathy with my noble friend Lord Marlesford’s amendment in principle. At the same time, I also observe that the review to which the noble Lord, Lord Lester, referred a few moments ago is not required by statute until after this Bill is passed. It is in Clause 42 of the Bill, and Secretaries of State then have two years in which to review the 1,200 powers or however many it turns out to be. It would be helpful to your Lordships' House if my noble friend the Minister could tell us whether the review is already in progress and how many of the 1,200 powers have so far been reviewed in addition to the 15 that are due to be knocked out by Schedule 2. Clearly, the review has reached 15 of the 1,200 in a negative sense, but how many of the others have so far been reviewed?
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I am sorry not to be able to support what the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, has described as his package. Reference has been made to individual amendments, but he rightly put them forward as a composite. I know the effort that he has applied over a long period, along with the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, and indeed the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote. I have been privileged to observe him in the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee, conducting with great assiduousness what I can only describe as a campaign against rights of entry that continue to crop up in statutory instruments on which we are asked to comment.
I wrote down “presumption” in the non-legal sense; I agree that every power of entry should require a warrant, and my noble friend has reminded us of both the common law and the Human Rights Act. I welcome what is in the Bill, and I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Cope, referred to it, because I think we have rather tended to overlook what is proposed for our consideration.
I welcome Clauses 39 and 40. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, may not be a veteran, as some of us are, of the continuing debate over “must” and “may”. I also welcome Clause 42. To pick up the terminology used by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, I am certainly one who would normally chase the Government—I tend to be on the rather cynical wing. However, I take the two years for the completion of the review at face value, particularly as we can assume that the reports required of Ministers—a duty under Clause 42—will include not only a conclusion but an explanation for each decision, and Parliament will be able to debate these. I note of course that the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, is not seeking to delete these clauses.
I add one short point. I have another difficulty with the drafting of the second amendment. It would require an authority to,
“demonstrate that the aim of the use of the power would be frustrated if a warrant or agreement were sought”.
I am not entirely sure that I know what is meant by “demonstrate”, but I suspect that we could be heading down a road to judicial review, which would mean that the High Court rather than magistrates became involved in many of these instances.
The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, has mentioned environmental health officers; I think we have the Environment Agency. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, that like her I found the examples from the Local Government Association very powerful and helpful. However, I must agree with other noble Lords that this work cannot be allowed to rest.
Lord Stewartby
My Lords, I want to add only a small footnote. I begin by expressing our gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, for the diligence that he has shown, not only on this occasion and in this context but because he is constantly on the lookout for failures or delays by government departments or other public bodies. He has made rather a specialisation of taking the opportunity to raise these in this forum. Currently, as always, it is an interesting and not entirely straightforward problem that comes before us.
My noble friend Lord Henley circulated a note last week on a possible exception to the requirement to demonstrate that entry would be frustrated if a warrant or agreement were sought. He argued that the Home Office considered that such an exception would be unworkable. I would be very grateful for more explanation of what “unworkable” means in this context.
Lord Vinson
My Lords, first I apologise to the House for arriving late; my train was very late. I was particularly anxious to come to what I regard as an extremely important debate on fundamental freedoms. I join those who congratulated my noble friend Lord Marlesford on what he has done. It is apparent that the Minister, too, is sympathetic. However, his solution of a review carried out by the departments that have these powers is rather like asking a druggie to prescribe his own dose. Knowing the Civil Service, I predict that it will simply perpetuate the status quo. Frankly, that is not good enough. I suggest to the Minister that when he sums up, he should promise to strengthen the review mechanism so that other eyes, outside the quangos and departments concerned, can look at the necessity of the rights of entry and bring fresh thinking to the matter.
Lord Selsdon
My Lords, I hope that I may be able to help the House. This has been a 10-year journey for me. Three Private Member’s Bills have gone through the House. I have thoroughly enjoyed myself. Having worked in one of the biggest bureaucracies in the world—Midland Bank—I enjoy the relationship with bureaucrats.
Those who work in trading standards are great people. I have written to them many times. A few days ago they sent me an e-mail at 4.13 pm. When I rang back at 4.30 pm they had gone home. However, we are good friends now and I am inviting them all to tea. If a trading standards officer goes into a restaurant or food shop, they go in either as themselves to buy something or, if they are going in to inspect, they have to be completely schizophrenic.
I wanted to see if I could help. As a Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, knows well, and will probably let us know in his response, exactly how many powers of entry his department has at this time. There was a problem when Ministers did not know what their powers of entry were and numerous Parliamentary Questions failed to get an answer. Finally, with the great help of the party opposite, we got the final part of the Bill through. It was difficult because no one really knew what it was about. I then thought we should have a period of consultation. I had not raised the matter before. I wrote to the LGA, every local authority in the land, every bishop and vicar and everybody at a local level, saying that we had a new private website and that if they wanted to know what the powers were they could contact the website. We did that with considerable difficulty. I also got in touch with Citizens Advice.
I kept coming back to try to give advice to people. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, does not accept advice willingly because he sees the end game very quickly. He has a very quick mind and found me rather a nuisance. Therefore, I introduced a few amendments in Grand Committee but have decided not to introduce any now.
The main objective of the three Bills was to promote the introduction of legislation after the election that would prevent officials from entering people's homes, land or places of work without permission or a warrant, and would introduce a suitable code of practice. We drafted such a code; the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, will remember it. The Minister does not seem to want a code of practice at the moment. He just says, “We’ll put one in”. If we do not have a code of practice now, we will have a problem with powers of entry.
The second thing I asked for was a list. The Home Office stated that it could not put this into the Bill because by the time it was put in, a piece of secondary legislation might have changed it. I said, “Can we not have a list?”. We could not really have a list, so I thought of another solution. In preparing the Bills I had great help from a professor at Lincoln University. With Oxford University Press, he regularly publishes the laws of search, seizure and entry. A new edition is coming out. They have agreed to co-operate with the Home Office, which has already been in touch with them. Naturally, I am not necessary in the loop. However, we will have an official publication that will be updated from time to time, and a website. I would like to be able to put that in the Library. It is, however, extraordinarily difficult, as a Back-Bencher is not allowed to put anything in the Library. The only person who can do so is the Minister. If I do get these things together, could the Minister arrange for me to have permission to put it in the Library? Could he also agree that there will be a code of conduct and that he will produce it before this Bill is finished?
This has been a most interesting time. I have bored to death not everyone—because there were not a lot of people around—but I have certainly bored Hansard. Again and again one has to re-type every Bill. Being on the Information Committee, I have the benefit of PICT. In the latest list I managed to transpose three Bills, but the Home Office has not picked up which ones they were.
I am very grateful to all those who have helped on this. I support my noble friend Lord Marlesford because I support him on almost everything he does. I am extraordinarily grateful to the party opposite for raising some serious problems. They looked at me with a certain cynicism to begin with, but I think we are good friends.
The Earl of Erroll
The point about passing at least two of these amendments is that at least we can come back and tidy them up at Third Reading, because certain people have criticised their wording. If you do not pass them now there is no pressure to put anything in at Third Reading. This happens quite frequently and stalls the whole thing.
The whole point is that householders need to know what their rights are. They cannot possibly begin to know if there are thousands of different powers of entry, so there need to be some very simple rules that apply universally, which is what we have to come up with eventually. I support the first two amendments in particular.
The first amendment is about giving permission for entry, which I fear slightly because there is always a danger of people being bamboozled on the doorstep or being threatened by “If you don’t let us in we know you are guilty” and letting them in out of fear. Amendment 37ZB is therefore particularly important. It states what we understand the position to be in common law and in other things, but why not restate it? These are the things that must be taken into account when powers of entry are being examined and there is no harm in restating something when people have clearly forgotten. People expect a warrant unless there is a very good reason why not. To my mind that is quite reasonable and I cannot see why it is a problem.
I was most intrigued by the third amendment because it reserves certain powers and I could not understand why the noble Baroness started off by saying that trading standards officers did not exist, then said what a good job they did and then said that she disapproved of this amendment as it reserved powers to these non-existent people. I could not understand why the amendment was not a good idea because it would keep the powers of these people—whoever they might be—as they were. Although the amendments have defects, we should pass them and the Government can tidy them up at Third Reading.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, who raises a very important issue in relation to the use of these powers. I note what he has said and his excellent work leading to the very welcome safeguards that are already in the Bill but would certainly not be there without his work. However, I must tell him that I think he is being a little tough on the excellent people from the Trading Standards Institute. I am sure that, while one person was at tea at 4.30 pm, the majority of them were out doing their business at that time.
Lord Selsdon
They telephoned me back and were extraordinarily helpful. We are going to meet. I had not realised the depth of their experience and knowledge.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
Good.
It is important to recognise the rights of premises owners and occupiers when it comes to the use of these powers and to ensure that they are exercised, in the absence of the consent of the owner or a warrant, only when truly necessary. The noble Lord has introduced very important safeguards into his amendments. Last week, I was extremely anxious about the amendments that had been tabled because, like many other noble Lords, I had been contacted by the Trading Standards Institute, for whose work I have long-standing admiration, and was very worried about its concerns. The amendments which have been retabled by the noble Lord have assuaged many of my fears and the Trading Standards Institute clearly now feels comfortable with them.
The amendments leave a number of outstanding issues, the first being, as I believe the noble Lord himself said, as did the noble Baroness, that “trading standards officers” is not a recognised term. Therefore, the amendments would have to come back to the House at Third Reading because there would have to be some sort of tidying-up exercise.
I am also concerned about whether the amendments would hamper the legitimate use of these powers by local authority officers who are not currently provided with an exemption by the amendment, such as environmental health officers. I listened very carefully to the case made by the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton. Having said that, I believe that the noble Lord includes important safeguards in his amendment which specifically allow for the use of those powers when it can be demonstrated that the purpose of their use would be frustrated by having to seek permission from the premises owner or to apply for a warrant, which is a jolly important safeguard.
I am therefore in a bit of a difficult position here. I heard the discussion about the review. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, was right to say that the review mechanism must be strengthened. I wonder why the review is taking so long, and I would like to hear from the Minister. I will be interested to hear the Government’s response to these amendments and, specifically, whether the Minister believes that the amendments provide sufficient safeguards to enable, for example, environmental health officers to undertake their work. I have to say that I am inclined to support these amendments, especially as it is clear that they will have to come back to the House at Third Reading in order to be technically correct. That would give Members of the House another opportunity, if necessary, to bring forward another amendment in order to safeguard the powers of, for example, environmental health officers.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
Is the noble Baroness not satisfied that the Human Rights Act, which her Government introduced, ensures that all these powers have to be prescribed by law in a legally certain way and that they must be exercised in a proportionate way in order to protect our rights of personal privacy, home and correspondence? Why is that not good enough as a general standard which applies to future legislation as well as to past legislation?
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, the Human Rights Act is an extremely important Act which provides the safeguards that the noble Lord suggests. However, I think that when some of these powers are being exercised, they are not always exercised according to the standards that should be imposed by the Human Rights Act. I also know that the very fact that there are these countless powers gives a lot of people concern that their very rights are being infringed. We have to look at all these things in the round.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Henley)
My Lords, we return to an issue that my noble friend discussed in some detail in Committee. He has brought forward his two amendments, Amendments 37ZA and 37ZB, marginally amended in that he has, I think, changed from “owner” to “occupier”, which is probably an improvement in the amendment, and has added Amendment 37ZC, which disapplies the restrictions imposed by Amendments 37ZA and 37ZB in particular circumstances; I will get to that in due course.
I made it quite clear to my noble friend in Committee that I have some sympathy with what he is trying to achieve in dealing with the 1,200 or so powers of entry that we have. We agree—my noble friend and I, and others—that there is a need to add further safeguards to the exercise of those powers of entry. That is why, as part of our coalition agreement—I emphasise that this is part of that; this is a coalition desire—we brought in Clauses 39 to 53 to provide some safeguards relating to the exercise of powers of entry. Where I differ from my noble friend is over his general approach; in particular, we continue to question the wisdom of adopting what would be a blanket, one-size-fits-all approach, which is what he is seeking to do.
I believe that the provisions already in the Bill offer a better way forward. Clause 42 places a duty—I stress that this is a duty—on the responsible Ministers to review each and every power of entry within two years of Royal Assent. I appreciate that there were some complaints from my noble friends Lord Cope and Lord Vinson about just how long that was going to take, but I have to make the point that there are some 1,200 of these powers of entry—of which getting on for half were introduced by the party opposite, the party in which the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, was such a luminary, and therefore I find her remarks on this subject somewhat interesting.
It is important that we review those powers of entry carefully and go through them and we have given ourselves the job to do that within two years of Royal Assent. Clause 40 enables new safeguards to be added to particular powers of entry by order. Again, I make no apology for that, but I remind the House that many of these powers—the majority of them—will already have in them a need to obtain a warrant or some other consent. The idea that all these powers are giving unnamed officials broad powers of entry without having to seek a warrant is just not the case. The majority of them already require that. My noble friend and others have expressed a degree of scepticism that that review will be undertaken. However, I can assure him that it is down there in the Bill; it will be a requirement on us to make sure that review is done within the two years, and that is why it has been written into legislation.
My noble friend Lord Lester also worried about the fact that we were bringing in various Henry VIII powers to make amendments, and felt that that was not in line with what the Joint Committee on Human Rights had asked for. I should make it clear to my noble friend that we responded to the Joint Committee’s report in November last year, and in that reply we pointed out that the Delegated Powers Committee had made no recommendation in respect of those delegated powers that we are assuming. Clause 40 allows us to add safeguards, as proposed by my noble friend Lord Marlesford, in appropriate cases, and we will certainly do that.
I will focus my detailed remarks on Amendment 37ZB, as it was in respect of this amendment that my noble friend’s arguments were, on the face of it, the most seductive. This amendment offers persons exercising a power of entry three options: first, they can obtain the consent of the occupier; secondly, they can obtain a warrant, usually from a magistrates’ court; thirdly, the power may be exercised without a warrant or the agreement of the occupier in any case where it can be shown that the aim of the use of the power would be frustrated if a warrant or agreement were sought.
I hope that there is general agreement that we cannot, in every case, demand that entry is effected only with the consent of the occupier or on the authority of a warrant. To illustrate that point, the House will recall the outbreak of foot and mouth disease where, had requirements such as these applied, I fear the consequences for livestock may have been much greater. Obviously, consent could have been withdrawn, and that carries its own risks.
To take another more recent example, the new Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act contains a number of powers that grant constables the right to enter and search premises without warrant. For instance, there is a power to enter and search premises if a constable has a reasonable suspicion that the individual who is subject to a TPIM has absconded. In such circumstances, the police clearly must act quickly to check whether the individual has absconded, and if he has, to try to find evidence to help locate him. The law is designed to protect our national interest and provide security to the public but could very well be frustrated by these amendments.
We must also consider the very serious questions of delay, where the exercise of overcaution or prolonged deliberation by the authorities might place at risk the health of animals, individuals or the wider public. Similarly, the need to obtain a warrant or, for instance, locate the occupier of the premises in question in order to get their permission to enter could lead to the loss of valuable time in some cases.
That is not to say, as I made clear at the beginning, that we do not support the use of warrants and seeking consent where that is appropriate. However, as we are all aware, there are a large number of powers of entry that exist today, and operational imperatives differ widely. We do not want to impede an authority’s ability to respond to matters effectively and to take decisive action, and so we consider that such operational decisions are best taken by the relevant authorities.
My noble friend has argued that his Amendment 37ZA caters for such circumstances by providing a let-out in stating that,
“where the authority using the power can demonstrate that the aim of the use of the power would be frustrated if a warrant or agreement were sought”.
However, I do not accept that this provides the answer. It is not entirely clear to whom any urgent or unannounced need to enter premises should be demonstrated and proven. The approach taken in this amendment could lead to endless, time-consuming and expensive litigation, with aggrieved persons challenging the lawfulness of the exercise of a power of entry in a particular case, as my noble friend Lady Hamwee made clear. Such a challenge could be mounted on the grounds that the public authority in question had not demonstrated that the given exercise of the power of entry would have been frustrated if the agreement of the occupier had been sought or a warrant obtained. I hope that was not what my noble friend was intending when he drafted his amendments, but I fear that it could be the likely outcome.
I appreciate that there have been concerns, expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, and my noble friend Lady Eaton, relating to the Trading Standards Institute and the Local Government Association, which raised some concerns about Amendment 37ZA and 37ZB along the lines that I have set out. I appreciate also that my noble friend Lord Marlesford was trying to deal with those concerns by tabling Amendment 37ZC. In a sense his amendment makes my case for me, because at its heart is an acknowledgment that one size does not fit all, and that there must be exceptions to the blanket restrictions that my noble friend is seeking to impose by means of his Amendments 37ZA and 37ZB.
However, in providing exceptions purely for trading standards officers—undefined, as my noble friend Lady Eaton said—constables and members of the Security Service, or in pursuance of the protection of a child or a vulnerable adult, Amendment 37ZC simply highlights the fact that there will be other circumstances where the exception should apply. What about the powers of entry under the Gas Safety (Rights of Entry) Regulations 1996? I carefully took an example from a previous Conservative Government rather than from the previous Labour Government. These regulations offer powers of entry to premises for the purposes of preventing gas escapes, surely something that is very important—it would be necessary to move very quickly and there might not be time to obtain a warrant.
What about the powers to enter and search for evidence on premises occupied or controlled by a person who is under arrest for an indictable offence? Such powers are not just exercisable by constables but also by customs officers, immigration officers and members of the Serious Organised Crime Agency. To give another example, what about the powers of firefighters under the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 to enter premises without consent for the purposes of protecting life and property? I put it to my noble friend and to the House that the exception should apply equally in those cases.
I could provide more examples—I am sure there will be others—but until we have conducted the review I have promised, and which the statute makes clear will happen, it will be impossible to say with confidence that these amendments would not seriously inhibit the ability of law enforcement officers and others to protect the public.
As I have indicated, we wish to achieve an aim similar to the one my noble friend suggests. The new Home Office gateway has already removed in some cases—I can give this assurance to my noble friend Lord Cope—the right to enter private homes unless accompanied by a warrant. These include regulations relating to forestry law enforcement, wine manufacture and inspecting animals for disease. We have said that notice must be provided where it is reasonable to do so and appointments must be made with home owners and businesses before powers are exercised.
As I have mentioned, we will be reviewing all 1,200 or so powers of entry, and Clause 40 allows us to add necessary new safeguards on a case-by-case basis. The new code of practice, about which my noble friend Lord Selsdon was cynical, will be introduced under Clause 47 and will govern the exercise of powers of entry and set out further safeguards to protect the rights and civil liberties of individuals and businesses.
I put it to my noble friend that this is a preferable approach which provides greater legal certainty. I therefore ask him to withdraw his amendment. However, if he should seek the opinion of the House, I would encourage your Lordships to reject the amendment.
Lord Marlesford
My Lords, I thank everyone who has taken part in this interesting and useful debate. I was drawn to the clarity with which the legal mind of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, approached the issue; there is much attraction in it. However, the concessions I have made, which have been referred to, were intended to meet some of the points raised.
The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, was able to produce many arguments about why, in some way or other, the proposal had not gone far enough—even in the case of trading standards officers, who have expressed complete satisfaction with what I have done.
I listened with great interest to my noble friend Lady Eaton, who gave a full account of a case in Yorkshire. I am sure it was an important, useful and maybe typical case, but I found myself thinking that had the people involved needed to get a warrant they would have been able to execute the case every bit as effectively as they did without one because the timescale she described would have made it perfectly possible.
The noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, made a good point. The tendency at the moment, which has grown up over the years, is that if you want an extra power of entry you just stick it in. That has been the culture which, in a sense, we are trying to counter.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, produced, as he so often does, the human rights legislation as being the solution to it all. I would remind him—well, not remind him because he knows it as well as I do, as do most of your Lordships—that human rights legislation, although desirable in theory, is about the slowest and most expensive route for correcting wrongs as can be imagined. The European Court of Human Rights is absolutely bunged full and is years and years behind. I would strongly recommend that we find a better route for anything which depended on using it. I see that the noble Lord is about to make a further defence of the Human Rights Act. I give way to him.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
I was not going to do that; I was going to point out that the remedy is in our courts, not in Strasbourg, to get an injunction or compensation under the Human Rights Act.
Lord Marlesford
Of course, if people do not like what our courts say, they go to the European Court of Human Rights. Most astonishingly trivial cases have been put to it. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister had some phrase for the multitude of cases going to the European Court of Human Rights. With the greatest respect and affection for my noble friend Lord Lester, I suggest that we do not use the European Court of Human Rights as a solution to these particular problems.
The Minister produced the same arguments as last time. He expressed a degree of sympathy but he did not answer in any detail the concerns of my noble friends over the progress of this review. All this debate has done, in a sense, is illustrate the way in which people will always find some ingenious argument or other to support a position. I remember my noble friend Lord Hurd, when he was a junior diplomat in Beijing—I think it was his first posting—writing a letter, which I was shown, to a certain noble Lord about a visit to Beijing of a senior politician who he described as being inclined to take up an impossible position and then cast around for clever ways of supporting it. The noble Lord, Lord Hurd, saw this as the sure mark of a second-class mind. I thought that was pretty damning but there is a danger of trying to find arguments against this. I do not feel that any substantial argument has been put forward.
The noble Earl, Lord Erroll, got it right when he said that if we do not pass this now, nothing will happen. We have had years of nothing happening. I was grateful for the support of the Leader of the Opposition when she said that we must at least get the Government to come back at Third Reading with something. Otherwise, this whole issue will clearly go to sleep again. Over the past few years we have had a surfeit of ill prepared legislation. It is our duty to improve it, whatever the Whips may say. Otherwise, it is hard to justify the survival of your Lordships’ House. I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Marlesford
“(4) A further safeguard shall be that, notwithstanding the statute providing for the power of entry, a power of entry may only be used without warrant, or without agreement with the occupier of the premises to be entered, in cases where the authority using the power can demonstrate that the aim of the use of the power would be frustrated if a warrant or agreement were sought.”
“(5) The safeguards set out in subsections (3) and (4) above shall not apply in any case where the authority exercising the power of entry is—
(a) a Trading Standards Officer acting under any legislation which permits the Officer to exercise such a power; (b) a Constable or a member of the Security Service acting under any legislation which permits such a person to exercise such a power; or(c) doing so in pursuance of the protection of a child or a vulnerable adult.”
