House of Commons

Monday 25th June 2012 Commons Chamber

Monday 25 June 2012

The House met at half-past Two o’clock

Prayers

Monday 25th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Monday 25th June 2012 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)]

1. How many people have found work following a refusal of an appeal for employment and support allowance.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chris Grayling)]

The Department does not hold statistics specifically on destinations after appeals, but we carried out a detailed report, published earlier this year, on the destinations of people on jobseeker’s allowance, income support and ESA. Individuals found fit for work by the tribunal may claim jobseeker’s allowance. Jobcentre Plus will provide employment support, or the claimant can access support through the Work programme at a time that is right for them.

[Natascha Engel]

Our experience in Derbyshire is of people moving from the employment support allowance on to jobseeker’s allowance, and not into work. What is the Minister doing to move people off the employment support allowance and not on to another benefit, but into work?

[Chris Grayling]

Of course, the purpose of the Work programme is to provide specialist back-to-work support. Those moving off ESA have early access to the Work programme, and those still on it can volunteer for the programme at any time, if they are not mandated to it.

[Mr Peter Lilley (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)]

Given that there are now 400,000 more jobs in the economy, the bulk of which have been taken by people who, by and large, are not eligible for benefits, because they are workers from abroad, might not loss of entitlement to benefit—for good cause—spur some people to get jobs and thus result in more jobs going to British people?

[Chris Grayling]

I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend. I have made it clear that I would like employers in this country to offer opportunities to local workers, but those workers need to be there—they need to be keen, energetic and wanting that work. I hope and expect that our Work programme providers will provide that energisation.

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

The Minister will know that, as well as the people looking for work following a refusal of appeal, many people win their appeal. Having won an appeal, however, they then have another work capability assessment, but the information that led to their appeal being won is not made available to the people undertaking the second WCA. Will he look at this situation in order to prevent people from going through a cycle of assessment, followed by appeal, followed by assessment?

[Chris Grayling]

The hon. Gentleman will know that the system set up by the previous Labour Government set a prognosis time for an individual—an estimate of how long before they could return to work. It is that, rather than anything else, which guides the timetable for repeat assessments. I have taken steps to stretch that timetable post-appeal, but I do not want to leave people stranded on benefits for the rest of their lives if we can possibly help them find employment.

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

The Minister will be aware of the 1996 personal responsibility Act, passed by President Clinton, which limited an individual’s entitlement to out-of-work benefits to a period of five years over their lifetime, and which, according to American research, cut the welfare roll by 60%. Will he follow that model?

[Chris Grayling]

I studied that model carefully. One reason why we have adopted various programmes requiring people to undertake full-time work is to create a sense of urgency for them in finding employment. I am not convinced, however, that government is good enough at managing data to manage, for long periods—many decades—at a time, the kind of systems set up in the United States.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

The Minister did not provide the data that my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) asked for. He holds the parliamentary record for the abuse of statistics, having been rebuked for three separate offences by the UK Statistics Authority. Will he now sort out the shambles in his Department, do what he promised in January and lift the Work programme data ban?

[Chris Grayling]

The right hon. Gentleman does talk a lot of nonsense sometimes. First, he cannot add up—I have not been rebuked three times by the Statistics Authority. Secondly, the Work programme is progressing well, and I will publish further data on it soon.

[Stephen Timms]

Until today, the Government have told us that benefit reform plus the Work programme would sort out the welfare system, but this morning the Prime Minister said that they will not be enough. Will Ministers now sort out this chaos? Would not lifting the ban on data be a good place to start?

[Chris Grayling]

Let me give the right hon. Gentleman one piece of data: 80,000 fewer people are on out-of-work benefits today than when his party was in power.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

2. What steps he is taking to introduce a flat-rate state pension for new pensioners.

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

17. What steps he is taking to introduce a flat-rate state pension.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)]

The Chancellor confirmed in Budget 2012 that the Government will introduce a simpler, single-tier pension for future pensioners set above the basic level of the means test to better support saving for retirement—and I am pleased to say that the Prime Minister has reiterated that commitment today.

[Mr Hollobone]

Will the Minister assure the House that, were such a scheme to come in, existing pensioners would not be permanently disadvantaged relative to new pensioners? If that is the case, is it possible to explain it in plain and straightforward language so that everyone can understand it?

[Steve Webb]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We need to explain what are often very complex matters in simple language. The simple truth is that today’s pensioners have got the best deal in a generation through the restoration of the earnings link, which will be real cash in their pockets year after year, and that the new system will cost no more than was going to be spent in any case. We are taking a planned budget, simplifying the system, but not treating anyone adversely.

[Peter Aldous]

I am grateful to the Minister for that answer, but there is real anxiety among current pensioners that with the introduction of the single-tier pension they will become second-class citizens. Will he give an assurance and take that point on board?

[Steve Webb]

I do appreciate that point. It is often not well understood that pensioners coming down the track—tomorrow’s pensioners—are due to receive substantially higher pensions on average without our reform because the state system has been maturing. Our reforms are not doing that—it is in the system anyway—but our reforms do take the money and simplify so that today’s workers have a simpler system into which to retire.

[Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give an undertaking that those coming down the track—[Interruption.] I am already there; I am one of those pensioners being discriminated against. Will he give an undertaking that those who would be entitled to a higher pension than his flat-rate pension would provide will get the entitlement that they have paid for and not his lower flat-rate pension?

[Steve Webb]

I can reassure the right hon. Gentleman that the next generation of pensioners will be well looked after and specifically that the starting point for our calculation will be what people have in the bank—that is to say, rights already accrued—and specifically, therefore, if people are heading for a pension of more than £140 at the point we change it and have got that in the bank, it will be respected.

[Gregg McClymont (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (Lab)]

We are hearing from all sides today concern and anxiety about the move to a flat-rate, single-tier state pension. In order to end that anxiety and to answer these questions, will the Minister confirm that a White Paper will be published on this reform? Will he tell us when it will appear?

[Steve Webb]

I am pleased to give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that a White Paper is under active preparation and will be produced.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

3. What his policy is on the application of the work capability test to people with cancer; and if he will make a statement.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chris Grayling)]

We are committed to supporting people who are diagnosed with cancer in the most sensitive, fair and appropriate way. We are currently analysing responses from our informal consultation on the effects of cancer treatment and will publish a consultation response later in the summer. However, we have already put in place changes that have increased the range of cancer patients who receive ongoing unconditional support.

[Helen Goodman]

My constituent was treated for breast cancer in July 2010. She was deemed fit for work by Atos before the post-op results were received. The tribunal found in her favour and awarded her employment and support allowance in January 2012. However, her ESA entitlement was stopped in April because of the introduction of the Government’s 365 day rule. She was reassessed in May 2012 and found fit for work again. Her employer has held her job open but cannot re-employ her until she is deemed fit for work by her doctor. This is obviously extremely bad for her health. Will the Minister agree to meet me about this case?

[Chris Grayling]

It is obviously very difficult to talk about an individual case, and I am afraid that I make it a matter of policy that Ministers do not become involved in individual cases. What I would say is that it is extremely important that we provide support for all cancer sufferers who can potentially return to work to do so at the earliest opportunity. That is much better for them than being stuck at home on benefits.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

As a result of the Government’s review, will the Minister confirm that there is now much better understanding of cancer treatments, and that many people undergoing oral chemotherapy, for example, will now be placed automatically in a support group, which did not happen previously?

[Chris Grayling]

It is absolutely our intention to include for the first time people going through oral chemotherapy in the support group. The actual detail will be resolved in the review that is being carried out at the moment. We shall publish the outcome later in the summer. I stress again that this Government have broadened the range of cancer patients in the support group who receive long-term unconditional support until they are potentially able to make a return to work.

[Mary Macleod (Brentford and Isleworth) (Con)]

4. What recent discussions he has had on training for jobseekers.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chris Grayling)]

I have regular meetings with the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning, my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to discuss provision for the unemployed. We believe that we have forged a closer partnership between the two Departments than has existed in the past. We want to ensure that all unemployed people who have a skills gap receive the support that they need in order to fill that gap and return to work.

[Mary Macleod]

Starting new businesses could generate real growth for the UK economy and create more jobs. I recently held a seminar in Hounslow on entrepreneurship for women to encourage them to accept the start-up challenge. What is my right hon. Friend doing to encourage jobseekers to become entrepreneurs, and to help them acquire the skills that will enable them to succeed?

[Chris Grayling]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work that she has done, not only in holding the seminar but in organising an extremely successful jobs fair to help her unemployed constituents to find work. I believe that, through the launch of the new enterprise allowance, we have created a mechanism that will allow unemployed women in particular, and also unemployed older workers, to move into self-employment. They have a wealth of experience to bring to it, and I hope that the allowance will create a bridge, supported by mentoring, to enable them to do so.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

Training and benefit levels are inexorably linked by the Government. This morning the Prime Minister said that regional variations in benefit rates would affect areas such as mine in Wales, the north of England and Scotland much more than areas elsewhere. Will the Minister tell us whether he supports that, and whether it is supported by his hon. Friend the Pensions Minister?

[Chris Grayling]

I congratulate Opposition Front Benchers: this is one area in which they have made a major contribution to the debate. It was the Labour party that began the argument about the regionalisation of benefits. It was entirely sensible for the Prime Minister to take up that challenge, and we should have a proper national debate about whether this is the right approach for the future.

[Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)]

I welcome what the Minister has said about training. Does he agree, irrespective of certain quite loud noises off that have been heard recently, that the coalition is making the fundamental changes that will ensure that work always pays in future? That is a policy that I heartily endorse.

[Chris Grayling]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The universal credit, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is pioneering and which will be launched next year, will make a huge difference. As for the skills agenda, one of the coalition’s other achievements is the big expansion of apprenticeships. That is making a real difference to the prospects of unemployed people, particularly young unemployed people, giving them a chance to build up skills that can lead to a lasting career.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

The recent scandal involving the unpaid jubilee steward has exposed the fact that some companies out there, under the guise of offering training to Work programme participants, are exploiting them as cheap or unpaid labour. What checks does the Minister carry out on companies that use Work programme participants?

[Chris Grayling]

I must say that I think it is pretty poor when the eventuality of a bus arriving two hours early is turned into a scandal by the Labour party. In fact, as part of a training and development programme, a group of volunteers were participating in a national experience that would build skills which could take them into other employment. I think that the hon. Lady should welcome that and not criticise it.

[Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)]

What support is available to 16 and 17-year-olds who are released from young offender institutions such as the one in Werrington, in my constituency, to ensure that they receive the training that they need so that they can get back on the right track?

[Chris Grayling]

That is an important issue. One of the challenges that we face is that 16 and 17-year-olds are often not on benefits. Together with the Department for Education, we are introducing a new programme, which will begin in autumn and will be funded by Payment by Results, to engage, support and develop the skills of that particular cohort of young people. We cannot abandon them, as has happened far too often in the past.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

5. What steps he plans to take to improve the quality of medical assessments of benefit claimants.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Miller)]

We asked Professor Harrington to carry out a series of reviews of the work capability assessment, and have implemented the recommendations of his first review. We are continuing to work closely with him, and are ensuring that lessons learnt from the assessment are built into the design of the new personal independence payment.

[Kevin Brennan]

Why are so many of these assessments overturned on appeal?

[Maria Miller]

As the hon. Gentleman will know, there were problems with the system that we inherited. It was a harsh system, which we have been working hard to make work better, and I hope he will join us in supporting Professor Harrington’s work in this area, which is leaving us with a work capability assessment that better serves the people of this country.

[Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)]

6. What recent assessment he has made of the benefits for jobseekers of undertaking work experience.

[Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)]

11. What recent assessment he has made of the benefits for jobseekers of undertaking work experience.

[Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con)]

13. What recent assessment he has made of the benefits for jobseekers of undertaking work experience.

[Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)]

18. What recent assessment he has made of the benefits for jobseekers of undertaking work experience.

[Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)]

19. What recent assessment he has made of the benefits for jobseekers of undertaking work experience.

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith)]

Early analysis shows that approximately half of participants are off benefit within 21 weeks of starting a work experience placement. I am delighted that, despite a campaign run by anarchists and members of the Labour party, just like hon. Gentlemen on the Benches opposite me, to try to blight the chances of these young people, employers continue to come forward to join this excellent scheme. Young people have overwhelmingly shown that they want this valuable experience by continuing to volunteer to do their part.

[Stephen Hammond]

It is good news that young people and people on work experience schemes come off them within 21 weeks. How does that compare with the new deal set up by the previous Government?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

It compares very favourably. First, it is better. Secondly, it costs a lot less. Labour paid huge sums of money up front, whereas we pay the jobseeker’s allowance. The key point is that not once has any Opposition Front-Bench Member got up to defend this work experience programme, which many of their colleagues attack and try to destroy.

[Stephen Metcalfe]

Will my right hon. Friend remind us how long a young person can stay on the work experience scheme before they lose their benefit, and how that compares with the situation under the previous Government?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

This is the interesting bit, because the previous Government legislated for work experience before they left office and now attack it, but they allowed people only two weeks, which was not enough time for them to get the experience they needed. We have given people two months, and a third month if the employer offers them either an apprenticeship or a job.

[Eric Ollerenshaw]

Does the Secretary of State agree that, much like work experience for students in education, work experience for the unemployed plays a vital role in their securing the right habits in order to secure full-time employment eventually?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Yes, and one interesting fact is that although the ex-Deputy Prime Minister, Lord Prescott, attacked the scheme that had some difficulties in relation to young people learning and training, it turns out that the vast majority of them wanted to do it. Moreover, they got an experience that has allowed them to go after jobs at the Olympic park paying over £9 an hour, which they would not have had an opportunity to do if the Opposition had had their way.

[Jackie Doyle-Price]

Clearly, young people in particular will benefit from being able to acquire and demonstrate skills that are of value in the workplace. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should be doing everything we can to encourage employers to give similar placements?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I agree with my hon. Friend. One of the big problems we had was that some people, including the Labour party and those anarchists, have tried to stop those companies from doing that. I sometimes get confused as to who the anarchists are and who the Labour party members are when I look at the Opposition line-up, but the reality is that this is good for the young people who do it; it is good in terms of their experience; and they actually ask for it in the first place.

[Angie Bray]

When travelling around my constituency, I have been very struck by how enthusiastic young people are to get work experience. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, despite what the cynics say, young people are very keen to get work experience because they know that it helps prepare them for a real job?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I agree. Actually it is so good that they volunteer for it; I wonder whether we should run a work experience programme for those on the Opposition Front Bench.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is very difficult for Opposition Members to get a word in on this one. Is not the Secretary of State being rather silly, because most people know that if the work experience is of high quality and does not displace other people’s jobs, we are all in favour of it? Is it not about time that all of us on both sides of the House made sure that we had decent schemes for young people, which are of high quality and lead to jobs?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I respect the hon. Gentleman and I am grateful for those comments; I wish that everybody else on his side of the House approached this issue with the same attitude. Work experience has resulted in about half those going on to it getting off the benefits roll. They want to do it—this is really important—and what they are getting from it is experience they cannot otherwise get. Employers say to people time and again, “We can’t employ you because you don’t have experience,” yet they could not get that experience. Surely this has got to be a good thing for them and a good thing for all of us.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I, too, support good quality work experience that genuinely enhances employability, but as the Secretary of State seeks to roll out this initiative, what steps are his Department taking to ensure that high quality is maintained and that such work experience does not become a way for employers to churn cheap labour at the bottom?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Of course, the hon. Lady is absolutely right, and the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), is absolutely focusing on this issue with Jobcentre Plus. If we hear of any programmes that are not in that category, we will not allow young people to go on them. However, the key thing to bear in mind here is that this gives young people a real chance to get something they can sell to an employer. We should all back that, and I wish that more people were like the hon. Members who have just spoken.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

The questioners on the Government Benches asked about recent assessment of work experience, but the Secretary of State responded by talking about figures that he has been punting for several months now. Has he carried out any further assessment since the pilot project that produced those figures, which is nearly a year old now, given that the only other published assessment, of mandatory work experience, suggested that it did not work?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

We published these figures two months ago, but if the hon. Lady really wants to press me, I hear anecdotally from those in the Work programme that it is even better.

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

The Secretary of State may be interested to hear that Birmingham Labour went into the local election campaign promising work experience, so it is wrong to say that the Opposition are against it. However, the purpose of all this is to get people into work, and that requires a skills base. Has he assessed how much of the extra training of some people within companies is merely replacing what they are already doing, and how much is genuinely new commitment by companies to the training of young people?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

We believe that the programmes brought forward to us, and which these young people are volunteering for, constitute genuine experience that they will gain and that the companies were not necessarily providing before. Of course, I fully accept that we want to ensure that those are high quality, and I congratulate the hon. Lady, not for the first time, on genuinely looking at this issue from the point of view of the problem and how we solve it. I wish there were more people doing that, but the trouble is that Opposition Front Benchers absolutely do not attack those who spend their time trying to destroy the work experience programme.

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

We introduced mandatory work experience under the flexible new deal and we support, as we have heard from a number of my hon. Friends, proper work experience that leads to jobs. However, why did the Secretary of State scrap our scheme and instead pour millions into a mandatory work activity scheme that his own Department says has no impact? Should he not sort out this shambles before announcing his next set of half-baked changes?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I see that the Opposition have discovered one word that they can now all say because it is not too long for them: shambles. The only shambles that we see is what is going on on their Front Bench. The reality is that we did not persist with the two-week work experience programme because all the young people told us that it did not work—they needed more time. That is what you do: when you hear the truth from people who need your support, you act on it, like we did, and give them that extra time.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

7. What recent discussions he has had with his EU counterparts on the influence of the European Commission on UK social security policies.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

20. What recent discussions he has had with his EU counterparts on the influence of the European Commission on UK social security policies.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chris Grayling)]

I continue to have concerns about the efforts of the European Commission to increase its influence over the social security policies adopted by national Governments. I am working closely with European colleagues to resist encroachment on our national welfare systems, and last week met with some of them to discuss this. I am determined that social security should remain a national matter, and will continue to resist efforts by the EU to interfere.

[Richard Graham]

I am very grateful to the Minister, who has almost answered my question. Does he share my view that social security policy should be left entirely to member states, and what does he believe that we can do in practice to ensure that that is the case?

[Chris Grayling]

I think that it has to be overwhelming pressure from member states. The Austrians, for example, are now facing a case in the European Court that would have a similar impact on them as the court cases we are facing in this country. I increasingly find that other member states are recognising that this is a problem. The best way for us to deal with it quickly is to work together to get the Commission to rethink policy totally on this front and to do what member states believe is right.

[Neil Parish]

My experience, Minister, of the European Commission is that it always wants to seek more powers, so I welcome your answer but I think you need to redouble your efforts to make sure that we do not hand over social security policy to the Commission.

[Mr Speaker]

May I point out gently to the hon. Gentleman that I have provided no answer and am making no efforts, but that the Minister might be able to answer?

[Chris Grayling]

I am absolutely clear that we have to get the Commission to change. It is, after all, part of a collection of member states, all of which believe that the current direction of travel is wrong. We have to win battles in the Commission, the Parliament and the European Court. I will not hesitate to take legal action in the European Court wherever we have grounds for arguing that the Commission is acting against the terms of the Lisbon treaty and its predecessors.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

8. What progress has been made in transferring Remploy factories to social enterprises.

[Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)]

16. What progress has been made in transferring Remploy factories to social enterprises.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Miller)]

Within the commercial process Remploy has encouraged any proposals for the businesses, including bids that are social enterprise models. I, and DWP officials, have met social enterprise organisations, and I have also announced that funding of up to £10,000 is available to support employee-led proposals, including social enterprises. That money can be used for expert advice and support, including legal and accountancy support.

[Ian Lavery]

Many social enterprises feel as though they have been totally excluded from the consultation at Remploy. The consultation period has been an utter shambles; it has been chaos and confusion from day one. As a result, will the Minister consider restarting the consultation period in the best interests of the disabled people at Remploy?

[Maria Miller]

The hon. Gentleman and I have a shared objective of wanting to make sure that we work together with people affected by these announcements, and I do not think he would want to create any situation where we had to continue with this period of uncertainty for any longer than we already have. He is wrong to say that we should rerun this consultation; it is going forward in the way that it should. We have received 65 expressions of interest for Remploy businesses, and I am looking forward to working with those individuals and those organisations to see how many of those bids we can take forward.

[Mr Sharma]

Will the Minister advise the House as to how many organisations have been consulted so far and how many people were involved in that consultation?

[Maria Miller]

The process that we have been undertaking involves all the individuals affected by the announcements that we have made. I have made it plain to the Remploy board that communication through this period of 90 days is very important; we have put a great deal of emphasis on that. Under the previous Administration, 29 factories were closed and none of them was taken forward outside Government control, whereas we are working hard and we have received 65 expressions of interest for Remploy businesses to move outside Government control. The House should welcome that.

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

Does the Minister recall that the Sayce review stated clearly that there was “total consensus” among disabled charities and organisations that Remploy factories were

“not a model for the 21st century”?

Does the Minister agree that placing a concrete cap on the aspirations of disabled people, as some Labour Members wish to do, is morally wrong?

[Maria Miller]

I have to applaud my hon. Friend for saying things that Labour Members sometimes do not agree with. He is very courageous in that. The Government have set out their commitment to equality. It would not be right for us to see an increase in the amount of money being spent on segregated employment if we have equality at the centre of our thoughts—and we do.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

9. What steps he is taking to help separated parents resolve maintenance and contact problems.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Miller)]

It is unacceptable that only 50% of children in separated families benefit from an effective child maintenance arrangement. That is why we are fundamentally reforming the child maintenance system, and it is also why we recently launched our consultation on shared parenting.

[Charlie Elphicke]

To turn to the issue of contact, does the Minister agree that it is a fundamental right of every child to know and have a relationship with both parents, and that parents who stand in the way of that right are abusing the rights of their children?

[Maria Miller]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work he has done in this area and for his private Member’s Bill. He is absolutely right that all the evidence shows that children who maintain contact with both parents have a much better outlook on life. We are considering not only shared parenting in our consultation, but how we can help more families to work together on child maintenance outside the statutory system in a way that will help them work together on all the issues around a child’s life.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

Does the Minister think that making it more difficult and more expensive for parents to access their maintenance payments will make life easier or more difficult for children of separated parents?

[Maria Miller]

The hon. Lady will know that today we have announced a £15 million scheme to put in place the sort of support that I know she would want for separated parents, so that they can work together more effectively. I do not agree with her that our proposals will do anything other than make life better for children in separated families by ensuring that more money is flowing to them, whether that is inside the statutory system or outside it.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

To return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), does the Minister agree that it is essential that children automatically have access to both their parents, and that should not be the case only when it is proven to be unsafe? Up until now, the Government’s wording has been that it should happen when it is safe, but it should be only when it is unsafe that it should not.

[Maria Miller]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There should be a presumption of a meaningful relationship with both parents post-separation, and the proposals we are working on for child maintenance will underline that by helping parents to realise that it is their responsibility to work together to support their children, whether they are in a relationship together or whether they are living apart.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

The Minister announced today that £14 million is being spent, partly on an app that can be downloaded by couples who are thinking of splitting up,

“to help them through the painful process of separation.”

Will she confirm that the first two people to download it were the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister?

[Maria Miller]

My hon. Friend is potentially selling short our announcement today. Indeed, working with all the leading charitable and third sector organisations in the sector, we are looking for new ways to ensure that we have the appropriate support in place for families, whether through telephony, local face-to-face support or a web application. Perhaps Mrs Bone might like to take a look at that and give me her views, too.

[Pamela Nash (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)]

10. How many people are waiting for appeal tribunals on the outcome of work capability assessments.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

14. How many people are waiting for appeal tribunals on the outcome of work capability assessments.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chris Grayling)]

At 31 December 2011, the latest date for which data have been published, 63,500 appeals were outstanding in which the work capability assessment was a factor, down from 84,100 in October 2010. There are always a number of live appeals at the various stages of processing before being listed for a tribunal hearing.

[Pamela Nash]

The fact that 63,500 people are in limbo is a disgrace, and waiting for appeal results is damaging people’s health, particularly those who have mental health problems. What is the Minister doing to try to rectify the situation, and when can we expect waiting times for appeals to be at a reasonable level?

[Chris Grayling]

I think that the hon. Lady has misunderstood the situation. There will always be people who are waiting for appeals. If they put in an appeal submission today, they will not have a tribunal hearing this afternoon. There is always a gap to allow everyone involved to prepare for the hearing itself. We are doing everything we can to reduce the backlog of appeals, as we inherited a massive backlog two years ago from the previous Government. The figures I have just set out show that we have succeeded in reducing that. We have reduced it as far as possible, but there will always be people in the pipeline waiting for appeals, because they simply do not happen on the same day as the application goes in.

[Mrs Moon]

My constituent, Mrs W, was placed in a work capability assessment group on 7 April. She appealed and waited until September when she was successful, like 40% of those who appeal. Shortly afterwards, she was recalled for a further assessment. Will the Minister consider giving work capability assessments tribunals the ability not just to assess the rightness of decisions at the time they are made but to decide when the assessments need to be made, cutting the number of people in the revolving door, waiting for appeals?

[Chris Grayling]

The hon. Lady will know that when the present system was set up by the previous Government, they built in a system of prognosis times, which set a rough estimate of the next time an assessment should be held. As I said, I have now taken steps to lengthen that period when somebody has been through an appeal, but she should be under no illusion: the system she talks about is the one set up by her own party.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

The Minister should know that, at the end of last year, more than twice as many people as the Courts and Tribunals Service’s target figure were having to wait more than six months for appeals, at a cost to the Ministry of Justice of more than £40 million in the first year of this Government. When the tendering process for assessments for personal independence payments begins, will he seek options to ensure that any contractor that partners with the Government takes its share of the risk and of meeting the costs of decisions that are overturned on appeal?

[Chris Grayling]

The decision-making process lies within Jobcentre Plus and the decision makers work to a template established by the Department for Work and Pensions, but the reality is that under the Human Rights Act 1998, passed by the previous Government, the courts have decided that everyone has a right to appeal, and if people do not like the decision made, whether it is right or wrong, a large number will choose to appeal. We will do everything we can to get the decisions right, but we will not be able to stop people appealing.

[Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)]

21. If he will estimate the likely change in unemployment and housing benefit costs in 2015 compared with estimates made in the 2010 autumn statement.

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith)]

In 2015-16, we expect to spend around £220 billion on benefits and personal tax credits. That includes an estimate of spending on jobseeker's allowance and housing benefit which, taking account of the latest assumptions from the Office for Budget Responsibility, is around £1.4 billion higher than was expected in 2010.

[Mr Bain]

Is not the truth that just one in eight of housing benefit recipients are unemployed and that 93% of new claimants are in households struggling in low-paid work, with falling real wages but paying soaring rents to largely private sector landlords? Instead of forcing 380,000 young people under 25 back in with their parents or onto the streets, should not the Government be dealing with surging rent rises, building social housing and introducing a proper living wage, to deal with the biggest squeeze on living standards for 90 years?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Can I remind the hon. Gentleman which Government introduced the local housing allowance, as a direct result of which rents rocketed? As for our changes to housing benefit, the latest report, published about a week ago, shows that only about 1% of those affected have to move; a third have now said that they will seek work, which is a positive effect; and something near a half have not seen any rent rises or negotiated them downwards, so rents have been falling.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on introducing the benefits cap. Can he give more details of what has happened since housing benefit was capped? Also, in the light of the Prime Minister’s speech today, will he commit the Government to consider reducing the benefits cap from £26,000, which my constituents think is still far too high?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I shall certainly relay my hon. Friend’s views to the Prime Minister as part of the overall review. When we made the changes to housing benefit, we were attacked by the Opposition for “social cleansing” and all those dangerous things we were supposed to be dealing in—[Interruption.] No, no, by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) and his team. On the one hand, his team accuse us of social cleansing; on the other, he accused me the other day of not cutting deep enough on housing benefit. The only shambles here is their position on housing benefit.

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

A million young people are out of work. Now, the Prime Minister wants to deny housing benefit to under-25s, pushing thousands into becoming homeless and punishing workers on low pay or in an apprenticeship who need housing benefit to keep a roof over their head. Does the Secretary of State agree with the chief executive of the YMCA, who says it is

“difficult…to think in our 168-year history of a proposal more detrimental and having a negative impact”,

and the chief executive of Crisis, who says that the Government are being “irresponsible” and should concentrate instead on creating badly needed jobs and building badly needed affordable homes?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

We are doing all those things. The housing benefit changes are necessary to bring back under control a budget that was spiralling under the Government the hon. Gentleman supported. In almost 10 years, we saw that budget rise from about £11 billion to £21 billion. That was madness, and it was their lack of control and their creation of the local housing allowance that led to that problem, so we will take no lectures from him or his hon. Friends about what is right or wrong in relation to housing benefit.

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

How many young people under 25 does the Secretary of State think will lose their jobs as a result of the measures that his Prime Minister is proposing?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I am not aware that any would lose their jobs. I am aware that, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), the housing benefit changes that we have introduced are already leading to a large number of those who were not in work now seeking work. That is the difference between us and the Opposition—we believe that these changes should be about helping people to become independent; they think welfare is about making people dependent on them.

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

T2. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith)]

Today I am announcing the Department’s plans better to support jobseekers allowance claimants who are members of Her Majesty’s reserve forces. We plan to amend the JSA regulations with effect from next month so that claimants who are in the military reserve can attend their required 15-day annual training camp without having to terminate their claim. This will mean that Jobcentre Plus can actively encourage claimants to join the Territorial Army without facing unnecessary and burdensome administration difficulties.

[Mr Jones]

I thank my right hon. Friend. In Nuneaton and the north of Warwickshire, unemployment has decreased since the last general election. Not being complacent, my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Dan Byles) and I are running a jobs fair this Thursday, where a number of local and regional companies will be offering 220 jobs and 50 apprenticeship placements. Will my right hon. Friend welcome this and give a message of support and encouragement both to those companies and to the people in our constituencies looking for work?

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chris Grayling)]

I am very much aware of the event being held by my hon. Friend and his colleague. This is another great initiative by Members on the Government Benches. There have been a number of extremely successful jobs fairs. This one is poised to be another, with really good jobs on offer to unemployed people. I commend my hon. Friend enormously. I am grateful to all the organisations taking part. It is a credit to the community in his area that they are coming together to help the unemployed.

[Mr Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

This morning the Secretary of State said on the “Today” programme that universal credit is on time and on budget. Can he confirm that to the House?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Yes.

[Mr Byrne]

That is very interesting. The Minister with responsibility for unemployment told the House that all out-of-work benefits were supposed to be treated as universal credit applications from October 2013. The DWP newsletter from last month says that that now will not happen until mid-2014—nine months late. The project is supposed to cost £2 billion, but answers to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) say that it is £100 million over budget. Universal credit is not on time and it is not on budget, and the Secretary of State does not know what is going on in his own Department, so is it any surprise that the Prime Minister had to announce another revolution in welfare reform this morning? The last one appears to be collapsing into chaos.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Universal credit is on time and on budget. This is so typical of the right hon. Gentleman. He knows that universal credit is a programme that will be introduced over four years. He needs to go and check his figures again. There is something rather pathetic about the way he pauses on little figures and seems to think that that spells something. Universal credit will do more to get people back to work and it will rectify the mess that the previous Government left. It is on time and it is on budget.

[Mr David Amess (Southend West) (Con)]

T7. How many fewer benefits are there for people who are out of work than there were at the last general election?

[Chris Grayling]

I am pleased to say that there are 80,000 fewer people on out-of-work benefits today than there were at the time of the general election. It is worth the Opposition noting that as regards youth unemployment, when we take into account all the policy changes that have taken place, and if we strip out the ways in which the previous Government hid people and kept them off the unemployment register, youth unemployment is down as well.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

T3. A constituent has contacted me about a Work programme placement that is both unsupervised and offers no training. Is not the Minister worried that Work programme providers, such as A4e, deem that satisfactory?

[Chris Grayling]

If the Work programme providers do not deliver the right support, they will not be successful and they will not be paid. That is the joy of the system that we have put in place. The previous Government put hundreds and hundreds of millions of pounds up front into the pockets of providers. We make the providers put their own money up front in a commitment to deliver support to the long-term unemployed, get them into work and help them stay there.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

T9. Does the Minister agree that pensions tax and pensions means-testing help destroy our pensions system? What are the Government doing to ensure that it always pays to save for a pension?

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)]

My hon. Friend is right that at the moment there is a concern that if people save small amounts of money, all they do is deprive themselves of means-tested benefits. That is why our state pension reform is absolutely essential to ensure that when people do save they are better off as a result, and we look forward to that being a firm foundation for auto-enrolment when it starts later this year.

[Mr Dave Watts (St Helens North) (Lab)]

T4. Is not the problem with the Government’s benefit to work programme the fact that due to economic policies and failures there are no jobs for people to go to? For every five vacancies, there are so many people chasing them that there is no chance of them getting work. When will the Government do something about growth so that people can get back into jobs?

[Chris Grayling]

We are working extremely hard to support our economy and to support businesses to encourage them to grow and develop. We have had some very good news in the past few weeks at Ellesmere Port, with Jaguar Land Rover, and in the north-east with the investments in Redcar. Those developments are all good news for jobs. Since the election, there are 400,000 more people in work in this country. Our challenge is to ensure that we get young British unemployed people into those jobs and that we have fewer people coming from overseas and getting them.

[Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)]

May I press the Minister on the answer he gave earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Mr Amess)? Notwithstanding the difficulties of those facing youth unemployment, can he confirm that the youth unemployment figure today is lower than it was under the last Government?

[Chris Grayling]

When we take into account all the policy changes, I can indeed confirm that. The Opposition keep saying that long-term youth unemployment has gone up under this Government, but the previous Government hid the true picture of youth unemployment by moving people on to a training allowance. They did not then show up in the figures and that masked the true picture. We are being open and honest and telling the truth about the challenges that we face.

[Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)]

T6. As Member of Parliament for Ogmore, I have a direct and democratic interest in knowing how many of my constituents who are ex-incapacity benefit and are now on jobseeker’s allowance have been referred to the Work programme. Has the Minister now lifted the ban on disclosure of that information, as he promised in January, and if not, why not?

[Chris Grayling]

We have already published the referral numbers to the Work programme and we continue to publish estimates of the number of referrals to the Work programme. Every single person on employment and support allowance has access to the Work programme today, and every single person who moves from employment and support allowance to jobseeker’s allowance has access to the Work programme within three months.

[Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)]

While we must all welcome the public acclaim given to the Olympians taking part in the Paralympics, does the Minister agree that those with learning difficulties who have their own special Olympics are seldom given the same level of acknowledgement for their skills and abilities?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Miller)]

My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue. However, the Paralympics will give this country a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for us to showcase the talents of disabled people. I recently had the privilege of speaking to Channel 4 about how it will be covering this event and to meet some of the six disabled people who are now trained commentators who will be showcasing this amazing event.

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

T8. Perhaps my earlier question was not clear, because I did not get a clear answer from the Minister, so I wonder if he could answer my question this time. With the number of people who go through a process of work capability assessment, followed by appeal, followed by assessment again, will he undertake to ensure that the information on which tribunals decide that people are not fit for work is made available to those making the decisions for the following work capability assessment, so that people do not get caught in that cycle?

[Chris Grayling]

Yes, I get what the hon. Gentleman is talking about. We are currently working with the tribunals service to get written decisions passed back to Jobcentre Plus for decision makers. That will be introduced within the next month.

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

Having had a very useful meeting with Winchester Mencap on Friday, may I tell the Minister that it is particularly concerned that some of the flexibility of incapacity benefit should be built into employment and support allowance, as in the experience of many people with a learning disability, any paid work offered often peters out after only a few months?

[Chris Grayling]

These are issues that we are very sensitive to. We do everything we can to ensure that the support we provide to people with different forms of challenge and disabilities, through the Work programme and work choice, delivers the best possible and most tailored support. We will always engage with the charities involved and discuss how we can enhance the support we provide.

[Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)]

The food bank in Plymouth has seen the number of people using it increase by 700 since April. It has clear evidence that the reason for this is the problem in the transition from contribution-based to income-based benefits, which in some cases lasts between four and eight weeks. Families are being left without money and are having to resort to the food bank, or in some cases, the skips behind supermarkets. What is the Secretary of State doing in his Department to ensure that that gap is reduced significantly?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I accept the hon. Lady’s point and will look at the situation carefully to ensure that that does not happen. I will say that when we came into office food banks were not allowed to put their literature in jobcentres; the previous Government did not allow that and did not want them anywhere near jobcentres. We have since allowed them to put their literature in jobcentres. Jobcentre advisers are also telling people about that, so some of that expansion is due to the fact that people did not even know about this before we told them about it, which I think is fairly reasonable.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

Given the increasing evidence of market failure in the private pensions system and the Financial Services Authority’s recent estimate that between 30 % and 50% of private pension pots now go on charges, will the Government consider putting a cap on charges before auto-enrolment comes in?

[Steve Webb]

I am pleased to say that the early evidence from auto-enrolment—firms are already choosing schemes —is that average charge levels are coming down very dramatically, compared with the stakeholder charge caps that used to be in force, for example, with a norm of around 0.5% for last firms, which is radically below the levels we have seen in the market in the past. However, we need to keep this under review and have reserve powers to cap charges if we think they are becoming a problem as auto-enrolment is rolled out.

[Mrs Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)]

In their efforts to get people back into work, will Ministers please make more of an effort to work with colleagues in the Treasury on tax credits? Constituents of mine are taking three-month contracts, ringing up to get the forms, which then take six or seven weeks to arrive, and when they are returned they are being refused the tax credit because there is only four weeks of the employment left. This is putting people off taking temporary work and really is—I use the word again—a shambles.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

The hon. Lady knows that we are not yet responsible for tax credits, although under universal credit they will eventually come in. I will certainly relay her comments to the Treasury and ensure that that does not happen. I agree with her that everything we do to promote work, even part-time work, is very important.

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

Can the Minister confirm that over 800,000 new jobs have been created in the private sector since the election and that one of the fastest growing sectors in the sector is cyber-security, as it is in my constituency, where there is an insatiable desire to hire young people who have skills, particularly in ethical hacking?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The point she should make, quite rightly, is that these are new and growing industries where there are real threats to computers and people using them, and that is why the industry is growing. More than that, in the past three months we have seen a fall in unemployment and a rise in private sector employment, even though we have been moving more people from incapacity benefit, ESA and lone parent benefits to jobseeker’s allowance, so it has been a success in difficult times and we should applaud that.

[John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

Of the 54 existing Remploy factories, how many does the Minister expect still to be running at the end of this Parliament, whether they are called Remploy or go under another name?

[Maria Miller]

The hon. Gentleman will know that we are in the middle of a commercial process, and therefore I do not know the answer to his question. However, I hope that as a result of the work being done we can, as Liz Sayce’s recommendations suggest, set those factories free from Government control. I remind him of the comments made by the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain) back in November 2007:

“The reality is that without modernisation Remploy deficits would obliterate our other programmes to help disabled people into mainstream work.”—[Official Report, 29 November 2007; Vol. 468, c. 448.]

We agree with that statement.

[George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)]

The Labour party has been critical of the proposed regionalisation of benefits. Will the Secretary of State remind the House which senior politician first recommended the idea?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I understand that it was the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne), who actually called for a debate, but as soon as we got a debate he told us that we were debating the wrong thing, which is rather strange.

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

Many of my constituents have raised concerns with me about the forthcoming bedroom tax, especially given the lack of affordable alternative housing in Wolverhampton. Specifically, can the Secretary of State reassure me that individuals or families with disabilities who are in adapted housing, and who have waited some time to secure it, will not be subject to reductions in their housing benefit as of April next year?

[Chris Grayling]

We have ensured that local authorities have a substantial amount of money in discretionary funds to take into account the kind of situation that the hon. Lady describes, but the reality is that in the social rented sector we have about 1 million spare rooms, and at a time when people are queuing up on waiting lists throughout the country, it makes no sense for the taxpayer to pay for that.

Petition

Monday 25th June 2012 Commons Chamber

Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)

- Hansard - - Excerpts

The petition of residents of the Scunthorpe county constituency states:

The Petition of residents of Scunthorpe,

Declares that the Petitioners are opposed to the changes to Sunday trading hours brought in by the Sunday Trading (London Olympic and Paralympic Games) Act, as the Petitioners believe that the changes put unfair pressure on shop workers, who value shorter working hours on Sundays as they allow people to spend more time with their families.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to bring forward legislation to reverse the changes brought in by the Sunday Trading (London Olympic and Paralympic Games) Act and ensure that Sunday Trading Regulations are not suspended during the London Olympic and Paralympic Games.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.

[P001100]

Flooding

Monday 25th June 2012 Commons Chamber

15:30

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will update the House on flooding.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)]

Over recent weeks we have seen extraordinary amounts of rainfall, culminating in the flooding earlier this month when parts of Sussex experienced almost two months’ rainfall in just 36 hours, and most recently over the past weekend.

Some areas in Cumbria, Lancashire and west Yorkshire saw a month’s worth of rain in 24 hours, but Cumbria had the highest rainfall, at 210 mm, with 200 mm in Honister, compared with between 80 mm and 100 mm elsewhere in the region. That extreme rainfall caused rivers to rise to unprecedented levels in some cases, and to flooding being experienced on Friday and overnight into Saturday.

I do understand the devastation that is caused to people whose homes and businesses are flooded; it has happened to me. We expect the number of properties affected to be at least 1,200 as final numbers are collated throughout the impacted areas. My thoughts go out to all those who have suffered flooding, especially those in the worst affected areas, including Crawshawbooth, Todmorden, Hebden Bridge and Mytholmroyd. I know that local communities rallied round as the recovery operation began in earnest, and I hope that all will be able to return to their homes as soon as possible.

I should also like to take this opportunity to praise the excellent response from our front-line emergency services. I am delighted to report that, thanks in no small part to their efforts, there was no loss of life and few serious injuries. I am also very grateful for the diligent work of the Met Office and the Environment Agency staff in the Flood Forecasting Centre. Their forecasts, from the middle of last week, foresaw the event unfolding and meant that much work was possible in advance to lessen its impact.

Teams of Environment Agency and local authority staff were out before the flood waters arrived, clearing drains, testing defences and preparing flood basins. Flood warnings were issued to more than 7,000 properties, and flood warning sirens sounded in Todmorden and Hebden Bridge.

Protecting our communities against flooding is a vital area of the work of government, and I am pleased to say that the Environment Agency estimates that 11,000 properties were protected in the areas affected through a combination of flood defences, maintenance work, storage basins and temporary measures. For every property flooded, another 10 or so were not.

In Carlisle, the defences built following the 2005 floods have now prevented a repeat of that devastating event twice: in 2009 and this weekend. On Saturday, river levels in Carlisle were actually higher than they were in 2005.

In our changing climate, we will never be able to prevent flooding completely, as we have seen over this past weekend and earlier in June. Through the excellent preparations and work of front-line responders, including the police, the fire service, the Environment Agency and local authorities, and through the more than £2 billion of investment being made by the Government, however, we are better prepared for flooding than ever before.

[Mary Creagh]

I thank the Secretary of State for updating the House on the flooding in the north of England over the weekend, and I echo her tributes to the emergency services and voluntary sector, who worked to evacuate homes and keep people safe. I also thank the Environment Agency and local authority staff, who worked throughout Friday night to ensure that flood defences were activated in places such as my constituency of Wakefield, which was flooded in 2007, and the Lower Aire valley in Leeds.

Will the right hon. Lady join me in paying tribute to businesses that have offered help to businesses affected? Hon. Members on both sides will be relieved that no lives were lost, but the severity of the floods has meant that the communities affected face months of disruption and upheaval. What contact did the right hon. Lady have with the Cabinet Office civil contingency secretariat? What detailed information does she have on the number of homes and businesses affected in the areas of Hebden Bridge, Mytholmroyd and Todmorden?

What will happen to those who have been made homeless by the floods, and what housing arrangements are in place—particularly for the frail elderly and the disabled? What contact has the right hon. Lady had with the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government about the recovery effort? I see that the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), is here. Which Government Minister will lead on the flood recovery and on providing support for the affected communities?

Following the floods of 2007 and 2009, the Government set up a flood recovery grant as a one-off payment to councils to help households seriously affected by the floods. Do the Government intend to help councils and communities in that way this time? If so, when can communities expect that help?

When Wakefield suffered from floods in 2007, the loan sharks were out on the streets there the very next day. What contact has the right hon. Lady had with the Department for Work and Pensions to ensure that crisis loans are available to families left destitute by the floods, to ensure that families do not fall prey to loan sharks?

What estimate has the Department for Communities and Local Government made on the cost of flood recovery to local authorities? Is the Bellwin scheme likely to be activated by the floods? In 2007 and 2009, central Government covered 100% of local authority costs under the Bellwin scheme. Is the right hon. Lady planning to do the same again? What contact has she had with the Department for Education to ensure that children whose schools have been flooded continue to receive their education? Will she review the flood warnings given by the Environment Agency and local authorities, as issues have been raised about the timeliness of the warnings?

When I spoke to representatives of the Association of British Insurers this morning, they said that the initial estimate was that about 500 properties had been flooded and that the likely cost to insurers was in the low tens of millions of pounds. Can the Secretary of State give an estimate of the value of uninsured losses? What support will the Government give to the under-insured or uninsured? Will she encourage the loss adjusters to get into the affected areas as quickly as possible to provide help to people?

Every £1 invested in flood defences saves £8 in costs further down the line. This weekend, we had a reminder once again that floods are the greatest threat that climate change poses to our country. The right hon. Lady mentioned how much the Government are investing in flood defences, but that is a 30% cut from the 2010 baseline. In the light of what has happened, will she undertake to review the figure? Will she reassure the House that she will resist any pressure from the Treasury to cut flood defence spending in next year’s comprehensive spending review? Communities that have been devastated by flooding should not have to go through that terrible experience again.

[Mrs Spelman]

I certainly join the hon. Lady in paying tribute to the businesses that have helped with the situation on the ground—as they always do, in my experience. Every time I have visited a flood situation I have found that the whole community has rallied round, and I applaud that.

The Department has a procedure for dealing with flooding at three levels of risk: low, medium and high. Civil contingencies arrangements are not triggered at the medium risk of flooding, which is what we faced this weekend. We have arrangements in hand that cover all flooding eventualities. They were activated the week before last in Sussex and over the weekend in the north-west and west Yorkshire. The current state of play is that 1,200 homes have been registered as flooded, but the number could still rise as it becomes more accurate over time. I have a breakdown by community, if the hon. Lady is particularly interested, but without a doubt the most affected communities are Todmorden, Walsden and Callis Bridge, with 540 properties flooded, followed by Hebden Bridge, with 245 properties flooded, and Mytholmroyd and Sowerby Bridge, with 145 properties flooded. The numbers then reduce, but the flooding extends across a very wide area.

Homelessness is principally a responsibility of the local authority. The local authority in each of these areas takes a lead role in the provision of homes for those affected. I have been in contact with the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to make sure that our actions are joined up across Whitehall.

Under the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, we make specific grants available to assist local authorities, with £21 million-worth of grants provided this year and a higher figure to be provided in subsequent years of this Parliament.

On crisis loans, in the first instance the flood-affected can turn to a local authority for help through social funds. As I am sure the hon. Lady is aware, the trigger for the Bellwin formula is 15% of a local authority’s income, and current estimates from the Department for Communities and Local Government, through the Secretary of State, suggest that it is unlikely to be triggered in this case. The scheme is there to deal with a catastrophic situation facing a local authority, and any final decision on this will not be made until we know the full extent of the damage.

The local authority has primary responsibility for ensuring that schools are safe to return to and, in turn, informing parents.

We now have available a sophisticated system of flood warnings. Perhaps it is helpful for me to make all Members of the House aware of the new facility whereby anyone in a flood-affected area can register to receive a text message flood warning. There has been a very substantial uptake of this service. However, it often increases after an event has occurred, so the Environment Agency plans to proceed with text message flood warnings on an opt-out basis in future. Where households do not have a mobile phone to receive a text, it can be received in digital form on a landline, so no one should be unaware of a flood warning. In addition, I commend to the House the use of flood wardens who can knock on people’s doors to forewarn them, especially in the case of the vulnerable and the elderly. Communities that have been flooded often subsequently seek volunteers in this role.

On flood insurance, we are at an advanced stage in intensive and constructive negotiations with the insurance industry on alternative arrangements for when the statement of principles expires this time next year. As the hon. Lady will be aware, in 2008 the insurance industry notified her party, when in government, that the statement of principles would come to an end. Her party in government did not find a successor to the principles but, as she will have heard me say, we are well on our way to doing so. The average insurance premium is roughly £300 a year, while the average estimated claim in this regard is so far estimated to be £15,000. That shows the benefit of households being insured.

On flood defences, I do not accept the hon. Lady’s figure of a 30% cut. She is not comparing like with like. If we compare how the previous Government funded flood defences in their last four years in office with our commitment to fund flood defences for the four years that succeeded their loss of power, we see that the reduction is just 6%. When she considers the mess her party left the Government in, she will recognise that that was no mean achievement. In addition, a new method of partnership funding whereby third parties come in to help to get some of these new flood defences built has brought an extra £72 million into such works in its first year of operation.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is a statement by the Prime Minister to follow. I do not expect exchanges on this urgent question to continue beyond 4 o’clock, so if the level of interest is to be accommodated, there is a premium on brevity from Back Benchers and Front Benchers alike.

[Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)]

The Environment Agency has invested millions of pounds in Calder Valley’s flood defences over recent years, but nothing could have stopped what happened with the onslaught of water on Friday night. My wife and I saw first hand, from the valley bottom to up to 1,000 feet above these communities, a month’s rainwater coming down the country lanes in waterfalls and torrents. Will my right hon. Friend join me in saying to the communities of Todmorden, Hebden Bridge and Mytholmroyd that our thoughts are with them, and will she explain what extra help may be available to them to make sure that they quickly get back on their feet?

[Mrs Spelman]

Through my hon. Friend, I extend my heartfelt sympathy to those communities. I know how they feel, having had to evacuate my home for 10 months after flooding. It takes a long time and a great toll on people’s mental health to get things back to the state that they were in before the flood occurred. There are two practical things to say. First, the completion of the third phase of the flood defences in Todmorden will help to protect more properties. Secondly, the community in Hebden Bridge might like to consider the partnership funding model, which might bring useful assistance. My hon. Friend is right that when a month’s rain falls in 24 hours, virtually no infrastructure can prevent flooding completely.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

Is the Secretary of State confident that post-2013 flood risk insurance will be available and affordable to those who are most affected by the floods?

[Mrs Spelman]

Yes, I am confident of that because we have reached an advanced stage of negotiation with the insurance industry to secure universal and affordable flood insurance. It is often misunderstood, but the statement of principles was no guarantee of the affordability of insurance. We understand how important that is, and will make a statement shortly.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

It seems that the heavens are opening with distressingly increased regularity and intensity. Given that the science of forecasting is improving and the growing responsibility of the Environment Agency, what more can be done to ensure that that science is harnessed and that mobile defences are put in place to respond to it?

[Mrs Spelman]

My hon. Friend is right that the capacity to forecast has improved. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs gives the Flood Forecasting Centre £2.9 million per annum, which continues the funding position from before we came into government. The accuracy of the forecasting means that we can give communities vital hours in which to give advice to home owners on how to protect themselves and their possessions. I suggest that communities that face flooding regularly, which substantial parts of Cornwall do, consider technical provisions, such as text messaging, backed up by flood wardens who knock on doors personally. I saw people in Sussex resist moving even when all the advice had been given to them. There is no substitute for the human touch.

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

Many of my constituents have benefited from the flood defences put in place by the last Government. However, they are now looking to renew their insurance premiums for a further year. I am pleased to hear that the negotiations are at an advanced stage. However, given that people have to take out insurance now for 2013, when will the matter be decided?

[Mrs Spelman]

As I have indicated, good progress has been made. I spoke to the annual general meeting of the Association of British Insurers last month to indicate to the insurers that we were close to reaching agreement on a basis that will guarantee the universality and affordability of insurance.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I was in Rossendale last Friday night and I have never seen rain like that before in the United Kingdom. It was shocking. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that when there is warning that flooding is likely, one person in the north-west, or in any other region where flooding might occur, is responsible for rapidly co-ordinating the emergency resources?

[Mrs Spelman]

I can give that assurance to my hon. Friend, who, with his military background, will know the importance of a command and control structure. The response is linked to the severity of the risk. There is a very clear structure involving silver and gold commands, led respectively by the police and the local authority, which ensures that wherever such an event takes place—he is right that we are seeing extreme weather events with increasing frequency—a tried and tested procedure clicks into place. We practised that structure last year in Exercise Watermark.

[John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)]

Which of the flood-hit areas has the Secretary of State visited? There was nothing in her statement about the actions she will take, and little that showed that the Government understand that, when the waters recede, so does public and media interest, but the problems that families and firms face simply do not. It can take months to get those problems, including insurance claims, sorted out, so will she call in the insurance companies and ensure that claims are speeded up, as the Labour Government did after the 2007 floods?

[Mrs Spelman]

The right hon. Gentleman did not hear what I said. I know from personal experience exactly what flooding feels like, having been flooded out of my home for 10 months. I visited the flooding in Sussex the week before last, but there is a clear procedure for Ministers, which I imagine he knows. Ministers are not welcome in the immediate emergency because we might get in the way of the emergency services doing their job. We wait to be advised by them on the right time to visit. Had the urgent question not been asked today, I could have been on site. The Under-Secretary has kindly agreed to go to the north-west and west Yorkshire, because there is no substitute for hearing from the ground in the aftermath, as the clear-up operation takes place, what, if anything, we could learn to do better.

[Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

Has the Secretary of State been able to measure the impact of the habitats directive on the Environment Agency’s ability to maintain main rivers and prevent flooding?

[Mrs Spelman]

The Environment Agency has drawn praise not just from the local communities that were flooded this weekend, but from those that were flooded the week before last in Sussex. In my experience, including of the severe flooding event in Cornwall in 2010, the agency constantly strikes a balance to ensure that the forces of nature, which we admire on a fine day when the rivers are not bursting their banks, can be contained, and as far as possible directed not to do damage, to the built community in the event of such adverse weather conditions, which we see more frequently.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

Does the Secretary of State agree with the Environment Agency’s assessment that it should spend an additional £20 million on flood defences each year? Instead of disputing whether there is a 6% or 27% cut, does she not realise that the failure to invest that money costs Great Britain plc far more in the costs of clearing up after floods?

[Mrs Spelman]

We would all like to spend more money on flood defences—there is a very good return on investment: for every £1 of taxpayers’ money spent, there is an £8 return—but the reality of the situation is that the Labour party left the nation’s finances in a very bad state. When in government, the hon. Gentleman’s party indicated that it would cut capital by 50%. In the circumstances, therefore, he should see a 6% reduction as a significant improvement on what his party pledged.

In addition, I could not underline more the importance of the new approach to funding flood defences, which is to encourage partnership funding to bring in extra resources, so that more homes can be protected. In its first year, partnership funding has brought in an extra £72 million—much of that from local government. That means we will exceed our aim to protect better at least 145,000 more homes in the lifetime of this Parliament.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement on using partnership funds to create better flood defences. May I echo the words of my colleague who said that the dredging of rivers and tributaries by the Environment Agency can help a great deal in the long run with flooding?

[Mrs Spelman]

There is no doubt that the judicious management of our watercourses can help substantially in times of very heavy rainfall. Given the steepness of the valleys in places such as Cornwall and Cumbria, such action poses a significant challenge. The community of Hebden Bridge had not qualified under the old approach of 100% of state-funded flood defences, but it has the opportunity under partnership funding to get the flood defences that are much needed.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

I am sure the Secretary of State knows that today is the fifth anniversary of the dreadful flooding in Hull. In the light of that and Hull residents’ experience of getting insurance at a reasonable cost, without excessive premiums or excesses, can the Secretary of State assure me that the new agreement will open up the insurance market in areas such as Hull?

[Mrs Spelman]

Yes, I can give the hon. Lady that assurance; details will follow shortly. As I said, however, having inherited a situation in which the previous Government failed to come up with a successor to the statement of principles, I am proud that we have found a way forward with the insurance industry that, above all, guarantees that universal and affordable insurance remains available to all, including her constituents.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

The flooding in west Sussex has been of great concern, but will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the Government’s significant investment in the upper river Mole flood alleviation scheme, which is now starting to protect homes and businesses in Crawley constituency?

[Mrs Spelman]

Yes, I welcome it, and, through my hon. Friend, I would like to pay tribute to the emergency services, volunteers and communities following that severe flooding incident in Sussex. Almost two months’ rain fell in 36 hours. It was encouraging that the equipment we provided, within the county and across county boundaries, was brought into play in that time of need, as the procedures required.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State and colleagues.

G20 Summit

Monday 25th June 2012 Commons Chamber

15:56

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

The G20 needed to address the five big threats to the global economy: first, the problems in the eurozone; secondly, the mountain of debt and persistence of imbalances in the world economy; thirdly, the lack of growth; fourthly, the rise of protectionism; and fifthly the failure to regulate our banks properly. I shall take each briefly in turn.

First, I turn to the eurozone. Britain is not in the eurozone, and we are not going to join it, but, given that 40% of our trade is with the eurozone, its future affects our future. It is in our national interest for it to resolve its difficulties. As a full member of the EU and a significant net contributor to its budget, it is not only vital but right that we speak plainly about what needs to happen.

In the short term, we need rapid action by the core of the eurozone, including the European Central Bank, to restore financial stability and confidence to the countries on the periphery of the eurozone as they undergo their vital structural reforms. That needs to be reinforced in the medium term by improvements to the governance of the eurozone that recognise the remorseless logic of being in a currency union.

This clearly was a G20 summit, not a eurozone summit, but none the less the eurozone countries made some steps towards both those goals. First, they agreed to take all necessary policy measures to safeguard the integrity and stability of the eurozone, including breaking the link between sovereign debt problems and bank instability, and secondly they committed to taking further steps towards fiscal and economic integration, including through a banking union.

Britain does not want to stand in the way of these measures towards closer integration of the eurozone, but we will not be part of them. We did not join the eurozone precisely because we did not want to give up the kind of sovereignty over our national economy that is essential to making a currency union work. And we have been clear that whatever long-term decisions are made about the governance of the eurozone, the rules that govern the single market must always protect the interests of all its 27 members. This is a red line for Britain and is vital to our national interests. The eurozone now needs to get on with implementing the agreements reached at the G20, and I will work at the European Council this week to ensure that the eurozone takes these steps in a way that protects the UK’s interests.

To deal with the wider risks of contagion to the global economy, the G20 also welcomed the commitments to increase the resources available to the IMF by more than $450 billion. It is a basic principle of the IMF that the help it offers is for countries not for currencies. Indeed, almost all the IMF’s 50 programmes are for countries outside the eurozone. No country has ever lost money lending to the IMF, and Britain’s contribution is a loan on which interest is payable, and will be used only if troubled economies meet strict conditions to get their economies back on track.

Secondly, I turn to debt and imbalances. As at the G8, there was absolute agreement that deficit reduction and growth were not alternatives—you need the first to secure the second. The G20 also reaffirmed its commitment to reduce global imbalances, with deficit countries strengthening their public finances and surplus countries taking further actions to increase demand and move towards greater exchange rate flexibility. In particular, we welcomed China’s commitment to allow market forces to play a larger role in determining movements in its exchange rate, and to continue reform and increase transparency in its exchange rate policy. This is an important advance for the G20 in dealing with global imbalances, which was of course one of the underlying causes of the crisis in 2008.

In a debt-driven crisis where many countries lack the fiscal space to stimulate their economies, the most powerful tools for growth that we have are monetary activism and structural reform. The G20 agreed that monetary policy should continue to support the economic recovery, and every G20 country has put on the table specific structural reform commitments to strengthen global demand, foster job creation and increase growth potential. The Los Cabos growth and jobs action plan includes mechanisms to hold G20 members accountable for delivering on the reform commitments made. Vitally for us, this includes completing the European single market.

The G20 did not just focus on growth in the largest economies, as it also reaffirmed its vital commitment to supporting private sector-led growth in the poorest countries as the best way of helping people to lift themselves out of poverty. Britain led a significant breakthrough on two of the biggest barriers to successful private sector development in developing countries. First, we drove forward the G20’s anti-corruption plan, including securing agreement on important new principles that will deny to all G20 countries entry by corrupt officials or those who corrupt them. Secondly, on the inability of farmers to access the technology that makes their farming viable, Britain made a substantial contribution to the AgResults initiative, which will harness the creativity of the private sector to help put new technology in the hands of the world’s poorest farmers. We will be building on this further at our special event on hunger, which will be held at the Olympics in London this August.

Fourthly, on trade, we expressed our deep concern about rising instances of protectionism around the world. The President of Argentina had a number of arguments during this summit—not just with me—and it was made very clear to her that recent behaviour by Argentina on both investment and trade protectionism was not acceptable. At this G20, free trade again won the day. We extended our commitment to avoid any new protectionist measures until the end of 2014, and agreed to roll back new protectionist measures that have arisen, including new export restrictions.

Most significant of all, the US and the EU reached a groundbreaking political agreement to move forward with a deep but credible trade agreement with a clear and agreed timetable. The EU-US high-level working group will now produce recommendations for taking this forward by the end of the year. The EU and US make up half of the world’s gross domestic produce, so completing a deal here could provide an enormous boost to growth across the world. That means, of course, jobs and growth in Britain.

Fifthly, on financial regulation, this G20 maintained the political impetus behind the reform of regulation across the global economy. We endorsed the strengthening of the Financial Stability Board in holding all G20 countries to account for delivering on their commitments, which was specifically recommended by the UK report on global governance at the Cannes summit last year. We also agreed to push forward with completing the implementation of Basel III.

In the margins of this summit, I had useful discussions on some of our key foreign policy priorities. On Syria, where the regime continues to pound civilian areas with mortars, attack helicopters and snipers, the EU is today, as a result of UK efforts, extending sanctions to ban any EU companies from insuring ships taking arms to Syria. We will continue work with our international partners, including through the UN to stop the appalling slaughter and help forge a political transition to a democratic future that protects the rights of all its communities.

Finally, on the Falkland Islands, I took the opportunity to emphasise the importance of the planned referendum to President Kirchner. The islanders have had to put up with endless attempts at endless summits to put a question mark over their future. They want to determine that future themselves. No one should be in any doubt that, as far as the British Government are concerned, it is the Falkland islanders who will determine the sovereignty of the islands. I believe that their view will be respected by this House, this country and, indeed, by the world. I commend the statement to the House.

16:03

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. Let me start with the foreign policy issues that he raised. On the Falklands, there is support on the Opposition Benches for the absolute need to protect the principle of self-determination for the islanders, and we should always stand up for that.

On the issue of Syria, there is deep concern on all sides about the continued failure of the Annan plan to deliver a cessation of violence. Given the urgency of having an immediate end to the escalating hostilities, does the Prime Minister agree that it is now vital for the international community to unite around the need for the toughest sanctions against Syria? In his press conference after the summit, the Prime Minister said that President Putin has been explicit that he is not locked in to Assad remaining in charge in Syria, but Russia’s Foreign Minister Lavrov said that was not his Government’s position. Does the Prime Minister still believe this to be the case, and does he believe that there is a case for persuading Russia to take a tougher stance?

I shall now turn to the main business of the summit, the economy. The G20 last met in Cannes in November. Since then our country has gone into a double-dip recession, world growth has slowed, and the eurozone crisis has deepened. If ever there was a time for the international community to come together and act, this was it, but frankly—I think that the Prime Minister may himself really recognise this—all that we got from the summit was more of the same: drift and inaction in the face of a global crisis.

The Prime Minister claimed at his press conference afterwards that the summit had

“made important progress on the Eurozone, on the lack of global growth and on the rise of protectionism.”

That sounded familiar to me—and then I realised why. The Prime Minister had said exactly the same after the last failed summit, in Cannes in November. On global growth, the Cannes summit communiqué said

“should global economic conditions materially worsen”,

countries

“agree to take discretionary measures to support domestic demand”.

The list of the countries concerned included Germany.