Syria
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I would like to repeat a Statement on Syria.
“Mr Speaker, the whole House will be appalled by the bloodshed and repression which continues at this very moment. Over the last 11 months, more than 6,000 people have been killed. The Syrian regime has deployed snipers, tanks, artillery and mortars against civilian protestors and population centres, particularly in the cities of Homs, Idlib, Hama and Deraa. Thousands of Syrians have endured imprisonment, torture and sexual violence, including instances of the alleged rape of children, and the humanitarian position is deteriorating. This is an utterly unacceptable situation, which demands a united international response.
Last Tuesday, I attended the UN Security Council debate in New York, along with Secretary Clinton, the French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe and other Ministers. We all spoke in strong support of a draft UN Security Council resolution proposed by the Kingdom of Morocco on behalf of the Arab League. The resolution called for the implementation of the Arab League plan to stop all the violence in Syria from all sides, and to begin a political transition.
There was nothing in this draft resolution that could not be supported by any country seeking a peaceful end to the tragedy unfolding in Syria. It demanded an end to all violence; it called for a Syrian-led political process to allow the Syrians to determine their future; and it set out a path to a national unity Government and internationally supervised elections. It did not call for military intervention, and could not have been used to authorise any such action under any circumstances. It did not impose sanctions. It proposed putting the weight and authority of the United Nations Security Council behind a plan to achieve a lasting and sustainable peace in Syria.
As I said at the Security Council, this was the Arab League’s plan; it was not a plan imposed by Western nations. It was co-sponsored by a large number of nations from the region, including Turkey, Tunisia, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, Bahrain, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, and Oman. Their leadership, and their strong understanding of their region, deserved our support. I pay particular tribute to the Secretary-General of the Arab League and to the Prime Minister of Qatar, who travelled to New York to brief the council and played a vital role in the extensive negotiations that followed.
On Saturday, the resolution was put to the vote. Thirteen of the 15 members of the United Nations Security Council voted in favour. Two did not; Russia and China both exercised their veto. They did so despite extensive efforts made to amend the draft resolution to address Russia’s specific concerns, and in the face of repeated appeals from Arab nations. Instead, they chose to side with the Syrian regime and implicitly to leave the door open to further abuses by them. They did so while President Assad’s tanks were encircling Homs and shells were pounding the homes of Syrian civilians, killing up to 200 people, and on the 30th anniversary of the massacre in Hama.
We regard this veto as a grave error of judgment by the Governments of China and Russia. There is no need to mince words about this. Russia and China have twice vetoed reasonable and necessary action by the United Nations Security Council. Such vetoes are a betrayal of the Syrian people. In deploying them, they have let down the Arab League; they have increased the likelihood of what they wish to avoid in Syria—civil war—and they have placed themselves on the wrong side of Arab and international opinion.
By contrast, I thank the other members of the Security Council for the principled stand they took, in particular the non-permanent members of the council—Morocco, Azerbaijan, Colombia, Germany, Guatemala, India, Pakistan, Portugal, South Africa and Togo—all of which voted in favour of the resolution. Pakistan’s representative to the UN Security Council spoke for all of us when he said:
“This resolution should not die; by being active and engaged, we should give hope to those who are expecting it from us”.
The Syrian regime may have drawn comfort from events at the United Nations Security Council, but we will do everything that we can to make sure that that comfort is short-lived. This is a doomed regime as well as a murdering regime. There is no way it can get its credibility back internationally or with its own people. The UN Security Council’s failure to agree a resolution does not signal the end of our efforts to end the violence in Syria, and I want to set out how we will now proceed.
First, we will continue our strong support for the Arab League. Earlier this afternoon I spoke to the Secretary-General of the Arab League, Nabil el-Araby, as well as the Foreign Minister of Jordan. I welcomed and encouraged the proposal to appoint a special envoy of the Arab League, and I commended the Arab League’s leadership and action so far. Arab Foreign Ministers will meet this weekend to consider their options. The Secretary-General was very clear about the urgency of the situation, the continued determination of the Arab world to act and the need to step up their efforts. I told the Secretary-General that the Arab League will have our complete support.
Secondly, we will seek to widen the international coalition of nations seeking a peaceful and lasting resolution for Syria. We welcome the concept of a new Arab-led group of Friends of Syria, which I discussed with the Prime Minister of Qatar last Tuesday. The aim of such a group will be to demonstrate the strength of international support for the people of Syria and their legitimate demands, to co-ordinate intensified diplomatic and economic pressure on the regime and to engage with Syrian opposition groups committed to a democratic future for the country. Britain will be a highly active member in setting up such a group with the broadest possible international support.
Thirdly, we will intensify our contact with members of the Syrian opposition. The House will recall that in November I announced the appointment of an ambassador-level envoy, Frances Guy, to lead our discussions with them. We will continue to urge the Syrian opposition to come together and to agree a common statement of commitment to democracy, to human rights and to the protection of all Syria’s minorities.
Fourthly, we will maintain our strong focus at the United Nations, undeterred by Saturday’s vote. We will continue to raise Syria at the UN Security Council and we will consider with other nations a resolution of the UN General Assembly. Despite our disagreement with Russia and China we will continue to discuss with them any possibility of an agreed but meaningful way forward.
Fifthly, we will increase pressure through the European Union, following the discussions I had in New York with Ministers from France, Portugal and Germany. We have already agreed 11 rounds of EU sanctions and will hope to agree further measures by the Foreign Affairs Council on 27 February.
Sixthly, we will work with others to ensure that those responsible for crimes in Syria are held to account. At the UN Human Rights Council meeting in March in Geneva we will work to ensure the strongest possible mandate to scrutinise human rights violations in Syria, so that those responsible know that there will be a day of reckoning and that they will be held to account.
Seventhly, we will use our remaining channels to the Syrian regime to make clear our abhorrence at violence that is utterly unacceptable to the civilised world. The Syrian ambassador to London was today summoned to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to receive this message. Despite our deteriorating relations with the Syrian Government we remain committed to ensuring the safety of their embassy and staff in London. We expect that the Syrian authorities will provide the same protection to our embassy in Damascus.
In parallel, I have today recalled to London our ambassador from Damascus for consultations. He and his team work in extremely difficult conditions to ensure that we have an accurate picture of what is happening in Syria. I hope the House will join me in paying fulsome tribute to them and their families. Their safety and security is always prominent in our considerations.
The human suffering in Syria is already unimaginable and is in grave danger of escalating further. The position taken by Russia and China has regrettably made this more likely. However this Government, this House, our country and our allies will not forget the people of Syria. We will redouble our efforts to put pressure on this appalling regime and to stop this indefensible violence”.
That completes the Statement.
Lord Triesman
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement that was made by the Foreign Secretary. There is clear agreement right across this House, as I know there was in the other place, and I hope that the House will feel that the questions which I would like to ask contain no criticism whatever of the Government, because they do not. We are unequivocal in our condemnation of the continuing, mounting acts of violence against the people of Syria by a Government who have long since lost their legitimacy and, like the Minister and the Foreign Secretary, I congratulate our ambassador and staff on working in an environment of that kind.
President Assad is, plainly, not the ruler who is wanted by the people of his country and that is because of a history of brutal and murderous dictatorship. Between him and his father there are 40 years of dictatorship backed, for the larger part, by another dictatorship—in particular, the Soviet Union. All of us will have seen on our televisions horrific scenes, in many ways alike to those when Gaddafi made his push on Benghazi. Does the Minister have any firm knowledge of the numbers of deaths and injuries inflicted on the Syrian people? Estimates that I have seen run from between 6,000 and 15,000 deaths, and if there was just one week like yesterday that would add 1,400 deaths. How confident are the Government of the information that they have?
I welcome the efforts made by the Foreign Secretary at the United Nations Security Council and the coming together of 13 democratic nations in their expression of outrage. It is wholly disgraceful, in the view of the Opposition, that Russia and China vetoed the resolution. It is shameful that even when extensive efforts had been made to reflect and resolve their anxieties, they could not back a resolution which instigated no further sanctions, and certainly no use of force. In Russia’s case, it had circulated a draft resolution last December which described the regime’s concerted violence as no different from the protests on the street of the Syrian people—protests which have remained overwhelmingly peaceful. That draft resolution was of course inadequate to the needs of the situation and could not command support among leading western states in the Security Council.
Russia and China have now shown their hand. They have prioritised their own interests over any fundamental duty to the world community. They have ignored the vital participation of the Arab League, critical to any potential for success in the region. It was, as the Foreign Secretary said in the Statement, an Arab League initiative and the Government are right to pursue all of their work with the league. The Arab League, deploying a relatively small number of observers—far smaller than was really needed because of Syrian objections to the proper delegation—took its decisions when it had made an assessment on the ground. It was painfully aware that it could not provide physical or political protection to the citizens, or even soften the brutality of the regime.
We are under no illusion. The consequence of this veto is to sanction greater violence and more blood-spilling. Yesterday’s events were the first instalment of the liberty granted to President Assad to murder more of his own people. I note that the Foreign Secretary used the word “betrayal” of the Syrian people. That is the right word. I take the Russian and Chinese decision as being still more regrettable because we have all laboured hard, right through the UN millennium process led by Kofi Annan, to build into the United Nations mandate the responsibility to protect people whose Governments were the aggressors. Where does the Minister now think that UN obligation lies?
The international community must plainly plan a co-ordinated and coherent response. It may be unlikely but efforts to bring Russia and China onside, as the Statement says, must continue. They cannot sidestep their obligations and duties. Do the Government have a view on how to engage with these two recalcitrant powers? Does the Minister agree with me that whatever the obvious shortcomings of the United Nations machinery, the United Nations remains the major theatre for diplomatic effort and international co-ordination? Does he also agree that the EU continues to have a vital role? Will the Government consider seeking a joint EU/Arab League summit to get a greater degree of co-ordination? If the Minister does agree, how will Her Majesty’s Government now approach the work at the UN, recognising that there has obviously been a significant set-back?
We support the extension of sanctions by the EU regarding travel bans and asset freezes so long as they can bring into scope a wider group of individuals and organisations. The EU is to be congratulated, as are the Government of the United Kingdom. We are keen to know what potential anybody feels there is to draw the Russians into the application of these sanctions. Are there elements of the Danish presidency programme in the EU which the Minister believes might assist?
I appreciate the difficulties of embarking on such a course but it may well be that the evidence of crimes against humanity or, to use the wider generic expression, crimes of concern to humanity has so obviously placed President Assad outside and beyond international law that other steps may become possible. Has the Minister a view on how Her Majesty’s Government might obtain international support, if possible, for international warrants against those named in the EU sanctions list? In the event that they travelled outside Syria in those circumstances, it might be possible in due course to seek their arrest and their trial at The Hague for international crimes. What scope is there for one of the clearer courses of actions that may be available to us—detailed investigation of all of the assets held here or, as I understand it in one or two cases, on the Côte d’Azur?
As regards the assessment the Government make of the issues inside Syria, I understand that the Syrian air force has not flown missions since the start of the conflict. Were it to do so and use military airplanes against the Syrian people, would the Government consider seeking the support of the Arab League for a no-fly zone? It is sometimes said that the Syrian opposition are not in the same state of readiness as was the case with the opposition in Libya. It is not entirely clear to me—perhaps it is not clear to everybody in your Lordships’ House—that the new Government of Libya are entirely united in all their purposes. I make no criticism of that; they are a new Government operating in difficult circumstances. However, it certainly seems to me that the Libyan opposition were united in one respect—they did not want Gaddafi to continue to rule Libya; they wanted that regime out. The Syrian opposition plainly want Assad out, but that might not be enough to convince the world that an alternative government are in waiting.
What is the United Kingdom Government’s assessment of the cohesion or otherwise of the Syrian opposition? Has Frances Guy formed even a preliminary view at this stage? The opposition, through the Syrian National Council, have also called for safe zones to be created. I have read of the potential for that, with several regions being named. I claim no knowledge of the practicality of this proposal. I make no pretence of knowledge in that regard. However, have the Government considered possible non-interventionist methods of securing the safety of Syrians on the ground where they are being pursued to their deaths?
President Assad has no future. He has lost the legitimacy to rule and he cannot reassert it through the barrel of a gun indefinitely. He is backed internationally at present by nations which should know better. Although I suspect that on balance it remains better to have a Syrian ambassador in London, under what circumstances would Her Majesty’s Government consider the issue of that ambassador’s future? As regards that ambassador, from these Benches I congratulate the Metropolitan Police on their efforts at the Syrian embassy—never an easy undertaking but conducted with typical professionalism, as we would all expect.
As this crisis matures—and it certainly will—I hope that the Minister will feel that it is appropriate to report back to this House on appropriate occasions. I do not ask for a running commentary, of course, but a chance to review matters if they deteriorate. Once again, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement.
Lord Howell of Guildford
I thank the noble Lord for his very robust support and expert analysis of the overview of the situation, which is very welcome. To take his last point first, I would be very prepared to keep the House as fully informed as possible, as I know my colleagues would in both Houses, on the unfolding tragedy and situation. I will, if I may, take his questions in order. On the number of those who have been killed, we have the figure of 6,000, which seems to be a fairly widely accepted estimate, but of course I cannot possibly guarantee that that is the precise number in the blood, smoke and horror of what is going on. There may be many more; there may be cover-ups or hideous atrocities going on at this moment that are not recorded. We just have to accept that as the figure for the moment, but it could be larger.
The noble Lord’s next question was about how we engage with Russia and China and bring home to those great powers and to the policy-makers in Moscow and Beijing that they have misjudged the situation. It is now a global order, brought together by the miracle of modern communication—a transformed world in which the upkeep of certain basic standards must be supported by all responsible nations. If they want to be in that category they must take a responsible position. We know that Russia has its interests, such as its huge naval base at Tartus, and its long-standing commitment to Syria. We know that China has its interests, which are rather different but broadly in sympathy with the Syria of the past. I believe that the time has come for them to rethink their position and we will remain in constant contact, indeed almost every day, with Russian and Chinese officials and Ministers to bring home to them the inadequacy—more than inadequacy: the unacceptable nature—of the position into which they have driven themselves in opposing the Security Council resolution.
Meanwhile, given that opposition, we have to operate outside the United Nations. We have to look for every possible means of mobilising pressure outside the UN framework for the time being in the hope of getting the process back there some day. The noble Lord raised the question of a joint summit with the Arab League and the European Union. Our thinking is that any such summit should be wider than that. I repeat that this is a global issue and that all responsible nations are ready to step up to the plate, as it were, and voice their views in favour of increased pressure on the Syrian regime and the need for the present killer authorities to go. My right honourable friend would certainly look for wider participation than just the Arab League and the European Union.
The next meeting on 27 February, mentioned in the Statement, is an opportunity to turn the screws further. Of course, an enormous range of sanctions has already been introduced. There are targeted sanctions and every kind of detailed sanction on the Syrian regime. There is a ban on imports of Syrian oil, of course, and on any investment in the Syrian oil industry; a ban on European Union investment construction of new power stations in Syria; and a whole range of other financial and detailed embargos on the export of Syrian banknotes, coinage, and so on. It is possible that there could be more, and we will constantly search for more, and tighter, sanctions, but we must bear in mind the enormous range already in place. A no-fly zone is possibly a read-across from Libya, which may not be entirely relevant at this point because the Syrian air force is not flying. These horrors are being conducted without aircraft overhead adding to the strafing and the killing. There are no operations in the sky to be checked at this stage.
On the Syrian opposition, my right honourable friend met leaders of the Syrian oppositions—in the plural—in November. We are in touch with them, and we are constantly urging them to become more united and to formulate a coherent position, but we are not yet there. The opposition in Syria is many sided and does not yet have the coherence and organisational power to give it the semblance of an alternative, replacement Government. However, we shall continue to work on that.
On safe zones, this would be difficult given that it is not the policy to work for any kind of detailed military intervention. Of course, our Turkish colleagues and allies have considered that idea in view of their position right up against the Syrian border. However, that is not in our catalogue at the moment.
My right honourable friend described how the Syrian ambassador had been brought into the Foreign Office to see officials very recently—this morning, I think. His status is something we keep under review. On the whole, at the moment he is a line of contact and a line to pass through to the Syrian regime should it be prepared to listen for a moment to just how strongly the world feels and to just how determined we are to increase the pressure.
Finally, the noble Lord rightly praised the Metropolitan Police for their action in protecting the Syrian embassy. I make it absolutely clear that it is our policy always to protect foreign embassies in accordance with the highest diplomatic standards, and of course—as my right honourable friend said in his Statement—we expect that the Syrian authorities will do the same. I think that that covers all his points. I thank him again for his and Her Majesty’s Opposition’s strong and reassuring support in reaching a point at which we are all united.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I remind the House of the benefit of short questions to the Minister in order that my noble friend can answer as many as possible.
Lord Alderdice
My Lords, this is a serious, sensitive and solemn Statement from my noble friend, and I welcome it very strongly. As we have seen the standing of the Arab League rising in recent times, it is particularly disappointing that the standing of the UN Security Council has fallen because of the actions of Russia and China. Can my noble friend reassure me that while we cannot depend on the United Nations for the present, we will use our good offices within the General Assembly to help Russia and China understand the gravity of their mistake?
My noble friend mentioned co-operation with other European countries and with the Arab League, and I welcome that. However, we of course have our ally in Turkey right on the front line—as he has said. While I do not advocate any military adventures from us at this stage, can I be reassured that we will co-operate, in whatever way we can, with our allies in Turkey, directly as well as perhaps through the auspices of NATO? Can I also be reassured that members of President al-Assad’s family will not be permitted to use their close relationship with this country either to protect themselves or their assets at this time, or indeed for anything they might plan for the future? This is something for which our own Government can perhaps take some responsibility, and on which they can act.
Lord Howell of Guildford
My noble friend made three points. First, on how we can help to make the UN more effective, we are of course living with the legacy of the Second World War and a UN structure that is frozen in time. Many people, including many of your Lordships, have worked hard over the years to try to break the deadlock on UN reform to get a more effective regime that is not vulnerable to the kind of vetoes that we have seen over this affair. However, it is very difficult, and every time we have tried, people have disagreed with each other and no progress has been made. None the less, we will certainly keep trying.
Secondly, co-operation with Turkey will be close. We are working very closely with the Turkish Government on this and indeed on many other issues as well. We will certainly continue to do so.
Thirdly, President Bashar al-Assad’s family will get no special protection. There will be no special relationship, despite the fact that some of them have direct origins in this country. The matter will be kept under very careful review. However, there will be no special favours for the families of any members of the regime who are guilty of the kind of atrocities that are now occurring.
Lord Wright of Richmond
My Lords, first, I declare an interest as a former British ambassador to Syria and a member of the British/Syrian council. When the Minister responded to my intervention last Thursday, in which I talked about the precedents of Libya and Egypt, he rightly said that the cases of Syria, Libya and Egypt were very different. I will draw attention briefly to the precedent of Iraq. Before there is any question of intervening in Syrian internal affairs—I accept with gratitude the statement that there is no present intention to do so, and the fact that the resolution in the Security Council did not argue for military intervention—the matter needs very careful thought.
The precedent of Iraq is nasty. We did not take adequate account of what the outcome was likely to be. One outcome that is very relevant to Syria was the decimation of the Christian population of northern Iraq, where some of the oldest Christian communities existed. Half a million Christians are now refugees in Syria. Will the Minister assure the House that we have enough intelligence to know not just the figures for those who have died but the situation of the opposition? There are reports that the opposition in Syria is severely dysfunctional and that there is strong disagreement between its various parts. Do we have enough intelligence to work out what the consequence of the action against Syria will be? I ask the Minister to consider in particular the situation of the minorities there, including the Christian population, who are extremely nervous about the prospects of a change of regime, and the very small remaining Jewish minority.
Lord Howell of Guildford
The noble Lord is absolutely right to cast his expert eye over the internal complexities of Syria and the uncertainties of the outcome of the immense turmoil that is gripping its society. He is right to say that although there is no question of military intervention, the outside world is putting pressure on Syria for the very good reason that an imploded Syria, or a Syria turning one way or another politically, or into a rogue state, would have major implications for the entire region and would affect us all. There is a responsibility to put on pressure, but no one at this stage is proposing military intervention, although some members of the Arab League have certainly talked about assisting opposition groups.
It is a very delicate scene. I wish I could stand here and predict exactly how things will unfold. The noble Lord is absolutely correct that among the many minorities is a very large Christian minority. The numbers vary. I have heard a figure of 250,000; the noble Lord mentioned 500,000. We are encouraging Syrian opposition groups to reach out, engage with minority communities and maintain a clear commitment to a peaceful and non-sectarian approach. They should reassure all Syrians that they are working towards a Syrian state that is democratic, inclusive and respectful of ethnic and religious minorities. That is the point that we have realised and are urging, but I repeat that anyone who says that they can predict exactly how this will turn out will not be believed because the uncertainties are very great. Syrian society could fragment into many pieces and its unity could be destroyed for many years to come.
Lord Anderson of Swansea
Does the Minister agree that Russia and China have put themselves on the wrong side of history by vetoing a very diluted UN Security Council resolution and that it must be very difficult for them now to retreat? I welcome the Minister’s six points on the way forward but these are, essentially, further diplomatic pressures at the United Nations and at the European Union and further potential sanctions. There is, however, great urgency in the situation. Delay surely means further carnage, particularly among the civilian population. What is the evidence of any intervention by Iran with military matériel or personnel to assist the Syrian regime? Where does its supply come from, or does it have sufficient stocks? The reality is that the rebels are massively outgunned. Will Turkey or the Arab League have on the agenda at their meeting this weekend the possibility of assisting in this disparity of weaponry? The Minister has said that a no-fly zone is not in the catalogue at the moment. May I express the hope that, if it is not in the catalogue at the moment, there is contingency planning in case the Syrians use their air power against the rebels?
Lord Howell of Guildford
I am grateful to the noble Lord. Information about Iranian supplies of weaponry to the Syrian regime is difficult to pin down precisely. There are certainly fairly substantial reports of such a supply of weapons. He asks whether, on the side of the allies, Turkey, Qatar or even Saudi Arabia, although he did not mention that country, could supply weapons to the opposition groups. They have said publicly that they are considering such moves. This is, however, a matter that the Arab League will have to deliberate on very carefully and reach their decisions on as soon as possible. As the noble Lord says, there is not much time. That is the position and I fully take the point that, as every day goes by, with delay more people are dying. This is an horrific pattern and although it is very hard to see how it can be stopped we have to find the best possible ways of doing so.