Well, global conditions have worsened, most evidently in Britain, which is only one of two countries in the G20 to have gone into a double-dip recession. If that communiqué meant anything, it meant that this G20 summit should have been a coming together of the world leaders with a real plan to boost global demand, but what did we get? The Mexico communiqué is a cut-and-paste job which effectively repeats the same words that we heard at Cannes, almost word for word. Perhaps the Prime Minister will be able to tell me whether the words or the commitments of the international community have changed. As far as I can see, it is more words and no action. People will be asking—and rightly so—how much worse the economy has to get.

The tragedy, of course, is that the international community are divided between those who want a decisive move towards growth and jobs, like President Obama and President Hollande, and those whose answer to the failure of the last two years is simply more of the same—the same austerity that is not working—like the German Chancellor and our Prime Minister. Maybe the Prime Minister will be able to tell us whether, with Britain now in a double-dip recession, he was arguing at this summit for anything different from what he argued for last November. From his statement, it certainly does not sound that way.

On the eurozone, the Prime Minister said:

“These are significant agreements; now the Eurozone countries need to get on and implement them.”

But is not the reality that there is no agreement on the main issues of substance—how to recapitalise European banks, how the European Central Bank can stand behind member countries, and how to prevent the escalation of problems in the bond markets? It is more of the same—more kicking the can down the road—and there is no plan for growth in Europe either.

Of course the Prime Minister cannot be part of the solution, but he is part of the problem. No wonder he was looking for something else to talk about during the summit, and of course he found it, although, strangely, it was omitted from his statement—the tax affairs of Jimmy Carr. On Wednesday he could not have been clearer: Jimmy Carr was “morally wrong”. On what he called the “Gary Barlow situation”, he said—I am not making this up, I promise, Mr Speaker—

“As soon as I get in front of a computer I will have a look at it.”

On Thursday, the now-familiar sound of screeching tyres could be heard. The U-turn was well and truly under way. The Prime Minister said:

“I am not going to give a running commentary on different people’s tax affairs. I don’t think that would be right.”

[Interruption.] Members ask about the G20. Tax avoidance is certainly an issue at the G20 summit.

Later, when the Prime Minister’s spokeswoman was asked whether he had had a chance to catch up with the “Gary Barlow situation”, she said:

“He has been very busy.”

By Sunday, even the Prime Minister was saying “I think I’ve said enough.” That is certainly true.

There is one important lesson to be learnt from the last week. In the midst of an economic hurricane, this global summit should have produced action, not words. The reality is that this is a Prime Minister who has come back from the summit with nothing for Britain: nothing to turn around a double-dip recession, nothing to help Britain’s families, nothing to ensure growth in the world economy. No wonder he wanted to spend the summit talking about Jimmy Carr.

[The Prime Minister]

Oh dearie me.

First, let me thank the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) for his support over Afghanistan. I welcome that. On Syria, I agree that we should continue to back tough sanctions. On Russia, I had useful conversations with President Putin. Clearly the stance that the Russians take is a matter for them, but we believe that there is a real case for getting together and working to implement, in particular, the parts of the Annan plan that are about political transition, and we will continue to make those arguments.

On the economy, I do not over-claim—

[Ed Balls (Morley and Outwood) (Lab/Co-op)]

Tell us about Gary Barlow.

[The Prime Minister]

I will tell you about that in a minute. I am trying to remember the words that you are and are not allowed to use in the House, Mr Speaker.

I would not over-claim for this summit—clearly, it was a G20, not a eurozone, summit—but I would say to the right hon. Gentleman that there are some battles that we have to fight every year, and the battle to prevent the rise of protectionism is just such a battle. This year, we have moved forward the date before which no one can put in place protectionist measures by another year, to 2014. Frankly, I wish that had gone further, but the idea that we fight this battle once and the fight is over is quite wrong.

The right hon. Gentleman’s problem with the communiqué —of course, he did not say whether or not he would have signed it—is that what he wants is more spending, more borrowing and more debt. The fact is that, while there might be some countries that could afford to spend more, because of the mess he left, Britain is not one of them. I have to remind him that he left us with a deficit that was bigger than those of Greece, Portugal and Spain. He quoted President Hollande, but he might remember President Hollande’s statement in which he said that the national debt is the “enemy” of the left. What a pity it is not an enemy of the left politicians sitting across from us. The right hon. Gentleman says we are part of the problem: frankly, he created the problem.

As for the issue of Jimmy Carr and all the rest of it, we learned from what happened in respect of Ken Livingstone that it is Labour politicians who are involved in tax avoidance, and now we know a new rule: they will stand up for tax avoiders wherever they are.

[Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)]

On Syria: last week, in answer to a parliamentary question, the Foreign Secretary agreed that there was some resemblance between Syria and Bosnia. If that is so, will the Prime Minister do his utmost to make sure that the Damascus of 2012 does not become the Sarajevo of 1914?

[The Prime Minister]

As ever, the Father of the House makes a very important point. One of the crucial things we want to see for the future of Syria, whatever the outcome, is that there is proper protection of minorities, including Christian minorities, in that country. We do not want to see sectarian conflict. It has become increasingly clear that there will not be a prosperous and safe future for Syria with Assad still in charge. That is why the political transition that Annan’s plan involves is so important and why we should keep pushing it.

[Mr Peter Hain (Neath) (Lab)]

Can the Prime Minister explain how Britain will retain its influence in the G20 given that his Government are isolating themselves from the main power brokers in the European Union? As Russia and China follow America in becoming superpowers, and as Russia flexes its muscles and India rises too, surely we should be right at the centre of the EU so that we are listened to more, instead of being followers on the margins of the EU?

[The Prime Minister]

If by that the right hon. Gentleman means, “Should we join the euro and just go along with everything that is suggested?”— [Interruption.] Well, that is what would follow, and I do not accept that for a moment. Britain can play a strong role in the EU, but where there are things we do not want to join, such as the Schengen no-borders agreement and the single currency, Britain should stay outside them.

In terms of our relations with the rest of the world, the Government have done a huge amount to increase our relations with China and India, as trade flows in the last few years show: in the last two years, exports to China up 72%, exports to India up 93% and exports to Russia up 109%. We are making a difference where it counts.

[Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con)]

The Prime Minister referred to the part of the G20 declaration headed

“Intensifying the fight against corruption”,

which endorsed the

“denial of entry to our countries of corrupt officials, and those who corrupt them”.

As these measures were inspired by the tragic case of Sergei Magnitsky, who died in a Russian prison having exposed massive corruption by Russian state officials, is it not ironic that the next chair of the G20 will be Russia, and that President Putin will be chairing the next conference, in St Petersburg? Will my right hon. Friend encourage President Putin, who presumably endorsed this declaration, to ensure that those responsible for the death of Magnitsky and this massive corruption are brought to justice before President Putin chairs that conference a year from now?

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. and learned Friend makes an important point. The section of the communiqué about corruption is indeed important, and all the countries that have signed up to it should make sure that they put it in place. One of the strengths of the G20 is that, because it is not bringing together countries that necessarily share all the same democratic or human rights values, it is an opportunity to try to push some of those agendas with colleagues sitting round the table.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister jests about what words are allowed and not allowed in this Chamber; on the Opposition Benches, we would quite like to hear one word more often from his lips: “growth”.

Further to the question from the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind), the problem of corruption in Russia is manifest. On 7 March, this House unanimously agreed a resolution, supported by the Government, calling on them to introduce legislative proposals to make sure that those involved in the murder of Sergei Magnitsky and the corruption that he unveiled were banned from this country. When will those legislative proposals be introduced?

[The Prime Minister]

I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that the word I am waiting for from him, because he introduced a point of order claiming that I had misled the House, is “sorry”. To be fair to him, he has said sorry to everybody else—you, Mr Speaker, I think, and to the House in general—but the person he accused of doing something wrong he has yet to say “sorry” to. So, until I get that apology, I think I will leave off the answers.

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

The communiqué was clear that, as a way of agreeing further growth, there should be investment in infrastructure, particularly in housing, which would bring both jobs in general and deal with youth unemployment in particular. Can the Prime Minister say anything about the priority our Government will give to those matters in this country, in order to get youngsters off the dole and houses built for them to live in?

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend raises an important point. Because we have credibility in financial markets and our interest rates are less than 2%, we are able to use the strength of our balance sheet to help make sure that houses get built, that infrastructure goes ahead and that we help our economy in that way. We are looking at the best way to make this happen.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

Given the lack of any discernible progress on ending harmful fossil fuel subsidies since the first G20 pledge on that three years ago, and given the silence about it again today, what would the Prime Minister say to the 1 million people whose petition was handed to him last week asking for an immediate end to those subsidies? Does he really think they are the best use of $100 billion globally every single year?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady makes a very important point, and there is huge pressure on countries that have big fossil fuel subsidies to end them. A number of countries—such as Nigeria and, I believe, Pakistan—have taken some steps to end the subsidies. It is obviously a difficult and painful process for those Governments to go through as they change the structures of their economy, but we should be encouraging them.

[Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)]

May I welcome the Prime Minister’s attack on protectionism and support for free trade, particularly the US-EU trade agreement timetable? Does he agree that these are the two largest trading blocs in the world, and together will create an enormous bloc that will have a profound effect on growth and trade across the world?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is entirely right to raise this issue—it is half the world’s GDP. There are a huge number of difficulties in getting these talks properly under way; there will be concerns about farm subsidies and about hidden protectionism on both sides. But the pressure from European member states on the European Commission—and, indeed, from the Commission itself—and, I believe, from business in the US on the American President, is to get a deal done, because in the end, it would be very good for all of us.

[Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)]

Now that the Prime Minister has had his Jimmy Carr moment, would it not be a good idea to publish a list of all those using tax avoidance schemes, including those closer to home and those who inhabit millionaires’ row?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I feel sure that the hon. Gentleman was seeking to relate his question to the European summit.

[Mr Skinner]

That is where it all happened.

[Mr Speaker]

Yes, and I know that that is what the Prime Minister will deal with in his reply.

[The Prime Minister]

I was hoping, for once, that the hon. Gentleman would stand up and applaud what I had said about tax avoidance and aggressive tax avoidance. I thought, for once, we might be on the same side.

[Mr Speaker]

And better still—I beg your pardon to the hon. Gentleman and to the House—to the G20 summit. That would be helpful.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I am very grateful for the Prime Minister’s statement, particularly after he made such an excellent speech on welfare reform earlier today. Could he confirm that the referendum for the Falkland Islands will be binding and solemn? As referendums are such a good idea for people, why can we not have one in this country about our relationship with the European Union?

[The Prime Minister]

That was an excellent link, if I may say so. What is so important about the Falkland Islands referendum, which is very much an initiative that has come from the Falkland islanders themselves, is that it will give the opportunity for the rest of the world to see what the people who live there actually want—lots of countries that are not particularly focused on this issue may, in the past, have gone along with proposals from Argentina without really considering that. When they see it in glorious technicolour, I hope that will make a difference.

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Prime Minister will be aware that last week the Rio+20 conference also took place. As the leader of what he calls the “greenest Government ever”, can he share with us what representations he made in Mexico about that other crucial conference?

[The Prime Minister]

Obviously it is difficult to be in two places at once, so I did the G20 and the Deputy Prime Minister was at the Rio+20 summit. We discussed it a great deal in advance, and I think it did make some useful progress in terms of sustainable goals. I am also going to be working, through this high-level panel to which Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has appointed me, to make sure that we put in place the right replacements for the millennium development goals and that they take into account sustainable concerns as well.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that events in the eurozone have predictably proven that the creation of the single European currency was a disastrous mistake?

[The Prime Minister]

It would have been a mistake for us to join the single currency, because we did not want to give up the necessary sovereignty to make a single currency work. We have to respect the fact that there are countries in the eurozone that want to make it work, and we have to allow them that opportunity. It would clearly be in our interests if we had a working single currency on our doorstep, rather than a dysfunctional one, which, I am afraid, is slightly what we have at the moment. So we have to make our own choices, and other EU countries must make their own choices, but the key point—this is where I agree with my hon. Friend —is that a single currency will not work unless it has at least the underpinnings that other single currencies, such as our own, have: a central bank right behind it; a means of supporting the weaker parts of the union at various times; and some sort of joint debt issuance. Those are the sort of things that all single currencies, the world over, have. To that extent, I agree with him.

[Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)]

At the G20, how did it feel for the Prime Minister to be one of only two leaders to have their domestic economies in recession?

[The Prime Minister]

What it feels like at the G20 is that you are around a table with people from other countries that have large budget deficits but not as large as the ones that we were left. We were left with an 11% budget deficit and with the biggest banking bust that had taken place anywhere. So I would say that there is considerable sympathy for that around the table, and a lot of people around the table talk about the complete mess we were left in.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

The German Foreign Minister recently wrote in The Times:

“Anyone who wants new flash-in-the-pan stimulus packages financed by yet more borrowing has learnt absolutely nothing from the crisis.”

Who was he talking about?

[The Prime Minister]

I cannot possibly think, but I can think of some people sitting opposite me who do believe that the way to get out of a debt crisis is to borrow more—that is their policy.

[Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)]

The OECD has predicted that economic demand in America will rise this year at 2.3%, but in Britain it will rise at only 0.2%. Can the Prime Minister explain why?

[The Prime Minister]

There some quite significant differences between the American economy and the British economy. One of the biggest differences is that it is a reserve currency and we are not a reserve currency. Another big difference is that we had an 11% budget deficit, which was bigger than the deficits of Greece, Spain and Portugal. That is the legacy that the hon. Gentleman’s party left, and until Labour Members apologise for that legacy, no one is going to take them seriously.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I call Mr Ellis. [Interruption.]

[Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I did not want to hurry the hon. Gentleman, but we can hear his question when he has calmed down and when he is ready.

[Michael Ellis]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the rather ridiculous posturing by the Argentines at the G20 summit tries to hide the fact that it is they who are the real colonialists, because they wish to ignore the democratic wishes of the Falkland Islands people themselves?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. At the heart of the UN charter is the concept of self-determination, which is why I think that the referendum is important. In many ways, we do not need it to happen in order to know the wishes of the Falkland islanders, which have always been clear, but none the less I think that it will underline that and people will be able to see that it is not Britain that is behaving in a colonialist way but that we are simply doing what the Falkland islanders want us to do.

[Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)]

On the basis of what authority is the Prime Minister lecturing the eurozone when two and half years of his Government’s policies have driven this country into a double-dip recession?

[The Prime Minister]

I think that as a net contributor to and full member of the European Union we have every right to say what we think is necessary to fix the crisis. The hon. Gentleman talks about what has happened over the past two years, but I would make the point that 400,000 more people are in work than at the last general election. Unemployment was down this quarter and employment was up, and there are 840,000 more private sector jobs. It is tough and difficult but a rebalancing of our economy is taking place that involves more manufacturing and more exports and that is leading to private sector job growth.

[Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con)]

The Prime Minister referred in his statement to the changes of governance in the eurozone and the remorseless logic of being in a currency union. Those of us who have consistently called this right over the past 20 years have serious reservations about asking countries such as Greece, Spain and Portugal to make the democratic sacrifices that we ruled were unacceptable to the United Kingdom. Does he share our concern that when countries find they cannot change the policies of their Government through the ballot box, it could lead to profound instability in Europe?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point, but the point that I would make in response is that it is not for us to tell those countries what to do. If countries want to join a currency union, understand that to make that currency union work they have to give up all sorts of sovereignty and freely enter into that bargain, that is a matter for them and not a matter for us. It is for us to decide whether we want to do that, which we do not, and—and, frankly, it is all right to do this—to give advice about what would make a eurozone work better than it is working today.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

The communiqué reads:

“We are committed to adopting all necessary policy measures to strengthen demand, support global growth and restore confidence”

and

“enhance job creation”.

I welcome monetary activism as one of the tools to help achieve that, but can the Prime Minister explain to the House how his Government’s austerity programme will do anything other than weaken demand, weaken growth and suppress demand for labour?

[The Prime Minister]

I make this simple point to the hon. Gentleman: if we did not have a credible plan for dealing with our debts and our deficit, our interest rates would not be below 2%. It is worth remembering that when this Government took office, Spanish and British interest rates were at the same level. Our rates are now below 2%, which is helpful for growth, for business and for home owners, and the Spanish have interest rates close to 7%. That is the point. The idea that if a country spent more, borrowed more and added to its debts, it would stimulate its economy is probably wrong.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I gently say to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) that if he wishes to conduct a running commentary on our proceedings, he is welcome to apply for a job at Wimbledon over the next fortnight, where his services might—or, alternatively, might not—be required.

[Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)]

What assessment has my right hon. Friend made of France’s deficit reduction plan?

[The Prime Minister]

I look carefully at what the French are both doing and saying and it seems to me that their plans to reduce their structural deficit are, if anything, more aggressive than our plans to reduce our structural deficit. I hear from the Opposition that we should learn lessons from France, and the fact is that the French have a deficit reduction programme, it is quite aggressive and they refer to the national debt as the enemy of France and the enemy of the left.

[Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)]

Did not the G20 communiqué argue that advanced economies should pursue fiscal consolidation at a pace appropriate to support recovery? Why, then, is the Prime Minister pursuing fiscal consolidation at a pace that has contributed to a double-dip recession?

[The Prime Minister]

We are pursuing fiscal consolidation at a pace that is right for the British economy, which is why our interest rates are as low as they are.

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

Was the Prime Minister surprised to hear quite a lot of questions about stand-up comedians but that neither Tony Blair nor the Leader of the Opposition have ruled out joining the euro?

[The Prime Minister]

To be fair to the Leader of the Opposition, he has said that whether or not they will join the euro depends on how long he is Prime Minister, whereas the shadow Chancellor has said that they will not join the euro “in his political lifetime”, which gives us an interesting conflict—[Interruption.] For once, the shadow Chancellor has said something from a sedentary position with which I agree. He said that his political lifetime could be quite short—here’s hoping.

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

On a more serious note—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. This outbreak of amity is very welcome, but I am sure that Members are united in wanting to hear Mr Mark Lazarowicz.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

On a more serious note about the euro, Greece now has a new Government, which indicates that it will accept the bail-out but wants some flexibility in how it is implemented. What will the G20 and other institutions do to meet that request? Of course Greece must accept its responsibilities, restructure its economy and all the rest of it, but at the same time is it not important that we show flexibility, so that we do not run the risk of the new Greek Government collapsing along with the deal and, as a result, bringing down not only Greece, but many others in the world community?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman asks an important question. It will be a decision for the Greeks to make in collaboration with the members of the European Union that have extended that money to Greece, of which we are not one, and of course the International Monetary Fund. The problem is that any delay in the terms of the memorandum effectively means more money going from those predominantly eurozone members to Greece, so those discussions have to be had; but other countries that are on track with the programmes that have been put in place will, I think, feel very uneasy about one country getting special terms. In the end, it will be a matter for the eurozone members and Greece to hammer this out between them.

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

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on facing down the Argentine President and pointing out that we will not be bullied or have any silly stunts. Does that not contrast starkly with either giving away huge European rebates or cosying up to African dictators, and show once again that if we want someone to stand up for sovereignty and British interests, we need a Conservative Prime Minister?

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. It seemed to me important to try to make that point, not just to Argentina but—almost more to the point—to other countries, which sometimes go along with motions proposed at various international gatherings that are against the interests of the Falkland islanders because they have not heard their voice. People are now going to hear that voice, and I hope the world will listen.

[Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)]

Is not the Prime Minister’s influence in and prescription for the world economy fatally undermined by the first double-dip recession in 37 years in this country?

[The Prime Minister]

The point about what we are saying about the world economy is that, in fact, we are part of the consensus on the need to stop the march to protectionism, to regulate the banks properly, to have credible fiscal plans so that interest rates are kept down, and to have proper monetary activism and structural reforms to deliver growth. That is what the world signed up to at the G20 and it is a consensus that the Labour party is completely out of.

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

Given that the Leader of the Opposition seems to have identified the President of France as his special friend, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is worth reminding the right hon. Gentleman of the words of President Hollande, who said that growth cannot be generated by means of further public spending, because that needs to be reined in?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is entirely right—that is exactly what the President of France said. He knows that a credible plan to reduce the deficit is necessary to generate growth in any country, and that one is fatally undermined by the lack of that credibility. It is only the left in this country that thinks we can borrow our way out of debt.

[Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

May I register the deep disappointment that the Prime Minister did not make the extra journey to attend the Rio+20 Earth summit? Given his remarks about growth, may I ask how he is making the links between the need to go beyond GDP and the importance of natural capital in the arguments and the growth objectives on the G20 agenda?

[The Prime Minister]

That is a perfectly fair question. My judgment was that having done the G8 and NATO summits, then the G20 and an important bilateral visit to Mexico—we should be linking up with the fastest-growing economies in the world—it was better to ask the Deputy Prime Minister to attend the Rio summit, which I believe made some important progress. This Government believe that, as well as GDP, we should be thinking about other measures of sustainability and well-being, and we are measuring those things for the first time in this country, which is giving something of a lead to others.

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s support for free trade at the G20, and like him I believe that the free movement of peoples is important to free trade, but does he agree that it was a great dereliction of responsibility by the previous Government not to introduce transition arrangements in relation to those states that joined the EU in 2004?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. It was the Conservative Opposition who warned that it was a bad decision to allow unencumbered access to British labour markets from countries such as Poland. We well remember being told, “You can’t talk about these things”, that it is somehow racist to discuss immigration, and all the rest of it. Year after year we had to put up with that nonsense, and to get a half-baked apology now is simply not good enough.

[Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

It was interesting to see that the Prime Minister treats correspondence from the President of Argentina in the same way as he treats correspondence from Members of the House. Will he make it clear beyond any equivocation that not only is the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands not open for negotiation, but it is not open for discussion in any forum whatever, and that the wishes of the people of the Falklands to remain British will prevail?

[The Prime Minister]

I can certainly give the right hon. Gentleman that assurance. The referendum of the Falkland islanders will help us to deliver that in practice as well as in theory. Let me say to the right hon. Gentleman that if he writes me a letter, I shall try to respond to it very speedily.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

I share my right hon. Friend’s concerns about the sovereignties and powers that may be given over by some of the weaker countries. I am concerned that we are not having a debate about what sort of chimera will be created by those who will mop up those powers and sovereignties, and I urge my right hon. Friend to speak up strongly on the European Council this week. May we have a debate when he returns from the Council, to inform the House exactly how we are being protected against this newly created large superstate?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Of course there will be consequences if the eurozone members go ahead and form a more integrated eurozone, and it is very important that we protect Britain’s interests, particularly our interest in having a fair and open single market. On the issue of how we debate these things in Parliament, the Backbench Business Committee took over all the days for Back-Bench debates including, as I understand it, the time that was previously allotted by the Government for European debates in advance of European summits. So if the Backbench Business Committee wants to put in such debates, I am sure Foreign Office Ministers would be only too happy to answer those debates, which would help inform me before I go off to European Councils.

[Gavin Williamson (South Staffordshire) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is grossly hypocritical of the Argentine Government to demand talks on the Falklands, while at the same time refusing to accept a letter from the Falkland Island Government about talks?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. There are a number of things about which the Falkland islanders would like to have proper discussions with Argentina—about the links between the Falklands and countries in Latin America; ordinary conversations that the Falkland Islands should be having with neighbouring countries. What is absolutely clear is that for that to happen, countries need to respect the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and the decision that people there make.

[Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)]

What benefits might my constituents see from an EU-US free trade agreement?

[The Prime Minister]

If we expanded trade between Britain and America as part of the EU expanding its trade with America, the benefits would be more goods and services and more jobs in the UK, and more opportunities to export. We might find particular advantages to Britain in some of the services fields, where we have very good companies that do not always get full access to US markets. In that way my hon. Friend’s constituents would benefit.

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

Despite the economic headwinds of the eurozone crisis, in the west midlands in the past year 4,000 jobs were lost in the public sector, but 81,000 jobs were created in the private sector. Does that not vindicate the Government’s strategy of reducing the deficit and keeping interest rates low?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. As I said, there are 400,000 more people in work than there were in May 2010. Of course we have seen some job reductions in the public sector, but they have been more than made up—several times made up—by the jobs that have increased in the private sector. That is the sort of rebalancing that our economy needs.

[Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend encourage business to look also beyond the EU to secure growth and future orders, and will he ensure that Government policies are designed to support business to do that and to break down often hidden protectionism in other markets?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. Part of the Government’s strategy is to link Britain with some of the fastest growing countries in the world, and that is why I have personally taken trade missions to almost all of the G20 countries now, apart from Brazil and Argentina, and I hope to go to Brazil later this year. One of the most effective ways to break down trade barriers is through the EU trade deals. We have done one with Korea; we now need to do one with Japan, and there are many others in the pipeline.

[Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister has talked a lot about eradicating the debt. At the start of the Parliament he said he would eradicate it by the end of the Parliament. How is that timetable going?

[The Prime Minister]

The deficit has been reduced by a quarter in two years.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

The Argentine Government and the media often repeat the claim that Argentina wants the Falkland Islands back. Does my right hon. Friend agree that no one can have something back that has never been theirs? Argentina has never had legal possession of the Falkland Islands, and unless it is the wish of the Falkland islanders themselves, it never will do.

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend puts it very well; I could not have put it better myself. The key point is self-determination, and that is what the referendum will prove.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

Does the Prime Minister agree that the relative strength of the German economy is partly derived from the fact that it has a sensible approach to public finances, and that we should continue to promote that across Europe? Does he also agree that the importance of the European Central Bank needs to be further enhanced?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Of course, there is an enormous amount of pressure on Germany to do more to back the eurozone, and I understand and support some of that pressure, but we should remember that the German economy is so strong because it went into the recession with a budget surplus, whereas we had a budget deficit, and it had spent the previous 10 years getting more competitive, building up its industry and making sure its economy was balanced. Sadly, under the last Government we spent too much time imitating Greece, and not enough time imitating Germany.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

It seems that 655 Argentines lost their lives in the Falklands war. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if Argentina were to restore proper sea and air links to the Falkland Islands, the families and loved ones of those in the Argentine cemetery would be able to visit it properly, which is what should happen?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. There is the air link with Chile. Obviously, if there were better relations, there could be air links with Argentina, but that has to be on the basis that Argentina respects the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and the decision that the people of the Falkland Islands are going to make. Another reason why the referendum is important is that it will put that beyond doubt, and perhaps that will allow better conversations to take place.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

Is it not right that international problems such as tax avoidance should be dealt with internationally at meetings such as the G20 summit, particularly as in the UK tax avoidance by individuals and corporations increased massively during the past decade? Is it not wrong and morally repugnant for anyone to attack, belittle or undermine the Prime Minister in dealing with this, particularly as the Leader of the Opposition did in his remarks earlier?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for what he says and make the simple point that tax evasion is illegal and should be pursued properly. Of course there are things that people do to minimise their tax bill, whether it be investing in a pension or an ISA, but as the Chancellor has said, and I totally agree, there are some aggressive tax avoidance schemes that should be roundly condemned, and that is exactly what the Government are doing.

[Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)]

The Prime Minister has put support for British exports at the heart of Britain’s economic recovery. What comfort can industries in my constituency that export globally take from the Prime Minister’s work at the G20?

[The Prime Minister]

I very much enjoyed the visit that I made to my hon. Friend’s constituency and to BAE Systems where his constituents are doing excellent work in building the Typhoon aircraft, and we go on supporting the sales of that aircraft. There are a number of important contests at the moment, and the Government are absolutely behind BAE Systems in all of those.

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

Manufacturers in my constituency have told me of the important help that they have had from UK Trade and Investment recently—for example, the setting up of webinars in British high commissions and embassies to speak to customers overseas. What more can we do to help British business sell even more around the world?

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. He heard the figures earlier; some massive increases during the last two years to different countries. UKTI is doing a good job. Members on both sides of the House can help link UKTI to small and medium-sized enterprises in their own constituencies. I think that the figure is that if one in five of our SMEs that currently export moved to one in four, that would probably eradicate our trade deficit. That is an important agenda and I urge all Members of Parliament to help businesses in their constituency in this way.

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

Given that no amount of moving the eurozone debt around the system, between bank and Government, can hide or conceal its scale, does the Prime Minister agree that the most important thing eurozone Governments can do to narrow the gap between what is spent and earned is introduce sweeping supply-side reforms and free up small businesses from the dead weight of regulation?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. Whether it is trying to make the eurozone work better, trying to increase growth in the European Union or trying to compete with the rest of the world more effectively, all those pathways lead back to supply-side reform, structural reform and deregulation initiatives to help make European countries more competitive. That is what Britain is standing up for in Europe. At the summit this Thursday and Friday I very much hope that in the growth plan there will be the very strong commitments we secured at the last two European Councils for these deep structural changes: completing the single market in services, in digital and in energy. All these can add to our GDP and mean jobs and livelihoods for people in our constituencies.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the Prime Minister and Members of the House for their succinctness, which enabled 41 Back Benchers to question the Prime Minister in 34 minutes of exclusively Back-Bench time.

Point of Order

Monday 25th June 2012 Commons Chamber

16:46

[Mr Michael McCann (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. During Work and Pensions questions, the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) said in reply to a question from my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) that he had not been rebuked by the UK Statistics Authority for misusing statistics. His memory might have failed him, because he was chastised for using misleading statistics on nationality and national insurance data, on work capability appeals and, while in opposition, on violent crime. How can the record be corrected?

[Mr Speaker]

I think that the hon. Gentleman has just done it. I hope that he will rest content with his efforts.

Bills Presented

Public Debt Management Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Ben Gummer, supported by Steve Baker, Karen Bradley, Damian Collins, Matthew Hancock, Margot James, Paul Maynard, Priti Patel, Mr Dominic Raab, Nicola Blackwood, Mr Marcus Jones and Jacob Rees-Mogg, presented a Bill to limit government budget deficits; to introduce a ceiling on public debt; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 9 November 2012 , and to be printed (Bill 29).

Ports Act 1991 (Amendment) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Charlie Elphicke presented a Bill to make provision for the Ports Act 1991 to cease to have effect or application in certain circumstances; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 30 November 2012, and to be printed (Bill 30).

Human Rights Act 1998 (Repeal and Substitution) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Charlie Elphicke, supported by Nadhim Zahawi, Matthew Hancock, Priti Patel, Mr Dominic Raab, Karen Bradley, Guy Opperman, Nicola Blackwood, Chris Heaton-Harris, Charlotte Leslie, Stephen Barclay and Harriet Baldwin, presented a Bill to repeal the Human Rights Act 1998 and related legislation; to make provision for a bill of rights and responsibilities to apply to the United Kingdom; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 1 March 2013, and to be printed (Bill 31).

Property Boundaries (Resolution of Disputes) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Charlie Elphicke presented a Bill to make provision for the resolution of disputes concerning the location or placement of the boundaries relating to the title of an estate in land; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 30 November 2012, and to be printed (Bill 32).

Children (Access to Parents) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Charlie Elphicke presented a Bill to require courts, local authorities and other bodies, when determining or enforcing issues of residence and contact, to operate under the presumption that the rights of a child include the right to grow up knowing and having access to and contact with both of the parents involved in the residence or contact case concerned; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 30 November 2012, and to be printed (Bill 33).

Energy Companies (Minimum Tariffs) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Thomas Docherty, supported by Mrs Mary Glindon, Iain McKenzie, Mr Andy Slaughter and Susan Elan Jones, presented a Bill to require energy companies to provide the cheapest available tariff to customers aged 75 or over; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 18 January 2013, and to be printed (Bill 34).

Financial Literacy (Curriculum) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Thomas Docherty, supported by Mrs Mary Glindon, Mr George Mudie, Mr Andrew Love and Pat Glass, presented a Bill to make provision for the inclusion of financial literacy in the national curriculum; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 18 January 2013, and to be printed (Bill 35).

Wild Animals in Circuses Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Thomas Docherty, supported by Mrs Mary Glindon, Angela Smith, Iain McKenzie, Mr Andy Slaughter Susan Elan Jones and Jim Fitzpatrick, presented a Bill to prohibit the use of wild animals in circuses; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 18 January, and to be printed (Bill 36).

Water Companies (Social Tariffs) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Thomas Docherty, supported by Mrs Mary Glindon, Iain McKenzie, Mr Andy Slaughter and Susan Elan Jones, presented a Bill to require water companies to provide social tariffs for low income families; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 18 January 2013, and to be printed (Bill 37).

Water Companies (Minimum Tariffs) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Thomas Docherty, supported by Mrs Mary Glindon, Iain McKenzie, Mr Andy Slaughter and Susan Elan Jones, presented a Bill to require water companies to provide the cheapest available tariff to customers aged 75 or over; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 18 January 2012, and to be printed (Bill 38).

Commercial Lobbyists (Registration and Code of Conduct) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Thomas Docherty, supported by Paul Flynn and Iain McKenzie, presented Bill to establish a public register of organisations and individuals that carry out lobbying of Parliament, the Government and local authorities for financial gain; to introduce a code of conduct for those on the register; to introduce sanctions for non-registration and non-compliance with the code of conduct; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 1 February 2013, and to be printed (Bill 39).

Armed Forces (Prevention of Discrimination) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Thomas Docherty, supported by Mrs Mary Glindon, Ms Gisela Stuart, Derek Twigg and Sandra Osborne, presented a Bill to provide that certain offences committed towards members of the armed forces shall be treated as aggravated; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 1 February 2013, and to be printed (Bill 40).

Executive Pay and Remuneration Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Thomas Docherty, supported by Sheila Gilmore, Katy Clark and Ian Lavery, presented a Bill to require that companies’ remuneration committees have employee representation; to require that companies hold an annual binding shareholder vote on executive remuneration; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 1 February 2013, and to be printed (Bill 41).

Train Companies (Minimum Fares) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Thomas Docherty, supported by Sheila Gilmore, Iain McKenzie, Katy Clark, Geraint Davies and Graeme Morrice, presented a Bill to require train companies to offer customers the cheapest available fare as a first option; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 1 February 2013, and to be printed (Bill 42).

Homeowners’ Mortgage Interest Rates Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Thomas Docherty, supported by Mr Andrew Love, presented a Bill to require that mortgage interest rates paid by homeowners change by at least the same percentage as mortgage interest base rates; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 1 February 2013, and to be printed (Bill 43).

Offshore Gambling Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Matthew Hancock, supported by Miss Anne McIntosh, Brandon Lewis, Simon Hart, Mr Gerry Sutcliffe, Mr Don Foster, Sandra Osborne, Ben Gummer, Nicholas Soames and Charlie Elphicke, presented a Bill to amend the Gambling Act 2005 to regulate remote gambling on a point of consumption basis; to require all operators selling into the British market, whether in the United Kingdom or overseas, to hold a Gambling Commission licence to enable them to undertake transactions with British consumers and to advertise in the United Kingdom; to provide that all relevant operators contribute to the Horserace Betting Levy; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 25 January 2013, and to be printed (Bill 44).

Land Value Tax Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Caroline Lucas, supported by Mr Adrian Sanders, Kelvin Hopkins and Martin Horwood, presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to commission a programme of research into the merits of replacing the Council Tax and Non-domestic rates in England with an annual levy on the unimproved value of all land, including transitional arrangements; to report to Parliament within 12 months of completion of the research; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 9 November 2012, and to be printed (Bill 45).

Micro Businesses and Energy Contract Roll-over Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Caroline Lucas presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to make provision to limit energy contract rollover for micro businesses to 30 days; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 25 January 2013, and to be printed (Bill 46).

Landlord Accreditation Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Caroline Lucas presented a Bill to require local authorities to operate landlord accreditation schemes; to set those schemes according to minimum standards; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 1 March 2013, and to be printed (Bill 47).

Football (financial Transparency) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Damian Collins, supported by Dr Thérèse Coffey, Philip Davies, Thomas Docherty, Paul Farrelly, Mrs Mensch, Penny Mordaunt, Steve Rotheram, Mr Adrian Sanders, Jim Sheridan, Mr Gerry Sutcliffe and Mr John Whittingdale, presented a Bill to require a football club playing in the top four tiers of English and Scottish professional football to disclose the identity of its owner, the identity of the owner of its home playing ground, training ground, any intellectual property associated with the club or a third party stake in its players and the identities of outstanding creditors; to require all creditors of a football club to be compensated equally should the club go into administration; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 25 January 2013, and to be printed (Bill 48).

Electoral Registration and Administration Bill

Monday 25th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Relevant documents: The Tenth Report from the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, Session 2010-12, on Individual Electoral Registration and Electoral Administration, HC 1463, and the Government’s response thereto, Cm 8245.]

[2nd Allocated Day]

Further considered in Committee

[Dawn Primarolo in the Chair]

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6

Power to amend or abolish the annual canvass

16:52

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 22, page 5, leave out line 27.

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

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 24, page 5, line 27, at end insert—

‘(2A) If the Minister considers it appropriate to proceed with the making of an order under subsection (2), the Minister must lay before Parliament—

(a) a draft of the order, and

(b) an explanatory document explaining the proposals.

(2B) Sections 15 to 19 of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006 (choosing between negative, affirmative and super-affirmative parliamentary procedure) are to apply in relation to an explanatory document and draft order laid under subsection (2) but as if references to section 14 of that Act were references to subsection (2).’.

Amendment 23, page 5, leave out lines 28 and 29.

Amendment 25, page 5, line 32, after ‘section’, insert

‘with the exception of an order made under subsection (2)’.

Amendment 27, in clause 7, page 6, line 7, leave out ‘give a copy of the report to the Minister’ and insert

‘lay a copy of the report before Parliament’.

Amendment 28, page 6, line 9, leave out subsection (4) and insert—

‘(4) The report must be laid before Parliament no sooner than three months beginning with the day on which the Commission is consulted, and no later than five months beginning with that same day.’.

Amendment 29, in clause 8, page 6, line 28, at end insert—

‘(3A) The Minister may only make a pilot scheme once written approval from the Electoral Commission has been received.

(3B) Any such written approval must be published by the Minister.’.

Amendment 26, in clause 10, page 7, line 34, at end insert

‘, with the exception of an order made under section 6(2)’.

[Angela Smith]

Clause 6 and the amendments to it deal with the possibility of amending or abolishing the annual canvass, and with the arrangements for the accountability relating to any such decision.

It is worth going through, once again, the principles of the annual canvass, which were, to some extent, rehearsed last week in relation to clause 4 when we talked of the importance of proactive methods for encouraging registration, and of the exercise by individuals of the business of re-registering their presence on the electoral register. More often than not, the business of registering to vote is seen as an exercise in democratic participation, and as a right, enshrined in law and hard won over the centuries by many who made huge sacrifices to secure it, but the House should remember that it is also a duty and a responsibility.

We live in a society in which the relationship between the individual and the state is governed by democracy. We have, of course, government by consent, but implied in the concept of democracy and government by consent is the view that vital to the process is majority participation in the most important decision of all—who should govern our nation. That is why Labour Members were so appalled by the Government’s initial proposal that citizens should have the right to opt out of the democratic process, and it is why in turn it is right that there should be a civic penalty for refusing to acknowledge the responsibilities inherent within the concept of government by consent.

Registering to vote, therefore, is an important part of the democratic culture of our country, and I repeat what I said last week: we should always bear in mind the importance of perspective when considering the process of electoral registration. If we consider it important that citizens of this country see registration as an important right and duty, we should ensure that our approach to registration encourages the regular exercise of such a duty and the active involvement of the citizen in the process by way of the regular renewal of that right. That is why we have tabled amendment 22, which, along with amendment 23, would remove the Minister’s right to abolish the annual canvass.

At this point it is interesting to consider what the Minister said about the arrangements for 2014 before he conceded that an annual canvass was required. He said:

“Effectively, what we are going to do is a modified canvass, which focuses the resources exactly where you need to work harder. We will write to everybody individually who is on the 2013 register and ask them to register individually. Where we have any households where there is nobody on the register, they will receive the household form in the usual way. They will send it back. You will then approach each of the people on that form individually to register. Where electoral registration offices have information that people have moved, so for example from the day-to-day, already-used council tax records, housing benefit records, they will write to people directly to see who is at the household and then chase them up.”

It is clear that the Minister was planning what he refers to as a “modified canvass” in 2014 based on the 2013 register—compiled, of course, from a full annual canvass in October of the latter year.

The Minister needs to answer these key questions. Is what I have just mentioned the kind of arrangement that he envisages for the future under clause 6(1) and which he plans to introduce via the provisions in clause 6? If that is the case, the Committee would appreciate some detail about when he thinks the arrangement might be introduced. Are we talking about 2015 or 2016? Does he have plans to mix and match the approaches so that there are modified canvasses, with a full canvass perhaps every five years? The Committee would like to know before making its mind up about clause 6, given that it gives the Minister the right to make those changes.

If the Minister is considering a mixed approach, it stands to reason that he would be conceding the Opposition argument that the abolition of the annual canvass was likely to lead to a long-term drop-off in the numbers registered. Moreover, it is also likely to lead to distortions in the accuracy of the register. An annual canvass is a good way of spot-checking that the assumed stability of a given majority on any register is based on sound continuing evidence.

Finally, I draw attention to the views of the Electoral Commission. It is urging the Minister to confirm the commencement date for the new individual registration provisions, and it is recommending that the date be 1 July 2014. That begs a few questions. If we commence individual registration on 1 July 2014 with the modified canvass arrangements outlined by the Minister, which I cited earlier, when will the full canvass, which most Members have assumed will take place, commence? Are we looking at February that year? If not, when exactly are we going to move into the transition phase? What period will elapse before the Government move to the first phase of individual electoral registration in transition and the use of the carry-over provisions? All those questions are worthy of answers and underline how crucial it is for the Government to get on with the job of publishing an implementation plan.

The Opposition believe that commencement should take place only when the Electoral Commission indicates that completeness is at such a level that we can feel secure about participation at the ballot box. It is therefore doubly important that we get that information on the Floor of the House sooner rather than later. To go back to the main point of the discussion, are we going to get a full canvass, as we understand it under the old system, at all in 2014, or is the Minister intending to proceed only on the basis of a modified canvass? I look forward to his response on those points.

The annual canvass has an important role to play in our democracy, and Labour Members believe that it is crucial that registration should be brought regularly to the attention of the people. However, we are not the only ones who believe that. Take the comments made by the Deputy Prime Minister himself, alongside the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), in “Liberal Democrat Voice” in November 2010, when they said to Lib Dem members:

“In the light of today’s news that 3.5 million voters are missing from the electoral register, and in view of the forthcoming boundary changes based on the number of voters on the electoral roll as it stands next month, a timely e-mail reminder today to Liberal Democrat members from Nick Clegg and Simon Hughes:

I’m sure you will agree that we as Liberal Democrats need to play our part in helping to ensure that everybody who should have the right to vote is in a position to exercise that right come next May.”

They went on to say:

“Once you have made sure your form is safely completed please take a moment to check family and friends have filled out theirs too. Getting half a dozen of your friends signed up to vote could make the difference in a tight election next May.

Making democracy work is something all politicians should be committed to, and we are proud to encourage Liberal Democrats to play our part.”

It is therefore absolutely apparent that Liberal Democrat Members do place faith in the annual canvass and see that it has an important role to play in maximising completeness of the register.

17:00

Amendments 22 and 23 lie at the heart of Labour’s belief that we need a proactive approach to citizenship and a belt-and-braces approach to electoral registration. We believe, too, that there is no need for major concern over the potential cost and efficiency of the annual canvass. It has been mooted by the Minister that the cost of an annual canvass, if it is based on a form being filled in by the head of the household followed by invitations to register being sent to every household member listed on every form, would be in the region of £50 million. However, as we move away from paper-based approaches to this activity, it is entirely feasible for the annual check on registration to take place online. I am confident that Members believe that, in the long term, electoral registration processes should be moved online once it is secure and safe to do so. In those circumstances, a full annual canvass of the electoral register would not be an expensive or inefficient process to undertake. Just as at the moment individuals get regular reminders online about various important matters such as the need to renew insurance or TV licences, then equally it should be possible to make provision for annual online reminders to renew registration of the right to vote. That, surely, is where we all want to get to in order to ensure that the resources provided for registration can be concentrated on the hard to reach. The key point is that the possibility of cheap and efficient online processes would make the annual canvass easier to maintain in terms of cost and administration.

The amendments relate to clauses 7, 8 and 10, as well as clause 6, and are all designed to strengthen the role of Parliament in scrutinising any proposal by the Minister to amend the annual canvass. For the reasons I have outlined, we believe that it is important that any decisions taken are exposed to the strongest possible scrutiny by Parliament. Moreover, we believe that the Minister should be able to proceed with pilot schemes related to changes in canvassing arrangements only with the written approval of the Electoral Commission, hence amendment 29 to clause 8. This is a matter of major concern to the Committee. Labour Members expect the Minister to make a full and considered response to the points made in the debate.

[Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)]

I concur with many of the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), but as regards her quoting of the Deputy Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), I think that the aspirations they alluded to are shared by everybody in the Committee.

As the Minister and others will be aware from the Liberal Democrat submission to the consultation on this issue, we believe that the annual canvass is important and that it should continue. I want to ask the Minister about his reasoning for the discussions that have taken place so far and what tests or standards will have to be passed before the annual canvass is abolished. I understand the point in the explanatory notes that in years to come the annual canvass may no longer be needed because of the online opportunities for registration, to which the hon. Lady alluded. I am a bit more of a sceptic about that because I represent a rural area where the internet is not universally available. It will also be difficult to deem the register perfect at any point as it is constantly changing. What test would have to be passed to deem the annual canvass no longer useful?

The Bill gives electoral registration officers a new duty to maintain the all-important accuracy and completeness, which I welcome. How will they fulfil that duty without a canvass? In other words, how will the Minister ensure that that duty on electoral registration officers is tested?

The Bill provides for the Electoral Commission to be consulted if the annual canvass is to be abolished. That is clear. However, I understand that the Electoral Commission has concerns about why it would not be consulted if the annual canvass were to be reinstated. The Government have said that it is conceivable that that might have to be undertaken in a short time frame. However, the Electoral Commission has said that it has often been required to respond to Cabinet Office consultations in a limited time frame and that it does not believe that the requirement to consult would delay the process unduly. More importantly, it is essential that there is a mechanism for external scrutiny of any step that is taken in a short time frame.

On Second Reading, I expressed concerns about the abolition of the canvass. I noticed my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House wincing slightly when I made that point. He said that there is an obligation, if it is necessary, to reinstate the canvass. That reassured me, but I am concerned about the mechanisms by which such a reinstatement would have the consent of the Electoral Commission. I also have questions about why the annual canvass may need to be abolished.

I am heartened by what Ministers have said about the data-matching pilots and by the aspiration for online voting. However, we have a long way to go and, in the interim, I believe that we still need the annual canvass.

[Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

The annual canvass has been, and for the moment still is, the principal method by which we keep the electoral register up to date and accurate, in so far as it is up to date and accurate. I do not think that anyone believes that the current situation is satisfactory, but what we want is improvement, not reduction.

My constituency is rather strange in nature, not simply because it has elected me in eight successive elections, but because it has a huge electorate. It numbered some 87,000 people at the last general election and I understand from the registration officer that the total is now 94,000 electors. That gives me 26,000 more electors than the Deputy Prime Minister and, remarkably, 26,000 more than the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper).

Equally different is the turnover of electors, which in my constituency is phenomenal. It has always been high, partly because of the large number of students and young people in the area. People arrive and get a job, and then they decide that they would be better off doing the same job in Lincoln, Scunthorpe or Bolton, usually because the cost of renting or buying a house would be much lower.

We have a massive turnover all the time, and the Government’s proposed housing benefit changes, which will be introduced at the same time as proposals in the Bill, will also lead to an increased movement of people—they will certainly move out of the area, but I am not sure whether they will come in—so the coalition’s social cleansing policies will have an effect on the need for the canvass. The Prime Minister’s latest essay—he wants to knock off housing benefit given to anyone under 25—is also likely to increase turnover in my area.

It is worth reporting that, last year, for the whole of Camden, the annual canvass added 27,000 electors, but also deducted 27,000 electors, which reflects the massive turnover in both my constituency and the Hampstead and Kilburn constituency. It also indicates that the annual canvass is important from the point of view not just of numbers, but of accuracy—it is the principal means by which people who are no longer entitled to vote disappear off the register. The Government and some outside the House who are fanatical about their proposals seem to ignore that.

The annual canvass is the bedrock of the current system—it is not peripheral; it is at the heart of it. Any other means that the Government propose to improve electoral registration, both so that the 6 million people who are entitled to be on the register get on it, and so that the register is accurate, must be introduced only to augment the annual canvass. The canvass still does an important task, and is likely—this is my opinion, and no more—to carry it out more effectively than the proposals.

It seems totally improper to suggest that the annual canvass could disappear before we know the overall effects of all the new changes. Even if the Opposition have tabled no amendment to that effect in Committee, we should perhaps table one on Report. I would hope all hon. Members agree that an annual canvass must be carried out if the numbers come down as a result of the changes, and that we cannot accept a reduction in the number of people on the registers.

Government Members have once or twice quoted judges who have said that registration is currently like something we might find in a banana republic. I suspect that most banana republics would like to give a Minister, without parliamentary approval, the right to end an annual canvass. Nothing should be left to the Minister’s discretion. If anything, the decision should come straight to the House from the Electoral Commission.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

Any hon. Member who has played the role of election observer in different parts of the world will know that electoral observation organisations apply themselves to one key thing: ensuring the accuracy of the electoral register. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) said, the canvass is an integral part of the electoral system, not only to ensure that there is no fraud—cases in certain communities have been highlighted—but to ensure that the register is as accurate and up to date as possible. As an ex-local councillor and an MP, I think it would give the person elected at a local council or other election confidence if they knew that the majority of electors were registered to vote. I accept that the annual canvass is more difficult to undertake in certain parts of the country than in others, but it will concentrate people’s minds on ensuring that they are on the electoral register.

17:15

On leaving it to the individual, having had many years’ experience as a local councillor, a Member of Parliament and an election agent, I know that modern life is busy and that people ignore forms when they arrive. It might come as a big surprise to many hon. Members to learn that most of our electors do not sit around waiting for their electoral registration form; they do not see it as important. Likewise, it is not top of people’s list of things to do when they move house, along with the electricity and everything else.

In the communities described by my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras, there is a massive turnover in the electorate, but even in rural constituencies such as mine there are areas of huge turnover, owing to demographics and the type of housing. In parts of Stanley, in my constituency, which has many private sector landlords, the housing turnover is remarkable—it can change two or three times a year. I do not have his general problem with massive turnovers, but we have pockets of high turnover, and ensuring that they are on the electoral register is not the first thing people do when they move from one social landlord to another.

That leads to another issue. Unfortunately, some of those private sector tenants are in the poorest parts of my constituency, and are the people who need representation the most. They need to ensure that they cast their democratic vote at the parish, town or, in the case of Durham, county council election, and for their MP at a general election. It is important that we hear their voices. I am not sure whether this is the Conservative party’s thinking, but I fear that the areas most disadvantaged by there not being an annual canvass will be among the poorest in the country. That will have a knock-on effect on the redrawing of constituency boundaries and the nonsense we will have to go through every five years because of this coalition Government’s proposals. It is just as important, however, that the redrawing of local county, district and town council boundaries provides an adequate indication of the local electorate.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

I support my hon. Friend’s emphasis on the annual canvass. I used to work as agent for my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson), and I well remember the fluid population and our efforts to support voting, electoral registration and the annual canvass—efficient though the canvass, organised by Camden council, was. Does he agree that it is important to work with the private sector, particularly in these fast-changing times, to support data matching, particularly in respect of records that could support electoral registration? Such data matching could only boost electoral registration and get more people involved in the democratic process.

[Mr Jones]

I agree with my hon. Friend, although data matching has its limitations, given the turnover in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras and in pockets of my constituency. We cannot leave it entirely to data matching, which is a useful tool but it will not get over the key problem of ensuring that the local register is as accurate as possible.

On the use of the private sector, let me provide the example of the new Durham county council. Before the formation of the unitary county council three years ago, seven district councils were responsible for electoral registration in County Durham. I have to say that their performance was patchy—some were good and some were bad. One benefit of the new county council taking responsibility for the register is a uniformity of approach. The county council put in extra effort when it was formed and contracted a company to do a full canvass to ensure that the register was as accurate as possible. That process—credit to the county council for doing it—put an extra 12,000 people on to the electoral register. I must thank the council, as that affected the size and the distributions when the parliamentary constituency boundaries and the new county council wards were redrawn. With 12,000 added through an intensive canvass, it shows what can be done in a rural county such as County Durham. I am not sure what would happen if that were not done in a constituency such as that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras, for example. As I say, this has proved to be useful for the process.

The county council went down the road of ensuring as full a canvass as possible for another reason. I and others had noticed that entire streets or parts of them were missing altogether from the register. Was it that people living there suddenly decided in sequential order that they were not going to register? I do not think so. It was the consequence of errors made in the data inputting, so the canvass helped to identify the streets affected. I was aware of the problem and so were councils, and I believe that the gaps were raised by all political parties. The annual canvass is important for areas such as mine that have elections only every four years. Political parties out canvassing can sometimes spot mistakes and draw them to the attention of the electoral returning officer. Having an annual canvass becomes more important where elections are not annual, when these problems are likely to be less visible to the various political parties that are standing.

An annual canvass is important, too, for care homes and residential homes, some of which, alas, have quite a large turnover, with residents coming in and out of respite care and, unfortunately, with people dying during the year. If we are not careful, the register will get badly out of shape in respect of people living in residential and sheltered accommodation and in care homes. It might be said that it affects only 30 or 40 people at a time in each care home, but if we add that up across County Durham, it means a lot of individuals. I am not criticising any individuals running care homes and similar organisations, but when a resident unfortunately dies it is not the top priority to write to the electoral registration officer to say that someone has passed on and that they are going to re-register the new individual living there. This is another example, therefore, of where an annual canvass helps. In my experience, the residential care manager or owner can be quite helpful in ensuring that the information provided is as accurate as possible. It is obviously not nice for any political party to send direct mail, as we all do, to homes where people are deceased, so an annual canvass could be an effective way of helping to ensure that that is prevented.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras Friend touched on the issue of students. My constituency does not contain a large student population, but the city of Durham certainly does, and any Member whose constituency contains a large number of students will know that there is quite a high turnover. I am thinking not just of the halls of residence that exist in parts of Newcastle that I know very well, and in parts of Durham, but of the fact that students move around and may not stay in the same house for two or three years. Members of that large population—who, I hasten to add, are using local services—are not reflected in any of the data, not only in terms of voting but in terms of electoral boundaries. They are nowhere to be seen. I think that the annual canvass has helped in that regard. Durham county council undertook an exercise to ensure that its register was as up to date as possible, and found that the number of voters in the city of Durham had increased by nearly 4,500. I suspect that most of them were students.

My right hon. Friend also mentioned welfare benefit changes. People with an extra bedroom are to lose their right to a proportion of their housing benefit, which I expect to increase the amount of movement, certainly in my constituency. I do not know what will happen in parts of London, where people are on a kind of merry-go-round, moving constantly from one type of social housing to another. That increase in movement will make the annual canvass more important. In parts of my constituency, such as Stanley and Chester-le-Street, there is a large concentration of private sector landlords. Once the benefit changes come into effect, people will move, because they will no longer be able to afford to live in their homes. How can we reflect that in the register?

What I am going to say now may sound strange, but it is a fact. In the north-east of England, the legacy of those infamous old days of the poll tax remains. People used not to register because they thought that that would be a way of getting out of paying the tax. In parts of my constituency that thinking remains, and people still refer to council tax as “the poll tax” . That did a lot of damage to people’s awareness of the civic duty to register, which I have always found to be very strong among older members of the population. They tend always to send in the forms and to vote, but that poll tax legacy is still there. I suspect that the only way of tackling it is to knock on people’s doors and ask them who lives in their houses.

There is another issue, which does not affect my constituency. I was very saddened by the way in which the last Government reacted to the Daily Mail agenda. Mine was one of the few constituencies that experimented with all-postal ballots, which were very successful. According to the Electoral Commission’s report, there was, overall, a very small amount of fraud, and the fraud that did occur was concentrated mainly in certain types of community in such places as Birmingham and Bradford. In one county council by-election in my constituency there was a 67% turnout under the postal ballot system. Sadly, however, the last Government and the Electoral Commission took fright following headlines that focused—rightly—on fraud that had taken place in some inner-city, mainly Asian, communities.

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. The key is finding a way of increasing turnout. If turnout increases, fraud becomes far more difficult, because it is not so easy to influence the result. Low turnouts, and low registration, make fraud easier.

[Mr Jones]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and I was about to make the following observation: if we want to clamp down on fraud, we must ensure that the register is as accurate as possible. The only way of doing that is by knocking on doors and actually talking to people in the communities concerned. If we have a more accurate register, that will lead to less electoral fraud.

I do not understand why this measure has been proposed. I will support any step that helps to ensure the register is up to date, such as data matching, but the annual canvass should be our fall-back position. Whatever system we use—telephone calls, data matching or even door knocking —will we never achieve 100% elector registration, but the canvass will help us spot homes that are being used for electoral fraud.

We sometimes find that there are children as young as five or six on the electoral register, because parents have misunderstood the form and entered their names on it. [Interruption.] Well, I am sure they do vote in some places, but knocking on doors and conducting the annual canvass is a way of preventing that. I therefore do not understand why the annual canvass is not seen as an exercise that should be welcomed. From speaking to the individuals who carry it out, it appears to be difficult to do, however. Indeed, in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras it must at times be near-impossible to keep track, and to gain access to some of the properties.

[Angela Smith]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important to maintain the annual canvass because although a local authority might know who the council tax payers are within a household, there might also be lodgers living there? If the annual canvass is abolished, such people may well not get on to the electoral register.

[Mr Jones]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point.

I do not think I have a single high-rise block in my constituency—the highest buildings are about four storeys—but there are such blocks in the part of Newcastle I used to represent, and the turnover of residents was often very high. Finding out who pays the council tax gives an idea of who is living in any given household, however. We must also recognise that modern-day families and lives can be very complicated.

17:30

We all know from our experiences of canvassing for our political parties that even getting into some tower blocks can be difficult. One advantage councils have is that they can gain access, so they can get inside and talk to people, but that can be done only if we have an annual canvass.

Some people say we should use the telephone for canvassing, but in certain parts of my constituency telephone ownership is still quite low. Ownership of mobile phones is sometimes higher than use of static lines with numbers that people can declare in their local telephone directory. That presents a problem, too.

I want to end where I began. We in this country pride ourselves on having the mother of Parliaments and a long democratic tradition, and any Member who has performed election monitoring duties around the world will know that one of the key points we always emphasise is the importance of the accuracy of the register. Any step that leads to our register not being as accurate as possible will damage both our electoral processes locally and the international reputation of our country as being somewhere where we ensure elections are free and fair and everyone has their democratic right to vote.

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

I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Ms Primarolo, and to return to what is a very important Bill. We have reached clause 6, and it is important for Members who have not had the opportunity to study the Bill in as much detail as they might like to realise that the clause is qualified by those that follow, so they need to be read together.

The hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) has tabled a series of amendments this afternoon, none of which has an explanatory memorandum. Back-Bench Members—for example, the hon. Member for Hendon (Dr Offord)—could manage an explanatory memorandum but apparently the official Opposition could not. That is a great shame, given what the Procedure Committee has asked us to do, but never mind—let us address the issues.

A casual observer of this debate would believe that the Government are proceeding willy-nilly with the abolition of the annual canvass and that the Labour party has a principled opposition to abolition, whereas in fact, neither of those propositions is correct. First, we have made it abundantly clear that we do not intend to get rid of the annual canvass, certainly in the immediate future. In fact, only one Government have abolished the annual canvass: the last Labour Government, who abolished it in 2006 for Northern Ireland. So, we are talking about the canvass for Great Britain only, not for the whole of the United Kingdom, because Labour did not feel that all these pressing arguments in favour of the annual canvass applied when they peremptorily removed it in Northern Ireland’s case. We must therefore listen to their arguments in that context.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Heath]

Of course I will give way to the hon. Gentleman—who voted for the removal of the annual canvass.

[Mr Jones]

I am not taking any lessons from the Liberal Democrats, who, frankly, promised a lot of things and then voted against them in this place. Come on—the Minister knows why that was done in Northern Ireland: it was a question of the practicalities of doing the canvass. To draw an analogy between that and today’s proposal is absolute nonsense.

[Mr Heath]

I am afraid that it is simply incorrect to say that the argument was about anything other than the introduction of individual electoral registration. That was the argument and the reason why the previous Government acted as they did, and they made no attempt to bring the provision back.

Setting aside that argument, we have also had assertions that Ministers intend to remove, by decree, the annual canvass. However, anyone who actually reads the legislation can see clearly that the procedure as set out first requires a report of the Electoral Commission—uniquely—and affirmative resolution. Therefore, it is Parliament, not Ministers, who would decide whether it was appropriate to take such action, an important safeguard that the House really should not ignore.

[Angela Smith]

rose—

[Mr Heath]

The hon. Lady made the assertion, I think, that Ministers would take such action by decree; so she can now justify that.

[Angela Smith]

There is no need for us to justify anything in this regard. Through our amendment, we are saying that we believe that the super-affirmative and regulatory reform procedures should be deployed if there is any plan to abolish the annual canvass. In the end, there is a provision in clause 6 to abolish the annual canvass. All we are asking for is the strongest possible scrutiny of any such decision—a reasonable thing for any Opposition to ask for—and that any report made by the Electoral Commission be laid before Parliament and not just sent to the Minister.

[Mr Heath]

I wish that that was what the hon. Lady had put forward in her amendments, but she goes rather further than that. On that specific issue, a super-affirmative procedure is set out in the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006—it is rarely used in this jurisdiction—and the reason for it is to make sure that proper consultation takes place on a proposal, so that Parliament is in the best possible position to make up its mind on an issue. That is set out clearly in the Bill, because before any order can be brought forward there has to be a report from the Electoral Commission. So a form of super-affirmative procedure is set out in this proposal. It allows Parliament—both Houses of Parliament—to take a decision, having had the evidence placed before it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) made an important point in supporting what we are proposing when he said that the annual canvass serves a valuable purpose. I believe that too, as do the Government. He accepts that there may be circumstances in which we would want to change, but he wants to know what hurdle the House and the Government would wish there to be. I have to say to him clearly that the only argument for abolishing the annual canvass—this is unlike what happened in Northern Ireland under the previous Government, where it was peremptorily done—is because we believe, with evidence to back this up from the Electoral Commission and from others, that other arrangements, which have been trialled through pilot schemes, are more effective, or certainly no less effective, than the annual canvass in ensuring both the accuracy and the completeness of the register. That is the Government’s intention, as it has been throughout this legislation. We are aiming to ensure both completeness and accuracy. We often do not hear about the second point from the Opposition, although I accept that the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), who has a lot of experience in this field, rightly mentioned it. So often we hear a lot about completeness from the Labour Front Benchers, but little about accuracy.

[Angela Smith]

The Minister is yet to answer the key points we raised in tabling these amendments and speaking to them. First, if the Government are so confident of their arrangements for making a change to individual registration, why do they not publish the implementation plan and put it in the Bill? Secondly, given previous comments made by the Deputy Leader of the House and the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), it would be good to hear exactly what the Government mean by “annual canvass”. Labour Members take that to mean the usual, traditional approach, which involves writing to every household and then, under individual registration, invitations to register on the basis of the members of any household whose details are returned to the electoral registration officer. What exactly will the annual canvass in 2014 consist of?

[Mr Heath]

I am not exactly clear what the hon. Lady even means by her first question. [Interruption.] I am sorry, but I do not know what an “implementation plan” is in the context of primary legislation. The Bill is clear about what we are proposing. The implementation of that is not a matter that is normally set out in primary legislation—the intent and the outcome is what is there. She mentions the canvass, and I would have thought that it was abundantly clear what we mean: there is the basis of the canvass, with which we are all familiar, but it will have additional purposes and additional mechanisms under what we are proposing—in order to improve its accuracy and its completeness—which we have already set out. So additional data matching will take place—the sort of thing that the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) was talking about. It will inform the canvass and ensure that the right questions are asked to the right people in the right places, to make sure that as many people as possible who are entitled to vote are put on the register.