Lord Eden of Winton
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for repeating the robust and measured Statement of the Foreign Secretary in the House of Commons. As these appalling events are unfolded by the Syrian Government on the civilian population of that country, is it not remarkable the extent to which people are prepared to go, even at the risk of their own life, to make sure that their cry, their voice, their opinion, is heeded and heard throughout the world? Can my noble friend give any further information to the House about the attitude of Russia and China? Was it indicated, in their representatives’ comments in the United Nations—both in session and in the corridors—what, if anything, their end game might be? What are their objectives, or are they just making mayhem wherever the opportunity occurs?
Lord Howell of Guildford
My Lords, my noble friend makes two points. First, he drew attention to something that we are inclined sometimes to forget, with the tumult of pictures on the television and so on—the staggering courage of people who are prepared to go into the streets, knowing that bullets will be flying, knowing that murder and mayhem will take place. That staggering courage is something that we should all salute and brings hope that the Syrian people—as opposed to the regime that is oppressing them—have got a strength and endurance which will see them through in the end. It is indeed a remarkable thing.
As to the Russian agenda, Mr Lavrov, the Russian Foreign Minister, is going to Damascus, I think either late today or tomorrow, and he is going to see Bashar al-Assad. He is going with his secret service chief, I see. There appears to be a view in Moscow that they have their agenda and their own path that they want to pursue for bringing some amelioration to this horrific situation. I think that they are mistaken. I think that that is a complete misjudgment, but that is what they are doing and my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary will be speaking to Mr Lavrov as soon as he returns from Damascus.
Lord Jay of Ewelme
My Lords, I join others in paying tribute to our ambassador and his staff and their families in Damascus who are doing an extraordinarily good job in very difficult circumstances. In that context, will the Minister confirm that our ambassador has been withdrawn only for consultations and will soon be back in Damascus? It has always struck me as a curious diplomatic convention to withdraw ambassadors from post when situations get bad, which is precisely the moment when they can be the most use.
Lord Howell of Guildford
I fully share the noble Lord’s remarks about Simon Collis, our excellent ambassador. He is recalled here for consultation. We are not closing the embassy at this stage. Obviously it is a matter under complete review, as is the question of the security of embassy staff and everyone concerned. I can confirm what my right honourable friend said in his Statement—that the ambassador has been recalled for consultation. We are not closing the embassy at this stage.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
My Lords, will the Minister also accept congratulations on the work of the UK mission in New York? To have got 13 people to vote for this resolution is no simple matter, particularly since some of the countries that voted for it are very careful not to get involved in “undue interference” in other countries’ business—so that gives the lie, frankly, to the Russians and the Chinese, who regard this as being that. Could the Minister perhaps say whether the Government are contemplating providing any humanitarian assistance to the rebels and to those who are wounded in this fighting, and also whether any thought is being given to the application of the convention on torture to people who are involved in the regime?
Lord Howell of Guildford
On the first point, the noble Lord speaks with experience, because he has done that job himself and knows exactly how difficult it is. His praise for the success of the UN team is very valid and very worth while receiving, and I hope that the team will note it. DfID is engaged and is working with the International Committee of the Red Cross on various aspects, and it is very active in seeing in what other ways it can help. I do not think that I can say more at the moment on that matter. I have to ask the noble Lord for the third question again. I wrote it down but I cannot read my writing.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
I asked whether the Government are giving any consideration to the application of the convention against torture to those in the regime who are undoubtedly using that practice.
Lord Howell of Guildford
This is obviously one of the many matters under consideration. Of course, it is related to the broader matter of whether there will be a UN resolution in relation to the reference to the International Criminal Court. It requires a UN resolution because Syria is not a signatory to the ICC. As I have raised that matter, I should just make it clear that the commission of inquiry quite clearly stated its concern that crimes against humanity have been committed in Syria, which may be a matter for the International Criminal Court. The UK would not rule out referral to the ICC, as suggested by Mrs Pillay. The commission of inquiry report does not specifically recommend referral to the ICC, nor does the Human Rights Council have the power to refer cases. It would be for the UN Security Council to refer the situation in Syria to the ICC prosecutor. I would add that I am absolutely sure that issues about torture and other gross human rights abuses would certainly arise in that context.
Baroness Hussein-Ece
My Lords, perhaps I can ask my noble friend the Minister for some further clarification. In his response to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, on safe zones, I think he said that these had not yet been agreed or discussed. After the statement Turkey made over the weekend that its borders would now be open for people fleeing persecution, for refugees wanting to go across into Turkey for sanctuary, have there been any further discussions and deliberations on the creation of the buffer zone that was being discussed a few months ago?
Lord Howell of Guildford
I do not think there have. This is a matter that appeared in the public press some weeks ago but I am not aware of it coming up in the agenda of our discussions with the Turkish Government. I may be wrong about that, but I certainly have no reports in my briefing on that particular issue.
Lord Tugendhat
My Lords, does the Minister agree that a major motivation for the Russian and Chinese vetoes is their fear of internal dissent in their own countries and of international eyes being cast upon their own misdeeds?
Lord Howell of Guildford
That is absolutely true. My noble friend is completely correct that both Governments have problems—shall we put it like that—with certain areas that are seeking either secession or a degree of autonomy that they do not want to accept, and they have this fear of fragmentation of their own national boundaries. That is a very strong motivation. On top of that, as I said earlier, Russia has huge interests in Syria, including its colossal naval base at Tartus.
Lord Stirrup
My Lords, the terrible events in Syria may have consequences well beyond the borders of that country. Can the Minister say what discussions the UK has had, both internally and with its international partners, on the potential implications for the Lebanon, and how these might be mitigated?
Lord Howell of Guildford
Yes, we keep in very close touch with partners, and indeed the Lebanese authorities and the Lebanese Prime Minister, Mr Najib Mikati, over the situation. It is a delicate and very difficult one for the Lebanese Government, who have problems internally with Hezbollah and with their relationship with Syria, which is complex and has been in the past extremely difficult. These matters are under very close review at all times.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Skelmersdale)
My Lords, the time for the Statement has now elapsed so we return to the Protection of Freedoms Bill.
Protection of Freedoms Bill
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
17:59 - Division on Amendment 37A - Ayes: 195 / Noes: 201 - Amendment 37A disagreed.
Lord Rosser
“Rewriting powers of entry to address metal theft
(1) Section 26 of the Theft Act 1968 (search for stolen goods) is amended as follows—
(2) In subsection (1), after “goods” insert “or that admission to a place specified in the information is reasonably required in order to ascertain whether provisions under section 22A(1) are complied with,”.
(3) After subsection (1) insert—
“(1A) A warrant granted under subsection (1) for the purposes of ascertaining compliance under section 22A, shall authorise that person to enter that place at any time within one month from the date of the warrant.”
(4) After section 22 insert—
“22A Handling of stolen metal
(1) Subject to the provisions of section 26, any constable shall have a right at all reasonable times—
(a) to enter and inspect any place for the time being a place which is occupied by a scrap metal dealer wholly or partly for the purposes of such business, or any place which he reasonably believes is occupied for such a purpose, irrespective of whether or not it is entered on the register;(b) to require production for inspection, of any scrap metal kept at that place and any record which the dealer has in his or her possession.(2) A magistrate may grant, on application by a senior police officer, a closure order or, where such an order has already been granted, an application to extend a closure order in relation to a place, subject to the following conditions—
(a) the senior officer reasonably believes that the trader is encouraging, supporting or facilitating the trade in stolen metal whether knowingly or not, and (b) in his or her view such closure is necessary for the prevention of theft or handling of stolen goods or for the further investigation of those offences.(3) For the purposes of this section a person shall be deemed as carrying on business as a scrap metal dealer if—
(a) a place in that area is occupied by him or her as a scrap metal store, or(b) no place is occupied by him or her as a scrap metal store, whether in that area or elsewhere, but he or she has his or her usual place of residence in that area, or(c) a place in that area is occupied by him or her wholly or partly for the purposes of that business.””
Lord Rosser
My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to provide for strengthened and new powers of entry for the police to enter and inspect known or suspected scrap metal dealer premises, and any metal and records kept on the premises, as well as powers to close down dealerships should those premises be suspected of being used for knowingly handling stolen material. At present the police are able to enter only registered premises but this amendment will give the right to enter premises irrespective of whether they are entered on the register, as well as the power to close dealerships.
Considerable concern has been expressed in the light of the increasing incidence of metal theft related to the rise in its value, with the price of copper having doubled to more than £5,000 a tonne since 2009, and the value of scrap metal at an all-time high. This has become a highly organised crime. Metal is stolen to sell on to dealers who will probably smelt it down before selling it on. The impact of such thefts on many people, buildings and organisations is considerable, not least on the railway network and railway passengers and on churches and indeed war memorials, with at least one war memorial a week being stripped in London.
The cost of metal theft is now estimated to be running at £1 billion a year and causing some 16,000 hours of train delays. In total, Network Rail says the cost of such thefts has amounted to some £43 million across the United Kingdom. It is also apparently resulting in the deaths of two thieves a month as they attempt to strip cabling from electricity substations or railways. That last point may not arouse much concern or sympathy, but it is still the loss of two human lives a month which could be avoided and is perhaps a consequence of the current spate of metal thefts that is not often raised.
It is important that action is taken as quickly as possible. At least one major recycling firm has moved to cashless payment, and on Thursday we shall be debating my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester’s amendment to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders of Bill, which provides for cashless transactions to be compulsory in the scrap metal trade. This would be an important action in the drive against metal thefts and I commend my noble friend for his robust campaign on this issue.
We know that police forces are stepping up their activities against this lucrative crime but they need to be given further powers to combat it with maximum effectiveness. One such power is provided for in this amendment, namely stronger and new powers of entry for the police to premises suspected of being used for handling stolen metal and the power to obtain a closure order against a dealership where there is a belief that such criminal activity is taking place. This amendment, providing new powers to the police to enter and close down unregulated scrap metal dealerships, is in line with the recommendations of the Association of Chief Police Officers’ metal theft working group.
Combined with the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders of Bill to ban cashless transactions, this amendment presents a robust package of measures to tackle this growing epidemic. I hope the Government will indicate their support for this amendment and ensure that the police are properly equipped to deal with the increasing incidence of metal thefts. I beg to move.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 37A, tabled by my noble friends Lady Royall and Lord Rosser, because the new powers that it confers on authorities to enter and inspect scrap metal dealerships represent, as my noble friend Lord Rosser says, an important element in the comprehensive overhaul of the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964, which I have been calling for in your Lordships’ House since I asked my Oral Question on the subject on 3 October last year. It also fits perfectly with the move to cashless transactions, which the Home Secretary said in a Written Statement on 26 January that the Government now support. This is the subject of my own amendment to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill, which the Committee will be considering on Thursday, possibly alongside the Government’s own amendments, the details of which we are awaiting.
This morning I met Deputy Chief Constable Paul Crowther of the British Transport Police to discuss this amendment. As the House will be aware, the BTP has been in the lead on the metal theft issue and I again commend it for what it is doing to tackle it. It has asked me to tell your Lordships—and I quote directly from a message it has given me—that:
“The power of closure is something that we would really want for a number of reasons, not least so that we can support legitimate businesses who will comply with the cashless system when it is introduced”.
Over the last four months I have been overwhelmed by the representations that have been made to me about the necessity for government action to tackle what is now a metal theft epidemic. The Transport Select Committee in another place says that the theft of signalling cable was responsible for the delay or cancellation of over 35,000 national rail services last year. There are eight actual or attempted thefts on the railway every day. My friends in the heritage rail sector—and I declare an interest as the president of the Heritage Railway Association—report weekly thefts of metal objects from their yards, depots and sheds, the value of which runs into thousands of pounds. Almost no aspect of our national life has escaped unscathed: manhole covers; war memorial plaques; even huge pieces of art like the Barbara Hepworth sculpture in Dulwich Park or the statue of Dr Alfred Salter in Cherry Gardens, Bermondsey; lead from church roofs and sacred objects from within churches; electricity and telecom cables—the list is endless.
Many of your Lordships will have seen the open letter published in the Times on 11 January that was signed by an impressive array of business leaders, including the chairmen or chief executives of BT, Network Rail, the Energy Networks Association and the Ecclesiastical Insurance company. They called for a complete update of the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964. Among the long list of changes they want to see were police powers to close unscrupulous scrap metal dealers, and police authority to search all premises owned and operated by scrap metal dealers—the measure proposed in this amendment. In my view, the police should be given powers to inspect any articles and records kept on site and to close down dealerships should there be reasonable suspicion that they are handling and dealing in stolen metal.
It is abundantly clear that the law needs to be completely rewritten. In the other place tomorrow there will be a debate initiated by officers of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Combating Metal Theft—I declare a very modest interest as one of its vice-chairs. In addition to the move towards cashless transactions they will call for a robust licensing scheme for scrap metal dealers to replace the present registration scheme, as well as all the measures that have been put forward by industry, the church and the police.
I shall be very interested to hear what the Minister has to say when he responds. I know that we will achieve a cashless regime either on Thursday or at Report stage of the LASPO Bill, but I hope that he will be able to give a commitment that there will at least be comprehensive legislation in the next Session which will rewrite the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964.
Baroness Browning
My Lords, I rise very briefly to endorse what noble Lords have said about the seriousness of metal theft, and I know that my noble friend the Minister is fully aware of the importance of this issue in addressing the existing legislation, which is clearly out of date.
Last year, when I had the privilege to serve in the Home Office, I became acutely aware not only of the breadth of this crime but also, as we have heard, of its effects. Stolen cables not only disrupt but cause chaos on railway lines, and also in telecommunications. I know that the Church of England has also carried out a very important report that looks at what has happened to its churches and cathedrals that have been affected by this.
The point I want to make—I know that my noble friend is aware of it—is that although we see these matters reported in the press, and some people have first-hand experience of the outcome of this crime, it is organised crime. These are not individual actions taken at random. Serious organised crime, on a large scale, is behind the metal theft that is taking place in this country. When, for example, cables are removed, or lead is removed from roofs, all too often the people concerned are not scurrying about; they are wearing the proper safety jackets, looking like workers who should be carrying out these functions. They steal vehicles that have commercial insignia on the side to make it look as though a legitimate vehicle is being loaded with the metal. A lot of thought, a lot of money and a lot of organisation goes into this. I hope that when my noble friend replies—he and I have discussed this very serious matter—he will be able to reassure the House that the Government are looking holistically at all the elements mentioned this evening. This whole question is about the seriousness of breaking through organisations that clearly find it financially viable to continue this very destructive activity.
The Lord Bishop of Chichester
My Lords, from these Benches, I want very briefly to give my whole-hearted support to this amendment. In the year from 2010-11 thefts from churches went up by one-third, resulting in a loss to the church of £4.5 million in that one year alone. I want to speak particularly because of the importance of rewriting the right of entry. Without that being done, the means of enforcing the otherwise noble aspirations about cash-free and limitless tariff cannot be enforced. That is why the right of entry is extremely important.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
My Lords, following on from what the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, said about this being organised crime, it is urgent that the legislation is in place for the police to be able to go out there and act effectively. As I understand it, they do not have effective means at this stage. Whatever may be done holistically at some future date, now is when we need to have something for the police to deal with this business.
The Minister of State Home Office (Lord Henley)
My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. I will start by referring to the remarks from my noble friend Lady Browning. It is no secret that, only two days before she left the Home Office, I went to visit her, along with other Ministers, to discuss the whole question of metal theft, because she had identified this as a problem and wanted to get action throughout the whole of government. I suggested then, as a Minister in Defra, that I might be able to help by offering some assistance through the work of the Environment Agency. Two days later I found myself in the Home Office and was very nearly in the position of writing a letter from myself to myself. In the end, the letter came from my successor the noble Lord, Lord Taylor.
I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for setting out what exactly is the problem. I think that we all understand what it is. I am grateful to him for starting off by emphasising that this is driven by second-hand metal prices. If he cares to look at the way that metal prices have gone over the last few years—sometimes up, sometimes down—he will find that the crime rate for metal theft has more or less exactly followed that line, and that it is on a distinctly upward curve. For that reason I was interested in his new figure for the possible cost of this whole problem to the country, which he put at about £1 billion. I have seen other figures which count the cost to the country and to business, one of about £220 million, another of around £700 million, and I would be interested to know where his figures have come from.
The important point to remember is that very often the actual value of what is stolen is relatively small; the issue is the knock-on effect of that particular crime. For example, when the lead is taken off a church roof, the lead has a value, and a value that is going up, but the real damage then comes from water leaking in and damaging the church. If you remove the wiring that deals with signalling from the railway line, you will have hundreds of hours of delays and major disruption caused to a large number of people—and as someone who spends an awful lot of time on the west coast main line I understand that as well.
We have examples of hospitals which have had to cancel operations as a result of power cuts caused by metal theft. I could give examples relating to the police and others, who have had their communications disrupted as a result of metal theft. Then on top of that we have the further elements of heritage crime. Not only war memorials are being taken; the example that the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, gave of the Barbara Hepworth statue being stolen and melted down is an example of something that went in the opposite direction. Here was something that was of very great value, should one have been able to put it on the market at Christie’s or Sotheby’s, but which when it went into the scrap metal yard suddenly became worth relatively very little indeed, and in fact would very quickly be ground up into bronze granules to be smelted.
The important point to remember about that particular theft is that it indicates just where the problem is. It is obvious that the first person to handle the statue—the first scrap yard owner who took it in—must have known that it was, as they say, hot. You do not often get Barbara Hepworth or Barbara Hepworth-like statues legitimately coming into scrap metal yards. Someone knew that it was stolen property and that they would be able to convert it into cash, while removing most of its value. On a number of occasions I have made the point that we believe that the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964 is—how should I put it?—beyond its sell-by date. We wish to see a reform to that Act as soon as is possible, and we will make sure that we do it.
I am grateful to the noble Lord for tabling this amendment and allowing us to have a debate on the damage that this practice is doing to our infrastructure. I am also grateful to him for highlighting the fact that there have been a number of deaths as a result of this. Although the noble Lord says that it was the perpetrator being killed, we should have some sympathy. For example, a 16 year-old was recently killed taking copper cabling from a power substation. He only did so because it was easy for him to take that copper wire and convert it into cash; and, in the process, someone who did not understand these things killed himself. Moreover, not only are some of the perpetrators being killed; it is likely that, fairly soon, innocent individuals could be killed as they try to sort out the mess caused by these problems.
The House will be aware—the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, referred to it—of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary’s Statement on 26 January, when she announced that we will be bringing forward amendments to the LASPO Bill to strengthen the law in this area. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, that we hope to do this on Report rather than tomorrow or on Thursday, which are the other days when we will debate these matters. This is specifically to deal with the problem of cash. As I say, the real problem is the ease with which people can convert stolen metal into cash, with no questions being asked and no traceability whatever.
In that Statement my right honourable friend indicated that the amendments would create a new criminal offence to prohibit cash payments to purchase scrap metal and to significantly increase the fines for all offences under the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964, which regulates the scrap recycling industry. In effect, once the amendments to the LASPO Bill have been agreed and the Bill has been passed, rather than having a maximum fine of £1,000 for offences under the Scrap Metal Dealers Act, the fine will be unlimited. We will go from an average fine of the order of £350 to a more realistic figure which might encourage some scrap metal dealers to act in a responsible manner.
Lord Campbell-Savours
I understand that there has been some consultation on the proposal for a cashless arrangement. What has been the extent of that consultation? Have the many thousands of small scrap yard operations been consulted? I am not opposing what the Government are doing. I just want to know what the basis is and to what extent it can be justified as a result of any consultation—in other words, that this is not another panic response.
Lord Henley
My Lords, this is not a panic response. It has been discussed in this House and in another place on a number of occasions and we are all keen to move forward.
I have had discussions with the British Metals Recycling Association, a body which represents scrap metal dealers of all sizes, great and small. It—dare I say it?—not surprisingly, is not keen on the idea of going cashless. That might indicate something about the effect of this measure. We shall obviously have to have further consultations with the BMRA and others in the industry before we bring these measures into effect after they have been introduced into the LASPO Bill.
I was formerly a recycling Minister in Defra. We have a very successful industry and I want to see high levels of recycling of metal continue. However, I want to make sure that the metal that is being recycled is legitimate and has not been stolen in one way or another. We do not want to kill off a successful industry but to properly regulate the criminal elements within it. We will certainly have further consultations with the BMRA and others before we bring the measures into effect after the Bill has received Royal Assent.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Are we absolutely sure that we are not driving this business into the hands of the cowboys?
Lord Henley
My Lords, I could refer the noble Lord to discussions that I have had with other people in the industry, who have pointed out that the high levels of cash in the industry are driving criminality. If we can remove a lot of that cash then we can possibly remove a great deal of the criminality. I am not saying that it will be a magic wand that will solve all the problems—just as revising the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964 will not solve all problems, as his noble friend Lord Faulkner knows well. However, they are steps on the road to better regulating this industry, which is needed.
We are looking for a coherent package of measures to tackle metal theft. Obviously there will have to be further measures and regulation in due course, possibly along the lines of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. I do not want to rush into that at this stage. There is an opportunity to go cashless and to increase what are, at the moment, the derisory fines available under the 1964 Act, and we obviously need to do more to that Act in the future.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, on his ingenuity in finding a way of bringing forward amendments to this Bill on this subject. His noble friend Lord Faulkner tried to do so but failed. We also gave it some thought, but the drafting of the Bill is such that it is rather difficult.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester
The noble Lord is half right: I attempted to get cashless into this Bill and was told that I could not. I will help to get cashless into LASPO instead.
Lord Henley
My Lords, we have cashless in the LASPO Bill and I hope that it will deal with this problem.
We have to consider the other important points that need to be dealt with. One of those—and, again, this is why I am interested in how the Opposition voted on the previous amendment—is whether the powers of entry are adequate and what powers of entry need to be given to the police. We can look at these matters, first, in the LASPO Bill and consider further regulation in due course.
I welcome the support of the Front Bench opposite for further action in this area. Obviously, there is more that we can do. I do not think that this is the right way of going forward at this stage because, as I said, we want to bring forward amendments in the LASPO Bill on Report. I can give an assurance that as soon as possible thereafter, by whatever legislative means is appropriate, we will bring forward the further amendments that need to be made, particularly to the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964. With those assurances, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Rosser
The Minister asked me where my figure on the cost of metal theft, at £1 billion a year, came from. I would not say that the figure necessarily came from the most authoritative of sources, but it appeared in a fairly prominent newspaper article last December.