[Angela Smith]

The Minister is being generous with his time. May I therefore press the point? Will the annual canvass promised in 2014, on which the general election in 2015 will be based with the carry-over provisions that have been made available, be carried out in the traditional way understood by every Member of this House?

17:45

[Mr Heath]

Yes. The canvass that would have been carried out in 2013, which we have moved to early 2014, will be done in the traditional way. The hon. Lady knows that we are taking advice from the various political parties and others about the exact date that will be most effective. That will be a full household canvass and during 2014, after the European elections, we will move on to the other components of the proposals so that we have the use of all available material and can, as I have repeatedly said, make the register as complete and accurate as possible.

[Frank Dobson]

rose—

[Mr Heath]

I thought that the right hon. Gentleman made a late but very compelling argument for the equalisation of parliamentary constituencies, and I am grateful to him for that. I invite his participation.

[Frank Dobson]

I seem to attract snotty remarks from those on the Government Front Bench. All I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that I have been snotted at by better men than him.

If the Government are so confident that the new methods of putting all this together, which they described in their evidence to the House of Lords as providing a more efficient means of obtaining information rather than a more effective one, and believe that the system will result in registers exceeding the numbers presently arrived at by the household canvass, will they guarantee not to proceed until they have the registers up to the level that the previous household canvass produced?

[Mr Heath]

I repeat again to the right hon. Gentleman that we are not getting rid of the household canvass and it is very difficult to answer his question, which is based on the premise that we are removing it, when we are not doing so. Incidentally, were the circumstances to occur in which this part of the Bill was used to remove the duty for an annual canvass—as I have said, that would happen only if we, the Electoral Commission and both Houses of Parliament were satisfied that other mechanisms were in place that would be as effective or more effective than the annual canvass—the situation would continue to be monitored. If, despite the advice of the Electoral Commission and the best intentions of Ministers and this House, it unexpectedly proved that the proportion of the population that registered was substantially reduced, there is provision within the Bill to reinstate the canvass. Unfortunately, amendment 23, tabled by the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge, would remove that power. The right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) asked a specific question and I can give him an absolute assurance that the power to reinstate the canvass is in the Bill, should it be needed.

[Frank Dobson]

rose—

[Mr Heath]

I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman, of course, and I hope that I do so charmingly.

[Frank Dobson]

The hon. Gentleman has said that there is a power to reinstate the canvass, but is there an obligation to reinstate it if the new system is not working?

[Mr Heath]

I do not think that Parliament is normally required to do anything, and this will be a power for Parliament, not for Ministers. We would be treading a strange constitutional path if this Parliament were to require any future Parliament to make any enactment. The power is there to reinstate the canvass without the need for further primary legislation in order to enable the then Government, whoever they are, to react promptly and effectively if necessary. I honestly do not believe that will apply because there are no circumstances in which the annual canvass would be removed without its being absolutely clear, from all the information to hand, that it would not have a detrimental effect on the completeness and the effectiveness of the register.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

The effect of a more efficient method may be different in different areas. In my more rural static communities, the result of removing the annual canvass might not be a greater drop in accuracy than in my right hon. Friend’s Holborn and St Pancras constituency. The Liberal Democrats seem to vote through whatever this coalition Government want, but what would the Minister say if a future Government received an indication that registration dropped in constituencies held by their opponents? There would be no onus on the Government of the day or on Parliament to insist on the annual canvass being reinstated in a certain constituency.

[Mr Heath]

I repeat: this is a power for Parliament and I expect Parliament to use it sensibly because I believe—contrary to all the evidence—that most Members of Parliament want our democratic system to work as effectively as possible. Yes, the hon. Gentleman is right that there are differences between constituencies. The electorate in my constituency is almost the same as the electorate in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras, but demographically the two are very different and a comparison between them would be almost meaningless in those terms. The right mechanism in his constituency might be completely wrong for mine and there may be better and more effective measures we can deploy—as long as we are clear that our intention is to have in every constituency a register that is as complete and as accurate as we can manage.

[Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Heath]

The hon. Gentleman was not here for the early part of our discussion of the amendments, but I happily give way to him.

[Chris Ruane]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way so graciously. Earlier, he said, “We would not move forward unless we—no, not just we: the Electoral Commission and both Houses—were satisfied.” Let us imagine that on one side there was the Government and both Houses—one of them, this place, in an unholy alliance and the other stuffed with Liberal and Conservative peers—and on the other side the Electoral Commission saying, “No, things are not right.” Who would win?

[Mr Heath]

I do not remember any Government of any complexion introducing proposals on electoral law on which there was not a measure of agreement with the Electoral Commission, but the whole purpose of the Bill is to ensure that the first word—not the last word—lies with the Electoral Commission. The commission has the duty in the first instance to assess any proposal and to do so in the light of the evidence from pilot schemes run in the interim. It is inconceivable to me that a Minister would put forward a proposal using the mechanism in the Bill that did not have the full approval of the Electoral Commission. A future Government could decide to write their own primary legislation and abolish the canvass overnight—that is exactly what the Labour Government the hon. Gentleman supported did—but we do not intend to do that, because we think there is a better mechanism, based on evidence and on the views of the Electoral Commission, and that is what we have proposed.

Let me go though the amendments in the group. Amendment 22 would remove the possibility of the Government proceeding with the abolition or the amendment of the annual canvass. We have no immediate intention of doing either, but I believe that that is a valuable power to be available to both Houses, provided there are safeguards and it is used on the advice of the Electoral Commission. It would be a great shame to be unable even to consider following the example set in Northern Ireland if that is the best way to achieve completeness and accuracy of the register.

Amendment 24 deals with the mechanism within Parliament. As I said, the mechanism proposed is unique because of the requirement to have the advice of the Electoral Commission before starting. I hope that the House is satisfied that the two-stage process—a report by the Electoral Commission followed by the normal affirmative procedure in both Houses—provides sufficient scrutiny and safeguards.

Amendment 23 would remove the ability to reinstate the canvass, which seems a little perverse, given the comments made by the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras. I hope that the House will reject it.

Under clause 6(5), an order to amend or abolish the annual canvass would include provision to create further secondary legislation. I think that makes sense. If amendment 25 were made, it would prevent subsequent orders, so everything would have to be in primary legislation. I do not believe we need to use such an unwieldy method and that regulation and subordinate legislation are better. On reflection, I suspect the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge will agree with me that that is not the most sensible way of setting about our business.

Clause 7 sets out the requirement, when a proposal is made, for a report by the Electoral Commission containing an assessment of the extent to which registration officers are currently able to ascertain those unregistered people who are entitled to be registered and those who are registered but are not entitled to be so; the extent to which proposals in the order meet that objective; and the merits of alternative methods of meeting it. If amendment 27 were made, that report, instead of going to the relevant Minister, would go direct to Parliament. That does not necessarily make sense, because if such a proposal were to meet with a negative response from the Electoral Commission, it would not proceed to Parliament—Ministers would not entertain the suggestion. If the report were positive, however, it would be presented to Parliament and would necessarily form part of the process. In any case, I would expect the Electoral Commission to publish such a report, irrespective of whether it was to be presented to Ministers or to Parliament; the report would appear on the website and be available for general view and consideration. The amendment is therefore unnecessary.

Amendment 28 would set arbitrary limits on the time the Electoral Commission had to produce a report. It is unnecessary to place such a restraint on the commission.

Amendment 29 relates to the important matter of the commission’s role in relation to schemes to pilot proposed changes to the annual canvass. If we are to have a successful system, the pilots are extremely important. Without them, proper evaluation of schemes proposed by registration officers for their areas will be impossible. This covers the point raised by the hon. Member for North Durham about, in effect, horses for courses. The instigation comes from the registration officer for the area, it is agreed by the Minister, and Parliament must agree it by the affirmative resolution procedure. To insert yet another hurdle into the process is unnecessary because, in practice, the Electoral Commission would play a part in the design of any pilot scheme and would be responsible for evaluating it in due course. At the end of the day it is Ministers who are responsible to the House for schemes that are introduced.

18:00

Lastly, on amendment 26, removing the requirement for such an order to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure or, indeed, any parliamentary procedure is a mistake, and I urge Members not to proceed with it.

The amendments do not add to what is a very thorough evaluation process. I repeat that our sole intent is to have a complete and accurate register so far as that can be achieved. We should use every possible means to do that. It would be quite wrong to lose arbitrarily the usefulness of the annual canvass, but we should not seek to preserve that in perpetuity if there are better ways of doing the same thing more efficiently and more effectively. That is why the procedure with all its safeguards is in the Bill. I urge the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge to withdraw the amendments.

[Angela Smith]

In drawing the debate to a close, I begin by pointing out that amendment 22 deletes the proposal to give the Minister the power to abolish the annual canvass. Amendment 23 is consequential on amendment 22. That should be clear to everybody. It is therefore duplicitous of the Minister to suggest—

[Mr Heath]

I beg your pardon?

[Angela Smith]

I withdraw that remark. It is misleading of the Minister to suggest that amendment 23 takes away the power of Parliament—

[The Temporary Chairman (Mr Lee Scott)]

Order. Will the hon. Lady withdraw that comment, please?

[Angela Smith]

I withdraw the comment. It is unfair of the Minister to suggest that the Opposition are in any way trying to deny Parliament the power to reinstate an annual canvass, when in fact we are trying, through amendment 22, to ensure that the Minister is not given the power to abolish the annual canvass in the first place.

[Mr Heath]

Mr Scott, I should have welcomed you to the Chair. I apologise for not having done so.

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. We would have understood her amendments more clearly had she produced an explanatory memorandum. Amendment 23 does abolish the power to reinstate. I accept entirely her intention that it should be read along with amendment 22.

[Angela Smith]

There has been very little by way of explanation from the Minister in his response to the amendments that would give us any confidence in the potential alternatives to the annual canvass that have been repeatedly mentioned from the Government Benches. We have had references to alternatives that may be developed in the future, which may at some point in the future give the House the confidence to agree to a ministerial proposal to abolish the annual canvass. It would have helped the Committee in its deliberations if the Minister had outlined clearly what some of those alternatives might be.

As I indicated in my initial comments on the amendments, the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), suggested previously in oral evidence that modified versions of the annual canvass could be available in the future. It would have helped the Committee if we had had more detail from the Minister about what some of those alternatives might be. It is clear that Ministers are thinking through some of these proposals. Nothing in what we have heard today gives us the confidence to believe that the part of clause 6 that gives the Minister the right to abolish the annual canvass is anything other than a threat to the democratic process in this country.

The Committee is being asked to agree something completely in the dark. In his response, the Minister indicated that in early 2014 there would be a full annual canvass, and I thank him for that. He also made it clear that it would be carried out in time for the European elections, which take place in June that year, as we understand it. The local elections in 2014 are likely to take place at the same time. He then indicated that the new individual registration process would commence shortly afterwards.

May I take it that the Electoral Commission’s recommendation is that the commencement date for the new IR process should be 1 July 2014? We have had no response to that, but from what the Minister said, there is clearly a plan to go ahead with implementation of IR in the late summer of 2014. However, no information has been laid before the Committee today and no commitment has been given that the data-matching pilots which are part of the legislation will be completed and evaluated by the Electoral Commission before commencement of the new provisions.

It is reckless to commit to a new system of electoral registration and to commit to commencement in 2014 when we have no certainty that the pilot schemes designed to test whether the new processes work will have been completed. It is the Opposition’s view that the new scheme for individual registration should be introduced only when the Electoral Commission is satisfied that it will guarantee a high level of completeness and accuracy. Nothing that we heard today gives us confidence that that will be the case.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) and my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) made good contributions in which they described in detail the complexity of people’s lives and the impact that an annual canvass may have in reducing levels of completeness precisely because of those complexities. My hon. Friend the Member for North Durham referred in particular to the problem of registering students.

Last week we had a debate about student registration. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) pointed out that there are 31,800 students living in his constituency alone. Without the annual canvass it is entirely possible, for all the reasons outlined in the debate, that registration in a constituency such as Sheffield Central could be substantially reduced. Given that the majority in Sheffield Central stands at only 165, it is obvious that before we make any radical changes to our electoral registration processes we should ensure that we have guarantees that any new system works properly, is based on sound evidence and is guaranteed and given the stamp of approval by the Electoral Commission.

We have heard a lot today about how the new system will work, but we have not heard the detail. We have had superficial reassurances that it will work, but we have heard nothing of the detail. We have had no significant reassurance on whether new systems will eventually be so robust that we will be able to abolish an annual canvass.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Mark Harper)]

I wanted to check this information before I responded to the hon. Lady, but the assessment of the data-matching pilots to test the confirmation process by the Government and the Electoral Commission will be done by June 2013, well in time for us to have a clear picture before we commence the IER process.

[Angela Smith]

I thank the Minister for that, but can he confirm that all the data-matching pilots and necessary testing will be complete before the Government move ahead with the new scheme?

[Mr Harper]

The only one that we have to have tested before we move ahead is that to do with confirmation. The pilots that we will be doing, subject to the approval of Parliament, to see whether some of the data matching can help us to identify people not on the register concern things that we would want to know if we proposed to get rid of the canvass. As we do not propose to do that, we do not need to have that information before we move ahead with IER. We will know the results of the confirmation testing pilots by June 2013.

[Angela Smith]

The key point is that the new register, and the one used for the boundary review in 2015, will not be as complete as it should be, because those people carried over for the general election will not be carried over for December 2015. I therefore do not take a great deal of reassurance from that.

We have had a lengthy debate. The Opposition will not seek to press the amendment to a vote. We believe that the House of Lords will engage in a lengthy and detailed debate on the issues that we have raised today, and on that basis I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 7 and 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9

Piloting registration provision

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 32, page 7, line 29, at end add—

‘(7) An order under this section may require registration officers to record at the point of registration—

(a) a voter’s access needs in relation to any document which is required or authorised to be given to voters or displayed in any place for either registration or election, and

(b) a voter’s access requirements to the polling station.’.

This amendment would allow for pilots which could assist disabled people both to register to vote and to cast their vote. It would achieve this by allowing electoral registration officers to establish the level of demand for (a) documents in alternative formats and (b) additional accessibility measures at polling stations. It is estimated that there are approximately 15,000 disabled potential voters per Parliamentary constituency.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Scott.

The issue of disability concerns many hon. Members and, as demonstrated by the Government in bringing forward the legislation, the issue of effectual electoral registration also concerns the majority of hon. Members. Therefore, the amendment seeks to address two concerns for Members. First, it seeks to introduce a better system of individual electoral registration, which identifies every person eligible to vote, and it seeks to identify the needs of disabled voters participating in the electoral process. The Bill introduces an opportunity to achieve that by seeking information at the time of registration.

Recording disabled voters’ access needs at the point of registration can be used to improve the accessibility under the current system during the transition to IER and over the longer term. To put the issue in some context, it is worth establishing how many people it could affect. There are more than 10 million disabled people in the UK, with each parliamentary constituency containing approximately 15,000 disabled voters. That is almost a fifth of the total electoral roll. Polls Apart research has found that despite existing legislation aimed at improving the accessibility of election material, the experience of many disabled people has been that insufficient provision is made to provide information, forms and notices relating to the electoral process in alternative formats. Where this information is not available or is not sufficiently signposted, the election process can be considerably more difficult for these people to access.

The Electoral Commission has responsibility for monitoring the extent to which the electoral registration officers comply with a series of performance standards. One such standard is focused on accessibility, more specifically on the extent to which EROs have taken into account the different needs of voters in their local community. The commission’s first analysis of EROs’ performance against the standards in 2009 highlighted a lack of consideration of the need to provide documents in alternative formats and raised concerns that attention by EROs had been focused primarily on the provision of documents in various languages. I am concerned at the evidence that the provision of accessible formats to voters has not had the same focus, as the lack of it excludes disabled people who require information in a format other than the standard print from the electoral process. The Electoral Commission’s subsequent assessment against the standard has revealed a worrying trend that EROs’ performance on accessibility has remained poorer than for any other standard.

It can be said that we are currently placing the linguistic needs of people whose first language is not English above those for whom English is their first language but who, as a result of an accident or complication at birth, are being disfranchised from the electoral process. Consequently, individual registration has a potential to transform disabled people’s experiences of the electoral process if their access needs are recorded at the point of registration. The amendment seeks to achieve that by introducing a pilot project that can be rolled out on a national basis. The Government would need to ensure that such a pilot would be properly evaluated before any roll-out of the proposal goes nationwide. I am pleased to be able to inform the Minister that the Electoral Commission is prepared to carry out such an evaluation if the amendment is agreed.

18:16

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on tabling the amendment. How will electoral officers be able to identify the individuals? Will it be through the canvass, which is the main issue, or another method?

[Dr Offord]

It will be through the canvass. I hope, as I continue with my speech, that it will become clearer to the hon. Gentleman and the Minister what I seek to achieve by tabling the amendment.

The introduction of individual registration allows blind and disabled electors to specify at registration the format in which they wish to receive the information, including Braille, tape, large print, easy read, and so on. That would mean that a blind elector could specify when registering to vote that they would need to receive a polling card in a Braille or other format, or that they would require an audio postal vote application form. Allowing individuals to specify what format they need enables EROs to plan more effectively and meet the needs of a variety of disabled people who all encounter different barriers. Gathering data on voters’ preferred formats would enable EROs to send forms and information in that appropriate format and avoid having to make assumptions about voters’ needs. For instance, while Braille is used by some blind people, other formats may be just as important for blind and partially sighted people, including large print.

The registration form could also capture requirements to enable physical access to the polling station or for the support that voters may need in casting a vote. Provided that such information is shared with a returning officer, it could be used to ensure that those needs are met in the run-up to polling day and on polling day itself. It should be obvious, for instance, which voters may need a large print ballot paper and how many copies need to be provided at one or other polling station.

Recording information on access needs could not only be used to inform planning by electoral administrators, but is consistent with the Government’s goals in introducing individual registration to encourage individuals to take responsibility for registering themselves to vote. It should also be up to an individual to specify what alternative format they prefer. It is well known that the transition to IER is taking place in a climate of significant pressures on electoral budgets. Providing alternative formats involves some cost, but it is important to recognise that such a provision would not place any additional duties on EROs other than those they already have. Rather than increasing costs, such a measure would allow existing resources to be used more effectively.

I have tabled the amendment to support the recommendation made by the Electoral Commission for a scheme to be piloted that would involve EROs asking for individual access needs of electors at the point of registration. Piloting that would provide valuable guidance to EROs on the most suitable system for maintaining registration forms and their associated access needs records, as well as allow the Government to assess the merits for such a provision to be rolled out.

I hope that the Minister decides to accept the amendment, because I remain unaware of the validity of any claim that under the current legislation the Government already have sufficient powers to introduce the pilot—a view supported by the Electoral Commission and disability groups such as Scope, which have already impressed it on the Government. However, if it is asserted that that power already exists in other legislation, I can tell the Minister that the amendment would specifically ensure that the registration process itself is used to identify and meet access needs. No other legislation provides for the registration process to be used for that purpose. Given that, I believe the registration process to be the most effective mechanism for achieving both improvements for disabled people and benefits for electoral staff.

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

I commend my hon. Friend for tabling the amendment and wish that I had had time to sign it, because I am with him entirely—in spirit if not on the Order Paper. Is not the function of this probing amendment, as he says, to identify the need to husband our existing resources far more effectively, rather than taking a more scatter-gun approach that will not address the fundamental needs of disabled people?

[Dr Offord]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. He is entirely right. This will be an opportunity to define what people need so that we can ensure that EROs’ resources are used most effectively and that the electoral registration process is suitable for blind and partially sighted people.

It may be asserted that such a provision already exists in the Bill, under the power to make regulations in clause 2. That will give the Secretary of State the power to prescribe the type of evidence that a person must provide to establish eligibility to register to vote. The Government could argue that that includes a power to ensure that access needs are recorded at registration, but I believe that the clause is limited to prescribing evidence that is needed to establish eligibility and therefore cannot be used to achieve the same purpose as my amendment.

I believe that the Minister is a considerate man. If he chooses not to accept the amendment, will he please explain where he believes the power currently lies for the Government to carry out a pilot scheme in order to provide assurances about how information, forms and notices relating to the electoral process in alternative forms will be provided to blind and disabled people at future elections, and will he indicate when that will be achieved?

[Mr Kevan Jones]

May I welcome you to the Chair, Mr Scott, and say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship for the first time?

I congratulate the hon. Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) on tabling the amendment. It has two aspects: first, it is clearly about people’s right to vote, and secondly, it rightly raises the issue of registration in the first place. It is often assumed that people who are disabled, partially sighted or who have no sight will fill out the registration forms when they receive them or have someone else do it for them, so what he proposes is very important.

The key point, to return to the previous debate, relates to the annual canvass, because the only way of finding some of these individuals is to knock on doors and assess their needs. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the format of ballot papers and the information people receive on how to register. He said that there are potentially around 15,000 disabled people in each parliamentary constituency, so we are not talking about a small number of individuals. It has long been one of my gripes that in certain areas where I have acted either as an agent or a candidate, many returning officers have only recently taken note of accessibility to polling stations, let alone of the suggestion for making registration information and ballot papers more accessible.

The reason for having a pilot is that it would show some new methods for achieving that and indicate whether they could be rolled out nationally. We also need to think a little out of the box on this. I know the Electoral Commission has done that before, but it has always shied away from postal voting and e-voting, for example, which for many partially sighted people would be better than going to a polling station. My mother is partially signed but does not read Braille, so the suggestion that she could vote by computer, for example, would be a good one for her.

Such pilots would be worth doing. We had a pilot in Durham several years ago and, overall, texting, a full postal ballot and e-voting were very successful. The Electoral Commission’s report was very positive, but unfortunately, as I said in the previous debate, it got cold feet because of some of the headlines about electoral fraud. I think that allowing the possibility of electronic voting for disabled people would be a step forward and that what the hon. Gentleman proposes would be a way of trialling it in certain areas.

It would be important to involve not only the major national charities so that they can talk about this, but the many local voluntary groups that support disabled individuals in the home. Care workers and local authorities could certainly play a role, and housing associations and others could identify where there might be large concentrations of people with physical or visual impairments, which would be very valuable. I wonder whether part of the pilot could put an onus on electoral registration officers to work with care homes, sheltered accommodation and local charities and support groups to be able to identify these people, first to ensure that they are registered in the first place—I am sure that many should be but are not—and secondly to explain the process to them.

When canvassing, it never ceases to amaze me how many people I come across who clearly need a postal or proxy vote because of a physical disability but who do not have them, either because they do not understand how the process works or because they think that they would somehow have to struggle to the polling station and know that physically they could not get there. Therefore, the pilot could be not only for testing the different methods for providing information in the largest type and Braille or for e-voting and other things, as the hon. Gentleman said, but—the Minister should take this on board—for explaining to many disabled people the different ways in which they can vote, because from my experience I do not think that many understand postal voting or recognise that they can apply for it.

I remember that under the old system someone had to tick a box and get a doctor or state-registered nurse to sign it, which was a bit of a palaver, but this would be a way of extending access to a group of people who, as the hon. Member for Hendon rightly identified, are perhaps not at the top of people’s priorities in the electoral process. They are—I think he would agree with this—a constituency that has a lot of issues that local councils, MPs and others need to take into account. The one way they can hold their elected officials, whether councillors or MPs, to account is through the ballot box, but if they cannot cast their vote or do not know how to do that, or if it is physically impossible for them to access that process, that constituency is hindered.

I support the amendment. It would be a valuable thing to pilot the hon. Gentleman’s suggestions in areas so that lessons could be learned. It would be a useful process to have ongoing pilots because they would provide a body of evidence for electoral returning officers, not only showing new ways of doing things but, in some cases. making them mandatory to ensure that, as he said, people are asked about disability, because if they are not how will a returning officer or anyone else know what the individual’s needs are?

18:30

The amendment would provide a very valuable lesson, and I hope that the Government do not push it aside, but look at it as part of the pilot process so that we obtain evidence that can then be rolled out, and so that some of those new methods, either for e-voting or for getting information to people on registration, become a normal part of electoral registration and, at elections, voting.

[Angela Smith]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) on tabling a very important amendment, which we support for all the reasons that he and my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) have outlined.

The measures are supported by Age UK, Mencap, the Royal National Institute of Blind People, Scope and Sense, and by the Electoral Commission, which importantly reminds us, however, that the Government would need to ensure that the pilots were properly evaluated before any wider roll-out of the proposal. The commission has also made it clear that it would be prepared to carry out such an evaluation.

The Bill provides an opportunity to go as far as we possibly can in securing opportunities to improve significantly participation in the democratic process by disabled and older voters, and the amendment would do so in two parts. It outlines proposals for pilots on the format used in the initial registration process, and, on the need for a variety of formats when it comes to registering to vote, the obvious example is that of partially sighted and blind citizens.

There are those beyond the partially sighted and the blind, however, who will not be able to sign registration forms or documents for one reason or another—perhaps because they have a physical disability that makes it hard for them to write or to use a pen. We have to remember also that, beyond the more severe and profound disabilities that unfortunately many citizens have to cope with, there are those who suffer from the more minor disabilities, such as dyslexia or dyscalculia, which mean that in many instances the completion of a form would be a major obstacle to claiming the right to register to vote.

Many people suffering from, for instance, dyslexia find the use of IT incredibly helpful in overcoming their disability. It is surprising, but I saw it when I was the local authority cabinet member for education in Sheffield, where I was lucky enough to witness the introduction of interactive whiteboards in classrooms and the use of IT tablets for participation in classroom learning. It was incredible to see how helpful IT could be in overcoming something that to many of us seems a minor disability, but which to those who suffer from it can be a major obstacle to participation in the right to vote.

Over and above that, I have also seen how individuals on the autistic spectrum benefit significantly from access to IT, and we in this House need to acknowledge that a wide range of formats could undoubtedly be adapted and used in the registration process.

Polls Apart research has found that many disabled voters experience difficulty in receiving information, forms and notices relating to the electoral process in a format that they can access, so the evidence is not just anecdotal but on the record. The Electoral Commission has recognised its existence and would like Parliament to act on it.

On polling stations, every Member will be more than aware of the problems experienced by a range of people with disabilities when claiming the right physically to register their vote on polling day, and I am sure that we, as politicians involved in election campaigns, have all taken voters to polling stations in our cars to exercise their right to vote. We know what it is like to see voters coping with crutches, wheelchairs and sometimes, because of infirmity due to age or disability, just the sheer effort of walking from the car to the polling station.

The partially sighted and the blind, equally, are presented with problems when physically presenting themselves at the polling station in order to claim the right to vote.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Does my hon. Friend agree that a surprising number of elderly people, in particular, who become housebound through age or disability do not know about their right to a postal vote? As part of the assessment proposed by the hon. Member for Hendon (Dr Offord), should they not have that explained to them and be given help to apply for a postal vote?

[Angela Smith]

I completely agree. Back in 2004, south Yorkshire was selected as the pilot area for elections in which every vote was cast by post; we had an all-out postal ballot, as we called it. Not only did participation increase, but the process was particularly beneficial to those voters who, however accessible the polling station was, were never going to be physically able to get to it in the first place.

It is an indictment of our democracy that so many disabled voters should have to rely on lifts from political parties to exercise their democratic right to vote. That is not healthy, and my hon. Friend is absolutely right when he makes the point that we should do whatever is necessary to encourage the disabled to access postal votes and proxy voting so that they secure their right to a say in who their elected representatives are.

One disappointing feature of the Bill and an important part of the debate is that, when it comes to the carry-over provisions for the general election in 2015, postal votes will not be carried over to the register. That is worrying for democratic participation in the next general election, and more concerning is that its impact will probably be felt more deeply and profoundly by the disabled, the partially sighted and all the people whom we have been talking about. Labour Members have constantly made representations in this Committee about the removal of the entitlement to a postal vote for those citizens who are carried over to the register for the 2015 election.

One of the major problems in our democracy is that many polling stations are not accessible to the physically disabled. The obvious thing to do is to use new-build public buildings, such as schools, as they would be totally accessible. However, schools are increasingly resistant to being used as polling stations, partly because it disrupts the school day. There are also concerns about security, given that strangers are allowed to wander on and off the school premises to exercise their right to vote.

There is a major issue about accessibility to polling stations. I do not pretend that the amendment would deal with the whole problem, but it would at least place the onus on the Government. We are talking not about party politics, but about something profoundly important —the onus on the Government to ensure that they do their utmost to deal with problems of physical access to polling stations.

[Mr Jones]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the number of polling stations is important as well? On accessibility, we should not go down the road taken by Newcastle city council when the Liberal Democrats were in charge—to save money, it reduced the number of polling stations. When I went back to my old ward to canvass during elections, I was amazed at how few polling stations there were and at the distances that certain people had to travel to cast their votes.

[Angela Smith]

Again, my hon. Friend makes a valuable point. I represent the city of Sheffield and the borough of Barnsley in Parliament. As anybody who knows south Yorkshire will be aware, it is probably one of the hilliest areas in the country; Sheffield is probably the hilliest city in Great Britain. As my hon. Friend is well aware, it is built on seven hills; there are constant arguments about who lives in the hilliest part.

The key point is that the arguments about access to polling stations in the city are often entirely about how far away people are from their nearest polling station. The issue is not physical distance, but whether people have to climb up a hill to exercise their right to vote. That is a major issue in my area. Indeed, in this year’s elections, the problem was so acute in one of the polling districts that the local authority agreed to have a new polling station in a funeral parlour, which raised a few eyebrows locally. The local authority was desperate to increase levels of participation and given the difficulties due to the hilliness of the district, it was felt that the funeral parlour was the best solution to enable people to participate in the democratic process.

On the main point, there is a major issue of accessibility to polling stations in terms of distance and terrain. My hon. Friend is right: we need to maximise the number of polling stations in the first place, but we also need to think more carefully about how accessible those polling stations are.

Finally, I want to make a few comments about e-voting. The House has an ambition to move eventually towards a system of e-registering for the right to vote. Online registration has to be the way forward in the long term. I take the point made about broadband and rural areas, but many broadband problems are not to do with rural areas but with where BT has made infrastructure investments. Some of the urban areas in my constituency do not have superfast broadband, whereas some of the rural areas do.

Nevertheless, in the long term, e-registering is the way forward as we move towards the comprehensive electronic age. Equally, if we accept that e-registration is a legitimate way of encouraging the completeness of the electoral register, e-voting also has to be the way forward. My hon. Friend outlined some of the many ways in which we could introduce e-voting on a comprehensive scale. Whichever system people choose to use—voting online via the PC at work or voting by mobile phone or iPad—it must be right for us to begin properly to pilot access to e-voting. E-voting immediately improves accessibility to voting, particularly for disabled people. People with dyslexia and dyscalculia would also benefit from e-voting procedures.

18:45

Pilot work has been done on e-voting. There are concerns about security, but I am sure that they can be overcome. We live in an age when people can transfer money from one bank account to another through a mobile phone—well, they can with certain banks. Pingit is an innovation. If the banking system feels that e-banking is secure, it is about time that we as a country recognised that e-voting offers a credible, secure way forward for improving accessibility for disabled people to the democratic process. We support the amendment and, like the hon. Member for Hendon, we hope that the Government accept it in the spirit intended.

[Mr Heath]

I genuinely welcome what the hon. Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) had to say about the amendment, for two reasons. First, he makes an extraordinarily important point about our electoral law and arrangements —that they should be inclusive. Secondly, on a personal note, he probably does not know, although some do, that in a former life I was an optician who had a lot to do with the visually impaired. I set up the all-party group on eye health and visual impairment because I thought the issue needed a higher profile. So the issue of accessibility is dear to my heart—certainly as far as the visually impaired are concerned, although of course it goes wider than that and other disabled groups are involved.

Providing accessibility to the registration process is important, and the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) made points about the voting process as well—whether at a polling station or by other means. It is nice that everybody in the House wants progress on the issue. What we have put in train by virtue of the Bill will allow and provide for yet more work to be done to make sure that the register is as complete as possible, and that includes the needs of people with disabilities.

The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) mentioned the importance of the canvass but added that other means must be available. I entirely agree. The suggestions on data matching in the Bill provide electoral registration officers with a wider palette of opportunities to consult the register of blind and partially sighted people —they can consult it now, although they do not necessarily do so. The evidence that local authorities have of people with disability or impairment will enable them to do a more complete job of ensuring inclusion.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I totally agree. Another source that local authorities could use is the blue badge scheme, which most administer.

[Mr Heath]

Precisely. As the hon. Gentleman will know, in the Bill there is a duty on electoral registration officers to use a variety of means with the sole duty of ensuring that the register is as complete and accurate as possible.

I shall slightly disappoint the hon. Member for Hendon by saying, as he anticipated, that I do not believe that the amendment is necessary, because the Bill already provides for what he wants. Clause 9 allows for the new registration system to be piloted in advance of commencement, and there is no reason why it should not include the information that is collected from application forms. The clause enables electoral registration officers to propose pilot schemes in their areas to test how the new system will work in practice. We expect that to test the robustness of the individual electoral registration digital service in advance of nationwide implementation. There is no obstacle to a proposal’s using the power in the Bill in order to include the collection of a voter’s accessibility needs. That would be a very good use of that power.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I accept that these powers are in the Bill, but I think that what the hon. Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) is trying to get at is that this should not necessarily be left to local EROs. Yes, they might take it into account, but in order to get the body of evidence, it would be helpful if the Government said to particular areas, “Could you pilot this proposal on disabled people?”, so that lessons could be learned from the pilots. If it is just left to EROs, some of the better ones might do it, but we might not get the data or learn the lessons that are needed.

[Mr Heath]

This involves two things. First, we need to have pilots to see how we can most effectively secure the information; the Electoral Commission might want to take a view on that. Secondly, we need to ensure that that is reflected in the secondary legislation—the regulations that specify what needs to be collected. There is already quite a long list of things that are specified; indeed, the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr David) has complained that it is too long. Despite his reservations, I think that accessibility issues would be a useful addition. Provisions elsewhere in the Bill provide specific powers to add other requirements. For example, new paragraph 3ZA(1)(a) to the Representation of the People Act 1983 provides the power that the hon. Member for Hendon is concerned about. It seems that his view is shared by the Electoral Commission, which slightly worries me, but I will come back to that.

[Chris Ruane]

If a local authority offered to pilot such an initiative, would it receive additional funding?

[Mr Heath]

We want to make sure that every authority has the funding it needs to do the job properly. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is a duty on local authorities to make available to electoral registration officers the funding that is necessary for them to do their job. He also knows that some authorities do that very well but some, frankly, do not, and in those cases the ERO ought to be saying, “You, Mr Chief Executive”—or Mr County Treasurer, or whatever—“are not providing the resources necessary to do the job effectively.” We will support every time EROs who lack the resources to do the job properly.

[Chris Ruane]

rose—

[Mr Heath]

I will give way once more to the hon. Gentleman.

[Chris Ruane]

If such a pilot is of national significance because it could influence national policy, and it is above and beyond what an ERO or a local authority is already doing, surely it is incumbent on the Government, in a time of cuts, to recognise that and make additional funding available to it.

[Mr Heath]

I repeat that every electoral registration officer has a duty—a very important duty—to make sure that the register in their area is as complete and as accurate as possible. That is their duty, irrespective of this Bill.

[Dr Offord]

I am gratified by some of the Minister’s comments, if not all. I hope that I made it clear that I do not believe that the amendment would be an additional financial burden on EROs. I said that although providing alternative formats would introduce some costs, it is important to recognise that no additional duties would be placed on EROs. It would be more cost-effective in terms of the money that they spend in relation to registration rather than costing local authorities more. I would very much hope that local authorities would be willing to take out a pilot scheme.

[Mr Heath]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. We have previously provided additional resources for pilot schemes where that is justified. However, as he says, his suggestion would simply encourage EROs to do their job more effectively using the information that they ought to have available, and that is why it commends itself to me.

On the whole, the Bill is good news for people with disabilities, because it deals with a number of issues that some of us have argued for some time ought to be dealt with. For instance—this is not the subject of the amendment, Mr Scott, but I hope that you will forgive me for responding to a point raised by the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge—we have provided additional time within the timetable, exactly as Scope and others argued, to enable access issues to be better incorporated. The hon. Lady rightly mentioned issues to do with polling places. It would be wrong to go into detail on that in the context of this part of the Bill, because it is the subject of a clause in part 2. However, making sure that the polling places review is more closely aligned with UK parliamentary elections, thereby allowing it to examine the accessibility of proposed locations, ought to ensure that we do a better job than we do at the moment. I agree that in some areas access to polling stations is not desperately good and ought to be better. That is not confined to rural areas rather than urban areas or urban areas rather than rural areas; it is often partly about what is available and partly about the ingenuity and resolution of the ERO in doing the best job within the confines of the resources. There is a lot more that can be done.

The hon. Member for Hendon will recognise, I hope, that we are not only fully seized of the issue he raises but determined that we can and should do better for people with disabilities. We need to work closely with organisations that represent those people to make sure that the draft secondary legislation that the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), has published—it is a good job he has done so—takes these issues into account as comprehensively as possible. I am prepared to give a clear commitment that the Government are more than happy to consult those organisations further—with the Electoral Commission and with anybody else, including the hon. Member for Hendon himself if he so wishes—to make sure that we have done that and that when the final regulations are approved by this House they meet the requirements that he has put forward.

It is right that we take whatever steps we reasonably can not only to ensure that our arrangements are as inclusive as possible, but to bring in innovation where possible. The hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge is right that some aspects of modern technology are hugely beneficial to people with disabilities. We will test that as part of the registration process, as she knows. I think that that is another huge advance. Those are things that we ought to do, if we can.

19:00

Finally, I say to the hon. Member for Hendon that we do not think that there is a difficulty with the powers in the Bill in giving electoral registration officers and the Electoral Commission the opportunity to do this work. If there is any difficulty, I undertake to look at the powers again to ensure that there is no gap. We are certainly prepared to introduce something else if necessary, but on my reading of the powers it is not. On that basis, I hope that he will withdraw his amendment so that we can discuss the matter again before the Bill reaches its conclusion.

[Dr Offord]

I am grateful for Members’ contributions and want to make a few comments about them.

The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) mentioned annual registration of the right to vote. We currently have that. As I am sure he is aware, the Polls Apart survey at the last general election showed that 67% of polling stations presented one or more access barriers to disabled people that might have prevented them from voting and that 47% of postal voters experienced at least one access problem. Even with the current system of annual registration, we are experiencing problems. Any change to that system will not increase the access of disabled and partially sighted people.

The hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) represents an area of the world that I know well, as I stood in Barnsley East and Mexborough many years ago and tramped up and down the hills of Sheffield, Hallam as we attempted to win that seat, unsuccessfully, in 2001. She made a good point in asking what disability is. One person’s disability is not another person’s. She mentioned dyslexia, which on face value I would not consider to be a disability. However, if I suffered from it, I would probably view it differently. I can think of at least four Members of this House who have a visible disability and each one of them has very different needs. I will not name names, but I am sure that Members can imagine that people who are partially sighted have different access needs from those who are in a wheelchair.

I met a physical disability group called Disability Action in the Borough of Barnet, which is located in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer). One of the issues it raised is the siting of polling stations. One polling station in my constituency is located in a portakabin in a pub car park. There have been occasions when disabled people have been required to vote outside the polling station because they were not able to access the ballot box directly. That is incredible in this day and age. I had hoped that my amendment would address such issues.

I was gratified by the Minister’s response, particularly on the register of visual impairment. Along with the intervention of the hon. Member for North Durham about blue badges, that reminded me that there are opportunities for electoral registration officers to identify people who may need assistance. I believe that we need political will in our local authorities to ensure that those opportunities are taken. I hope that the Bill goes some way towards achieving that.

I believe that the Minister has more than left the door open. I will be watching the passage of the Bill and will be pleased if any concessions can be achieved elsewhere. He used the word “assurance” and I hope to hold him to account on that. I would like to be part of any process to take the proposal forward. On that basis, I say categorically that he has assured me at this stage. I will seek leave to withdraw the amendment, with the provision that he maintains his gaze on this matter. I assure him that I will. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

[Angela Smith]

Clause 9 allows for flexibility and contingency in the way that individual registration is implemented and it allows for the Government to test changes to our system before rolling out individual registration nationwide. However, we have had no concrete details so far on how the changes will be phased in. As I indicated in the debate on clause 6 and the related amendments, many questions about implementation remain outstanding. That is why the Opposition want to take this opportunity to place on the record our agreement with the Electoral Commission, which has made it clear today that it is essential that the Government publish a detailed implementation plan as soon as possible to show what needs to be done to deliver the changes outlined in the Bill.

Last week, the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), said that he was confident that there would be no backlog in voter registration because the IT system to be used for data-matching purposes would be properly tested before widespread implementation.

[Chris Ruane]

We have had promises from IT companies before that everything will be all right, but the systems have failed at the first hurdle after we have spent billions of pounds on them. We have a political deadline to meet, because the Conservatives want to win the next general election on the back of the Bill. Does my hon. Friend agree that that must not stand in the way, and that the IT system must be in place properly before we move forward?

[Angela Smith]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, especially given that the new register will be used for the boundary review in December 2015. It is critical that the data-matching arrangements work. He is right that the IT systems procured by Governments for public sector services often prove to be lacking, inefficient and not fit for purpose. The outcome of such problems is usually a backlog, causing frustration and anger for people up and down the country who do not get the services to which they are entitled.

That is not a problem just with central Government. When I was in local government, we introduced a new IT system to process housing benefit. It was introduced by the former chief executive of the council, who is now the top civil servant in the country and is very competent indeed. Even so, it was impossible to get an IT system that worked in the right way from day one. Sheffield city council ended up with one of the most severe backlogs that I have ever seen in processing the benefits that were due to the people of the city.

My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) is right that it is crucial to the democratic process that any IT system is tested thoroughly before people use it to register their right to vote. It is crucial that the right to register is given priority over anything else. If the IT system is found wanting, the partial register that results from it should not be used for the boundary review in 2015.

If the House is to have confidence in the Minister’s verbal reassurances, it must have the detail on how the changes are to be introduced. We must have concrete evidence in an implementation plan that every process that is required for the new system, including the data-matching and confirmation processes, will be up and running efficiently and properly before we move on to using the new system. Given that the boundaries in the 2020 general election depend on our getting this right, the House is entitled to a proper response from the Minister and to reassurance that the details will be made available soon.

[Mr Heath]

This is an area in which the official Opposition are probably world experts: IT systems that go wrong. The Government are grateful for their experience, which was garnered through many years, of the criminal justice IT system that never worked, and the NHS system that never even got off the starting blocks, despite millions of pounds being spent. We know from their example just how poor IT systems can be when they fail to function.

However, to take us into IT systems that go wrong on the basis of clause 9, which introduces the opportunity to trial and pilot to ensure that things are robust before they go live, is odd. It is important that we ensure that we pilot registration provisions; that the verification system is sufficiently robust before we roll out individual electoral registration; and that we test the IER digital service before it goes live in 2014 so that it can cope with the transition. That is exactly the reason for clause 9.

The clause enables the draft orders for the pilots to be introduced for the consideration of the House to ensure that it is satisfied, and so that we can properly evaluate the outcome once the pilots are concluded. Incidentally, the orders can be brought forward only at the proposal of the registration officer responsible for the area. We have learned many lessons from the data-matching pilots carried out last year. They were used to make improvements to the system and to simplify the proposals for the transition process before the Committee. The proposed pilots could have the same impact as the data-matching pilots.

Understanding how such things work and what can go wrong is crucial to any change of such magnitude. Clause 9 is therefore important because it provides the legislative framework that will enable pilots to take place. They will ensure that the system has the confidence not only of those who operate it, but of those who use it. They need confidence that the system is robust and that it has been pressure tested. That is the reason for the proposals.

The hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) made an important point on setting out an implementation plan. The Government are still consulting and working closely with the Electoral Commission and taking the advice of the political parties. When we have concluded that process, we will set out an implementation plan for all to see, but that is not the purpose of the measure. The clause will ensure that we properly test and evaluate the proposed system to ensure it works, which has so often not happened in the past. Only when it works satisfactorily and has been seen to do so can we make progress.

I hope that that answers the hon. Lady’s points to the satisfaction of the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 9 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.



Clause 5

Invitations to register

[Angela Smith]

I beg to move amendment 12, page 4, line 32, at end insert—

‘(1A) A local authority must include a statement about the importance of electoral registration in its annual communication with residents relating to the payment of council tax.’.

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Lee Scott)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 13, page 4, line 32, at end insert—

‘(1B) There will be a duty on local authorities to ensure that individuals are invited to register when those individuals move into the area of the local authority and register for council tax purposes.’.

Amendment 16, page 5, line 15, at end insert—

‘(9) Regulations under subsection (2) must require registration officers to include on electoral registration forms a clear explanation that the electoral register is used for other civic purposes.

(10) There should also be a clear explanation that the electoral register is used for assessing an individual’s credit worthiness and ability to sustain mortgage repayments.’.

Amendment 34, page 5, line 15, at end insert—

‘(9) Regulations under subsection (2) must require registration officers to include on invitations given under subsection (1)—

(a) a clear statement to the effect that the edited electoral register is available for general sale and is used by organisations for commercial activities, as well as for other civic purposes; and

(b) clear instructions on how to opt out of the edited electoral register.’.

The amendment is intended to ensure that it is clear to people who are invited to apply for registration that the edited register may be sold, and to ensure that people know how to opt out of the edited register.

Amendment 17, page 5, line 16, at end add—

‘(3) Government departments with responsibility for welfare payments, pensions, driving licences, revenue collection, National Insurance and passport applications must inform all individuals who apply for these benefits or services of their possible entitlement to join the electoral register.’.

[Angela Smith]

This debate focuses on the arrangements established by clause 5. Clause 5 lays out in principle the arrangements for issuing invitations to register to unregistered persons known to electoral registration officers, via either an annual canvass or any other means. It is important that arrangements are made for the pursuit of such individuals, and the Opposition are pleased that the clause now includes provisions for a civil penalty—there was initially no suggestion of a civil penalty for failing to register to vote. The Government considered opt-outs from the duty to register, but we are pleased that they have changed their view and acknowledge that they have listened.

We have said that the annual canvass should remain as the cornerstone of this country’s approach to electoral registration, but we do not oppose the clause. It gives the green light to the establishment of regulations for hard-to-reach individuals, or for individuals who need to register outside an annual canvass because, for example, they are moving from one borough to another.

19:15

My hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) mentioned some of the pressures experienced by people when they move property. They might be starting a new job as well as moving home, or their children might be starting at a new school. They will need to register with doctors and dentists, and with new telephone companies and energy suppliers. It is said that the stress of moving house is second only to the stress of changing job or losing a family member—it certainly ranks highly in that respect—and many people move home each day. The likelihood is that they will not have registering to vote at their new address high on their list of priorities. Hon. Members probably rate registration as a high priority when they move property, but that is because we are politicians—we do not reflect the general population.

I know from my experience of canvassing door to door in election campaigns that people often fail to register their vote. One can knock on someone’s door and establish that they would indeed support one’s political party, but then find that they are not the people registered as living at the address. Inevitably, they have moved from elsewhere, and then of course one must go through the rigmarole of advising them that if they want to register their right to vote, they must do so at their old address.

The Opposition feel that that situation can be improved. In many instances, people move but do not immediately want to re-register their right to vote. I was one such individual when I first moved to Sheffield way back in 1994. I stayed with family at that time, because I was busy trying to get my foot in the door and find work. I did not buy my first home in Sheffield until six or seven months after moving, which meant I was not on the electoral register for the city for a significant period. I was a member of a political party, but registering the right to vote was not my highest priority at that time—getting a wage and somewhere to live were far more important.

The system can be improved. The Opposition believe that every possible means must be used to encourage the completeness of the electoral register. To that extent, we believe that the regulations sanctioned by clause 5 should be supplemented with various new obligations which, taken together, will help to maximise opportunities for a higher level of completeness of the electoral register.

Amendment 12 would make it compulsory for councils to include a statement about the importance of registration in council tax demands. Council tax demands are the one occasion every year when a local authority communicates with most residents. The detail of the communication is not always welcomed by those who receive it—not many welcome the council tax demand that pops through the letter box every April. Most people look at the final figure and at the monthly payments, and make a derogatory statement about the quality of the services provided and the money they pay annually. Interestingly, when people are asked what they get for their council tax, many say, “All I get is my bins emptied.” I suspect that many Members have heard that time and again. On one level, that proves that when people get the council tax communication they do not read the details about how the income raised is spent.

Were the amendment accepted as a potentially valuable addition to making the register more complete, I would recommend that the statement about council tax payers’ right to register in a borough be placed in a prominent part of the communication and in bold print. That would make it clear to people that they have overlooked this matter and should register their right in order to have a say over how the income they hand over to the council is spent. It would involve no extra cost to local authorities, because the communication goes out every year anyway, and would have the advantage of reminding voters of the relationship between their choice of elected representatives and the spending priorities and choices of those representatives. At the very least, then, the amendment would strengthen the relationship between voters and their local authorities. If used effectively in council tax communications, it could also help to improve levels of voter registration.

Amendment 13 would give councils a duty to invite people to register when it contacts them mid-year to set up council tax payments, when an individual or individuals move into a new residence. From our experience of election campaigning, we all know that in real life there is always a degree of churn in electoral registration, because people have a habit of moving properties. Even in the most stable and enduring of communities, however, where there is little movement—my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham said that his area was particularly stable, and so is mine—people move. They move for work, family and social reasons; because they want to downsize or upsize; or to be in a particular school catchment area. People move for all sorts of reasons.

It is important to ensure, therefore, that under regulations arising from clause 5 electoral registration officers bear a responsibility for chasing these changes and, in so doing, play an important part in ensuring the greater accuracy and completeness of the electoral register. Furthermore, as with amendment 12, the coupling of the invitation to register with a council tax communication will help to remind citizens of the relationship between the right to vote and the decisions of elected representatives. It is important constantly to bear in mind the relationship between the right to vote and have a say, and the payment of tax. It goes to the heart of our democracy.

It is also important to remember that a duty to chase the registration of people who have moved property will enable electoral registration officers to ensure that a citizen’s registration is not duplicated in more than one local authority area, in cases where the individual has simply moved from one house to another. It should be easy for the Government to accept amendment 13, because it is not controversial, would involve no extra cost and would be a valuable addition to the armoury of the registration process.

Amendment 16 would require electoral registration officers to include on all registration forms key information designed to raise awareness of the importance of registration. This refers to the link between the register and the availability of mortgage and credit facilities, as well as jury service. The latter reflects the earlier point made during our debate on clause 6. Voter registration is not only a right but a duty, and jury service is one of the key duties of any citizen. It underpins our commitment to democracy and the rule of law, and our commitment to justice and the right of individuals to be tried by their peers.

Most Members, if not all, will know how much access to credit and mortgage facilities relates to the applicant’s ability to verify their identity. We all know about the difficulties arising if an applicant for a mortgage or loan cannot prove where they live. It makes things very difficult. There is also the business of having to produce the last three months’ utility bills and wage slips, and all the rest of it. Most of us will experience that at some point because, when one has moved house but not long lived in the new property, finance houses demand such extra information before providing access to a loan. It is a good thing in our society that financiers—the banks and building societies—run those rigorous identity checks before making available access to finance.

Callcredit, the UK’s second largest consumer credit reference agency, has pointed out that if the register is depleted, credit reference agencies’ ability to provide services to companies, local authorities and Government Departments in order to guard against fraud and identity theft will be significantly hampered. It is important to emphasise this point. One of my first pieces of casework as an MP involved a fraud case and the theft of the identity of someone who sadly had passed away. Their identity was stolen via utility bills from their property. Access to finance was almost secured, but was stopped at the very last minute following checks run by the postal service on delivery of the loan agreement. It is important to ensure, therefore, that the register is as complete as possible in order to minimise fraud and allow people access to finance.

The amendment will not place a burden on local authorities or electoral registration officers. It is already the practice of some local authorities to refer to the importance of registration in securing credit and mortgage facilities.

[Mr Mark Williams]

I welcome the tone of the hon. Lady’s remarks. She has talked about good practice by referencing credit agencies. How would she ensure that that good practice is disseminated across the country?

[Angela Smith]

I would ensure it through the amendment. Local authorities should be under an obligation to draw local residents’ attention to the fact that access to finance and mortgages might depend on whether they are on the electoral register. Some local authorities already do that. Southwark council makes it clear on its website, on the page referring to the annual canvass under the heading, “What do I need to do?”, that

“If you are not on the register you may find it difficult obtaining credit for a loan or mortgage”.

That is a simple, straightforward sentence making it clear that if someone does not register to vote as a resident of the borough, they might be denied access to finance.

To show that I am not being partial, I shall mention a Conservative borough. Basingstoke and Deane council makes it clear on its website that access to finance will depend on registering to vote. Not every local authority does that, but it is a straightforward, lost-cost option. Local authorities would simply have to make it clear when they send out the forms for the annual canvass that registering is important not just for the right to vote but for accessing finance. That can also be put on local authority websites. As far as we are concerned, there is no excuse for local authorities not making that point clear to its residents. It is a simple reference on a form or on a website page; it is a simple request, and I am sure that the Government will want to accede to it. That applies to all our amendments in the group, as not one of them involves extra cost or any significant extra burden on the work of local authorities or electoral registration officers.

19:30

Amendment 17 is designed to extend the opportunities for getting through to those hard-to-reach individuals for individual registration purposes. The Electoral Reform Society strongly believes that when Government Departments such as the Inland Revenue and those responsible for welfare payments, pension payments, driving licences, national insurance and passport applications have contact with the people who apply for those things, it would be very useful if those agencies were required to make a registration form available. That is particularly relevant to 17 and 18-year-olds who apply for their first driving licence, for instance. It is typically the younger generations who do not think that seriously about registering to vote. They have far more interesting things on their minds for the most part. As things stand, the responsibility for their registration lies with their parents or the head of the household.

There is a real risk under the new system that those young people will not get themselves registered. We know from the low level of participation of young people in elections that there is a high risk of that happening. It is therefore entirely sensible for Departments and public sector agencies such as the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and the Passport Service to have a duty or responsibility to make young people, or anybody applying for a driving licence or a passport, aware of the importance of electoral registration.

[Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady make it clear that it would be equally inappropriate for these agencies to register people when they are not British?

[Angela Smith]

Of course, but the system we have now and the one we want to put in place would provide safeguards on that score. Anyone applying for a passport has to prove nationality before being granted one. I take the hon. Gentleman’s point, but there should be sufficient safeguards in any registration system to ensure that only British nationals with the right to vote are allowed to go on to the electoral register. Indeed, that lies behind many of the issues that we are discussing today.

Many other legislatures across the world use such a method of ensuring that the registration of eligible citizens is maximised—the United States, for example. Once again, Opposition Members can see no reason why the Government would want to resist amendment 17 in any way, as it is perfectly sensible. It is a practical, common-sense way of extending awareness of registration and of the duties and responsibilities that go with being an adult citizen in Great Britain. It provides a perfectly sensible and practical way forward for maximising awareness of those rights and responsibilities. I look forward to hearing the Government’s response, particularly to hearing that they are ready to accept all our amendments in the group.

[Mr Mark Williams]

It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith). Her amendments specify the steps that local authorities should pursue to register more people. Amendment 16 specifically reminds applicants of their civic duties. This raises the key issue of what information should be included in the communication, and she listed some reasonable mechanisms and steps that should be taken. I guess the substance of the debate will be whether these provisions need to be written directly into the Bill or whether, as clause 5 specifies, they can be made by regulation. That will be the focus of my brief contribution.

I believe it is good that clause 5 allows the Electoral Commission to standardise forms, which is my reading of that particular clause and it applies to some of the issues the hon. Lady mentioned. We heard on Second Reading, as we usually do, from the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane), who talked about the excellent experience in the county of Denbighshire. He mentioned the good work that had been undertaken there and the documents that had been created, which led to impressive rates of registration.

I would like to hear more from the Government about the onus they intend to place on the Electoral Commission—in preference to writing provisions directly into the Bill—in respect of the substance of those forms and the prominence in them of various messages, not least the civic duty and the penalty. The Bill as it stands says that the Electoral Commission should provide that information, but will the Minister ensure that it must provide it? We need additional clarity about the penalty and the implications if the application is not complied with. Will he confirm whether the Electoral Commission will be mandated to put information about the civil penalty on the forms? If we are to have good practice, will the usability of those forms be tested? Critically, if we are to rely on regulation rather than place these matters directly on the face of the Bill, when will those regulations be laid out? Critically, too, what detail will they specify? In short, what is the Electoral Commission’s role in these matters; what is its role in disseminating good practice; and what is its role in insisting on that good practice? The hon. Lady cited some good examples of good practice undertaken by local authorities from both political parties—I wish she had said from all political parties—but the reality is that that is not universal. I am interested—I suspect the hon. Lady and the Minister are, too—in ensuring that best practice is pursued.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I agree with hon. Gentleman, who makes a good point. I recall that Derwentside district council used to be responsible for registration in the Derwentside part of my constituency. It was clear from looking at the register that there were gaps of entire streets or parts of streets. That showed me that not a great deal of attention was being paid by the registration officer to information that could be seen just by flicking through the register.

[Mr Williams]

I concur with the hon. Gentleman. I think we have nothing to be scared about in the Government’s legislation or in respect of the good practice that some local authorities are exhibiting. I am concerned that we spread good practice, and I believe clause 5 provides us with the mechanism to do that by requiring returning officers in the first instance to send the invitations to register and then by providing a secondary power to make regulations about the substance of the initial applications. Further to that, the regulations

“may confer functions on the Electoral Commission”.

I hope that the Minister can flesh out the role he believes the Electoral Commission should play in these matters.

[Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Weir.

Before I deal with this important clause and set of amendments, let me say a few words about the role of those who have served on my Select Committee, the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee. I believe that it did an exemplary job in examining not just clause 5 but all the other clauses, and I fear that had it not done so, and had the Government not engaged with it as they did, this Committee stage would have been much more fraught. It is because the Select Committee managed to clear away a lot of the undergrowth—a lot of the detail—during its close discussions with the Government that the real, strong political issues that should be debated on the Floor of the House are being so debated. Not only the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner), who is present, but other members of the Select Committee have participated in the first two days of this Committee stage, and will probably participate in the third.

I was surprised to see how many amendments the Government had accepted. I had thought that we had done a reasonable job, but that co-operation has taken the Select Committee to a better place in the way in which we should, responsibly, seek to amend Bills. There can be nothing more important than what we have tried to do in respect of the right to vote, the registration of the vote, and the invitation to vote. It may sound very dry and technical, but the truth is that those issues are fundamental to our democracy. If we get this wrong, all the high-falutin’ phraseology about our freedoms and liberties, and our right to create our own Governments and dispose of them, will be rendered useless.

We need only read the history books, such as those that deal with the Jim Crow laws in the United States, to know that, even when there is a nominal right to vote, if registration is not got right—if, indeed, it is deliberately twisted so that it is difficult for people to vote—everyone is denied their right to democracy. As Lyndon Johnson is quoted as saying in a famous book by Robert Caro, which I would recommend to anyone, if people are given the right to vote they are given access to the whole panoply of the power of Government, and can then exercise their ability to change law by whatever means they wish to employ: through their political parties, and through other organisations. We have seen how vital it is for registration to be exercised in a responsible and comprehensive way in countries such as South Africa, which, in recent years, has done a tremendous job in fulfilling that requirement.

However, we also need to look a little closer to home. When we talk about registration, I always think of the old Shire hall in the middle of my city of Nottingham. Three blocks can be pulled out of the steps of the hall, and that is where the old tripod gallows used to be. It was used at the time of the Pentrich rebellion, only six generations ago, to execute people who were demanding the right to vote—demanding the right, in our own country, to exercise the mandate that would decide who should be the Government.

I go to those stratospheric lengths only to demonstrate that we are debating an extremely serious matter. We are not merely discussing the dry technicalities that electoral registration officers, who are almost always extremely capable and conscientious public servants, put into law and into our democratic process. We are discussing a fundamental issue.

19:45

As well as engaging with Government and producing a great many changes and evolutions in the original proposals, my Committee decided to table a couple of probing amendments that would keep the Government on their mettle, but would not be pressed to a vote. I hope that the Minister will approach our amendments in that spirit. The first is amendment 34, to which is appended an explanatory statement enabling any Member who should wander innocently into the Chamber and wonder what we are doing to understand exactly what the debate is about. The amendment does what it says on the tin. As the explanatory statement says:

“The amendment is intended to ensure that it is clear to people who are invited to apply for registration that the edited register may be sold, and to ensure that people know how to opt out of the edited register.”

That is crystal clear. I hope that we do not all suffer the wrath of the Chair of the Procedure Committee, but take his edict seriously, and begin to attach explanatory statements to all our amendments so that everyone can understand the business a little more readily.

The edited register is available for general sale, and is used by organisations for the purpose of commercial activities such as marketing, as well as for campaigning purposes by all of us here who are members of political parties. It is also used for purposes such as the tracing of missing persons. I am sure that Members who are in the Chamber have received a number of representations from certain bodies about that. Electors who do not want their details to appear on the edited electoral register need to opt out.

When my Committee conducted its pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill, it recommended the abolition of the edited electoral register. We did not feel that it was appropriate for personal details gathered by the Government for electoral purposes to be sold to commercial organisations. Sadly, on this occasion the Government did not accept our recommendation, and that is why I am pressing the Minister tonight. I want to understand this thinking and to establish whether he wishes to think about the issue further, either now or at a later stage. The Government did, however, say in their response that they were

“aware of and considering the finely balanced arguments on the future of the edited electoral register.”

My Committee feels that while the edited version of the register continues, it is important for people who are being invited to register to realise that it may be sold—I am sure that many do not know that—and that it could be used for commercial purposes. It is also important for them to know exactly how they can opt out of the edited register.

I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to respond to the points that I have made, and to tell us whether he has had any further thoughts of the sort that he outlined in his initial response to my Committee.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

May I also say, Mr Weir, what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship?

I want to record my thanks to the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) and his Committee for the work they have done. They have improved the Bill substantially, which demonstrates the power of Select Committees when it comes to pre-legislative scrutiny. I think that we should see more of that, because it would not only give Bills a smoother passage in this place, but allow external agencies to ensure that their voices were heard. I also think that the Minister should be commended for the spirit in which he has accepted the Committee’s report.

Clause 5 deals with the maintenance of the register, a topic we touched on earlier in the context of ensuring it is as accurate and up to date as possible. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North said, this goes to the heart of our democracy. People must have the democratic right to be on the register. My hon. Friend referred to Lyndon Johnson, and I, too, have just finished reading the latest version of Robert Caro’s fourth book on Johnson, which I recommend as essential reading to all Members. It is important to ensure that citizens have the right to vote for their local representative, whether at parish, district or county council level or in parliamentary or European elections.

Clause 5 covers regulations governing electoral registration officers. It is important to give clear steers, either in the Bill—as suggested by my Front-Bench colleagues —or in regulations. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s comments on that. As the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) said, there are onuses on EROs to do certain things, but there must be consistency in this regard, as well as the will to do those things. The Bill states:

“A registration officer in Great Britain must give a person an invitation to apply for registration in a register maintained by the officer if—

(a) the officer is aware of the person’s name and address,

(b) the person is not registered in the register, and

(c) the officer has reason to believe that the person may be entitled to be registered in the register.”

Under current legislation, there are certain onuses on EROs. The Representation of the People Act 1983 was amended by the Electoral Administration Act 2006, which added a new section, 9A, setting out the steps that must be taken by EROs to identify people eligible for registration as electors. The steps include:

“(a) sending more than once to any address the form to be used for the canvass under section 10 below;

(b) making on one or more occasions house to house inquiries under subsection (5) of that section;

(c) making contact by such other means as the registration officer thinks appropriate with persons who do not have an entry in a register;

(d) inspecting any records held by any person which he is permitted to inspect under or by virtue of any enactment or rule of law;

(e) providing training to persons under his direction or control in connection with the carrying out of the duty.”

It may be claimed that many of those steps are already in place, but I come back to a point made earlier: the key is how they are implemented by local EROs.

[Chris Ruane]

Although some of these steps have been in place since as far back as 2006, many have not been taken up. This Bill presents us with an opportunity to make sure EROs take up their past duties, obligations and laws as well as their future ones.