Lord Henley
Is the noble Lord prepared to mention which newspaper he relies on?
Lord Rosser
I am trying to remember which one it was. As the Minister has asked me which one it was, I intend to tell him. I may be wrong, but my recollection is that it was the London Evening Standard.
It is clear that the current level of metal thefts has caused a considerable increase in the cost of security arrangements. It is already costing businesses, organisations and local authorities money and we need action. This amendment, along with the amendment from my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester which is to be considered on Thursday, provides for action now—action which we badly need against this serious, organised and growing crime. As my amendment goes further than the Government appear to be contemplating in respect of police powers of entry and closure of dealerships—powers that are needed now—I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Henley
“(8) In subsection (7) “primary legislation” means—
(a) a public general Act, and(b) a Measure or Act of the National Assembly for Wales.”
Lord Henley
Lord Henley
“if there is no charge for unauthorised parking or if the following conditions are met—
(a) one or more notices which were clearly displayed when the vehicle was parked and—(i) specify the sum of the charge for unauthorised parking; and(ii) are adequate to bring the charge and parking requirements to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land;(b) the consent of the driver of the vehicle to the restriction was indicated by the positive acceptance of appropriate documentation before parking on the relevant land; and(c) the owner or occupier of the land or those authorised to act on their behalf are unable to take steps to enforce the payment of parking charges against the driver because they do not know, and the driver has refused to provide, both their name and a current address for service for the driver.”
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, in moving Amendment 42 I shall speak also to Amendments 43, 44, 45, 47 and 48. I confess that Amendment 43 is the handiwork of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, although it appears in my name as I beat him to the Public Bill Office. He anticipated that we would reach these amendments last week and he cannot be here today, but he has asked me to signify his support and, indeed, has furnished me with what would have been his speaking notes, which I have incorporated into what I am going to say.
The Bill aimed to tackle rogue clampers but instead it outlaws all clamping on private land and opens the door to rogue ticketers. Our amendments seek to mitigate this risk, concentrating on the people who misuse ticketing or clamping rather than the tickets or barriers themselves. There are four issues that I wish to raise: first, car parks, where people pay to park; secondly, residents’ own parking areas and similar private parking spaces not let for hire or use by anyone but their rightful owners, visitors or similar invited drivers; thirdly, public spaces, which again are spaces that do not make a charge, but are open to the public for particular purposes; and fourthly, bays for disabled drivers.
First, however, I should make it clear that I deplore unauthorised or unreasonable clamping, be this of extortionate charging or unfair usage, and that also goes for unauthorised or unreasonable ticketing, but that is what we are already seeing in a number of places. As many have warned about this Bill, without the amendments I am proposing, rogue clampers will simply become rogue ticketers, as we have already seen in Scotland. So while those who run car parks will now be allowed to ticket rather than clamp, it is essential that, first, the driver is still protected from rogues by ensuring that there are adequate signs and warnings of the likely charge for any overstay or use of the parking area, and on the rights of appeal.
Secondly, there should be in place an ombudsman scheme—independent dispute resolution—for anyone who is issued with a ticket they wish to dispute. Amendments 44 and 45 provide for this to be set up and paid for by the industry. It would exist for all motorists challenging a ticket for parking on private land. It is not sufficient for a voluntary scheme to be set up. If a particular car parking firm breaks its code of conduct or fails to implement a ruling, it can simply leave the scheme and carry on without a redress facility. It would then be “good firms in”, “rogues out” of the complaints scheme, leaving the driver unprotected from the cowboys. The scheme must have legislative backing so that drivers would not be liable to pay a charge to a ticket issuer who was not signed up to the scheme. The development of a code of conduct to cover reasonable charges and adequate signage and warnings would raise standards in the industry and enable drivers to know their rights as well as the expectations on them.
These amendments build on the tried and tested model devised for estate agents, one that is independent of but paid for by the industry, and without the requirement for the Government themselves to set up any such scheme. Indeed, I envisage that existing ADR schemes would bid to run it, so that it could be up and running without inordinate delay. This model is fully supported by Citizens Advice, which has long campaigned against rogue clampers. Indeed, it is to the careful drafting by Citizens Advice that these amendments owe their clarity.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Hayter of Kentish Town has set out the arguments in favour of these amendments. I certainly do not intend to repeat them all. The first amendment aims to close a loophole created by the government amendments tabled in Committee in another place. It ensures that rogue operators will not be able to extort money from drivers by way of barriers rather than clamping.
My noble friend also referred to the amendment that allows for limited licensing of parking enforcement schemes by the Secretary of State to recognise residents and community groups who suffer a serious problem with unlawful and obstructive parking. She explained the reasons why this amendment is necessary and we certainly support it. It retains the clamping ban but allows local resident and community groups to apply for the provision of a parking enforcement scheme to address specific problems with unlawful parking in their area.
Then there are amendments that deal with the introduction of an independent dispute resolution scheme, funded by the industry and available to all motorists—it is important that it is available to all motorists. Cases where mistakes are made or consumers feel that they have been unfairly treated, such as being pursued for excessive charges, can be decided fairly, quickly and cheaply. Rogue ticketing is already a serious problem. It is only likely to get worse once rogue clampers are put out of business. Citizens advice bureaux are dealing with increased numbers of parking inquiries, queries and complaints. Last year, compared with the previous year, they saw an increase in people visiting their website seeking information and advice about parking issues.
The amendment establishes an independent ombudsman system that avoids costs and clogging up of the courts by challenges to parking fines brought by consumers. The issue is that it is not the members of the BPA who are most likely to operate outside the bounds of good practice. In order to protect consumers from unfair and disproportionate charges, all parking operators must be required to meet minimum standards for clear signage and proportionate charges. There must be an independent complaints process for consumers.
That is one of the purposes of these amendments. They give those parking their cars a better deal. They also give a better deal to those in certain locations who have parking on their own particular private property and will apparently be unable to seek effective redress.
I hope that the Government will give sympathetic consideration to these amendments and indicate that, even if they are not prepared to accept them, they will take the matter away and come back to it on Third Reading with amendments of their own covering the same issue.
Baroness Randerson
My Lords, I do not share all the noble Baroness’s concerns but still remain concerned about some aspects of the situation. I thank the Minister for the time he gave us in discussing these problems in a meeting. The Government are showing that they are aware of the issues. Some of their proposals—that places suffering from this kind of inappropriate parking can employ a parking company—would be suitable in large situations where the parking was widespread, regular and frequent. However, often these problems take place in, for example, the car parks of churches or community centres, or in residential car parks associated with blocks of flats. The problem is not on a large enough scale for an organisation which exists for a totally separate purpose from parking. It does not suit that kind of organisation to engage a parking company to sort out its problems. The Government have to look at a different resolution to the problem. There are still some questions to be answered.
In my speech in Committee, I asked the Minister what the situation was in Scotland, where there is no clamping. I am strongly in favour of the purpose behind this Bill in that respect: clamping should not be allowed to continue. Scotland has not had clamping for many years. Are there problems there associated with rogue ticketing? There do not appear to be massive problems with that but there appears to be an increase in the number of complaints about ticketing brought to consumer organisations in recent years. The Government need to address the issue of how they will deal with any problems which may emerge as a result of this change in legislation which will undoubtedly go ahead.
What are the Government proposing to do in relation to the forthcoming EU directive on ADR—the alternative dispute resolution procedure? I gather that that will be required in the near future for all traders providing goods and services. That would include parking companies. We need reassurance about the independent appeals process. There is still this gap in the situation where we can expect supermarkets and so on to find a satisfactory alternative to clamping. It is not reasonable to expect a small community-based organisation to employ a parking company and issue tickets. That is not their purpose. It adds bureaucracy and concerns for them.
Lord Wills
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Hayter on this matter. I should declare an interest as someone who suffers fairly regularly from the kind of selfish behaviour that she so compellingly outlined. She set out the arguments so well that I do not intend to rehearse them again. I only ask the Minister to reflect on the sentiment of the House that, in dealing with the very real problems of clamping by private operators that it is widely accepted need to be dealt with, the Government do not create another set of problems. The risks that my noble friend outlined are real. I hope that the Minister in his reply can give the House some reassurance that the Government are going to tackle them.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, I am thoroughly in favour of Amendment 42, or at least the intention behind it. It is quite clear that the Bill as it stands will allow a continuation of current abuses in different forms. All you need is a couple of posts with a chain coiled next to one of them and you have a barrier that you can put whenever you want. Anyone caught within it might have to pay a large fine to be released. We will have the same people indulging in very much the same practices as at the moment but they will use a barrier rather than a clamp. Clearly this section is designed to exempt local authority car parks and others with a raised barrier and a ticket on entry. I entirely agree with that. However, it must be reworded, and Amendment 42 seems a pretty good way of doing it. It would be desirable to improve the arrangements in the Bill for appealing against unjustified tickets. I have no objection to the way in which the noble Baroness has set about doing it although I suspect she has taken on a hopeless cause when it comes to allowing more people to clamp. The Daily Mail will use that one, I suspect.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, we have already debated these issues at some length in Committee and I am grateful to noble Lords for taking time to meet with me and my officials since then to discuss these matters further. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, has so expertly and temptingly set out, Amendment 42 seeks to allow the use of fixed barriers in certain circumstances and to specify certain conditions that must be met.
We consider the amendment to be unnecessary as Clause 54(3) already requires that there is express or implied consent by the driver of the vehicle to restricting its movement by parking where there is a fixed barrier. In practice this means that the existence of the barrier must have been apparent to the driver, either visibly or through clear signage, when they parked. Secondly, in order to establish a contract as a basis for payment, the terms for parking would have to be clearly displayed. Therefore, if the landholder demanded a fee for release of the vehicle without such a basis, he would be committing an offence under Clause 54(1). In answer to my noble friend Lord Lucas, I am convinced that we have drafted these provisions correctly.
Amendment 43 seeks to create a new power for the Secretary of State to grant lawful authority to clamp and tow vehicles to those who request it, with the expectation that applications would not be refused if made by local authorities, residents’ associations and community groups. Again, we consider the amendment to be unnecessary because there are existing powers for local authorities to take a controlling interest in the management of parking on private land with the agreement with the landholder.
Section 33(4)(b) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 states:
“A local authority may, on such terms as they think fit … arrange with any person for him to provide such a parking place on any land of which he is the owner or in which he has an interest”.
The phrase,
“provide such a parking place”
refers to a Section 32 parking place, which is the general power for local authorities to provide off-street parking places. As a result, the local authority could make provisions as to the conditions for the use of the parking places and manage and enforce those conditions under the Traffic Management Act 2004. This would enable local authorities to use their lawful authority to clamp or tow those vehicles that have contravened the terms and conditions for parking on that land.
The amendment would also introduce regulation of wheel clampers overseen by the Secretary of State who will also presumably be responsible for enforcement, rather than the Security Industry Authority or another body. The requirements set out in Amendment 43 could lead to a patchwork system of regulation in that each application made would have to set out how they meet the requirements, including in respect of an appeals process. However, the amendment does not provide for national standards which any local scheme must adhere to, so the amendment could lead to a system where wheel clamping schemes are different throughout the country. I am sure that is not the noble Baroness’s intention.
We have seen that following seven years of licensing by the Security Industry Authority, rogue wheel clampers continue to carry out their unscrupulous practices and we do not consider that further regulation of the industry will deter them, no matter how much the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, deplores their activity. An outright ban on wheel clamping without lawful authority is the only way to deal with rogue wheel clampers. Wheel clamping and the towing away of vehicles by private individuals or businesses without lawful authority in order to force payment of a charge are unacceptable and should be prohibited. As well as causing motorists significant distress and anxiety, the clampers in effect hold the vehicle to ransom—or at least threaten to do so as a deterrent. No one can justify or defend the exorbitant release fees and intimidatory tactics employed.
Throughout our debates, many noble Lords have strongly made the point that clamping is a particularly effective deterrent to inconsiderate and unauthorised parking on private land. It may be, but is it also disproportionate. Supposing I was attempting to deter motorists from speeding: if I proposed that the police have the power to clamp an errant motorist’s car for a couple of hours without recourse to an independent tribunal, I expect your Lordships would have something to say.
There can be situations where, in the circumstances, the motorist who is clamped has acted reasonably. What about a midwife who is seeing a patient in a large block of flats and reasonably believes that permission to park has been granted? How can it be right to clamp his or her vehicle in such circumstances? One only has to ask what the knock-on effect could be. What about police operations? I spoke to a pal of mine who undertakes covert police duties, dealing with very serious matters. He said in an e-mail:
“I can speak from first-hand experience on this. On several occasions this happened to me whilst on duty on covert operations. On every occasion I had to park my police vehicle quickly and deploy on foot from the vehicle. The vehicle was always left in open parking spaces on private land and subsequently clamped. Whilst I cannot quote the figures, I know this happens on many occasions in similar circumstances”.
The fact is that a clamping company operative, no matter how well meaning, cannot possibly know whether what he is doing is reasonable. Therefore private clamping on private land is fundamentally flawed.
Turning to Amendments 44, 45—-
Lord Lucas
My Lords, why would it be any different for the policeman if a barrier had been placed across his car? He still would not have been able to use it. Why is that acceptable and a clamp not?
Earl Attlee
The noble Lord makes a very good point. The policeman would have to take that risk. However, he would be aware that he was taking the operational risk that his vehicle might be clamped.
I turn to the other amendments. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, has explained, these amendments seek to provide an alternative dispute resolution mechanism. The Government would be required to prescribe and enforce the system, which would need to be funded by the industry. It is a bit odd that in this group of amendments the noble Baroness proposes retaining clamping without any effective means of appeal while in other amendments she is insisting on a system of appeal.
As indicated in previous debates, the Government are committed to providing an independent appeals service, which will cover all tickets issued on private land by members of an accredited trade association. In practice, this body will cover all ticketing by members of the British Parking Association’s approved operator scheme, who are the major private parking providers in the sector with accredited access to the DVLA keeper data, and will therefore be able to pursue vehicle keepers for unpaid parking charges after the measures in Schedule 4 come into force. However, we have made absolutely clear that we will not commence the keeper liability provisions in Schedule 4 until this independent appeals body is in place.
The amendments tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, propose much broader regulation covering all parking on private land which, we believe, would impose a not inconsiderable burden on smaller landowners, including those who wish to manage perhaps only a handful of parking spaces, or even one.
I fear that I am not in full agreement with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, regarding Scotland, where wheel-clamping has been banned since 1992. We have seen no convincing evidence that levels of rogue ticketing are a particular problem. However, we are not being complacent; we have given these amendments very careful consideration and, in this respect, I am particularly grateful to noble Lords who have taken the time to meet me to discuss the Government’s proposals. I have also had very helpful and informative meetings with the British Parking Association, Citizens Advice and Consumer Focus.
Some noble Lords raised the issue of Citizens Advice Scotland dealing with more than 1,500 parking inquiries, which represents a big increase on previous years. The figures need to be reviewed in the context of the number of parking tickets issued each year; I do not have the figures for Scotland to hand but, in England and Wales, local authorities issued over 4.2 million penalty charge notices for on-road contraventions alone in 2009-10.
Following discussions, we have agreed that part of our commitment to monitoring the impact of the provisions will be to continue to liaise closely with consumer protection groups to ensure that if rogue ticketing activity does occur such groups can feed back to us. If it becomes a significant problem, we will consider further measures, including wider regulation, if it proves necessary in the light of experience. I hope that that meets the needs of the noble Lord, Lord Wills.
As I have said, we have already established a new system for parking management companies—
Lord Wills
I am very grateful to the Minister, who is genuinely trying to offer reassurance on these issues. I think that the whole House is grateful to him for that. But is he saying that he will continue to monitor the effects, so that if the Government see an increase in the sort of selfish behaviour by motorists on private land that my noble friend has outlined, they will be prepared to introduce new regulations to tackle it?
Earl Attlee
No, my Lords. Where I am making the absolute commitment is to monitor the effect of rogue ticketing very carefully and, if necessary, introduce further regulation. I will not fall into the temptation offered by the noble Lord.
As I said, we are already establishing a new system for parking management companies that have accredited access to DVLA data. We intend that the independent appeals service will be able to report back to the industry on appeals, so that precedents can be established and drivers do not have to continually appeal on the same grounds. In this way, the appeals body will help to drive up standards in the industry and provide greater clarity to both the motorist and parking operators. The accredited companies operating under this new regime will be able to offer their services to smaller-scale landowners and parking providers, and we believe that in many circumstances that will be an attractive option for landowners with perhaps only a handful of parking places, knowing that parking on their land will be managed by a professional and responsible company with all due safeguards in place. I think that there would be serious reputational issues if an individual or an organisation took the option of not using an ATA operator, but we have left that option open to them.
The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, asked about the European legislation in gestation at the moment. The Government believe that their proposals offer the right balance between the rights of motorists and those of landowners, for the reasons I have explained. We have agreed to return to the issue if rogue ticketing proves to be a problem, but the question of possible future European legislation is a little academic at this stage, although we will obviously need to pay due regard to any commitment to which the UK Government sign up.
My noble friend Lady Randerson also raised the problem of small and dispersed parking facilities. It is entirely possible for the landowner or user to take a photo of the offending vehicle and the warning signs and pass them on to an ATA parking operator, assuming that they have the necessary enabling contact. That ATA company would be able to do the administration.
I hope that in the light of these clear assurances the noble Baroness will feel free to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
When the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said that I was on to a hopeless cause, I thought of not pushing it to a Vote—but when the Minister starts to use a midwife as the example of why the amendment should not be accepted I felt that he was clutching at straws. Far more midwives will be inconvenienced if they cannot park near to a patient.
I have three points. First, the Minister has not answered the question about the small places that are not making a charge. The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, spoke of those—small, private areas with no charges being made, where the problem is the deterrent, not trying to put a fee on afterwards. The second matter is where there has been a unanimous agreement in having some sort of independent appeals process. It is simply no good to say that it is only for BPA members; if a member is expelled, that member can carry on running a parking area and will be completely outside any code of conduct. Finally, Disabled Motoring UK is concerned that this Bill will not stop rogue clampers from becoming rogue ticketers. They see it as a real risk to disabled drivers, who are in the main vulnerable people. I do not think that the Minister has answered that point at all. He says that he will wait for problems to occur to see whether to do anything; I do not advise the Government to do that because they will get all the flack. But so be it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Henley
“( ) In sub-paragraph (5)(d) the reference to arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints includes—
(a) any procedures offered by the creditor for dealing informally with representations by the hirer about the notice or any matter contained in it; and(b) any arrangements under which disputes or complaints (however described) may be referred by the hirer to independent adjudication or arbitration.”
(iii) at any time when Parliament is sitting or is in recess the Secretary of State, with the concurrence of the Attorney General, considers that it would be inexpedient to introduce primary legislation to authorise a temporary extension of detention either because of time constraints or because of the risk of prejudicing the possibility of a fair trial of a person suspected of or charged with a terrorist offence or because of unacceptable risk to public safety or to security, and”
Lord Armstrong of Ilminster
My Lords, I beg to move the amendment standing in my name and in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon, the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell of Coatdyke.
Clause 57 establishes clearly the principle that a terrorist suspect should not be detained without being charged for longer than 14 days. Over the years, there has been much debate about how long that period should be. I have no wish to reopen that debate; the only question is whether there are any circumstances in which a terrorist suspect should be able to be detained for longer than 14 days. It has not been necessary to extend the period of detention without charge beyond 14 days at any time in the last five years. Nevertheless, it is the view of the Home Secretary, as well as of the police and of the Director of Public Prosecutions, that it might one day become compellingly necessary to do so.
The Government took the view that, in order to buttress the principle of the 14-day limit and to make sure that the period of detention without charge could be extended only in the most exceptional circumstances and only for the most compelling reasons, there should be no standing power to extend the period by order, and that it should be extendable only by the introduction of emergency primary legislation if and when the need arises.
Draft Bills were prepared, and a Joint Committee of Members of both Houses of Parliament was set up last year to give the draft Bills pre-legislative scrutiny. That committee, which I had the privilege of chairing, concluded that the Government were right to wish to create a contingency power to extend the maximum period beyond 14 days up to not more than 28 days in truly exceptional circumstances. The committee understood and respected the reasons for proposing that this power should be provided by emergency primary legislation, to be enacted when need arises, so as to ensure that temporary extensions of the period of detention would happen only in very exceptional circumstances and be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and approval.
The committee concluded, however, that parliamentary scrutiny of such emergency legislation would in practice be very seriously circumscribed. The legislation might have to be introduced and debated in a period of high tension and against a background of intense media interest and speculation. It might be very difficult to explain to Parliament, and to Members with a direct constituency interest, the reasons for introducing the legislation without disclosing information which would endanger security or public safety or information which could prejudice the right of a suspect or suspects to a fair trial. This could make the process of justifying the legislation almost impossible for the Secretary of State, and totally unsatisfactory and frustrating for Members of both Houses of Parliament.
The committee also thought that there would be an unacceptable degree of risk that it would be almost impossible to introduce and pass the legislation within a sufficiently short time, particularly when Parliament was in recess and would have to be specially recalled. We pointed out that it would be absolutely impossible during the period between the Dissolution of one Parliament and the opening of a new Parliament, because there would be no Parliament. The Joint Committee therefore concluded that emergency primary legislation, as exemplified in the Government’s draft Bills, did not offer a satisfactory solution, and recommended a new order-making arrangement, under which the Secretary of State would be authorised to make an executive order of limited duration, if need arose, to extend the period of detention of suspects without charge to not more than 28 days, if exceptional circumstances applied, subject to strict safeguards and subject also to the agreement of the Attorney-General.
In Clause 58 of the Protection of Freedoms Bill, the Government have accepted the committee’s recommendation in part, and have made provision for temporary extensions of detention by order in the period between the Dissolution of one Parliament and the first Queen’s Speech in the next. But they are still proposing to rely exclusively on the introduction of emergency legislation at any other time when there is a Parliament in being, whether it is in session or not.
I understand and respect the Secretary of State’s wish to make it as difficult as possible to extend the period of detention beyond 14 days. But she has accepted that there will be times when it is impossible to introduce primary legislation because there is no Parliament in being, so the principle is breached. The question is whether there should be any other circumstances in which an order-making power should be available to the Secretary of State.