[Mr Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He has done a lot of good work in highlighting low registration across constituencies in the UK, and what he says is right, as I know from my own experience in County Durham. We could see obvious mistakes on the register, such as large gaps in streets—numbers 12 to 15 might be entirely missing, for example. A member of the council staff should have said, “Wait a minute; it can’t just be a matter of chance that all the residents in that sequence of addresses haven’t registered. A mistake must have been made.” Another example involved a sheltered accommodation property. It was run by a local councillor, but it was not included on the register at all. The new county council has made a determined effort to address such mistakes through a canvass, and we added about 12,000 people to the electoral register. That was a result of Durham county council looking at council tax records and other resources and of door-to-door canvassing, which will still be key.

My constituency has quite a stable population, but, as I said earlier, in certain parts of it—including parts of Stanley and Chester-le-Street—and especially in areas with a lot of private landlord accommodation, the names on the register change fairly often. The Electoral Commission report says:

“Incompleteness and inaccuracies on the registers are strongly associated with population movement.”

That comes as no great surprise. My right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) talked earlier about the transitory nature of much of his constituency’s population, and any Member representing a constituency with a large student population could make the same point.

The Electoral Commission report also makes it clear that there is a decline in registration in the most densely populated urban areas. It states that that decline may be

“as much as 10–15 percentage points over the lifetime of the registers.”

That, too, will come as no great surprise to anyone who has been involved in local government or in elections.

All EROs must make the accuracy of the register a top priority, and we must take steps to ensure that measures that are already in place are put into effect. We will wait and see whether that is pursued through the Bill or through regulations. If these amendments are not agreed to, there must be regulations that deal with this matter.

My experience in local councils tells me that we must do more than just rely on local EROs. Councillors must have the political will to take these steps, as must the chief officer. It must be seen as a key priority, for the reasons my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North outlined.

As amendment 12, tabled by my Front-Bench colleagues, makes clear, the new council tax bill that is sent out every year presents a golden opportunity. Durham county council is running a trial that enables people to tick a box if they want to apply a postal vote. Again, the good councils are doing that, and I think the Minister will agree that good councils will use such measures. This aim is to ensure that councils that are not mandated to use that process will in fact do so, as permitted under existing law.

20:00

It never ceases to amaze me that when new housing estates are built, people are not automatically registered. I accept what my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge said earlier—that when people move into a new house, there are more important things to do than making sure they are on the electoral register. They have to change their children’s school, sort out their electricity and bank details, and so on. However, moving home provides a good opportunity to address this issue. About 10 years ago I moved into a new house, and, as I discovered on doing so, people soon receive a demand from the local council. That provides an opportunity to ensure that people are registered, whether by letter or e-mail. Indeed, increasingly, people are registering to pay council tax and other bills by e-mail and other such services. That would ensure that a resident on a new housing estate is registered.

The situation with new council housing and social housing residents—again, it varies from authority to authority—also never fails to amaze me. When residents move in, local councils know who they are, and that information should automatically be used to get them on to the register. In my constituency, two organisations that are separate from the council—Derwentside Homes and Cestria Community Housing—now run all previous council stock. I am sure that they would be happy to co-operate in ensuring that people are on the register when they move in. As the Minister and others have said, there is a lot of information there—it is a question of the will to deal with it.

Another issue, which I mentioned earlier, is people in residential care. Again, local councils have the power to deal with this. Many such people make a contribution to their fees. However, to judge by the experience of residential care homes and sheltered accommodation in my constituency, unfortunately, the register is often outdated. Because of the nature of such places, there is quite a regular turnover—if I may tactfully put it that way. However, social services and care providers could work with the electoral registration officer to ensure that people are registered. Moreover, there is nothing more upsetting than people getting letters addressed to recently deceased relatives. Such a provision would be a way of taking off the register those who are no longer entitled to be on it because, unfortunately, they are no longer with us.

The point was also made, in the context of amendment 16, about the broader civic duty to vote. It is difficult to convince people that there is such a duty. Some of my older female constituents remember fighting for the vote and make sure they are registered and vote every time. It is not the same with younger voters; sadly, the struggles that a lot of women went through to get the vote are perhaps not recognised by younger generations. Trying to promote that civic notion would be very difficult.

As I said earlier, people in my constituency and others thought that a way to avoid paying the old poll tax was to get themselves off the register. I have to say that most constituents who come to see me never use the phrase “council tax”; they still call it the poll tax.

The system that we have had up to now has worked for good councils, but unless the Bill or regulations force councils to take such action, I doubt whether anything will actually happen.

Another issue is the training of electoral registration officers. In my experience, some of them are very good and see it as their role to ensure that the register is as up to date as possible, and take pride in doing so. Others—and other councils—see it as something of an afterthought. That issue needs to be looked at.

Amendment 17 is a common-sense provision that examines some of the other ways in which central Government, who interact with many of our constituents, can help in the electoral registration process. I am big fan of Directgov, through which, two weeks ago, I renewed my driving licence. It is a simple way to pay car tax or to renew a driving licence. The one thing that people have to provide is an address, and, as part of the process the website could ask whether people are registered at that address. When I moved house a couple of years ago, I had to go through that process to change my address. The Government could easily make use of that opportunity, and the same point applies with passports, as was mentioned earlier. It is about making sure that the mechanisms exist to capture such information. Directgov would be an excellent way to ensure that people are registered. Perhaps the Minister can say whether it is currently possible to register through Directgov. Once a number has been generated, it links together a person’s interactions with Government. That would be a simple way to address this issue.

Another issue is the contents of the form and the invitation to vote. We need to think a little bit outside the box in deciding how we are going to deal with this issue. In 11 years as a Member of Parliament, I have noted, as most Members have, that the way in which people interact with MPs has changed. The days of getting large postbags of handwritten letters are coming to an end. We receive an increasing number of e-mails, including, surprisingly, from older people. Councils have the e-mail addresses of those people who register for council tax through that method. Perhaps that could be used as another way of encouraging people to register. We do not necessarily have to use the old-fashioned, traditional form through the door. Here, however, we return to my earlier point about the will of individual councils and officers to adapt to some of these ideas.

My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge also talked about using the electoral register to reduce fraud. That would make a big difference to the ability of local registration officers to spot individuals who are registering illegally, or those who are using the existing register for identity fraud purposes. That is an increasing problem: as recent figures show, such fraud runs into hundreds of millions of pounds a year. Making provision in respect of the actual need to have an accurate register lets people know that this is important in reducing fraud.

I am not sure that many people know that, as has been mentioned, being on the electoral register helps them to establish credit worthiness. Those who move addresses often may find that difficult to get, but at least this is a way of giving information that agencies can use. Most people think that being on the register is just about voting. We need to work out how we get the message across that it is important to register for that purpose, too.

[Angela Smith]

In addition, the use of verification procedures when goods are being ordered online is becoming increasingly obvious. The use of postcode and address details is one of the important aspects of the secure procedure when ensuring that the right people get the right goods when ordering online.

[Mr Jones]

My hon. Friend rightly says that people are increasingly using the internet for things such as ordering goods online. Again, I doubt whether many young people know that being on the electoral register is an important source for those types of thing, so that is another good reason why the amendment is important. The terminology is perhaps a bit loose in terms of civic responsibility—I am not sure that many people see it from that point of view—but we could set out a practical reason for young people to register.

I mentioned driving licences earlier, and new drivers provide an obvious opportunity in this regard. I am not suggesting that everyone applies for their licence when they are 17, but new licences are an obvious way to engage young people and ensure that they are registered to vote and know the importance of that. We should not miss that opportunity.

The penalty has been mentioned, and I welcome the work of the Committee and the Government in ensuring that the penalty is set out. Again, the test will be whether or not it provides an incentive for people to register. My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) has asked a question on this, and it was answered by the hon. Member for South West Devon (Mr Streeter) on behalf of the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission. His answer stated that, based on the data that were available in March 2010, only

“67 prosecutions were initiated in relation to a failure to provide information in response to the…annual canvass.”—[Official Report, 26 October 2010; Vol. 517, c. 166.]

The Bill’s penalty for not registering will not be meaningful and effective unless it is enacted and enforced. However, it is important to include it in the Bill as a sanction; again, it can be publicised to ensure that people know that there is a potential sanction for not registering to vote.

The Government have got it right overall on the armoury they will give local returning officers to ensure that the register is as accurate as possible. The proof of the pudding will be in how that is actually used. As I said, the Bill provides a lot of ways in which councils can ensure that people are registered, but councils are not using them. I will be interested to hear how the Minister is going to ensure that the provisions—and his hope that councils and returning officers will use some of these different ways of not only interacting with the public, but using the information they already have—will mean that the register is as accurate as possible. It would be sad to miss this opportunity to ensure not only that more people are registered to vote, but that the registration is accurate as possible.

20:15

[Chris Ruane]

As has been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), local government has many ways of contacting electors. It can do so by way of housing benefit, council tax, disabled parking badges, the people it puts in residential care, the home helps who visit people in their homes, contact when people are placed in council and social housing, contact when enforcement and registration is carried out in respect of houses in multiple occupation and contact when new houses, be they private sector or public sector, are built. Local authorities are not extending the invitation to register to many people who use those things. A lot more can be done, but it will take time, effort and resources, and that has been used in the past as an excuse not to act. This Bill and other Bills are bringing about huge constitutional changes, which could dramatically alter the constitutional landscape, and local authorities need to do everything in their power to maximise the registers in their areas by using the previous legislation and this Bill.

The Government also hold databases, as outlined in amendment 17; they relate to

“welfare payments, pensions, driving licences, revenue collection, National Insurance and passport applications”.

All those offer an opportunity for national or local government to extend that invitation to register to people using those things at critical moments in their life. We need to address an issue about sharing national Government databases with local authorities, but there is no issue involved in using local databases within the remit of a local authority. Local authority databases can be used for the purpose of registration, and we need to examine ways in which we can improve those channels of communication between national Government and local government to open up those databases. I realise that people have concerns about losing databases; Department for Work and Pensions databases have been found on roundabouts in the past, and that caused a national outrage as it hit the national press—

[Mr Kevan Jones]

They were never found.

[Chris Ruane]

Indeed, as my hon. Friend reminds us. We need to keep that in perspective, because although losing those databases was bad, I am sure that new systems can be implemented to allow secure access to those databases for the purpose of registration.

I also want to talk about the rights and responsibilities of Assembly Members, MPs, councillors, MSPs and Members of the Legislative Assembly in Northern Ireland in respect of putting pressure on electoral registration officers to ensure that the existing legislation and this Bill are monitored, not only by the Electoral Commission, but by us as parliamentarians—as elected representatives. Last week, I e-mailed 250 Labour Members with a specific list of questions that the Electoral Commission had designed for MPs to put to their ERO. I have circulated those questions to Labour MPs and asked them to go to see their ERO with their Assembly Member, with their local group leader to put pressure on the ERO to ensure that everything is being implemented. That should also be examined in this Bill to ensure that elected representatives at least have that invitation to work with EROs to maximise the register. I have done this in my constituency, where we have a fantastic ERO, Gareth Evans, who has increased the registration in my constituency from 47,000 to 57,000 in a two or three-year period. That is excellent and I pay tribute to Gareth for his work on that.

On the invitation to register, we also need to ensure that there is no political interference by politicians who do not want people to be registered. Liberal Democrat Members will be aware—I have mentioned this in the past—that when the ex-Liberal leader of Islington council was asked by the Labour group to have a registration drive to get the unregistered on to the register, he said, “No, we are not doing that. Keeping people off the register is how we win elections.” If there is such a degree of political interference within a local authority, it needs to be tackled. The case might have been isolated, if high profile, but we need measures to tackle political interference if it occurs.

Such interference could be tackled in a number of ways. There does not necessarily need to be political interference; there could be political, bureaucratic or administrative incompetence. If the job is not being done and the mustard is not being cut, a solution is needed to allow registration to take place. I ask the Minister to consider, in the final analysis, transferring the rights of a local authority’s underperforming electoral registration department to that of a neighbouring authority that is achieving or letting the Electoral Commission carry out the registration in emergency circumstances. Alternatively—I say this as a Labour Member—there is perhaps a case for using the private sector. Experian has built the databases and knows exactly where the unregistered are, so perhaps there is an opportunity for its involvement if local authorities are too lazy or if there is political interference.

A number of the amendments would put the onus on the local authority to explain why it is important for an individual to be on the register. More needs to be done and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham that the question of civic duty might fall on deaf ears. Having said that, I am very glad that the Government, who initially talked about downgrading the civic duty to a lifestyle choice, listened to the avalanche of complaints from across the country, from the civic sector and from Opposition parties and decided to keep the civic duty. The explanation from Ministers, from political parties and from the ERO of the reasons why someone should be on the electoral register and the benefits that it brings in getting a mortgage and credit is important. If members of the local population are not on the register, they will not have access to proper credit and will be forced into the hands of loan sharks.

A great deal more education and explanation are needed from EROs and us. I am pleased that a lot of progress has been made. I pay tribute to the Ministers, whom I have hounded over the past two and a half years with hundreds of written parliamentary questions and oral outbursts in Committee and in the Chamber. I make no apology for that. A group of dedicated MPs from all parties have pursued the issue and progress has been made, specifically on the issue of fixed penalty notices. I pay tribute to Ministers for that but I maintain that the whole Bill is unnecessary. These things could have been done with all-party support, through Labour’s Political Parties and Elections Act 2009. I did not support it—I voted for it, but it was not in my heart— but I accepted it as a political reality and necessity. These things could have been achieved with all-party parliamentary consensus in 2015.

I recently asked in a parliamentary question why Labour’s Act was negated and the 2015 deadline was brought forward to 2014. The answer was that it was imperative to go through all this turmoil and upset and to take up all this parliamentary time because there is great concern out there among the Great British public, 36% of whom believe that there is electoral fraud, that meant we must tackle the issue. I also asked how many cases of electoral fraud there were, and the Minister replied that there were a couple a year.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Electoral Commission’s report on the pilots a few years ago, which was buried following outcry from the Daily Mail and others, said that in most of the pilots—including e-voting, text voting and, to give an example from my constituency, full postal voting—fraud was negligible?

[Chris Ruane]

My hon. Friend is reading my mind—

[Mr Jones]

I hope not.

[Chris Ruane]

The question I drafted on the train from Rhyl to Euston this morning expands on my hon. Friend’s point. It asks what assessment the Minister has made—he might want to think about this overnight—of the reasons why 36% of the British public think that there is electoral fraud, on the impact of Ministers and Government MPs talking about electoral fraud and on its coverage in the media—

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Mike Weir)]

Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to come back to the amendments. I have been rather lenient, but he is going very wide of the subject now.

[Chris Ruane]

You have been very lenient, Mr Weir, and have let me rabbit on for a few minutes.

I give the Government credit for their recognition of representations from both sides of the House, civic society, the police, the Electoral Reform Society, Unlock Democracy, the courts and so on. They have listened, but this was all unnecessary. If they had stuck to Labour’s 2015 timetable, we would not have been discussing the matter today and would perhaps have been discussing the economy, growth or other such issues.

[Mr Harper]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Weir.

I should acknowledge the very charitable comments—for him—made by the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane). It was pleasant to have such a polite outburst, compared with some of his previous ones. I acknowledge straight away that he is right that we all have a responsibility to help get these matters right. As Members of Parliament, we are in a very powerful position when it comes to talking to our electoral registration officers, asking what they are doing and checking that they are doing everything that is necessary. The same applies to senior councillors. I often hear anecdotal evidence that EROs say that they have trouble getting the resources to do the job properly, but the EROs and returning officers are often the more senior officers in the council. Councillors are very interested in ensuring that the electoral register is done properly and we as Members of Parliament have an opportunity, which the hon. Gentleman is right to say that we should take, to ask EROs what they are doing. When the Bill becomes law, as I hope that it will, it will be incumbent on us all to talk to our EROs, to check that they are doing all the work and to ask how they are progressing in implementing the provisions.

I thank the hon. Members for Vale of Clwyd and for North Durham (Mr Jones) for what they said about the Select Committee chaired by the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) and the excellent work it did in pre-legislative scrutiny. I also thank the hon. Member for North Durham for what he said about our response to that scrutiny. There is not much point in its being done only for us to ignore all of it, and we made a number of significant changes before we introduced the Bill. I should also praise the hon. Gentleman for mentioning accuracy as well as completeness. They are of equal importance and the Government have focused on both.

20:30

It is relevant to amendment 34, standing in the name of the Chairman of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, to confirm that the Government have concluded that the edited version of the electoral register should be retained. We have discussed whether it should be abolished with interested parties on both sides of the debate and received numerous representations. The previous Government consulted, but did not have the opportunity to take a decision before leaving office. There are those, particularly in the electoral community, including the Electoral Commission, who argue that having an edited register acts as a disincentive to people registering, but we have seen no convincing evidence of that. On the other side of the argument, some argue that it provides significant wider social and economic benefits, and in the previous Government’s consultation, 7,447 of about 7,600 responses favoured the edited register’s retention for those reasons. On balance—it is a finely balanced decision—the Government believe that keeping the edited register from which voters can choose to opt out is the right decision. I know it will be disappointing to some and welcomed by others, but that is the decision the Government have made.

The group of amendments have a theme of inserting various prescriptions about what local authorities should do and the information on the forms. A general point is that putting that sort of stuff in the Bill is not the right approach. In many cases, there is detail in some of the secondary legislation we have already published in draft, and I think that that sort of specific provision is better there than in the Bill.

My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner) is no longer here, unfortunately, but in an intervention on the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), he referred to British citizenship, and I think it is worth stating for the record that the franchise for parliamentary elections consists of British citizens, Irish citizens who are resident in the United Kingdom, Commonwealth citizens who are resident here and either have or do not need leave to remain and, of course, British citizens who live overseas and are registered to vote; and for local elections, to that list are added European Union citizens resident in the United Kingdom. It is a complicated franchise and perhaps not what would have been produced had we started with a clean sheet of paper, but as I have said before, we have reached that position because of our complicated history, and when Parliament has considered the matter previously, it has decided to stay in broadly the same place. Given my hon. Friend’s comment, I thought it important to make that clear on the record.

Amendment 12 is about putting a statement on registration in the council tax communication. My first point—I think the hon. Lady alluded to this—is that I am not sure that the council tax document is read cover to cover by every voter, even though this year many will have been able to read that their council has frozen their council tax, thanks to the policies of this Government, which I am sure would have come as very welcome news. As well as not being enormously well read, the document tends to be looked at, if it is looked at by anyone, by the head of the household or the person who pays the council tax. I suspect it does not reach into every part of the home.

The hon. Lady is right to say that councils and registration officers have to contact people who are not on the register. That is why we are continuing the annual canvass and placing a new obligation on registration officers to invite unregistered people to register when they become aware of them, which applies all year round. In the second set of data-matching pilots, later this year, we will look for good ways to spot such people. The hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd made the point that local authorities have access to council tax data. If the database lists someone who pays council tax but that person is not registered to vote, under the proposals registration officers have a legal duty to use that information to write to that person to invite them to join the electoral register. As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, all the other databases the local authority has can be used as well. That may be a good way of promoting electoral registration and some local authorities may think it effective, but it is not necessarily something we want to specify in the Bill. I therefore urge the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 13 would give local authorities a duty to invite people who move into the area and register for council tax purposes to join the electoral register. Local authorities have access to their council tax records and so are aware of such people, and the Electoral Commission’s guidance states that when they send out council tax bills, they should send rolling registration forms, but again, that will capture only the bill payer—the person who pays the council tax—and will not help to identify other people. However, the hon. Lady is right about the need to find ways to capture people who move home, as they are the group of people who are least likely to be registered and there is a direct link between the length of housing tenure and electoral registration. We are looking at various solutions, in particular solutions relating to the sorts of transaction people engage in when they move home. Registering for council tax may be one of those transactions, but again, I am not sure that we want to specify it in the Bill.

Amendment 16, to which the hon. Lady spoke as well, is about putting on electoral registration forms

“a clear explanation that the electoral register is used for other civic purposes”

and alluding to the financial checks for which the electoral register is used. Having seen the draft secondary legislation that we published last week, the hon. Lady will know that the IER forms will carry a statement about the processing of the data that the individual supplies, which will set out clearly what the information is used for, both on the full register—for purposes such as credit checks and fraud prevention—and on the edited register.

Several hon. Members spotted that we intend to work with the Electoral Commission on designing the forms. Several Members spotted that in clause 5 there is a power to give that responsibility to the Electoral Commission. When the Electoral Commission designs forms, it carries out user testing in order to produce forms that are clear, brief and to the point, and to ensure that they are properly understood and properly completed. We want to use that work to decide what should be on the form and whether there should be some other documentation with the forms. When the Electoral Commission has done that work, we have the powers in clause 5 and in paragraph 18 of schedule 4 to require registration officers to provide that information. We would want to do that if, for example, there are aspects of the forms that the Electoral Commission identified as effective.

The information could also be in the campaigns that are run by the Electoral Commission or the local authority. I live in London, in the borough of Lambeth, and I have seen some of the council’s advertisements, which focus—

[Mr Jones]

May I make a suggestion concerning the registration form? There should be a simple tick-box for people to register for a postal vote. In some cases, they have to register to vote, and on a different form register for a postal vote. A tick-box on the registration form would be much easier.

[Mr Harper]

Let me conclude my previous thought and I will come to that.

Some local authorities already use the register for the other purposes for which it can be used—for example, to run credit checks, or when people want credit for a mobile phone—as a positive method of encouraging people to be registered. This is where is it important to give EROs the power to consider their local circumstances. Depending on the area, depending how many people move, how often and the kinds of people, there are different messages that may work with different groups of people. The ERO should have the opportunity to do that. The Electoral Commission will be doing some work with us on this. When the commission suggests that certain things should be on the form and should be mandated, we have the powers to do that.

On postal votes and the point made by the hon. Member for North Durham, a separate form must be completed. In order to prevent fraud, people have to provide identifiers, such as date of birth and a signature for the electoral registration officer—[Interruption] The hon. Member for North Durham says, “On one form.” If we are moving towards allowing people to register electronically, a postal voter would still have to provide a hard copy signature, so the process cannot be made completely seamless. However, the hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Some local authorities may want to collect all the information, including date of birth, at one time. I will take his suggestion and see whether there is anything in our regulations which would prevent that. It may be one of the things that we can ask the Electoral Commission and some of our stakeholders to investigate to see whether that would be helpful for voters.

[Mr Jones]

I am grateful for the Minister’s response. I accept that a signature and date of birth are needed, but surely those could be provided on one form. That would save council administration and encourage people who want to apply for a postal vote to do so more easily.

[Mr Harper]

I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion, and, as I said, I will take it away and look at it. We will make sure that there is nothing that prevents such a suggestion, and we will also investigate it with our stakeholders, including the commission, administrators and a lot of the groups, particularly focusing on those who might find a postal vote helpful. We can perhaps trial some of that and see whether it is effective. That is a helpful suggestion from the hon. Gentleman.

Amendment 17 links Government Departments with responsibility for welfare payments, pensions, driving licences, revenue collection and national insurance with information about the electoral register. I agree with that up to a point and we will already be doing some of that. However, it would not be helpful to mandate that, given that most voters are already on the electoral register and quite a lot of people do not move about all the time. We do not want to insist on making every transaction with each of those Departments more complex. However, I agree with the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge about signposting and making that kind of linkage more effective.

The hon. Member for North Durham mentioned driving licences, and we are working with the Department for Transport on that. He also mentioned Directgov, and the Government Digital Service, which is working with us on developing the online registration tool, is also responsible for Directgov, so they will work seamlessly together. Where Departments deal with people who move about or new voters, we are considering signposting and giving people prompts. If we did that electronically and people needed only to tick a box, potentially they could be redirected straight to the site where they could register online. For some voters, that would be an effective way of driving up registration.

[Mr Jones]

Directgov would be a good system, because the identifier is down to the individual, and it allows one to do a whole range of things. To be able to register to vote through it, accepting that a form may be required to obtain a signature later, would be much easier for a lot of people, especially when they move house. A lot can be done through Directgov in one place, which is always useful.

[Mr Harper]

The hon. Gentleman makes some good points. Once we have an online method of registering in the first instance, that will be very effective. It already works very well in a number of local authorities for re-registering each year. I have just received my form in my constituency of the Forest Dean and I was able to re-register in a matter of minutes on my BlackBerry, putting in the code and ticking the opt-out box for the edited register. That worked very smoothly and a confirmation e-mail arrived. Many local authorities already do that. What they cannot do, because they are not empowered to do so, is effect new registrations in that way. Once we can do that, many people will move to that, either doing it themselves, or, if they need assistance, through an assisted digital method. It is important that people have that assistance and I think that is where people will start going.

The hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge, like Members beforehand, raised concerns about younger voters, particularly attainers—16 and 17-year-olds who get registered. I have been to Northern Ireland and seen how they register young people directly in schools. The chief electoral officer’s staff do a presentation, focusing on the civic side and the need to register to have a vote and to have one’s say, but they are not above looking at some of the other reasons that young people might want to be registered to vote, such as credit. Northern Ireland has a voter ID card and electoral staff run also through some of its practical uses, such as proof of age. Interestingly, as I have said in debates before, now that younger voters are engaged with directly, a higher percentage of them are registered to vote than in Great Britain, where we rely on mum and dad to do that.

So, I am a bit more hopeful. Having spoken to young people when I visit schools, as I am sure have many Members, I think that such direct engagement is a way to get them not just to register to vote but to use their vote. One of the depressing points is that young people, even when registered, are the least likely to cast their vote. In a sense, getting lots of people registered just to see them not vote is not very encouraging, so I think that we can all do a better job on that. However, as I said, I am more hopeful about younger voters engaging directly. There is some evidence that if we can engage with voters directly, rather than relying on one person in the household, we might all be pleasantly surprised.

20:45

Last but not least, let me turn to amendment 34, tabled by the Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), on behalf of a number of its members. In passing, I congratulate him and my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) on the explanatory statements to their amendments, which were very helpful to Members. The hon. Gentleman can explain to his Front Benchers how to produce such statements, because they did not manage to produce any for their amendments, meaning that we had great difficulty following what they were on about, which caused a little altercation earlier in the debate. As we would expect from a Chair of a Select Committee, he offers an exemplar of good parliamentary procedure.

With regard to the hon. Gentleman’s specific request, in our draft secondary legislation, which I hope he will note we have published while the Bill is still going through the House—that was one of the questions I was asked when I appeared before his Committee, and we have already done that in a number of areas—we have said that the application forms will include a statement on the processing of data, so that it will be very clear what the information and the full register and the edited register can be used for. The Electoral Commission will ensure that the forms are as user-friendly as possible.

Of course, if people are to be able to opt out of the edited register, it is important that that is a very clear choice for them. Again, some local authorities currently have very clear forms and are clear about what the data are used for, but some do not. Some, I am told—I have seen evidence of this—slightly misrepresent what the information is used for in order to encourage people to opt out, and some do not provide very clear information on what the decision is about. We are looking at that, and the Electoral Commission will do some user testing to make sure that the forms are clear and that people are clear about what the register is used for and what the decision to opt out is about. The hon. Member for Nottingham North is absolutely right that it is very important that they do so.

Part of our thinking behind keeping the edited register was making sure that the information on voters’ decisions to opt out is not more widely available. That is acceptable. If they are not sure and they are not given a clear decision, that is clearly not a satisfactory position, so we will be working closely with the Electoral Commission to ensure that the forms are clear and straightforward. On that basis, I urge the hon. Members for Penistone and Stocksbridge and for Nottingham North, respectively, to withdraw and not press their amendments.

[Angela Smith]

May I echo the comments of other Members in the Chamber and say that it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Weir?

Indeed, it was a pleasure to listen to the contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), who chairs the Select Committee. As other Members have said, he did a superb job in the report that the Committee produced. I also appreciated his comments about the importance of the registration process to democracy—a point we have made repeatedly from the Front Bench over the two days in Committee. He mentioned the sacrifices that have been made in the name of democracy by people in the Nottingham area in the past. I would add to that record the campaign waged by the Levellers, no less, many of whom were shot in the churchyard in Burford in Oxfordshire. And to that list we can add the suffragettes. The history is long and it is one that we should be proud of in some ways.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) outlined perfectly the importance of extending the ways in which people can register to vote, particularly online, and talked about the importance of the amendment relating to credit and mortgage facilities.

I put on the record once again the long and arduous campaign that my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) has waged not so much to get this legislation and approach on the statute book, as to get it right. My hon. Friend talked about the rights and responsibilities of elected Members, and I join the Minister in underlining the responsibilities of elected representatives at every level on that score. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I and my colleagues from the city of Sheffield have done exactly as he has recommended in the past, and it has had an impact on the work carried out by our local electoral registration officer.

I have been quite heartened by the Minister’s response to the four amendments before us in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr David). It has been made absolutely clear that there is a place one way or another—via secondary legislation, guidance issued by the Electoral Commission or its work in designing the necessary forms for the new process—for the points that we have made in our amendments, and that the Government take them seriously and have listened to them, so the Opposition’s response has to be that we will watch very carefully to see how the Minister’s comments play out as the process unrolls, unwinds and is implemented over the next few months and years.

On amendment 17, the signposting principle that the Minister outlined, particularly in relation to new voters and people who move, is important, and the Opposition take his points about young people. The point about electoral registration officers, or their staff in a big authority area such as Sheffield, Leeds or Manchester, going into a school to educate young people and encourage them to participate in the democratic process—perhaps as part of citizenship classes—is a very important one which makes a valuable contribution to the debate, but it will require resources.

Electoral registration officers and their staff will have to feel that they have the time and money to spend on undertaking such work. In a city such as Sheffield, there are almost 180 schools, 27 or 28 of which are secondary, so we are talking about a significant commitment on the part of EROs and their departments to make the process work, but I take the Minister’s point and accept that citizenship classes in schools could benefit enormously from such engagement with the local democratic process. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Mr Allen]

I beg to move amendment 33, page 5, line 12, after ‘penalty’, insert ‘of £500’.

The amendment would provide that the fine for failing to comply with a requirement to make an application to be on the electoral register would be set at £500.

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Mike Weir)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 14, page 5, line 14, at end insert—

‘(7A) The civil penalty shall be £100.’.

Amendment 15, in schedule 3, page 19, leave out lines 9 and 10.

[Mr Allen]

It is a great pleasure to speak again on these very important issues and, in particular, on the amendments before us, regarding the civic duty that we all have to vote, and the question of what a society does when, in a voluntaristic democracy, some individuals consistently refuse to play by the rules, to play their part and to carry out their share of the democratic duty that should fall on all of us.

We have heard a lot about the sacrifices that people have made, and I will not go over those issues again, but, when one looks at the history books and sees what sacrifices people made to achieve the vote, one finds that it adds great resonance to our debate. We have all had the experience of people who say, “Well, I don’t bother. I don’t even register. A plague on all your houses —it doesn’t mean anything to me.” As far as I am concerned, that is breaking the social contract that we all have when we commit to serving our democracy. If we do not maintain, hone and develop that social contract, we leave the door open for those who would take away our very democracy.

Therefore, on behalf of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, I am taking what might at first sight appear to be a rather draconian view. It is that, in extreme circumstances, after many warnings and much discussion, there should be a power—a reserve power—to fine those who deliberately flout the rules and regulations of registration.

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

How did the hon. Gentleman’s Committee come up with the figure of £500?

[Mr Allen]

I do not think that any science was involved in coming to that figure; the Committee felt that it should be pitched at a reasonable level. If it were pitched lower—at a parking or traffic-offence level—it might be regarded less seriously. Where it is actually pitched is a matter for debate and for the Government, but I hope that they will listen to people who say that, on the very rare occasions when a prosecution takes place, such offences should be met with an adequate fine.

I am not suggesting that everyone who fails to register should be fined £500. We heard that in a whole year in this country, people were prosecuted for non-registration only 67 times. That is not quite one in a million, but such prosecutions are a very rare occurrence. However, we need the power to fine so that people understand how seriously we take the matter.

I congratulate the Government again on how they have moved on a number of these issues. I am delighted to be joined by a member of my Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore), who participated in our debates and made sure that so many of our proposals were put in a way that allowed the Government to accept them and take the Bill forward.