This amendment would define and limit other circumstances in which the Secretary of State could proceed by order, even when Parliament was in being, if there were compelling reasons why it would be impracticable or injudicious to proceed by emergency primary legislation. She would still be able to proceed by emergency primary legislation if she thought that it was consistent with security, public safety and the interests of justice to do so. But she would have an escape hatch, by means of which she could, with the agreement of the Attorney-General, and subject to strict safeguards, proceed by order if she judged that pressures of time, or the interests of security, public safety or justice, required her to do so. The safeguards would be the same as those applying to an executive order made at a time when Parliament was dissolved.
The principle that there should be an alternative to emergency primary legislation is already established by Clause 58. The amendment I am proposing is an extension of that principle, not a breach of it. It does not seek to establish a new principle. It is of course possible that there will never be any need to extend the period of detention of terrorist suspects beyond 14 days. I hope that it may be so. But the Secretary of State, the police and the Director of Public Prosecutions all think that it is advisable to provide for the possibility that one day there will be a need to do so. If there is, it may be that it will be possible to proceed by emergency primary legislation. If that is so, fine. But I believe, as did the Joint Committee, that there will be circumstances where that is not possible, but where the period of detention ought to be extended.
To take just one example, suppose that the need to extend the period of detention arose during the Parliamentary Summer Recess. Parliament can be, and of course has been, recalled during a Summer Recess during a time of grave national emergency. But in the Summer Recess, Members of both Houses are scattered to the four corners of the world, and the Palace of Westminster is usually undergoing major works of reconstruction and refurbishment. Is it realistic to suppose that Parliament could be recalled in the Summer Recess just to authorise the extended detention of a terrorist suspect?
Four years of service in the Home Office left me with the conviction that, if anything can go wrong, it usually will—at any rate, in that department of banana skins. The annals of the Home Office are littered with overlooked banana skins and Secretaries of State with red faces. In this matter there are just too many foreseeable risks, and too many reasons why it might be too difficult to introduce primary legislation, to justify a decision not to take a sensible precaution.
This amendment is permissive, not mandatory. If it is passed this evening, the Secretary of State need never take advantage of it if she prefers not to do so. But if this amendment is not accepted she will run the risk of finding herself in a situation where she would like, and she ought, to extend the period of detention of a terrorist suspect or suspects, but feels herself to be prevented from introducing emergency primary legislation to do so, by reasons of pressures of time, or by considerations of security, public safety or justice.
In that situation, if a suspect or suspects could not be further detained but had to be released, and then went on to commit some outrage as a result of which innocent people were killed and injured, and which might not have happened had the suspect or suspects been kept in detention, how would the Secretary of State feel? How would she explain to Parliament, to the country and to the relatives of the victims why she had not felt able to take the action which might have prevented the outrage? The Secretary of State may be made of sterner stuff, but if I were the Secretary of State, I do not think that I could live with that thought.
Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke
My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, and I have appended my name to the amendment that he has so powerfully moved. I will speak only briefly, because I am very conscious of the fact that I was not able to attend the Committee stage of this Bill. With impeccable timing, the noble Lord’s amendment, which also at that stage had my name appended, coincided with the birth of my first grandchild, which of course rather overtook my consciousness.
I was a member of the Joint Committee, and, as the noble Lord has so ably and powerfully laid out, this issue of flexibility for the Home Secretary was one that was covered in some detail and gave rise to a great deal of unanimity. As the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, pointed out, the whole area of terrorism and counterterrorism is littered with the unexpected. This amendment is merely a common-sense move to ensure that the Home Secretary has at her disposal all of the tools to enable her to act in a situation which may be one of crisis.
There are checks and balances contained in other aspects of this legislation. The noble Lord, in his amendment, also refers to other checks and balances. There comes a point when it is essential to put some trust in those who hold the great offices of state in this country and it may be ironic that I, as an opposition Member, point out that I have faith in the Home Secretary not to act in a cavalier manner when she is dealing with matters of such importance as the detention of terrorist suspects.
The noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, referred to the problems that are created around the time of the Dissolution. Many of us who have served in the other place were always very conscious that over the door of the Chamber of the House of Commons is the name of Airey Neave—the last person to be assassinated in the Palace of Westminster. He was assassinated when the Dissolution of the House was going through. He was removing materials from his office in advance of going back to his constituency. So the matter of Dissolution was discussed in some detail in the Joint Committee. Those of us who have been in the other place and have been recalled also know how long that can take. Indeed, Mr Jack Straw made the point that on one occasion it took three weeks to get a recall of Parliament under way. That is not acceptable when you are dealing with matters of terrorism.
There are also issues of parliamentary privilege when these issues are debated. All of us, in this Chamber and elsewhere, have sought to quiz Ministers at the Dispatch Box. If a Minister cannot answer a question then probing questions will inevitably follow. The last thing that anyone would wish would be to see a situation in which a Minister was led into putting words into the mouth of a defence lawyer who could say that a fair trial was denied their client. I urge the House to take this amendment very seriously. It is in the name of common sense. With luck, it need never ever be used but it is part of the armoury of the Home Secretary and the Government to have these provisions in their bottom drawer in the event of such an incident taking place that requires such powers. I support the amendment.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I, too, was pleased to add my name to this important amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong of Ilminster, who has set out his concerns powerfully today and in Committee. I have little to add to what my noble friend has said. I would merely commend the work of the Joint Committee, which did an excellent job, and say that while the Government have rightly recognised the practical impossibility of having to push through emergency legislation in a state of national emergency while Parliament is dissolved, they still have a duty in many ways to take seriously the committee's concerns over the ability of Parliament to legislate in certain emergency situations in order to provide powers necessary to extend the detention period to 28 days.
Perhaps most importantly, I echo the committee's concerns over the serious risk of jeopardising a fair trial if Parliament is to be provided with enough information properly to scrutinise whether the extension was necessary. As my noble friend has said, the scrutiny of legislation within such a short deadline is of course extremely difficult. Indeed, it could be dangerous if Parliament came to the wrong conclusions. The amendment is a measured response to the concerns which were expressed by the Joint Committee and, as has been said, it provides the Secretary of State with an option to bring in emergency legislation by order in certain circumstances where it is deemed truly necessary and expedient.
It is not mandatory but it is enabling. The Government, if they so wish, could still rely on emergency primary legislation. However, if there were concerns about the balance between having sufficient information to inform debate and the risk of jeopardising a fair trial, they could introduce an executive order. As my noble friend has said, this amendment makes entire common sense; as she also said, we must be able to trust in the judgment of the Secretary of State during times of national emergency. I believe that she should, in these rare circumstances, have the power available to her.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, has done a sterling job in this area and I feel a little embarrassed to ask questions, but I will because that is what we are here for. First, I share his and the noble Baroness’s concerns about the danger to a fair trial in the circumstances that the amendment covers. It has always seemed to me that primary legislation in these circumstances is almost likely to be ad hominem. I do not know whether that is the right way to express it, but it could be read as being very personal to an individual.
I should like to ask the noble Lord about two phrases in his amendment. The first is “time constraints”. I am not entirely sure what that means. It could be read as simply meaning management of parliamentary business. I dare say that it is intended to indicate insufficient time for adequate scrutiny, although I am not sure that that is implicit. The second phrase is,
“unacceptable risk to public safety or to security”.
I read that as being objective rather than subjective on the part of the Secretary of State and the Attorney-General. I am not sure whether I am correct in this but neither am I sure how one gauges an unacceptable risk as distinct from an acceptable risk. Those matters have to be subjective. One may often have seen in such a provision “the Secretary of State considers that” rather than the more objective approach in this phrase.
Lord Henley
My Lords, as regards the three questions put by my noble friend Lady Hamwee I hope that I can deal with her first one, about the danger to a fair trial, later on. The other two, on the drafting of his amendment, obviously must be a matter for the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong when he comes to respond.
I echo the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, in commending the work of the Joint Committee. We are very grateful for that and for all it does. I also echo the words of both the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, and the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, when they said, “Let us hope there will never be a need to extend from 14 to 28 days”—I think I have those words correctly from the noble Lord. We would all echo that; we very much hope that it will never be necessary. That is one reason why we want to make it as difficult as possible to do this, but I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving us another chance to consider this matter. Similarly, I am grateful to him for coming to see me only last week to discuss his concerns about the limited nature of our order-making power in Clause 58. Given the noble Lord’s expertise and experience, I understand that this is a matter to which we need to devote a degree of attention and we certainly listened to what he had to say.
The Government made it clear following last year’s Review of Counter-Terrorism and Security Powers that we felt it was right that the maximum period for pre-charge detention should be reduced from 28 days to 14 days. I think that the vast majority of this House agreed that that is a welcome change; I cannot speak for the party opposite. However, we all accept that there will be or could be circumstances—I would prefer to say could rather than will—in which a longer period of detention may be required and, as the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, rightly asserts, we must be prepared. It is simply the way in which we find ourselves preparing for those circumstances that finds me disagreeing with him.
We have made it clear that emergency fast-track legislation is the most appropriate and proportionate way to respond to the very exceptional circumstances in which longer than 14 days may be required. Detention for 28 days is such a significant diversion from the normal standards of our criminal justice system that the Government are adamant that such a framework should be in place only temporarily, and with prior parliamentary approval. The noble Lord’s amendment seeks to allow an urgent order to be made by the Secretary of State at any point if she felt that the use of primary legislation would be inexpedient for reasons of time, risk of prejudicing future trials or risk to public safety or security.
In respect of the question of time, Parliament can, and has, acted quickly to address matters of great seriousness in the past. Many of us have been in one or another House for many years and can remember occasions when we have been called back at short notice. Noble Lords will remember that, following the attacks on New York and Washington in 2001, Parliament was twice recalled within three days. We saw Members of another place recalled to discuss last summer’s riots within a matter of days. Only last summer, Parliament was able to pass the Police (Detention and Bail) Bill within days of its introduction. We have worked with the Crown Prosecution Service and the police to ensure that decisions can be made early and quickly on whether there is a potential exceptional need to increase the maximum limit to 28 days.
The second issue is that the debates surrounding fast-track legislation might prejudice future trials. This danger would arise primarily if fast-track legislation needed to be passed when a number of suspects had already been arrested. In such circumstances Parliament could continue to debate the principle of an extension to 28 days and the general nature of the threat. It is right to say that Parliament could not debate allegations against specific individuals. However, it would not need to and it would not be appropriate for it to do so. The question of whether extension of detention warrants should be granted in respect of individual terrorist suspects would remain a matter for the courts and not Parliament.
The noble Lord’s final concern is that fast-track legislation could not be considered because of a risk to public safety or security. Although the Government accept that the passage of fast-track legislation might be difficult, we do not believe that the difficulties are insurmountable. The Government do not therefore accept that there would be a risk to public safety and security involved in adopting such an approach.
I appreciate the noble Lord’s assertion that his amendment is permissive rather than mandatory and that fast-track legislation could still be used rather than the order-making power. However, the existence of such a power is not compatible with the Government’s general view that 28-day detention must be exceptional and that the decision to increase the maximum period of detention is one which Parliament should in the main be asked to make. I remain of the view that, should such an order-making power exist, there would always be arguments in favour of using it rather than putting the question to Parliament, where it should rightly be addressed, and the perception of 28-day detention as an extraordinary measure would again be lost. For those reasons, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Armstrong of Ilminster
My Lords, I would like to express my gratitude to the noble Lord for taking the time to talk about this matter at a meeting last week. That was useful—I hope to both of us.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that the time constraint I had in mind is that which would arise if the need to extend a period of detention became clear after somebody had already been in detention for 10 days and perhaps a weekend intervened and there simply would not be time to carry through emergency primary legislation, even on a fast track through both Houses of Parliament. It would be very difficult to define extensively in legislation what considerations of security and safety might apply but they are clearly considerations of prejudice to national security and public safety considerations relating to the possibility of a terrorist incident or outrage being planned which might be avoided, and information about which had better not be disclosed in a debate.
I am less confident than the noble Lord, Lord Henley, that it would always be possible to avoid the debate in either House straying from general principle into the particular circumstances of an incident if a terrorist incident had occurred, or if there were extensive media speculation about the possibility of such an incident. I believe that there could well be circumstances in which a Member of Parliament might have a constituency interest which would justify him or her raising more detail, or asking for more detail, about particular cases or particular people than would be appropriate or safe to do. Therefore, I remain of the view that the Secretary of State may live to regret not taking advantage of this amendment. However, in the circumstances of this being a straight issue of disagreement, with apprehension I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Protection from stalking
(1) The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 2 (offence of harassment), for subsection (2) substitute—
“(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary or indictable conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum.”
(3) For section 4 (putting people in fear of violence) substitute—
“4 Offence of stalking
(1) A person (“A”) commits an offence, to be known as the offence of stalking, where A stalks another person (“B”).
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), A stalks B where—
(a) A engages in a course of conduct,(b) subsection (3) or (4) applies, and(c) A’s course of conduct causes B to suffer fear, alarm, distress or anxiety.(3) This subsection applies where A engages in the course of conduct with the intention of causing B to suffer fear, alarm, distress or anxiety.
(4) This subsection applies where A knows, or ought in all circumstances to have known, that engaging in the course of conduct would be likely to cause B to suffer fear, alarm, distress or anxiety.
(5) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to show that the course of conduct—
(a) was authorised by virtue of any enactment or rule of law,(b) was engaged in for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime, or(c) was, in the particular circumstances, reasonable.(6) In this section—
“conduct” means (inter alia)—(a) following B or any other person,(b) contacting, or attempting to contact, B or any other person by any means, (c) publishing any statement or other material—(i) relating or purporting to relate to B or to any other person, (ii) purporting to originate from B or from any other person,(d) monitoring the use by B or by any other person of the internet, email or any other form of electronic or other communication, or making improper use of public electronic communications networks or leaving messages of a menacing character,(e) entering any premises,(f) loitering in any place (whether public or private),(g) interfering with any property in the possession of B or of any other person,(h) giving anything to B or to any other person or leaving anything where it may be found by, given to or brought to the attention of B or any other person—(i) watching or spying on B or any other person,(ii) acting in any other way that a reasonable person would expect would cause B to suffer fear or alarm, and“course of conduct” involves conduct on at least two occasions.(7) For the purposes of this section, a person misuses an electronic communications network or electronic communications service or other social media if—
(a) the effect or likely effect of use of the network or service by A is to cause B, another person, unnecessarily to suffer annoyance, inconvenience or anxiety;(b) A uses the network or service to engage in conduct the effect or likely effect of which is to cause B, another person, unnecessarily to suffer annoyance, inconvenience or anxiety.(8) The Secretary of State may by regulation add further forms of conduct to subsection (6)(b) above.
(9) A person convicted of the offence of stalking is liable—
(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years, or to a fine, or to both,(b) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both.(10) Subsection (11) applies where, in the trial of a person (“the accused”) charged with the offence of stalking, the jury or, in summary proceedings, the court—
(a) is not satisfied that the accused committed the offence, but(b) is satisfied that the accused committed an offence under section 2.(11) The jury or, as the case may be, the court may acquit the accused of the charge and, instead, find the accused guilty of an offence under section 2.””
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, in moving Amendment 49A, I wish also to speak to Amendments 49B and 49C, and to do so with humility and determination. I speak with humility because since our useful, and in many ways moving, debate in Committee, when we heard the courageous testament of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, I, like other noble Lords, have had the opportunity to learn more about stalking and to meet other victims. These are extraordinary people—usually women—who live in fear for themselves and their children, and who have been completely and utterly failed by the criminal justice system at all levels. I speak with determination because with this Bill we have an opportunity both to introduce a specific offence of stalking in England and Wales and to change the culture of our criminal justice system from top to bottom by requiring, among other things, mandatory training, risk assessment for victims, psychiatric assessment and treatment for perpetrators and a victims’ advocacy scheme. Naturally, such changes would have to be accompanied by an awareness campaign to ensure that the issue was taken seriously.
In a time of unprecedented cuts, women’s safety must be a priority. Only today, the Daily Mail reported that half a million street lights are being switched off by local authorities forced to find savings, meaning that women working shifts or returning late from an evening out will be forced to walk the streets in darkness. Similarly, cuts to backroom police services will inevitably hit specialised units such as those concerned with domestic violence. This amendment is an opportunity to provide real protection for victims of stalking and serious sustained harassment, 80 per cent of whom are women.
As we heard in Committee, lives are destroyed by devious manipulators. Sometimes lives are tragically ended by this murder in slow motion. We are not talking of a small number of people; nearly one in five women over the age of 16 has been a victim of stalking. The number of lives affected is staggering, yet we know that stalking is grossly underreported. Of the estimated 120,000 cases of stalking each year, just 53,000 are recorded as crimes by the police and only one in 50 leads to an offender being jailed. The overwhelming majority of sentences are for less than 12 months and some are for a matter of days. Where restraining orders are given, they are constantly breached and the victims live in constant fear.
By recognising stalking as a specific offence in law, as it has been in Scotland, we would ensure that the courts looked at an entire course of conduct when it comes to stalking rather than just one specific incident of harassment, as currently happens in so many cases. It is estimated that victims tend not to report stalking until around the 100th incident—yes, the 100th—because it often begins with individually minor incidents, such as nuisance phone calls, and it is invariably only when the perpetrator’s actions finally escalate to serious and violent offences, sometimes after many years of sustained terror, that the police will step in.
Two weeks ago after eight years of sustained suffering, Claire Waxman’s stalker was finally jailed for 16 weeks for a second breach of his restraining order, after being given a suspended sentence and ordered to pay compensation. The introduction of a specific offence will train the police and the courts to focus on the pattern of behaviour reported and enable early intervention to protect women like Claire—and indeed men—whose lives are stolen from them by their stalkers. The change in Scottish law, which this amendment was modelled on, has led to an increase from an average of seven prosecutions for stalking a year to 140 prosecutions in the first four months in Strathclyde alone. Last year, only 565 offenders found guilty of serious harassment received a custodial sentence, the vast majority of which were for less than 12 months, and many for just days. The increase from six months to a five-year maximum custodial sentence that the amendment would make would enable these cases to be heard in a Crown Court and ensure adequate protection for victims.
Thanks to charities such as Protection against Stalking and the Network for Surviving Stalking, and the work of Laura Richards and Harry Fletcher, there is now a vast body of evidence about stalking, its impact and the gaps in data, legal provision, training, awareness, assessment and treatment for offenders. More people are beginning to understand the need for murder prevention. This week will see more evidence with the publication of the report by the independent people’s inquiry into stalking—an inquiry that has given a voice to victims who have suffered too long in silence and at the hands of the criminal justice system. I pay tribute to all members of the All-Party Parliamentary Group, and especially to Elfyn Llwyd MP, its chairman, for their tremendous work. Many of its members are from this House, from all Benches. I have not yet seen the report but I know that it will recommend a draft Bill on stalking.
From detailed conversations that I have had I am confident that the most important elements of this Bill are covered in my amendments. Amendments 49B and 49C would place a duty on the Secretary of State to introduce such a regulation as is necessary to effect the comprehensive reform to training, victim support, risk assessment and other such measures that the people’s inquiry is calling for. Some of these measures can be done through regulation and secondary legislation. Others no doubt will need primary legislation, but by tabling these amendments—one of which lists the measures to be included in any further regulation, and the other a less prescriptive duty on the Secretary of State—the opportunity is here for the Government to furnish the Bill with further measures at a later stage.
As noble Lords will know, the Government have undertaken a consultation on stalking, which ended yesterday, and I have no doubt that it will conclude that the actions that I am proposing here today are necessary. Indeed, the Prime Minister himself has said that there is a gap to be filled, and both the Home Secretary and Lynne Featherstone are understood to be sympathetic. When the Minister responded to the amendment that I moved in Committee, he suggested that while there might be a case for strengthening the law on stalking to raise its profile, he felt that the Protection from Harassment Act was adequate to cover this criminal behaviour. Indeed, speaking of the new offence, he said:
“We do not consider that to be proportionate where the conduct does not cause a person to fear that violence would be used against them on each occasion”.—[Official Report, Commons, 6/12/11; col. 661.]
I hope that as a result of the many briefings and representations that the noble Lord must have received, he will now change his mind. In our debate on 6 December, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said that we should not accept any amendment on that occasion because we had to get it right but that we should do it early next year. That time has come. This Bill provides us with a huge opportunity to change the law, to change the culture of the criminal justice system, to diminish the fear of victims and provide them with support and assess, and to treat the perpetrators. If we wait for a new Bill, I fear that the best could be the enemy of the good. The victims of this insidious crime need these changes to be made now. They are suffering day after day and they do not have the luxury of time to debate.
Perhaps the noble Lord will again say that we should wait until the results of consultation have been considered before deciding whether to accept my amendments. I respectfully suggest that the Government should accept my amendments, which I believe to be comprehensive but also provide them with an opportunity to furnish the Bill with further measures that may be suggested by the results of their consultation if there continue to be gaps. I understand that Third Reading will not be until March, so there would be adequate time for further amendment if necessary. I beg to move.
Baroness Brinton
My Lords, I rise to speak to all three amendments in the group. Stalking is a heinous crime that currently goes much unrecognised, except for the few exceptional cases that hit the tabloid headlines. The headlines are not exceptional because of the stalking, the behaviour of the perpetrators or the suffering of victims, but usually because of the murder of the victim or, finally, the conviction of a perpetrator after many years of stalking.
I spoke in Committee about my personal experience. It was interesting that following that a number of noble Lords spoke to me privately to say that they had also experienced stalking—some from many years ago. It was evident that it was as vivid to them as my account to your Lordships’ House. My perpetrator was convicted more than three years ago. I think that many of us take many years to recover from the impact of the offence.
I thank the Minister for the discussions that I have had with him in the past few days. I hope that he will be able to reassure the House about some of the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon. The harassment legislation was put in place by the previous Government, who decided that stalking could be included within the broader scope of harassment. However, the breadth of the definition means that a stalker, who may have hundreds of incidents on his record, is conflated with a neighbourhood dispute over hedges. As a result, sentencing for stalking is limited to a handful of months, whereas the whole nature of stalking is, as stated by one of the victims giving evidence to the inquiry, “a rape of the mind”. It also curtails the victim’s life as they cannot take up a normal life again while the perpetrator is able to attempt to continue to control their lives.
Amendment 49A broadly copies the Scottish legislation, and rightly proposes an offence of stalking. It outlines the increased penalty for being convicted of the offence. It does not, however, as I outlined in my speech in Committee, tackle the core and underlying problem of training for everyone involved in the criminal justice system. Stalkers are usually bright, manipulative and obsessed with their victim. Many convicted of stalking behaviour have been assessed by psychiatrists as suffering from personality disorders. They are frequently charming and able to convince professionals, neighbours and even, as in my case, random members of the public that they are hard done by and misunderstood, and it is all the victim’s fault for taking things a bit too seriously.
Amendment 49B attempts to put some flesh on the items that the Scottish legislation fails to mention, but from discussions with the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, there is some detail here. However, I fear that it is incomplete, and it would benefit from the detail of the inquiry’s report and probably from the responses to the Government’s own consultation on stalking, which has just closed. Let me give two illustrations. The first is the general principle behind both this amendment and Amendment 49C that all the other details are settled in regulation. This is very worrying. Proposed subsection (1)(a) refers to how to,
“prevent and treat stalking behaviour”.
This would involve a sea change in the approach to this type of crime, and I believe requires more than a passing reference to regulations. It has not been common in our criminal justice system to insist that perpetrators have treatment, and it is right that both this House and another place would want to have the chance to discuss this in some detail. Do not get me wrong; I believe that it is absolutely right that perpetrators have treatment. My issue is about the time left in Parliament to discuss that matter, which is an important change in the way in which our legislation operates at present.
It is important also because perpetrators must have a real chance to begin to understand and change their behaviour. This happened in my case; my perpetrator voluntarily agreed to have treatment, and it gave both me and the others affected confidence that he would finally stop. Too often, prison or restraining orders have not sufficed, and as soon as the perpetrator is back in society, or without constraint if the restraining order is lifted, the behaviour starts again. Insisting on treatment for perpetrators is a matter of freedoms and liberties. We need to have an open debate about the legislation, and I am afraid therefore that the amendment needs to be more specific.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, I have also been involved with this committee, which has been looking in very great deal at this issue. As others have said, with the marvellous help of Laura Richards and Harry Fletcher, who have done a tremendous amount of work, we have listened to the most appalling stories. Again, as has been said, it is not just the individual whose life is ruined; it is often whole families who have to rush around the country trying to escape the persecution. As we also know, it is not just a question of trying to escape; there are murders and other terrible consequences. I, too, congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, on tabling the amendment. It is a good and very worth-while attempt not only to replicate the Scottish legislation—which, as we have all heard, has made good progress, and lessons are being learnt from it—but to make some additions, which we have worked on in our committee. Very sadly, it is probably not the right time to do so. We have a clash because the report that we have all been working on is published tomorrow, and it is very comprehensive. This makes, in my view, a strong case for a far more comprehensive piece of legislation.
That said, I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, on later Amendments 49B and 49C in this group. They are an attempt, although I tend to agree probably not a practical one, to come to the right conclusion. We have, however, been told that Third Reading is not until March, so there might be some time to work on this report. If that is the case, we should gratefully look at that. Whether or not we will be able to accept it in its final stage, it would be an example of an updated piece of legislation that might in due course need further improvement but might be a step in the right direction.
I will mention cyberstalking briefly because it is a major and worrying area that needs dealing with. The perpetrator can not only continue to hound and haunt the victim in appalling ways but reinvent himself, pretend that he is the victim and spread all sorts of rumours. It is a very serious situation that we have ignored for far too long. One is almost surprised at how little attention has been paid to it. We should think back and not forget that domestic violence was regarded as something that was within the family and that the police should not get involved. How ridiculous that sounds in today's world.
Again, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, on what she is doing. I hope that we can make progress between now and Third Reading in the way I suggested, and then think again. I very much support what is being done.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, I very much look forward to reading the report tomorrow. I support the direction that the noble Baronesses have taken but I feel that Amendment 49A raises too many questions, particularly around the boundary of what is and is not acceptable conduct. For example, there is no requirement on A to behave reasonably, only on B. In subsection (5) of the proposed new clause we are getting close to the continental form of law where something is permitted only if it is allowed in legislation, whereas in the English form of law something is permitted if it is not forbidden in legislation. That requires careful consideration. I hope that the report of the noble Baroness will be the start of that process, and that my noble friend will be very supportive in his reply.
Lord Henley
My Lords, perhaps the House will welcome my intervention at this stage. I echo the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, in saying that, surprisingly, I, too, commend the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, on tabling the amendments in this group. However, I have some doubts about their practicality and timing.
My first doubt is about their practicality. There are three amendments in the group. I am not sure in which order the noble Baroness would wish to see them on the statute book, or whether she wants to see them all on the statute book at the same time. Amendment 49A sets out in some detail what she proposes to do, although subsection (8) of the proposed new clause still gives the Secretary of State power by regulation to add further forms of conduct to subsection (6). The second amendment is a somewhat briefer attempt to do the same thing, which gives greater power to the Secretary of State to govern by regulation. The third, Amendment 49C, seems to imply that the Secretary of State can do what she likes, when she likes, merely by regulation. I am not sure that that is the right way to go about legislating in this field. I hope that I will cover these points in greater detail in my brief remarks.
I appreciate also the extreme importance of this matter. I make it quite clear to the noble Baroness and to the House that the Government take this very seriously indeed. We understand what my noble friend Lady Brinton called the fear and trauma that it can cause victims, many of whom are women living in fear of physical violence as well as mental anguish. We accept that more needs to be done—I make that quite clear—to protect victims of stalking and to stamp out such behaviour. That is why the Government took the initiative as long ago as last November in launching their consultation, which sought views on how we could more effectively protect victims of stalking—including, if necessary, through strengthening civil and criminal law, and police powers.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have participated in this short debate for their very positive and supportive views. We are agreed, all around this Chamber, that this is a heinous crime and that we really must do something about it. I will not respond now to all the points that have been made because people want to know whether or not we are going to vote. Timing is clearly of the essence—the timing of my amendment is not perfect, in view of the fact that the people’s inquiry will report tomorrow and the Government’s own consultation finished yesterday. When the Minister talked about the consultation, he said that they would look at the results—it is terrific there have been 150 or more responses—and that, if necessary, the Government would bring forward amendments or further legislation. I was thinking that that was not good enough but as he went on it seemed clear that, while he cannot give me a binding commitment that he will bring an amendment back at Third Reading, he was inviting me to withdraw my amendment on the basis that, if he does not bring forward an amendment at Third Reading, he would be willing for me to do so. Is that correct?
Lord Henley
I was trying to give an assurance that, although I cannot speak for the House, the noble Baroness would be perfectly within order to bring forward her amendments to be discussed again at Third Reading. On that occasion it would, obviously, be a matter for the House to consider the amendments. Under the much stricter rules on what can and cannot be brought forward at Third Reading, I would certainly have no objection to her bringing forward her amendments or some variant of them.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
I am very grateful to the Minister for that assurance, in view of which it would be wrong of me to press my amendment to the vote this evening. However, if the Minister is not able to bring forward amendments at Third Reading, I will certainly do so and, at that stage, I will pursue it to a vote 150 per cent. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Local Authorities (Conduct of Referendums) (England) Regulations 2012
Baroness Hanham
That the draft regulations laid before the House on 5 December 2011 be approved.
Relevant documents: 36th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 17 January.
Amendment to the Motion
Lord Beecham
At end to insert “but that this House regrets that the Government are unnecessarily compelling eleven councils to stage such referendums in May 2012, given that any English local authority, or five per cent of its electorate, can require a referendum to be held on whether to have an elected mayor; and that such referendums and consequent mayoral elections involve substantial costs at a time of acute financial stringency in local government and in the country.”
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I rise to move a regret Motion in the terms set out. In doing so, I declare an interest as a member of Newcastle City Council for the past 45 years. I also have to say that I have not the slightest interest in being either an elected mayor or a police commissioner—no doubt to the great relief of many of the citizens of Newcastle.
The issue before us stems from the Government’s decision to impose referendums on 11 local authorities in May with a view to determining whether they should move from their present system, which is a leader and cabinet system, to that of an elected mayor. If the local electorate, or as many of them as decide to participate, opt to change to a mayoral system, there will, as I understand it, be elections in the dark nights of November next year, to coincide with the police commissioner elections.
The Government’s decision raises two issues which fall to be debated. The first is around the merits or otherwise of the mayoral system. That is the background to the regret Motion, although, whatever view one takes about the mayoral system, there is a separate question about whether it is justifiable to impose a referendum as opposed to relying on the system which has operated for the past 10 years of allowing a referendum if 5 per cent of the local electorate choose in a petition to demand one or, indeed, if a local authority decides to hold a referendum.
With regard to the first matter—the merits of the system—it is customary for Governments to have an evidence base for radical changes that they propose. In this case, such evidence is lacking in two key areas. The first is the claim that the elected mayor system is inherently better than the leader and cabinet model—more effective leads to better governance. I would argue that cities like Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds, Sheffield, Newcastle and many others have demonstrated an ability to innovate, to promote efficiency and to drive regeneration without an elected mayor. There has been a celebration of the renaissance of some of our great urban centres over the past few years, almost all of them in places with the long-standing—certainly over the past decade—leader and executive model.
There was a long tradition of local government leading the way in social policy before elected mayors. Distinguished local government figures such as Joseph Chamberlain and Herbert Morrison and, for all his faults, Newcastle’s own Dan Smith, created enormous change, not just in their own localities, but in the politics of local government generally. Huge advances were made over many decades in social policy, in housing, the move from gas and water municipal socialism which Joseph Chamberlain was espoused in the 20th century, to housing and social care, to transport and the arts. These were signal achievements of the old system of local government and it is yet to be demonstrated that the mayoral system, now operating in a relatively small number of places, is actually any better. I would argue that there is little evidence of that either here or indeed abroad. The noble Baroness may, as she did in Grand Committee, cite examples such as Barcelona. However, as I pointed out at the time—in fact, I think that the noble Baroness pointed it out but perhaps without quite realising what she was doing, with all due respect—Barcelona has an elected mayor who is not elected in a personal capacity but is elected, in the same way that a Prime Minister is elected, as the head of his party—the party list in the case of Barcelona. This is not quite the direct electoral system that is being advocated here. So, in my view, there is not that advantage of a mayoral system.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of Newcastle City Council. I do not set out to make this a Newcastle debate. However, Newcastle is one of the 11 cities identified. I do not regret this Motion and I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, is mistaken in moving his amendment, for a number of reasons. Let me explain why.
I believe that the debate about elected mayors has moved on. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, is absolutely right that a year or two ago I felt that the balance of evidence was strongly against. I no longer believe that to be true. One of the key reasons for that—there are several, which I will come on to—is the elected police commissioner, which I believe has altered the nature of representative democracy at a local level, and that as people get used to electing directly an individual to a role, it will be very odd if the leader of a council is not similarly elected. I will come back to this.
I have not fully understood the issue of cost. There clearly is a cost in running a referendum but actually the referendum will take place on a local election polling day, and the election, should it be approved, will take place on the day elected police commissioners are being voted in.
The decision to have a referendum in the cities identified was actually part of the Localism Bill. We debated it and we came to a conclusion. That Bill is now an Act. Of course, the proposal was in the coalition agreement—it featured it as one of a number of matters—and both that agreement and the decision in the Act should be honoured.
The second reality is that the campaigns have actually started because the polling day is only three months away. I just do not think that you can now seek to put the clock back. Of course, this is only a regret amendment, but we should now be willing to test the opinion of the electorate and it is right that in the 11 cities a decision should be made by those electors.
Lord Beecham
Would the noble Lord count a turnout of 18 per cent as a vindication of his position that there is a great public interest in this?
Lord Shipley
It is too low, but of course, local elections and leaders of councils are being elected in practice on similar numbers. So no, the point is not material. The fact is that the people of Salford have voted for an elected mayor. It is simply not the case that there is no apparent public support for elected mayors. I believe that we should test the public view. That was agreed as part of the Localism Act, and we should not regret that but should test the public opinion.
Lord Grocott
My Lords, I cannot claim any direct interest in the cities that have been selected for these various orders, though I have lived in the West Midlands for many years. I have a particular interest, almost a responsibility, to mention Birmingham. The House may know that my noble friend Lord Corbett has not been very well lately but he would undoubtedly have been here otherwise, and I know that he would have said that this is a daft idea. I know this because I checked with him when I saw him this morning. Although he takes no responsibility whatever for the arguments that I propose, perhaps this could be taken as, to a degree, a reflection of his views as someone who for many years was an outstanding Member of Parliament for the city of Birmingham.
I must take issue briefly with the comments that we have just heard, not least on the argument about direct democracy as if it is somehow more legitimate if a mayor is elected by the whole population of the area rather than being elected by some other mechanism. This is essentially an argument for a presidential system, because I very much doubt whether the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, would say that the Prime Minister has less authority because he is not directly elected by the population as a whole. I, for one, infinitely prefer our parliamentary system, which is basically how our local government system has operated, in much the same way that the Government is decided in the House of Commons. Executive heads are essentially chosen by their peers, and over a period of years their strengths and weaknesses are tested and observed. Although, regrettably, the mayoral system was introduced by a Government whom I supported on most things, it has always seemed to me an attempt to graft a different system from abroad—an alien system sounds so unpleasant—which has no roots in this country. That is the basis of my objection.
I have one or two detailed points to make. The argument that has just been advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, was that the Government are simply asking local people for their opinions. His position is that it is up to local people to make their minds up. A very skewed question is being put, in the sense that the Government are insisting that these local authorities hold referenda, which seems to be at total variance with all the impassioned speeches we have heard about localism from the Benches opposite. However, it is worse than that, because the Government are insisting that these tests of local opinion shall only be held in those local authority areas which currently do not have a mayoral system. I would have felt slightly more comfortable—but not a lot more—if they had asked one or two of those local authorities that have had experience of this mayoral system over the last 10 years whether they thought it was a good idea to continue with that method of local government. In the one test we have had—in good old Stoke, home of the mighty Potters—the people of Stoke have said, “Thank you very much. We have tried this system out for the past few years and we do not think there is very much to it”. I guess that may well be the response of a number of other local authorities should members of the public locally be asked their opinion. However, the Government say, “No, we are not going to ask questions in those areas—only in other areas—and they shall have these referenda whether they want them or not”. The only question I want to ask is: where is the demand? There is no evidence of demand that I have seen for locally elected mayors in any of the places where compulsorily they must hold a referendum.
We have already mentioned that the turnout in Salford was 18 per cent, which, as my noble friend on the Front Bench pointed out, and I agree wholeheartedly with everything he said, is hardly a resounding acclamation for the system—and that is the turnout, not the vote in favour. On the turnouts for some of the referenda we have had so far, in Sunderland it was 10 per cent, in Ealing it was 10 per cent, in Southwark it was 11 per cent—which I suppose is an improvement—and two-thirds of the areas have rejected the idea. I hope very much that the ones that are being tested in this compulsory vote will also reject the idea.
As to the cost in these straitened times—which the Government Benches constantly remind us about—it will be £2.5 million for the referendums. That is about a quarter of a million pounds for each one that is held. Is this really a priority that local people want in these difficult times? I ask, rhetorically, the two previous speakers who have both led their local authority that, if they had been given a quarter of a million pounds, at what point would they have thought the best way to spend it was to hold a referendum on changing the system of local government.
It is, of course, not only the cost of the referendum but should the vote go in favour, there will be the cost of the reorganisation. I have raised this issue already with the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, and she said in Committee, rather optimistically, that it would depend on the kind of mayoral system that is adopted, which is true. She said:
“The mayor comes in and it might need to provide him with a room. He will probably need a couple of members of staff”.
I think that is fairly unlikely. She continued:
“I do not anticipate there being a huge extra cost to the council as a result of this”.—[Official Report, 17/1/12; col. GC 146.]
The noble Baroness is very experienced and respected in local government and we do not know whether she is right or I am right in saying that it will cost a lot more than a room and a couple of officers whatever system gets adopted. I cannot think of why on earth we should want to go down that road and spend that amount of money. Certainly, as someone who does not live in London but who watches the mayoral system as it goes on, I cannot believe that it is cheap. Perhaps it is, I do not know the figures, but I would like to ask the Minister—I gave notice to her office about this—whether she can tell us what the government of London cost in the last year under the old system for its head office administration, not for individual services, and what it costs now. I would bet a few shillings that the cost has not gone down. I hope the figures are there somewhere.
My noble friend Lord Beecham asked: what are the benefits of the system? It has been running for 10 years or so in many councils so we ought to know by now. The Government make grandiose claims about it in the supporting document. The Explanatory Memorandum states that the Government believe that,
“directly elected mayors … enhance their city’s prestige and maximise the potential for local economic growth”.
So I have to tell the two previous leaders of Newcastle council that, according to the Government, you failed. If you had been directly elected mayors, the place would be zooming.
Lord Bradley
On that point, the acclaimed regeneration of the City of Manchester is widely acknowledged to be on the basis of the stability of the political leadership over the past 28 years, when there have been only two leaders of the council. Businesses and civic institutions work closely with that leadership and have been able to plan, over those years, the regeneration which is a model for cities throughout the country.
Lord Grocott
That is a fulsome testimony which is entirely justified. I do not know of a shred of evidence to show that in the past 10 years London has been far better managed and that far more prestige has been brought to the city than that brought to Newcastle—I mention Newcastle as a name out of the hat— Birmingham or Manchester by the people who led those cities. I could list the other cities as well.
What are the costs and what are the benefits? I hope that in these referenda, which will doubtless go ahead, people will have the good sense of the two-thirds of those who have been asked so far in different parts of the country and say no. I am sorry about the money that will be wasted en route but I am sure they will save their local authorities money if they do say no. Before there is any further development of this scheme I hope that proper costings are made available and proper research is done into the alleged benefits of the system where it has occurred so far. I also hope that other cities will have the opportunity before too long, if the Minister persists with her policy and holds a referendum in a city that does not have a mayor at present, to follow the splendid example of Stoke-on-Trent and say no.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
My Lords, I declare an interest, having been a councillor over a long period of time and, as the noble Lord, Lord Tope, knows, having served on two major European institutions and met a variety of people from a variety of backgrounds. I am proud to be able to say that Europe is diverse. Speaking personally—do not worry; I will not break into song—I do not want to be in America where there is a system that means that you can elect the dog catcher or somebody to do this, that or the other job. I quite like Europe because of its diversity. I like the fact that in Spain people can choose whether they have a Catalonian region. I like the fact that regions were developing in Greece. I am sorry for the problems that now face the people in that country.
The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, made my blood run cold when he said that we ought to get on with this because the campaigns have already started. That rings a bell with other bits of this Government’s legislation. We are told that, although we have not finished the health Bill, putting it into effect has already begun. That is not the democracy that I believe in. In the democracy that I believe in, you get the legislation in place and then you enact it. If the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, believes strongly in this, then he and my noble friend up in the north-east are perfectly free to go back and get 5 per cent of the population to agree to test the water. What is not in order is for somebody down here in the Government to decide, “You’ve got to spend that money”.
We have not yet seen the full impact of what the Government are doing in terms of local authority budgets and the effect on services. Earlier today the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, whom I, too, respect, in answer to a question about differential funding for local authorities in the north vis-à-vis the south, said, “That is the system we use”—I hope that my paraphrase is agreed to be accurate—“and that is the way the money is allocated”. Well, speaking from the north, that way is not a fair way or a good way. People living in northern authorities that are suffering under the cuts in local government expenditure would not choose to spend this money at this time in this way. It is no good saying that it comes from a different budget, pocket or source. Money is money up north; brass is brass, and if there is brass going, they want it spent on old people. The current climate is not one that encourages people to want to spend money on this sort of thing.
I am totally in favour of choices. I actually argued in favour of choices for local people over police and crime commissioners. I asked why we could not have a referendum in each police authority area to ask people whether they wanted a police and crime commissioner or whether they wanted a few more police officers on the streets. The Government did not seem to want to ask them that question. In fact, the Government resisted it, as did one or two Liberal Democrat Members of your Lordships’ House. At this time there is an issue of accountability. It is no good Members of the coalition, be they on one side or the other, swinging backwards and forwards, saying that the people out there want choice and forcing a referendum on them. What they actually want is choice as to where their hard-earned brass is spent, and at the moment the Government are wasting it on a variety of schemes.
I think that it was the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, who spoke about the importance of individuals and I think that the Government believe in the importance of individuals. In a local authority, the one good thing about the current system, and people know it, is that if a leader is corrupt, difficult or fails to fulfil their duties, those who work with them day after day know about it and they either challenge them and hold them to account or the leader is unseated the next time round.
As for the issue of cities punching below their weight, that has to be seen against the background of the break-up of the regions. This was all too slow in development under my Government. We do not want sub-regionalism. I certainly do not want anything less than north, south, east, west and central in terms of regional strategy. What I actually want is to see people being given a choice. So let us ask the people, and let us ask them all the questions, not just the one or two that the Government favour. I am sure that I am not allowed to gamble in your Lordships’ House, but I would bet that if I went home to Ribbleton in Lancashire and asked the people whether they wanted a referendum or a home help, or whether they wanted a police and crime commissioner or more police officers at the end of the street—given the descent into rising crime figures under this Government—I know what they would say. With all her distinguished experience in local government, I believe that the Minister does, too.
Lord Tope
My Lords, I should probably start with the same words as the noble Baroness who has just spoken. For the past 38 years I have been—and still am—a councillor; indeed I am a member of the executive of a London borough council. I have been a member of the Committee of the Regions, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, since its inception in 1994, and I agree wholly with what she said about that. One of the great joys of being on that committee—there are not that many—is learning about the diversity of what I would call “sub-state government” right across the European Union. I have also been a council leader for 13 years. Where I make a unique claim in this Chamber—well, I was going to say “unique claim”, but the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, has joined us—is that of having had the doubtful pleasure of spending eight years serving on an authority with the first elected mayor in this country, the Mayor of London.
The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, asked for comparisons between the mayoral system in London and what went before. That is an impossible comparison. I get very annoyed when I hear people say—with a lot of justification—that the 10 years with a Mayor of London have been a lot better than what went before. Of course they have. Back in the late 1990s, the Labour Government offered us in London a referendum where the choice was, “Do you want a strategic government for London or not?”. I and most of us did. Yet we were not offered the choice of having what the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, referred to, as I would, as a parliamentary system—the traditional local government system, which at that time existed everywhere in the United Kingdom—or a presidential system with a strong mayor and a very weak assembly. The Labour Government told us that if we wanted a strategic government, which many of us had campaigned for over many years, the only choice on offer was an elected mayor with a weak assembly—a system once described to me as being just like having George Bush with no Congress. Some of us who had long campaigned for a strategic authority in London found that choice difficult to make, but it was the only choice that the Government gave us. Clearly, had there been a no vote in that referendum, we would not have had another choice to come back and say, “Let us have a parliamentary system instead”. There would have been nothing. So forgive me if I am a little cynical when I hear Members on the opposition Bench now complain about the lack of choice.
The other way in which I may be unique here relates to the fact that I have noticed that the debates tonight and on previous occasions have almost always fallen into those opposing the referendums being those who oppose the directly elected mayoral system and those supporting the referendum being those who broadly favour having elected mayors. I find that very odd. I have not yet been tainted by my noble friend Lord Shipley to start changing my mind. I have always been and I remain unconvinced of the case for directly elected mayors. There have been some very good directly elected mayors, both in this country and in other parts of the world, yet we all know that there have quite a few very bad directly elected mayors, some of whom have ended up in prison. Maybe we know about them. I suspect that the vast majority that we do not know about at all have been as indifferent as any other system. We simply do not know about them because they did not make much difference.
I am here tonight to support the Government’s intention to have a referendum and to encourage those who hope that it will have a no outcome to have a little more trust and confidence both in their ability to argue that case and in the people to believe it.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
My Lords, would the noble Lord, Lord Tope, accept that those of us who oppose at this time spending this money on forcing people to have a referendum do so because it is inappropriate? The noble Lord does not know which way I would vote about a locally elected mayor. He knows that I oppose the elected police and crime commissioners.
Lord Tope
My Lords, the arguments about whether we spend money on this or that are always easily made in any debate. Tonight, I should be at my own local authority debating our council budget for the coming year, where the Conservative opposition will argue that we should not put £250,000 into this at the same time as we make a £300,000 cut to something else. You can always have these arguments. The costs of the referendums are very small in comparison to the total budget of any of the authorities, let alone to the national expenditure from which they come. Frankly, that is not a terribly strong argument for or against.
My point was that those of us who would argue yes if they had the chance—I would not, but the noble Lords, Lord Beecham and Lord Shipley, would—should have more faith in their ability to convince the electorate. Yes, we would all wish for a higher turnout so that the decision, whatever it is, is more representative of the people at large. Again, the more vigorous the argument and the campaign, the higher the turnout will be. What are the Opposition arguing? Are they saying that there should be a threshold? Are they saying that it should be passed only if a given proportion votes for it? We tried that once before in Scotland and it did not resound terribly well. We simply have to campaign for a high turnout for whatever it is that we believe in. I do not want to be that provocative.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
My Lords, the local people already have the ability to make that choice without spending money. Let me say this to the noble Lord, Lord Tope. I know that one can stand in this Chamber or in a council meeting and say, “This is a relatively small amount of money”. But in an area where an old people’s home is being closed or the home helps are being reduced, the general public do not see the money that the noble Lord dismisses as trivial or small by comparison as being small when their services are being cut.
Lord Tope
My Lords, I entirely accept that. I am quite sure that in her distinguished career, the noble Baroness as a county councillor—indeed, chairman of the education committee—must on many occasions have had to make such unpopular arguments. I understand that and I am sure that the noble Baroness does as well.
I do not want to take too long or carry on being quite so provocative. However, we come now to the question of why we should have the referenda. First, it was stated in the Conservative Party manifesto, which was at the time of no great excitement to me, but it was then agreed in the coalition agreement—my party has agreed to the commitment that there will be referendums in the originally 12 and now 11 cities. That is an election commitment. It is a governmental commitment. We can all argue what the public do or do not expect. They may not expect political parties to carry out their commitments, but they ought to be able to expect political parties to carry out their commitments. Rightly or wrongly there was a commitment to hold these referendums. It is right that the Government should now be doing that, whatever we may individually hope will be the result of those referendums.
We had the question again about legislation. The Localism Act did not expressly state that these referendums would take place, but it certainly gave the power for them to take place. It was very well known, not least because the coalition agreement referred to it, that this was going to happen. The fact that people are only now in February preparing for a referendum that will probably take place on 3 May is hardly surprising, given all the commitments and all the legislation, including the passing of the Localism Act.
Therefore, I think that the Government are right to be holding these referendums in accordance with the commitments given. Those of us who hope for a no vote should have a lot more confidence in our ability to convince voters. Above all, we ought to trust the people to decide on this. It will decide the issue one way or the other for the foreseeable future. We can then get on with debating an issue that I think is far more important, which is the powers that our local government has—whoever is running it and whatever governance system they choose to have—to get on and revitalise not only our cities but the whole of the rest of local government in this country.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham)
My Lords, the passion at the end was very good. It has been a low-key debate apart from that. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington—if I may hesitantly say so—has quite a short memory, particularly in relation to putting legislation in place before it has been passed. I stood where the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, is on more times than I care to recall, telling the then Government that they were introducing and had almost put into effect legislation before it had been passed. Therefore, I do not accept that challenge to what we are doing here, but I do think the noble Baroness must not forget that that was a situation with practically all the legislation that the previous Government put in place. We must not forget that.
The grant to each local authority is done against a formula—as indeed the previous Government did. We have argued for years over which way the formula was going, one way or the other. People have short memories. We must just all try to remember where we came from.
The noble Lord, Lord Tope, drew attention to the fact that the coalition Government’s programme made it clear that we are committed to creating directly elected mayors. That commitment was carried out in the Localism Act and was a commitment to having a referendum in 12 cities. Those cities are now 11 because Leicester took the decision to move to a mayor under the original provisions in the Local Government Act 2000. The Government believe that there is good evidence that a powerful, dynamic and directly elected mayor can provide strong, visible leadership, increase accountability for local decisions, deliver local economic growth—that is really important—and bring greater prosperity to their city. However, we believe that it is up to the electorates in these cities to decide in a referendum whether they believe that the mayoral model is one that they would wish to embrace. Through directing that referendums take place, we are ensuring that the people have the opportunity to address the question for themselves.
The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, said that the question that was going to be asked was skewed. I remind him that it is set by the independent Electoral Commission and not by the Government.
Lord Grocott
My Lords, I did not express myself very well. I said it was skewed in the sense that it was being asked only in those areas that currently do not have a directly elected mayor. It would be a far fairer test if referendums were also being held in areas that already have them and may want to get rid of them, as Stoke did.
Baroness Hanham
I hear what the noble Lord says, but that was not a provision in the Localism Act. It provided for referendums in the 12 cities and not for referendums elsewhere or on other mayors that have already been elected under the 2000 Act, which was implemented by his Government.
The heart of the case advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, is the question of compulsion and the cost of the referendums. We are not requiring any particular outcome for these referendums; we are clear that the decisions about local government are for local people and nothing that we are doing departs from that principle. We are ensuring that people in our larger cities have the opportunity to address the question as to whether they want a mayor for their city. We have made it clear that central government will bear the cost of the referendums, estimated to be about £2.25 million, in line with the long-established new burdens doctrine. On the examples given by the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, of what her local authority would think about and what people think about, this will come from central Government—
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
It may surprise the Minister that people whom I have represented over many years do not distinguish where the money comes from but where it goes to.
The Minister reiterated that this provision was in the manifesto agreement of the coalition, when it came together. So it was in the manifestos of both parties and in the coalition agreement that there would be no top-down major reorganisation of the health service. I find it difficult to accept why certain things in the coalition agreement are sacrosanct while others are being trodden on daily to the disgust of the medical profession.
Baroness Hanham
I thank the noble Baroness for her comments. The Government believe that there is good evidence that—
Lord Bilston
Would the Minister allow me to ask a question about costs? We are all well aware of the problems that the majority of people in this country are facing at this moment. How do the Government reconcile the spending of £2.5 million on these referendums, £85 million on the AV referendum and £25 million on the referendum for police commissioners? How can we square this vast amount of expenditure when there is so much poverty and we are taking legislation through this House which will make people more impoverished? We are voting on measures which are unnecessary, certainly in the minds of the public. As we have heard, they are not interested in these kinds of changes. They want local government as they have always understood it: councillors working together for their communities, most often across parties, to bring about the improvements that people look for. I suggest that this is a complete waste of time and money.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, when we have had the referendums we will know whether or not people want to have a mayor, or whether they want changes to their local governance system. This is in 12 cities, that is all: the 12 largest cities. It is not in the rest of the country, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, said, can already have those referendums if they can get enough people to sign the bits of paper under the Act passed by the previous Government.
The value of large cities effectively led by powerful mayors is demonstrated by international and domestic experience. I am not going to quote Barcelona. There is, not least, the Mayor of London: the capital has benefitted from having a strong voice and leadership. As a result it has been possible to start devolving powers from the centre to the mayor, who is then able to work in conjunction with local government and see major infrastructure projects, such as Crossrail, implemented. It is exactly because of these and similar benefits which we believe that mayors will bring to other large cities that, in our view, those large cities should all have the opportunity to be governed by elected mayors. Evidence shows that, on average, local authority mayors are known to 57 per cent of local people—over twice the percentage for a council leader. I will not tempt the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, to tell me what percentage of people recognised him on the streets of Newcastle. I am confident that it might be a smidgen under 57 per cent, but I am not going to make a bet on it.
Noble Lords on both this and a previous occasion have argued against these orders, and against what they see as being compulsion, citing the current provisions under the Local Government Act 2000, which include the petition trigger and the ability for a council to resolve to change its governance arrangements, as being sufficient. This is consistent with the approach taken by the previous Government, who legislated to hold a referendum in 1998 on an elected mayor for London, which has also already been referred to by my noble friend Lord Tope.
However, I would like remind noble Lords that, under the Local Government Act 2000, which was enacted by the previous Government, there were two further triggers for a referendum. Section 35 of the 2000 Act provides that the Secretary of State may make provision enabling him or her, in circumstances set out in the regulations, to direct a local authority to hold a governance referendum. Section 36 of that Act provides that:
“The Secretary of State may by order make provision requiring every local authority, or every local authority falling within any description of authority specified in the order, to hold a referendum”,
on whether those authorities should operate a specific form of governance, which could include the mayoral form of governance. We are not on a unique path here. In fact, the previous Government used the power under Section 35 of the Act to compel the London Borough of Southwark, which I think the noble Lord mentioned, to hold a referendum on its governance model in January 2002. Indeed, this compulsion was in the form of a direction and was not even subject to parliamentary scrutiny, as this legislation is. The provisions in the Localism Act 2011 are therefore not new or confined to this Government, who are concentrating, as I have said, on just 12 cities—but that is now 11, following Leicester’s decision to adopt the mayoral form of government.
It has also been argued that there is no appetite for a mayor or, indeed, for a referendum but I would like to be clear that a case for a referendum under these circumstances is not about whether there is a clamour for one. It is about the governance of our big cities and their contribution to the country as a whole, and about how a mayor can help their city to perform even more strongly economically, socially and environmentally. That is why we believe, at the very least, that the people of the city should have the opportunity to address—and seriously address—the question of whether to have a mayor. The choice is theirs.
In the next few months, discussions and arguments will take place about the strengths and weaknesses of a mayoral model—I am saying “mayoral” because I am not sure that it is “mayoreal”, as I do not think there is an “e” in it. It is exactly this type of debate and discussion that points to the validity of an exercise in giving local people the opportunity to address the question of whether to move to that. Let us be clear; we see mayors as being better able to deliver growth and prosperity to our larger cities, something which I know that we all want.
During Grand Committee, and indeed today, noble Lords asked about the cost of a mayor against other governance structures, and about internal administrative costs and savings or allowances. As we made clear in the impact assessment, which I am sure noble Lords have all studied, and as I said in Committee, any costs or savings will depend on how much reorganisation a city council decides to undertake to accommodate the mayor. In order to do so, it may of course reallocate resources internally in a variety of ways. However, based on the 11 authorities which have adopted an elected mayor since 2000, there does not appear to be any substantial difference in the corporate and democratic core costs of having a mayor compared with a leader. Perhaps that underlines my reply to the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, last time. In the light of the current financial position, I am sure that any elected mayor would want to keep their costs and allowances down to ensure that they remain within budget.
I think it is correct that the version of the question which the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, was kind enough to tell the department that he would ask is not entirely the question that he asked in the Chamber. I am going to reply as on the first, if I may. He had asked what the costs were in the administration of the Greater London Council in its last year, if that is correct, and what the costs are now that we have a mayor and Assembly. The noble Lord is nodding his head, so I assume that is right. I can tell him that the GLC and GLA are not directly comparable in terms of function, particularly since information on the GLC is now historic. The combined component budget for the GLA—that is, the mayor and Assembly—for 2011-12 is £155.1 million. That is net of any specific grants of council tax and is the closest publicly available figure to an administrative budget that we can find. The noble Lord may wish to note that the current Mayor of London has in fact frozen council tax during his last four years in office, helped in part by this Government’s two-year council tax freeze. By contrast, under the previous Mayor of London the Greater London Authority's council tax levy almost trebled.
Finally, my honourable friend the Minister for Cities in the other place, Greg Clark, recently announced the Government's intention that the first election of a mayor will take place on 15 November of this year, fulfilling the Government's commitment that mayoral elections would take place shortly after any referendum which resulted in a yes vote. I am sure that there will be vigorous debate between 3 May and then if there are to be any elections.
We are clear as to why we believe that elected mayors would enhance the leadership of the 11 major cities, delivering greater growth and prosperity. We cannot compel an outcome but we can give local people the option of a change of governance. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Shipley for his comments, and, indeed, to my noble friend Lord Tope. I hear what he says. It will be interesting to see the outcome.
In response to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, I simply add that these orders will give the people of the cities involved an opportunity through a referendum to consider and decide on their future governance without the cost falling on the cities themselves. I commend the orders to the House.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for what has been a lively debate. I am particularly grateful to my noble friends. To reassure my noble friend Lord Grocott, I think that three local authorities are seeking to undo the mischief of the mayoral system, as he and I and perhaps some of those would see it, although it remains to be seen what will happen in the referendums which will no doubt take place in those authorities.
I entirely share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, about the original referendum in London. I opposed the proposition at the time, as, indeed, did Ken Livingstone, who was not at all keen on the idea until he was a candidate and was elected. However, such things happen in politics.
The Minister referred to the cost of the referendums and made the point again that that is being paid for by the Government. However, the cost of any subsequent elections will not be borne by the Government. They will be roughly the same figure and will fall on the relevant local authorities in November if the referendums lead to an affirmative vote. She also referred to Southwark, where a referendum was apparently imposed in 2002. That achieved the amazing turnout of 11 per cent and rejected the concept of having a mayor, which my noble friend Lord Grocott mentioned. That is surely evidence that there is no appetite for these elections, about which I spoke in moving the regret Motion.
However, the Minister did not respond to my question about what is to happen after this round of referendums. There are some 300 other councils. Is it the Government’s intention to roll this out across the country? What about the flagship Tory councils, such as Westminster and Wandsworth, which she apparently believes are less good performers than those with mayors? Those are Tory councils with substantial populations and responsibilities. Apparently, there is no proposal at the moment for referendums in those places. We have to learn eventually—
Baroness Hanham
With respect, I have answered that question. I drew noble Lords’ attention to the fact that the Localism Act allows for referendums to be held only in the 12 cities. There was no question of there being referendums elsewhere. However, as the noble Lord knows, they can be held, if that is what is required, under the Local Government Act 2000.
Lord Beecham
I am not sure that that is right. However, in any event, irrespective of whether or not the Government have the power to require referendums—I think that they do, but I may be wrong—what the noble Baroness has said constitutes a pretty substantial disparagement of the record of her political colleagues in significant authorities not unadjacent to where we are debating these matters, among others. I find it rather strange that apparently only mayoral authorities are capable of delivering regeneration and economic prosperity. The case that has been advanced is that you need a mayor to make that progress. Frankly, I do not accept that. However, in general there is a continuing lack of evidence in support of the mayoral system. I say with all due respect to the noble Baroness that affirmation is not evidence.
I turn to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. He gives as a reason for supporting elected mayors that there are to be police commissioners. In November people will have the opportunity of buying one and getting one free because there will be two votes on the same day. But, of course, it will not be free; it will presumably be double the cost. If there is a mayoral referendum, that will cost roughly £250,000 and there will be separate costs for the police commissioner elections, which would also clock up to the same figure in individual authorities. If they are buying two, they will have to pay for two. They do not get one free.
Why the existence of a police commissioner should make it all the more desirable to have an elected mayor, I do not understand. But then few people understand why we should have police commissioners in the first place, including quite a lot of Members on the government Benches in this House and in the other place. Certainly it is not understood by the Prime Minister’s favourite police officer, Mr Bratton, whom he wanted to appoint as Metropolitan Police Commissioner, who could not understand why the American system should be imported into this country.
The noble Lord also welcomed the powers to be given to elected mayors but without explaining why only elected mayors should get them. In fact, it is not only elected mayors who are likely to get them because discussions are going on with other authorities. There is an interesting development around Greater Manchester with the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities, which is not predicated on the existence of a mayor either from Manchester or the area as a whole.
I must tease the noble Lord somewhat. It is only a few months since he and I were jointly discussing how we might campaign together against the idea of an elected mayor. This gives rise to the Paul Daniels question. Your Lordships will remember the magician and television personality Paul Daniels and his attractive young wife. She was asked: “What is it about balding millionaire Paul Daniels that persuaded you to marry him?”. I gently put to the noble Lord, “What is it Lord Shipley, recently appointed government adviser on cities, that has led you to change your mind about elected mayors?”.
Lord Shipley
I have read a lot of the research evidence in that context as a large amount of research has been done on the role of elected mayors. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, said that a number of countries in Europe do not have our system and that you cannot build an elected mayoral system on to our democratic system of local government. I do not agree. I have read research produced by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, and I have read the report of the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, and Terry Leahy on Liverpool and Merseyside. There is also the Warwick commission on elected mayors. There is a body of research demonstrating that you could have stronger economic growth by having a stronger governance system. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, that he was talking to me about the importance of campaigning against elected mayors. I was not talking to him about that.
Lord Beecham
I do not recall the conversation being as one sided as that, but I shall allow the noble Lord to get away with his disavowal of those discussions. I was really only teasing him.
The issue is not who exercises the powers but what the powers are. They do not have to be conferred on a single individual with all the disadvantages to which I referred. Experience around the world is extremely variable. There are appointed mayors, as in Holland. The Labour Party, as I told the Grand Committee, once sent people to see the mayoral system in Holland without realising they were appointed rather than elected—not untypical. There are elected mayors. There is the Barcelona model. There are mayors in jail, as the noble Lord, Lord Tope, rightly said. There are mayors who are very successful. There are leaders of councils in both categories no doubt as well. The crucial thing about economic development is having the necessary powers and being able to co-operate with other authorities. In that context, of course, that opportunity has been rather dismantled by the abolition of regional development agencies and the lack of a proper system for ensuring co-operation.
However, we are where we are. I will certainly be campaigning against an elected mayor in my own authority. I shall be happy to quote the noble Lord, Lord Tope, in support of a bipartisan approach. I look forward to seeing the noble Baroness campaigning up and down the country in Conservative authorities—while we still have Conservative authorities—for referendums and elected mayors too. That is something she has not yet found time to do. Perhaps she has not really had the inclination, but maybe that will follow after May. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
City of Wakefield (Mayoral Referendum) Order 2012
Baroness Hanham
That the draft orders laid before the House on 5 December 2011 be approved.
Relevant documents: 36th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 17 January.
Protection of Freedoms Bill
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bichard
Lord Bichard
My Lords, I shall also speak to Amendments 53 and 54 in my name and in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, who has kindly allowed me to lead on this issue. Everyone in this House understands that one of the most difficult responsibilities for any Government is to manage risk, whether that risk is the security of our nation or the safety of the most vulnerable members of our society. It is one of the most difficult responsibilities because very few risks of any significance can be entirely eliminated, and decisions must therefore be made about what is an acceptable—sometimes an unavoidable—level of risk, and what action is proportionate in seeking to minimise that risk.
That is why I emphasised two things when I published my report on the deaths of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman at the hands of Ian Huntley in Soham: first, that we cannot create a risk-free society; secondly, that the steps we take to minimise risk should be proportionate. For those reasons, I very much sympathise with and support the Government in seeking to strike the right balance in this very difficult area. Some reduction in the level of bureaucracy associated with vetting and barring is necessary and achievable, and I welcome the Government’s attempts to do so. However, I cannot agree that these clauses strike the right balance, even with the amendments tabled by the Minister or by other noble Lords in this House. That is why I am moving this amendment.
To be clear, these clauses relate to those who train, supervise, teach or instruct children outside a specified place, such as a school or a children’s home, or to those who are unpaid volunteers in whatever setting. In such circumstances, a person will not in future need to be CRB checked if they are under the supervision of another person who is engaging in a regulated activity and is therefore subject to CRB checks. We can, and probably will, debate how close or intensive that supervision should be. My contention, inconvenient though it may be for those of us who want to reduce the level of bureaucracy, is that no amount or quality of supervision can be sufficient to prevent someone developing a bond of trust with a child that he or she can then exploit at a time when they are free of that supervision. That is how grooming takes place.
The internet provides enhanced opportunities for the bond of trust, once established, to be inappropriately exploited. Therefore, the focus of our concerns should be not on the quality, intensity or nature of the supervision but on whether the person involved in training, instruction, teaching or supervision presents a risk to the child. They should therefore continue to be subject to checks that can help establish whether they are a risk to children. This will hold out some hope that we can prevent them gaining privileged access to children.
We know that checks cannot be foolproof, but surely we owe it to our children to take reasonable and quite simple steps to prevent those whom we know are a risk from gaining privileged access to children, even if they are subject to supervision. They must do that because children assume that adults who are trusted to offer guidance or instruction to them can be trusted—not just in limited circumstances such as the youth centre or playing field but wherever they are encountered. That is why supervision can never be enough, and why sometimes we have to place the safety of our children before our desire to minimise regulation and bureaucracy. I hope that that is what we will do this evening. If we do not, I fear that we will very quickly find that dangerous adults will realise that there are some settings and some ways in which it will be easier in future for them to gain access to vulnerable children. The people we are talking about are manipulative and clever. They will take advantage of those opportunities.
Finally, I hope that the Minister will at least be able to confirm this evening that the Act will do nothing to prevent organisations, with their local knowledge, making checks where they think they are required. For example, a school with its local knowledge will be able to carry on checking volunteers if it believes that that is necessary and good practice. I beg to move.
The Lord Speaker (Baroness D'Souza)
My Lords, I should advise the House that if Amendment 50 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments 50A and 51 for reasons of pre-emption.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, the amendments in this group remove the distinction that the Bill makes between supervised and unsupervised work with children in regulated activities. The Bill would restrict the definition of roles that fall under “regulated activity” and would mean that employers would not be required to do CRB checks for many employees working with, and in close proximity to, children.
Furthermore, employers would not be able to access information on whether that individual had been barred from working with children and vulnerable adults. I note the further safeguards that the Government have introduced following Committee, which amend the definition of “supervised” as specifically that which is reasonable for the protection of the children concerned. That is a step forward and clarifies that organisations and employers in regulated activity are under a statutory duty to provide adequate supervision for the safety of those children. However, without the ability to access information as to whether an individual had been barred from working with children, it is not clear how the Government expect organisations to discharge such a responsibility adequately. They appear, in effect, to be placing the burden of responsibility wholly on to organisations for the protection of children while denying them access to key information.
Perhaps more seriously, the Government’s proposed amendment to the definition of supervision fails to recognise the serious issue of secondary access, which has been raised by numerous children’s charities and voluntary organisations. Many cases of child abuse do not occur in a place of regulated activity such as a school or sports club but in other unregulated, unsupervised places, as a result of the trust they forge with both the child and the parent through their position of authority and as a result of the assumption that that individual has been adequately vetted by the organisation. The case of Barry Bennell demonstrates just how such relationships can develop over many years, outside the supervision of a regulated activity. That individual received a long jail sentence for the serial abuse of young boys over a period of years when he was a scout for north-west and midlands junior football teams. He gained secondary access to players through his position and invited the boys to stay with him at his home or took them on tours to various places where he sexually abused them.
Revising and re-revising the definition of supervision through guidelines and amendments is not enough and will not stop men like that from gaining the trust of children and their parents by working without any checks in close and sustained contact with children. I know the Government are determined to remove what they regard as unnecessary regulation, but regulation is often about protecting and safeguarding people—often vulnerable people—from the potentially careless, irresponsible or criminal acts of others. The Government should think hard about the words of the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, and the potential consequences of the exemption of supervised workers and volunteers, which means that not all those working in regular contact with children and vulnerable adults are regulated.
Lord Harris of Haringey
It is unfortunate that we are debating these amendments at this time of night in a fairly sparse Chamber. I fear that in a few years time people will look back on this debate and say, “Why did Parliament not do more? Why was Parliament so happy to allow those changes to go through without further checks and cautions?”. I am therefore grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, for his amendments. He is quite right to say that a balance has to be struck and that no system will necessarily protect all children against abuse and against predators. However, the omission that is being created by this Bill is enormous. It is saying that if a volunteer, or someone working with children, is subject to supervision, they do not have to be checked at all. The reality is that parents send their child to a school or a club because they assume that it is a safe place. They assume, therefore, that the people who will be in contact with their child at that school, that club or that activity are also safe. I suspect that unless they pore over the details of our debate, which I am sure is not the case, they will assume that all those people are being checked against these registers and lists. Of course they will not be. They are volunteers or they are under the day-to-day supervision that is envisaged.
Baroness Walmsley
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, has made some very good points. He asked whether in future people will ask why Parliament was happy that these measures were passed. I can say to the House that I am not happy that they go through unamended. I agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, said. Given that the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act has not been implemented, what is the evidence that the measures in it are, in fact, disproportionate? As the noble Lord, Lord Harris, suggested, there is evidence that this is not what parents want. There is no great clamour from parents to have these measures changed.
The main point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, was that the measures in the Bill take no account of secondary access. Young people develop a relationship of trust with all kinds of adults in the various settings that are covered by this Bill. Very often young people have the closest friendships not with the most senior people—the teachers, the heads—but with the technicians. In fact, in the school where I used to teach, the technician in the laboratory was the person who was most friendly with the pupils. People like this may not be covered by the Bill as it stands, and yet they have a very good opportunity to build up a relationship of trust with the children. As the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, has just quite rightly said, they are unlikely to misbehave on the premises, but rather build on that relationship of trust, on which they will rely in some other situation where the child is vulnerable. That is a risk that we cannot take.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland
My Lords, I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Bichard. I want to concentrate on the people who are likely to abuse. I declare an interest as the vice-chair of the Lucy Faithfull Foundation, of which I have been a trustee for some 20 years. It is the organisation that pioneered the work in grooming and understanding the nature of abusers.
As the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, said, there is no doubt that these individuals will see this as open season on children—and I choose my words carefully. I have probably been involved with more of these men than most—some women, but mostly men—and so I know just how deceitful, clever, manipulative and strategic they are. They have a long view. These individuals do not just move in, see a child and think they are going to abuse them; they plan their moves carefully. There has been talk about building trust, but when a teacher can systematically abuse a child in a classroom, as in a recent case, noble Lords should take that as an example of what these kind of individuals can do, and then recognise that there are others right across the country who are thinking at this moment, “Will there be another opening for me to reach a child?”.
I have also worked with victims of that abuse. Imagine it was your son or daughter who had been buggered or raped by one of these people, who had gained their trust. The child or young person involved believes that they are implicated—the trust means that they carry the guilt. This is why often these youngsters will not come forward early, but if you talk to rape crisis lines or the people who deal with adult abusers, time after time they will tell you how the guilt kept them from telling. Research may show that if you talk to young people there is less of it, but many youngsters will not say that it is happening to them because they have that guilt.
As far as supervised access is concerned, anyone who has recently been to any of the youth provision that is around will know how hectic it is—properly so, for young people enjoying themselves—and that “supervision” is a strange word. In fact, you are just about maintaining the peace in some of these organisations. It is very easy for these individuals to make contact with the young people. As has already been said, modern technology makes it even easier.
I can see the Minister sitting there thinking, “We have heard all this before; we have our position”. But I would say to him that if you really care about our nation’s children and what happens to them in their adulthood after these incidents have happened, when they are unable to make relationships, when their marriages break down, when they have problems with their own children, when they end up in mental hospitals or in prison—if you look at any of those cohorts you will find that a lot of these youngsters have been abused—then you will find a way to absolutely ensure that it is not as loose as this. Anyone who is likely to abuse a child must be able to be checked so that certainty can be held by a parent and indeed by the child—and in some ways by the individual themselves because the abuser’s life is destroyed as well if they are not helped to not go through all of this. I hope the Minister will do so.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
My Lords, I hope that I do not sound a discordant note if I congratulate the Government on the fact that they have looked at CRB checks and come to the conclusion that they go too far and too often. It is very important to recognise that a large number of people are CRB checked again and again, far more frequently than is necessary. I must say that I am a governor of a boys’ school, which I will visit tomorrow, and I am CRB checked. I have never yet spoken to a single pupil without another adult present, and nor would I do so. It is quite unnecessary for governors to be checked, unless they have particular roles in the school.
However, there is a very difficult balance to achieve. The balance is at its critical point on the amendments now before the House. There is a special case about the situation with secondary access, with those who are not immediately in charge, but who are supervised. The noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, has perhaps unrivalled experience in this House. She manned Childline, for goodness’ sake. She has done so much to deal with victims, and through the Lucy Faithfull Foundation, she has done much to deal with perpetrators. What she has to say is of great importance.
I started listening to this debate, thinking “Well, actually, everybody’s going a bit over the top. Why shouldn’t we continue the excellent work the Government are doing, cutting through a great deal of red tape?”. Indeed, I hope that the Government will go on doing it. However, on this secondary access, as the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, says, supervision is a loose word. The Government might think that there is some point in this amendment and in the following amendments with which we are dealing. However, for goodness’ sake do not get rid of the notion of cutting out a great deal of CRB checks that are totally unnecessary, or which if achieved, should not then be done again and again.
My main point is therefore, keep at it, Government, but just look at this amendment—there is a point to it.
The Lord Bishop of Chichester
My Lords, could I perhaps add to what the noble and learned Baroness has just said? Obviously, from these Benches we have a very particular concern in this matter. I agree entirely that there can be an excess of enthusiasm for CRB, and I have a number of colleagues who find themselves having three, four, five or even six CRB checks in relation to their different activities. This debases the currency, and is in danger of bringing the whole system into disrepute. However, as the noble and learned Baroness has said, supervision is a very loose expression.
In an organisation such as the Church—I nearly said “a voluntary association”, though theologically I do not believe that the Church is a voluntary association, but you understand what I mean—people may well be supervised in one area of activity, but not supervised in another. It is essential that we make sure that there is a comprehensive way of assessing the risk that particular individuals might pose to children or vulnerable adults in whatever area of their life they are engaged.
We are very well aware, and have very bitter experience to prove this, of the way in which those who are in apparently unregulated activities have the opportunity to groom people. They may have no direct contact with young people at all, but through their contact with their parents and the position they hold, they find ways of ingratiating themselves with families and with those who can give them access to young people. It therefore seems to me to be extraordinarily important that this question of supervision be tightened up, that while we avoid the danger of going over the top with CRB, we nevertheless make it absolutely clear that just because somebody is supervised in one area does not mean that they are totally safe in all other areas as well.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Henley)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked that I should take particular note of what the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, said in moving his amendment. I can give him, the House and the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, an assurance that I will do that. Our time goes back a long way to when I served with the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, in the former Department for Education and Employment and I hope that we both have a great deal of respect for each other.
I echo the introductory words of the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, when he said—this is important—that we cannot completely eliminate risk. We understand that. He also made the point that we must be proportionate in how we manage these matters and accept that we must try to reduce bureaucracy as and where we can. I was grateful for the wise words of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, when she referred to the need to reduce the unnecessary CRB checks that were taking place.
It is important for us to remember that it is a question of balance. It is one that we can never get absolutely and completely right and we will probably have to go on arguing almost until the cows come home before we can resolve these matters. We should try to get it right, but the balance will be perceived differently between one individual and another.
By way of background, I reiterate that the Government believe, as do many outside bodies, that by scaling back the scope of regulated activity, and thus disclosure and the barring scheme, we can strike a better balance between the role of the state and that of employers or other organisations in protecting the vulnerable. Both have a role to play.
Clause 64 and the amendments to it provide that certain activity, which would be within the scope of regulated activity in relation to children when unsupervised, will not constitute regulated activity when it is subject to day-to-day supervision. An example was given to me—I think by my noble friend Lady Walmsley—of a technician in a school. He certainly would be covered. The amendments take us back to the wider scope of regulated activity as it existed under the previous Administration.
Baroness Walmsley
In a letter to the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, of 1 February, the noble Lord suggested that an IT technician would not be regulated.
Lord Henley
The noble Baroness has caught me out and has got the letter that I wrote. I shall have to look again at the letter I sent to my noble friend and check that. I take back what I said but my understanding is that that is not the case. However, obviously I have got that wrong.
Lord Henley
My Lords, if my letter—written with the great authority of myself—said that he would not, obviously he would not. However, my understanding—I have obviously got it wrong and I will have to look very carefully at that letter—is that he would be covered in a school. Perhaps I may look at the letter and then get back to my noble friend.
Baroness Randerson
To clarify the situation, my recollection of the Minister’s letter is that he would be covered in a school but not in a college.
Lord Henley
I am grateful to my noble friend for that correction. My noble friend Lady Stowell has just reminded me that there is a strong distinction between schools and FE colleges. For that reason I think it is very important. Oh, dear, I have to give way to the noble Lord, Lord Harris. Can he wait and let me finish my remarks? Calm down, as they say. I shall look very carefully at what I said. Obviously there is an important distinction between the two. I now give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Harris of Haringey
All I would ask is that when the noble Lord is looking very carefully to clarify that distinction he also looks at the situation of the large numbers of volunteer assistants in schools and volunteers used for out-of-school activities linked to the school—for example, to interest children in science, since we have been talking about technicians, but it could also be in art or other activities—to see whether they would be covered.
Lord Henley
Of course I will look at those matters and respond to my noble friends Lady Randerson and Lady Walmsley. I will even send a copy of that letter to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, in due course.
Let us return to the amendments because that is the important thing to do. I suspect this might now have to be the last amendment that we can deal with. In putting forward the amendment, the noble Lord has questioned whether we are confident that any supervision would be adequate to protect these children. In making the case for these amendments, reference has been made to the concept of secondary access. Some commentators imply a unique causal link between initial contact with the child and later contact elsewhere if the first is the place where most work is regulated activity. We do not accept that premise. Initial contact may happen where regulated activity takes place or it may happen in some other setting, such as a leisure centre, library, church or wherever. In our view, one type of setting does not offer significantly more help than any other for seeking contact with the same child later and elsewhere. Whatever the setting, we believe that parents have the primary responsibility for educating their child in how to react to an approach from any adult if it goes beyond that adult’s normal role. I give way to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland
Is the Minister seriously suggesting that, if there was a CRB check showing that an individual was dangerous to children, it would not be noted because this was supervised contact? That person could then contact a child through all the known mechanisms, which parents are totally unable to deal with, and abuse that child. Do the Government believe that it is acceptable that that should happen?
Lord Henley
My Lords, I accept the noble Baroness’s great experience in these matters. She is pointing to an occasion where a CRB check has been taken out on an individual and it becomes clear that they are not suitable to be employed in the school or wherever. In that case they are not going to be. So I do not quite see the point that she is making. Do I give way to the noble Baroness again? We must get this right.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland
I was saying that the Government do not take responsibility for secondary contact. The problem is that we are not necessarily talking about a school; we are talking about youth facilities where trust is built up between a young person and a child and where supervision may take place but not the kind of supervision that can have oversight at every moment. A CRB check might well show that one of the volunteers in that setting is dangerous. At the moment those CRB checks would be taken up. But the person concerned might make contact outside the primary setting. That at the moment is covered and children and young people are safe. Under the new situation it seems to me that they will not be safe.
Lord Henley
I do not accept that. Let me see if I can get this right. I think what the noble Baroness is trying to imply is that any number of checks will provide the safeguard. I do not think that safeguard would be provided by a CRB check in the particular case that she outlines because we have now moved on to some secondary setting. Does the noble Baroness follow me?
Baroness Howarth of Breckland
To clarify the point, if a CRB check has not been taken out because this is a supervised setting and the volunteers are supposed to be supervised, and the person is actually an abuser who could have been identified by a CRB check, under the new provisions will that person no longer be checked and therefore be able to build up a position of trust with a child which, in a secondary setting, they could abuse?
Lord Henley
Will the noble Baroness accept that there is also a role for the parents in terms of the guidance that they offer their children in that role as well? That was the point that I was trying to get over. I shall give way again.
The Archbishop of York
I go back to the Soham murders. Huntley happened to be a caretaker and these girls trusted him because he was the caretaker and they had seen him in school. On that day, there was no supervision. What happened to those girls? I would rather be on the side of stricter rules and in time try to water them down a bit than assume that, because someone is in a supervised role, they cannot do something worse when they are in an unsupervised role. The word “supervision” is very loose. Unless it is tightened up, people like me will still be left worrying about what happened to those girls. The caretaker was not in a supervised role at that particular point and that is when he did it.
Lord Henley
My Lords, on the contrary, it would be covered now, and following the changes that we are going to make it would still be covered. He was not covered by what was in place before and that is how he slipped through the net. That is why the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, was asked to set up his review into these matters and why the changes were made. The point that we are trying to make is that the changes have gone too far—this was the point also made by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss—in terms of the bureaucracy involved. As the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, put it, one can never totally eliminate risk and there has to be a degree of balance in how one deals with these matters. One must be proportionate. Merely to think that any number of checks imposed by the state is going to eliminate all risk is, I suspect, a wish too far. I give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Harris of Haringey
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. He said a few moments ago that there is a responsibility for parents in this. The difficulty is that the normal assumption of parents will be that every person whom their child comes into contact with in a club or other activity is safe. So presumably what the noble Lord is saying is that, in the guidance that will explain what all this means, parents will be provided with a list. It will say, “The following people whom your child comes into contact with have been checked and the others on the list have not been checked. Please advise your children not to have any contact outside this activity”. That is the implication of what the Minister is saying. Of course parents have a responsibility, but what the Government are doing is creating a situation in which parents will think that an environment is safe, but it is not because some individuals will not have been checked and those individuals may build up a relationship of trust with a child that they could choose to abuse at secondary contact.
Lord Henley
The noble Lord may say what he wishes, but he should not try to put words into my mouth, which is what he is trying to do. He is trying to suggest that we could tell all parents exactly who is safe and who is unsafe. Obviously we cannot do that. What we are trying to do is create a system that will provide the necessary safeguards but does not make parents feel that their children are automatically safe. Parents must still have the duty of looking after their children by warning them of potential dangers. They should not assume that merely because someone has been CRB-checked, merely because the process has been gone through and merely because every box has been ticked, which is what the noble Lord seems to suggest, all is safe.
Lord Henley
I am not going to give way to the noble Lord. I am going to get on with my speech. If the noble Lord will allow me to do so, I will continue.
These amendments seek to preserve what we believe is a disproportionate disclosure and barring scheme that covers the employees and volunteers far more than is actually necessary on this occasion for safeguarding purposes. In so doing, it subjects all the businesses, organisations and whatever to unnecessary red tape and discourages volunteering. The noble Lord, Lord Bichard, also made the important point of whether it would still be open to schools, organisations and businesses to continue to check volunteers and others. Of course they can, and we will ensure that they are still able to request the enhanced CRB certificate when necessary. We want to emphasise the importance of good sense and judgment by the managers on the ground when they look at this issue. That is at the heart of our proposal and it is why we think we have got the balance right. The noble Lord, Lord Bichard, is now looking somewhat quizzical but no doubt we can have further discussion about this between now and another stage.
The right thing is to get the correct balance in how one looks at these things. The noble Lord asked about schools and what they could do. This gives local managers the ability to determine these things flexibly and make extra checks. With the various interruptions I have had, I appreciate the slight muddle I got into earlier over the letter to my noble friend Lady Walmsley. There has been a degree of confusion here.
Lord Henley
Can I just continue these matters? I hope that I have answered most of the points that the noble Lord put forward and that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Walmsley
I am grateful to my noble friend. Could he just clarify one point? The volunteers we are talking about here are the volunteers who see children on a regular basis. That is correct, is it not?
Baroness Walmsley
I have one second point before my noble friend rises to answer. I accept that people who are not regulated can still be CRB-checked but the employer cannot get barring information. Unless the person has committed a crime and got on the police records in that way, the employer who voluntarily carries out a CRB check still does not know if that person has been barred. I understand that Sir Roger Singleton claims that 20 per cent of the people on the barred list have never been in contact with the police. Could my noble friend clarify that?
Lord Henley
May I write to my noble friend on that final point to make sure that I get it right? I will make sure that I look at my letter with the greatest care before sending it off to make sure that I have got it right. No doubt we will come back to this at a later stage. Meanwhile, I hope that I have satisfied the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, and that he is able to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
Could I just put one question to the Minister? I preface it with the fact that I congratulated the Government—and still do—on the laudable effort to cut through a great deal of this red tape. I said that I share the concern right round the House about secondary access. I urge the Minister to go away and look at what we have said. It may be that some areas of secondary access could be differentiated from others—I do not know. He said that he might talk about it later. I urge him to do so.
Lord Henley
My Lords, if the noble and learned Baroness asks me to do that, then of course I will. It is obviously very important to get these things right—I want to get them right. Again, it is always a question of getting the balance right. That is what we are trying to do this evening. As I said, I suspect that the noble Lord may want to come back to this at a later stage. We will see. In the mean time, I hope that he is prepared to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, at the risk of straining my noble friend’s patience—he has been very patient—he offered to come back on points that have arisen today. It is obvious that we are going to continue this subject with the next group of amendments, which we will come to next week. It would be extremely helpful if the noble Lord responded, as he has offered to do, not just before Third Reading but before we return to this next week. He may not wish to give an undertaking to that effect but I leave him with that thought. As the debate has gone on, I have made more and more notes on his Amendment 50A, which will be the first amendment next Wednesday.
Lord Henley
My Lords, I do not know whether it will be next Wednesday when we come back to this. I remind the House again that we are on Report not in Committee, and I think I have been interrupted and intervened upon more than one would expect. I will try to write to my noble friend before the next day on Report on this Bill. Whether it will be next week, I do not know.
Lord Bichard
My Lords, I very much welcome the tone of the Minister’s response. I respect his position entirely and we have known each other long enough for me to be able to say that. I particularly welcome his confirmation that schools, if I understand it right, and organisations that want to carry on with checks will be able to do so. I assume that that means that they will have access to the intelligence that those checks would normally disclose. That issue might well need to be looked at, but I very much welcome that assurance.
I welcome the sympathetic way in which the Minister has responded to the debate. However, let us be absolutely clear, this is not for me, or I think for other noble Lords who have spoken, a question of bureaucracy and whether we need less of it. We all agree that we need less of it. The report that I produced after Soham was not implemented in full. Checks, for example, are not routinely updated, which is why we have the bureaucracy that we have. I said specifically in the Soham report that I wanted a system that was proportionate, and I do not think that we have ever achieved that.
This is therefore not a question of whether we need to reduce bureaucracy or of supervision. The core of the argument and of my contention is that we should be concerned about risk and not allow people who are a risk to have privileged access to our children—and it is privileged access. As the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has said, we have to draw a distinction between access that someone has in a school or a club and a chance encounter. If people build up trust in a school, it is a much more powerful relationship than it would be through some serendipitous or irregular meeting and much more likely to lead to secondary access, and to secondary access being exploited. I do not think it fair to say that we should expect parents to be able to monitor those kinds of situations. Parents expect schools, clubs and centres to be places where they can leave their children with some confidence. That is why we need to make sure that in those places we do not have people who are a risk having access to our children.
I welcome the tone of the response, as I said, and the possibility of further discussions, but let us never underestimate the importance of this issue. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Harris, that it is unfortunate—it is no one’s fault—that we had this debate without a larger number of noble Lords present, because this is a really important issue. Had I not heard the Minister’s assurances at the end about further discussions and about schools and other organisations being able to carry on with the checks as they do now, I would have had to withdraw the amendment—I have no alternative but to do so—with a heavy heart and a great deal of apprehension. The reassurances that we have received enable me to withdraw the amendment with more optimism, and I look forward to those further discussions. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.