Like the other Committee members, my hon. Friend will remember the early days when it appeared that our electoral system was almost being marketised or commodified by some of the phraseology around at the time. Our right to vote—our democracy—is, in the Committee’s opinion, a civic duty and I am delighted that the Government have reaffirmed that. It is not a consumer choice; it is not a punt, a bet or going down the shops—it is about how we run our society. There are alternatives to democracy; it is important that it is healthy and strong and that everybody participates in it.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

From my hon. Friend’s perspective, would the £500 represent more of a preventive measure, that would hopefully garner so much registration that it would never have to be used? A lower figure might mean that many more people would not register and would be taken to court.

[Mr Allen]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. If someone is fined for failing to register, that is a symbol of failure for us all—Government and non-Government Members, those on Select Committees and those who are not. We want everybody in our democracy to participate. Many of us have said on visits to schools and other places, “Yes, of course, in a partisan way we care about the way you vote, but we come and do these things because we feel you’ve got to exercise your rights in a democracy and as a citizen.” The lessons that we give to our children, particularly teenagers, when we talk to them in those terms apply to everybody.

It would be a failure if we fined people every time, but as my hon. Friend said, there needs to be a preventive, deterrent effect that encourages people to vote who might otherwise say, “Well, nothing will happen if I don’t, so I’m not going to bother.” If the thought that something might happen is in the back of their mind, a lot of people will be encouraged to register who otherwise would not do so. If they then choose not to vote or decide to go to the polling station and spoil their ballot, that is their decision, but they are enabled to make that decision by the very fact that they are on the register, and disabled from doing so if they are not on the register or encourage others not to be on the register.

21:00

[Mr Mark Williams]

I, too, welcome the Government’s direction of travel on the penalty. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that rather than becoming too hung up about the figure, we should consider how to communicate the fact that there is a penalty at all? It is about the size of the font and the prominence given to the wording in the documentation that is sent out as much as the scale of the fine.

[Mr Allen]

At the risk of summoning the ghost of my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane), the hon. Gentleman makes that point far more articulately, and perhaps more often, than I do. If we can persuade people to vote because they have got this message clearly from the panoply of paperwork that we send out to get them to register, then that in itself is a good thing, and it will mean that the threat of deploying a fine is not acted on.

As the Minister said, members of the Select Committee are trying to be as good as we can in giving the Committee an explanatory statement of the amendments so that Members can wander into the debate and know exactly what we are talking. The statement is straightforward. We hope that the deterrent would be used only very sparingly and rarely, if ever, but it says, in effect, that the concept of registering to vote is not about marketisation or convenience but about values—the values of which we in this place must be the guardians at every conceivable opportunity. The amendment is about the right of every qualified individual in this country to vote for the governance of their choice, and we believe that it would safeguard and extend the possibility of all of us enjoying that right.

[Mr Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

The burden of the argument in the earlier part of the speech by the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) seemed to be that there should be a fine for not voting. If I have misunderstood that, I apologise.

In the long history of these islands, people have sought to accomplish the very thing that we represent here—a representative democracy that is their check on autocratic government and all the things that go with it. I profoundly believe in exercising the right to vote. I have never not voted, with the exception of the time when I was abroad as a student, when it was not possible to vote as such a person. However, I also believe that with a sense of liberty goes the right not to vote. This is a clear choice of citizens. When I first stood for election during the 1980s, most of the polls in my area, which is in the west midlands and is not the wealthiest of regions any more, we had turnouts of between 79% and 81%. As we know, the collection of data for the electoral register—the very thing that we are talking about—is under-recording numbers because of movements or deaths. Therefore, 79% to 81% is a very good turnout. Only in the most recent years has the turnout collapsed. Who is to say why?

[Mr Allen]

May I reassure the hon. Gentleman, whose record is second to none in this House in the service of democracy, that nothing in my amendment indicates that someone should be fined for not voting? The sanction would apply to people who do not register and should apply only in rare cases as a way of encouraging individuals to get on the register. People may then choose to not vote, to spoil their ballot paper or to vote for the party of their choice.

[Mr Shepherd]

I stand for a complete register. I do not know that I would go as far as to force people to register, unless it was for census purposes. I see the failure of the census as often as not.

[Ian Mearns]

Will the hon. Gentleman muse on the new Boundary Commission rule that a minimum number of electors has to be found in a ward, and that if the number is even one short, a whole other electoral ward must be brought in to make the constituency up to the correct size? We could therefore have a situation in which that happens because of the non-registration of one person. That is how the rules are written, as I understand them. In that scenario, the registration of one voter becomes vital.

[Mr Shepherd]

I would think that the truth of the matter is that the rough must be taken with the smooth. It is the particularisation that I do not like.

I agree that having a correct census is fundamental to a democracy, and yet that is not universal. There are not many fines in relation to the census and we still do not have a complete one. However, I am very cautious about the idea of forcing anyone to do anything in their relationship with the democratic process, whether it is voting for parties or anything else. Australia has a fine for not voting, in theory, but I do not think that that is appropriate for us. It would be an inhibition on liberty. If I do not wish to be part of a process, as a free-born Briton, surely I have that right. That is the essence of what being British was about once upon a time.

I am not going to get excited, because I have been here a long time and I have heard all the passing nostrums. I am not saying that this is a nostrum, because the hon. Member for Nottingham North is trying to address a genuine worry; I do not doubt that. However, I have the sense that I am free born and that I may do what I wish, with my view of public officials, because that is entirely a matter for me, and that I should not be required to register with the possibility of a penalty if I do not vote. That seems to me to be the other side of the coin to liberty.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

To follow on from the point that has just been made, I believe that in a democracy everybody should be able to choose whether to exercise their right to vote, but to do that they have to be on the register. That is what this debate is about. People must be on the register so that they are able to choose whether to vote in an election.

The Government are committed to continuing with the fine under the current legislation of £1,000 for households that refuse to co-operate with the electoral registration officer. However, they have had second thoughts on whether it is appropriate to introduce a fine or civil penalty for individuals who refuse to co-operate.

Like other hon. Members, I welcome that change, because initially the Government suggested in the draft Bill that registration would be a matter of personal choice. Many argued that to register is a civic duty and responsibility, and that there should be a civil penalty attached for individuals who do not co-operate.

I also welcome the fact that the Government intend to use the fine sparingly. Their impact assessment states:

“Currently the criminal offence of not responding to a household registration form is used to encourage compliance and thus maintain the completeness of the electoral register. It is sparsely applied in practice and 150 prosecutions are actually initiated annually. It is intended that the new civil penalty will be used in the same way thus the propensity to issue fines should not increase,”

which is perfectly reasonable. The important thing is the declaration—I take the point made by the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) on that. It is important to make such a stipulation prominent, so that people are aware of their responsibility. The threat—the incentive—to comply is important, not the penalty.

[Mr Allen]

The penalty is not the first but the last resort. People can do a range of administrative things, including visits, letters and calls, which hon. Members use within political parties to get people out to vote, before a fine is levied. The penalty will enable people to register. It would not be fixed in the sense that a bureaucrat will say, “I see Mrs Smith hasn’t registered. Send her a £500 fine.” It will be the last in a very long chain of events.

[Wayne David]

My hon. Friend makes the point extremely well. He mentions in passing his proposal for a £500 fine. The official Opposition are proposing a £100 fine. Both probing amendments were tabled because we are disappointed that the Government, despite the encouragement we have given them, have not proposed a figure for the fine. We are told that the figure will be in regulations in the not-too-distant future.

As I have mentioned regulations, Mr Weir, may I make a point in passing? The Minister referred a number of times to the draft regulations placed in the Library last Monday. I went to the Library after our debate last Monday and was told that the regulations were placed there at 4.1 pm, or 22 minutes before the debate began. As he well knows, it is impossible for any reasonable person to discuss such regulations with such access. In addition, the existence of the draft regulations is more theoretical than real—only two appeared, when the others would have been directly relevant to the debate. We must wait for the publication of the other draft regulations, but the communication placed in the Library was clear that there are no draft regulations in six important areas.

[Mr Allen]

The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr Shepherd) spoke of affronts to liberty, but does my hon. Friend agree that it is an affront to liberty that Ministers can set the level of the fine by diktat outwith the processes of the House? All Governments have introduced such provisions—I am not making a partisan point—but we should take that power by amending the Bill this evening. All hon. Members would understand that, and the Government would have the ability to adjust the fine over the years, because of inflation or because a different view is taken of the offence.

[Wayne David]

My hon. Friend makes his point very clearly. That is precisely what we would have liked: full parliamentary scrutiny, with the figure having been presented to us in the Bill or at least in regulations that we could have considered in parallel. In fact, we put that request to the Government months ago, so I am disappointed—not from a partisan point of view but in the interest of scrutiny and democracy—that it has not been possible. There are several gems in the regulations. I do not want to digress, but there is a reference to “agile methodology”. That is a new one on me. Perhaps the Minister could write to me about what it means with regard to verification.

21:15

We do not know the size of the civil penalty the Government have in mind. The Minister was reported as saying that it would be something like a parking fine, but that does not take us very far forward. As I said on Second Reading, in Westminster local authority, the higher-rate parking fine is £130 and the lower-rate £110; in my own area of Caerphilly the higher rate is £75 and the lower rate £30; and next door, in Rhondda Cynon Taff, the higher rate is £50 and the lower rate £25. I could go on, but the point is that there is a tremendous national variation. We know that these fines will not vary, but to say that they will be like a parking fine does not tell us much at all.

[Ian Mearns]

The variation around the country makes it difficult to draw a comparison. There is little preventive or deterrent measure within the level of fines suggested; otherwise, these parking tickets would not be issued on a day-to-day basis.

[Wayne David]

That is right. A balance has to be struck. We had hoped to debate whether the Government had struck that balance, but unfortunately we cannot come to that decision. Perhaps before the end of the debate the Minister will tell us what level of fine the Government have in mind.

[Mr Harper]

I want to say one or two words about the draft secondary legislation. I do not apologise for when I laid it in the Library, because we are not debating it; we are debating the Bill. I put it in the Library so that Members could see it. I know I said this last week, but I will repeat it, because the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) needs to think it through: I will take no lectures from him about secondary legislation. Two similar Bills delegating significant powers to Ministers on electoral matters were introduced in the previous Parliament. I shall tell the House when the previous Government published the secondary legislation. It never published any in draft during the parliamentary passage of the Bill. The first any Members saw of any secondary legislation was after royal assent. I have published the draft secondary legislation while the Bill is still before this House, let alone the other one, and I have said that the rest of the secondary legislation will be published by the autumn, before the Bill has finished its passage through the other place. It might not be perfect and we might not be paragons of virtue, but we are doing an awful lot better than the previous Government. He ought to think about that before makes that point again.

[Chris Ruane]

Does the Minister accept that the difference between the two previous Bills, which, I admit, were certainly not perfect, and this Bill is that the former were not highly politicised? The 2009 legislation had cross-party support, but this Bill is highly contentious. We believe it to be highly politicised and the Conservative party’s ticket to winning the next election and the one afterwards. There is polarity there, which is why we need to see the fine print.

[Mr Harper]

I am not going to labour the point—

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Mike Weir)]

Order. Before the Minister gets too far into this, let me remind the Committee that we are not debating the secondary legislation at this point. Let us debate what is before the Committee. The Minister can reply if he wants to, but I hope he will shortly bring us back to the main subject.

[Mr Harper]

That is a good steer, Mr Weir. Let me make the point in passing that the 2009 Act to which the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) referred was not uncontroversial. We voted against it by way of a reasoned amendment because it did not include provisions on individual electoral registration. They were put in only when the Bill went to the other place, so I think we have done very well. Let me clarify what we have done. We have added to the secondary legislation and put in provisions setting out the steps the registration officer should take before insisting on a penalty and we have set out some information about the penalty, to which I shall return in a few moments.

Let me explain, as the hon. Member for Caerphilly mentioned it, that “agile methodology” is a way of developing information technology—the way it is done in the private sector—in order to avoid complicated and massive IT systems that cost a fortune, do not work and then have to be scrapped. We have learned much from how the previous Government operated; this is the way in which this Government will develop IT systems, and I think that they will be much more successful.

Picking up on the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr Shepherd), let me be clear from the beginning that we are talking about registration; we are absolutely not talking about imposing a penalty for not voting. Voting is voluntary and it will remain voluntary. While this Government are in office, there will be no proposals to change that. I am always disappointed when people do not vote, but they absolutely have the right not to, and it is our job as politicians to give them reasons for going out to vote or use their postal vote and to ensure that there is no obstacle to their doing so. If they do not vote, it will be because we have not given them sufficiently compelling reasons either to vote for us or against us, depending on their point of view. That remains the case.

It is worth setting out—it is a bit of a stand part debate, but it is relevant to the amendments—how we have arrived at this point. Members will know that it is not now and will not be in the future a specific offence not to register to vote in the first instance. The current position is that if people do not respond to the household form or, indeed, other inquiries that the electoral registration officer makes—this is the current way of getting on the electoral register—it is a criminal offence with a penalty of up to £1,000. We have no plans to change that; it will remain in place.

The question we faced with the invitation to register was whether to have a penalty. The hon. Member for Caerphilly is quite right that when the draft Bill was first published, it did not include a penalty. Several hon. Members have touched on the public policy reasons justifying a penalty. Some aspects of registration affect other people. First, the register provides the source of jurors, and it is important to have balanced juries made up of a proper cross-section of adult electors. Secondly, electoral registers can affect boundary changes—not just parliamentary boundary changes, but local ones as well, as highlighted by several hon. Members. That is why we decided it made sense to have a civil penalty, which was also in response to the Select Committee’s report and some of the evidence that was taken.

As for the amendments—the Select Committee’s amendment 33 and amendment 14 from the hon. Member for Caerphilly—regardless of the amounts specified, I do not believe it sensible to put the civil penalty directly in the Bill, as this would be better done through secondary legislation. I hesitate to correct the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), the Chairman of the Select Committee, but these matters are not at the diktat of the Minister. All the Bill’s powers are made by Ministers, but they all have to be approved by way of affirmative resolutions by both Houses. There is proper parliamentary control over the exercise of that Executive power.

I hope that both hon. Members will withdraw their amendments; as I said, it is not appropriate to put the figures directly on the face of the Bill rather than implement them through secondary legislation. As for how we get to the figure for the penalty, I am afraid that the hon. Member for Caerphilly is going to remain disappointed for today, as I do not propose to pluck a figure out of the air. The process we want to adopt is one that we have done all the way through—we are going to listen to people. We have explained how we will go about this. We think that the analogy with parking fines is sensible. The hon. Member for Caerphilly observed that there was a range of parking fines across the country, but the range is fairly narrow. A parking fine is not £500; it is about £40 at the lower end and £130 at the higher end.

There are some good arguments in favour of setting the fine at the higher level, for instance to reflect the importance of the matter and to ensure that it is a proper deterrent, but there are also arguments in favour of setting it at the lower level. Unlike the £1,000 fine issued by magistrates who can take into account the circumstances of voters—both the extent to which they believe them to be culpable and their financial resources—this will be a fixed penalty. It should also be borne in mind that although the criminal penalty involves a maximum fine of £1,000, the fines that are actually issued are usually much lower. During the 2011 canvass, the London borough of Hounslow successfully prosecuted 10 people for not providing the information required, but the average fine issued was £125. That was because magistrates were able to take various factors into account. This penalty will be fixed throughout the country, and when it is issued it will not be possible for the electoral registration officer to alter it.

We have listed a number of factors that should guide the arguments in favour of a higher or lower level, given broadly the same range as that which applies to parking fines, and we will do some targeted work with our stakeholders and consider their responses. I suspect that some will favour a reasonably high number for encouragement purposes, while others will be a little concerned about the potential impact.

I have listened carefully to the arguments that have been advanced today. I think that the hon. Member for Caerphilly’s proposal is at least in the ball park of the parking fine system, while the figure suggested by the hon. Member for Nottingham North on behalf of his Select Committee is rather on the high side. We will draw our conclusions, and Members will be able to see what we have come up with.

I should also say, in response to a point made by both the hon. Member for Caerphilly—who referred to the impact assessment—and the hon. Member for Nottingham North, that this is not the first course to which electoral registration officers should resort. We do not want them running around the country handing out fines like confetti; indeed, in an ideal world we would not want fines at all.

Those who receive parking fines can usually reduce them by paying promptly, but they cannot reduce them to zero. In this instance, everyone who incurs a civil penalty—and we hope that the number will be no more than the 100 a year or so who incur criminal penalties—will be able to reduce the amount to zero by registering to vote. If they register as a result of incurring the penalty, the electoral registration officer will be able to waive it. The purpose is to persuade people to register, not to issue fines. The Bill will prevent registration officers from keeping the money, so that they are not tempted, and so that people do not think that they are issuing the fines in order to use them as a revenue generation exercise, which would be just as bad.

We will specify—and have set out in draft regulations—what registration officers must do. They must issue the invitation, send reminders and send a door-to-door canvasser, and they must be satisfied that the individual has received the invitation and still resides at the address involved. Only when they have done all that can they tell people that they will issue a notice, and that if they do not register after that, a penalty will be incurred.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

The Minister touched on an important point earlier. He will know that some London boroughs, in particular, have given parking attendants an incentive to issue tickets by offering payment by results. Will he include in secondary legislation a methodology that would preclude such activities in areas where the level of registration is usually low in the first instance, so that there is no incentive to fleece the taxpayer?

[Mr Harper]

I am not sure whether my hon. Friend was present when I said this, but we have included in the Bill the important provision that any revenue from fines does not go to the ERO and is not kept by the local authority. It must go to the centre. The purpose of the fines is to encourage people to register to vote, not to generate revenue for local authorities. Therefore, the process of issuing a penalty will come with a cost to, and a burden on, the local authority. We do not want this to become a means of revenue generation for local authorities, as some people think is the case in respect of parking and speeding fines. I am confident our proposals strike the right balance.

21:30

[Chris Ruane]

Many constituencies with large numbers of unregistered voters cover some of the poorest areas of the country, where cuts in other areas will loom large. EROs will be under a lot of pressure. If they legitimately raise finance through fines, should they not be allowed to keep a proportion of that, to reflect the additional work they will have to do? Will every step be monitored? Further, will there be an increase in bureaucracy, and if so, how will it be paid for?

[Mr Harper]

I shall make two points in response to the hon. Gentleman’s questions. First, some of our stakeholders are concerned that many people who are not registered to vote may well be poorer people; they do not want people without much money being hit with fines and being financially penalised. We thought about this matter when drafting the legislation, and my view was that it was better to make sure there was not a financial incentive. Everyone who gave us feedback, including EROs, said they wanted a penalty. They do not want to issue any penalties, however; rather, they want to be able to write a scary notice on the form saying, “If you don’t do this, something will happen, so you can’t just ignore this form and put it in the bin.” That goes back to a point made by the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams).

We will work with the Electoral Commission on how to set out the description of the penalty so that it has the desired effect. It will test that in the design of forms, through user testing. If we come up with forms that are effective in this regard, we will be able to make it mandatory that they are used, which is important because at present authorities do these things in a variety of ways.

[Chris Ruane]

On this question, may I refer the Minister to the example set by Denbighshire county council, which stated in the middle of its form for registration, “If you do not fill this form in, you will be fined £1,000”? The warning has to be prominent and at the centre of the page, so that the recipients of these forms clearly understand that they must fill them in.

[Mr Harper]

The Electoral Commission will consider such issues when addressing the design of the form, and I am sure the points the hon. Gentleman raises will be taken into account.

Having set out why I do not think the level of the fine should be stated in the Bill, and having drawn attention to the draft secondary legislation and the approach we plan to take in coming up with that figure—rather than just making it up, we will listen to what stakeholders have to say—I hope the amendments will be withdrawn so we can allow the clause as currently drafted to stand part of the Bill.

[Mr Allen]

First, may I name-check another member of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing), for her attendance and contribution? She made an epic contribution, and she was extremely helpful to me when I was indisposed, in making sure the Committee carried out its scrutiny duties effectively. Secondly, may I give credit to the Government, as they have moved on this issue? At the outset, there was not to be any fine whatever, and it takes courage, and some cost, to listen, and the Government should be commended in this Chamber and outside it for having done so. There is more to do, of course, but we are now in a position from where we can move forward.

There were a couple of references in the debate to Robert Caro’s mammoth biography of Lyndon Baines Johnson, who, from a very difficult position, became the leading promoter of civil rights, including civil rights legislation. At the beginning of those enormous volumes, the scene is set by a black woman in the south seeking to get registered to vote. We need to remember, particularly in discussing registration and clause 5, that she was prohibited from participating in the democracy of the United States not by being prevented from voting, but because she could not even register in order then to participate in the voting process. That is why this clause is important, and why I hope the Minister will listen to the arguments that have been made tonight. In order to ensure that he listens even more carefully than he normally does, I will withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Schedule 5

Transitional provision to do with Part 1

[Wayne David]

I beg to move amendment 21, in schedule 5, page 27, line 21, at end insert—

‘(6) The Government shall report to Parliament annually within two months of the end of the financial year on what money had been made available to local authorities to meet costs of transition to the new register and what safeguards have been put in place to make sure the money has been spent on the specified task.’.

I will refer specifically to the amendment and then more generally to schedule 5. On the financing of individual electoral registration, our concern is whether sufficient finance is being provided. The explanatory notes that accompany the Bill indicate that:

“A total of £108m was allocated at the Spending Review in 2010…This includes £85m resource funding in 2014/15 to fund registration officers to make contact with each potential elector individually”

who hopes to be on the register.

The petitioners of individual electoral registration and those who work in the field have concerns. I cite in particular the comments of the chief executive of the Association of Electoral Administrators, Mr John Turner. I know there has been discussion between the Government and the association, which I welcome. However, Mr Turner made the following important point in his written evidence to the Select Committee:

“It is our view that the successful implementation of the new system will depend on the relevant funding going directly”—

I emphasise the word “directly”—

“to electoral services.”

This is critical. He continues:

“Any funding needs to continue post 2015 and should not simply be seen as one-off capital funding.”

Our concern is essentially in line with his comments. We are worried, for example, that there will be insufficient resources to provide electoral registration officers with the necessary new guidance and training, particularly in respect of data management. We recognise that it will be necessary to enhance the skills and knowledge base of officers, and we are concerned that money is not provided for that. In other words, a comprehensive training re-vamp is needed, along with a comprehensive skills analysis, in order to inform the appropriate provision of training and support for electoral administrators.

In addition, there is also the fear, as I said, that the money allocated by the Government will not eventually get through to where it is needed. We have tabled this amendment because, ideally, we would like these resources to be ring-fenced, so that the whole transition period and the implementation of a new system is properly financed with money that is guaranteed. The only way that electoral registration officers can plan effectively and do what is necessary is if they know exactly how much money is coming through.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

One additional problem that will be faced, which has been discussed a lot in the course of the debate, is the differential involved in how various areas will find carrying out this process. We already know how different that can be, even within parts of an area, but certainly between different areas. We have to be confident that this will be provided for.

[Wayne David]

That is a good point, because one of our concerns about the Government’s approach to this legislation is that it will not be a comprehensive one right across the country. We feel that where there is a perceived need for more resources to be allocated, those resources will not, in fact, be allocated to where they are required. I would welcome the Minister’s comments on that.

That leads me to a specific question I have about the devolved institutions—the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. I made inquiries the other day with the Welsh Assembly Government as to whether or not any agreement had been reached with central Government about an appropriate allocation of resources to the Assembly, because local government is devolved. I was concerned to be told that no such agreement had been reached with the Cabinet Office. So people in Wales are not sure exactly what sum will be made available and whether or not the Welsh Assembly Government will have the ability to do what they believe is necessary within the confines of Wales. So I would welcome any comments the Minister wishes to make about Wales and Scotland.

In the second half of my comments, I wish to refer more generally to schedule 5, which relates to the transition to the new system. The amendments that we tabled last Monday have already been discussed, but we have concerns about this schedule in particular. It is a vital part of the Bill, and we are very concerned about postal votes and the number of electors who will be on the register when the next boundary review takes place in December 2015.

It is not my intention to repeat the arguments I used a week ago, but I would just like to make a couple of points, the first of which relates to postal votes. Strong representations on postal votes have been made by a number of organisations. I particularly wish to cite the most recent joint circular given to Members of Parliament by Mencap, the Royal National Institute of Blind People, Age Concern, Scope and Sense. Those organisations say:

“We believe that an appropriate balance must be struck between safeguarding individual registration against electoral fraud and ensuring accessibility. We remain concerned about the risks involved in the arrangements currently in place for dealing with postal votes during the transition to IER. Postal votes are disproportionately used by disabled and older voters.”

That is a very important point and, despite their listening exercise, the Government have not truly taken on board the points made by all those organisations which have united to speak with one voice to set out their concerns in moderate and reasonable ways.

Those organisations have supported our amendments 18 and 19, saying that our approach

“would give those people wishing to use postal votes time to register under the new system before the next election.”

Our concern is that many of these postal voters will not be able to vote at the next election. The circular goes on to say that our approach

“would have allowed for disabled and older people, who disproportionately make use of postal votes, time to familiarise themselves with the new system and ensure that they remain eligible for postal voting at the next election.”

We strongly endorse those points.

May I set this out in a genuine sense, through an anecdote? My mother is 86 years of age and she has a postal vote. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] She will very pleased. She has had her postal vote for many years and, as far as she was concerned, when she filled in the form to have a postal vote it was for the rest of her life. I hope that she will get through the Government’s data-matching exercise, as otherwise she will be asked to reapply for a postal vote at the ripe old age of 86—it will be a fairly detailed application, too. It is unreasonable to put such a burden on elderly people and the Government should, at the very least, ensure that the carry-over is the same as it is for other voters.

21:45

We are not making a partisan point. A number of people have said to me that the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, owed his success in the recent mayoral election to postal votes. My point is simply that it makes sense for all of us who are concerned about democracy, participation and access for elderly and disabled people to the electoral system that they should have the same facility for postal and proxy votes as everybody else. They should not be singled out.

My second point about schedule 5 concerns the reference to the carry-over for the boundary review of 2015, or rather to the lack of a carry-over. In the transition to IER, there is concern that the new register will be at its most vulnerable at the very start. That concern has been expressed by a number of experts and academics and reflects the experience in Northern Ireland. Concern has also been expressed by the all-party Political and Constitutional Reform Committee. It has been suggested that the lack of carry-over represents what the Electoral Commission fears most of all.

It is most unfortunate that the Government have introduced IER before the second set of pilots, which we discussed in Committee the other day. It would have been far better if the results of those pilots had emerged and confirmed that, as we hoped, there would not be a problem. We could then all have proceeded happily. Many people have said that it is quite likely, as was the case with the first tranche of pilots, that that second tranche will show that there is a problem with IER, particularly at the start of the new system. We are concerned about that.

To illustrate once again that we are not taking a partisan approach, let me refer to a number of other organisations and academics who have made representations. In particular, I want to point out the evidence given to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee by one of the most distinguished academics in this area, Dr Stuart Wilks-Heeg, senior lecturer in social policy at the university of Liverpool and executive director of Democratic Audit. He said:

“If we do see a large number of people drop off the registers, even if in all likelihood they are not going to vote, that will have a profound implication for the redrawing of boundaries under the new rules that have just gone through. If there is going to be a political effect, that is where we could see it very, very significantly, because if the kind of groups we expect to drop off the register are the ones that we start to see drop off the register, it really could have profound effects for the redrawing of constituency boundaries next time round.”

He is not grinding any political axe; that is an objective evaluation of where we are.

Dr Wilks-Heeg referred to particular groups who were at risk of not being included in the electoral register, particularly as the new approach starts. Those groups include young people, disabled people, people from black and ethnic minorities, people in public and private rented accommodation and people who, for one reason or another to do with their lifestyle, are very mobile. If we look at the United Kingdom as a whole, we find that the greatest concentration of such people can probably be found in central London. It has already been suggested that, under the legislation passed last year, London will be under-represented. If the Bill is passed unamended, they will be further under- represented.

Having quoted an academic, I will now quote John Turner, chief executive of the Association of Electoral Administrators—again, someone with no political axe to grind and someone with whom, commendably, the Government have been working. In his evidence to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, he said:

“At the risk of provoking any of you, can I also make a point about the December 2015 register? If you have that sort of drop and your friends at the Boundary Commission then have to do the next boundary review on the next system, it is going to make another major difference to the way in which parliamentary boundaries are drawn, given that the 2015 register, with these potential drops, will be that which is used to settle the new constituency boundaries for 2020.”

There is another entirely objective view. It is notable—commendable—that, having received that sort of evidence, skilfully and objectively presented, the Committee reached a powerful conclusion regarding constituency boundaries. All hon. Members know, but I underline the fact that the Committee, although chaired by a Labour Member, is a cross-party body. It concluded:

“For the next parliamentary constituency boundary reviews to be fair and representative, electoral registers across the country need to be at least as complete—and as consistently complete—as they are now. The Government needs to ensure that its proposals will achieve this end.

There is a risk that the electoral registers in December 2015 will be particularly varied in their levels of completeness: this matters because they will be used under current legislation as the basis for the next boundary review. We recommend using instead the registers as they stood on or before general election day in May 2015.”

That is a perfectly reasonable position expressed by the Select Committee. I hope that Government, given that they have rightly been congratulated on making a number of moves—perhaps even concessions—on key areas, will consider doing so again, even at this late stage.

The strongest thing to happen now in the interests of democracy would be cross-party agreement on this important measure to modify and modernise our electoral registration system. That requires political consensus. Throughout this process, we have been more than happy to engage in dialogue with the Parliamentary Secretary. He has listened to our concerns and there has been movement on some of them, but until now, on the crucial issue of the potential impact on boundaries, the Government have decided not to listen. We are concerned not only that a number of people will not be able to vote, but that they will not be able to exercise their democratic rights in a host of different ways.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this provision is the last remainder of what was essentially a gerrymandering Bill and that not removing it will affect the boundaries? Can he see any reason why Liberal Democrats in particular should vote for it, given that it would be one of those rare occasions when turkeys vote for Christmas?

[Mr David]

My hon. Friend’s concern for the Liberal Democrats is touching, although I cannot say that I share it. To answer his first question frankly, yes, at the start of the legislative process, strong words were used, not least by me, because we were worried by the overtly and crudely partisan nature of the Bill of that time. But—and it is an important “but”—the Government modified their position. I give them credit for doing so. As my hon. Friend implies, if they have made concessions in a host of areas already, why not go the whole hog and let us have a proper consensual approach?

I listened intently to what the Minister said in the debate on our amendments last Monday. He did not produce any convincing arguments why the timetable that we established in legislation when we were in power could not be followed, and why we need to move hastily towards the Bill. If the Government do not take heed of what we are saying from the Opposition Front Bench, let them at least take note of what many people outside the House have said—the Electoral Commission, academics and the cross-party Select Committee. Many people drawn from a range of different organisations have made the same point: this is probably the most important change to our electoral system since the advent of universal suffrage. It is far too important to be the victim of crude partisanship. We want a consensual approach that will unite all democrats.

Finally, the Bill is important in terms of people’s ability to decide whether to cast their votes or not, but it is important in other respects as well. This underlines the civic responsibility point—people need to be on the electoral register for reasons other than to vote. One of the most important reasons is that those who are eligible for jury service are drawn from the electoral register. When we talk about the completeness of the register, we are not talking only about our democratic system and the voting system, important though it is. We are talking also about the criminal justice system and its credibility.

We all saw the terrible riots which scarred English cities last summer. That is all the more reason to ensure that all groups in our society are effectively represented on our juries. The last thing we want is an electoral register which contains a disproportionately large number of white middle-class people who are in turn represented on the juries that are selected. That is no way to enhance the credibility of our criminal justice system.

It is important to recognise that electoral registers are used to establish people’s creditworthiness. Whether they may have a mortgage is quite often defined by their presence on the electoral register. Also, it is seldom mentioned that the police make great use of the electoral register. It is important for the development of our society, as well as for our democracy. In a modern democracy, being on the electoral register is a civic duty and a civic responsibility. That is why we want accuracy in our electoral register. Although we all want accuracy, it is important to recognise that standing alongside it there must be completeness as well. Those are the twins that should go together in the legislation.

Despite the debates that we have had, our concern is that the Government place far too much emphasis on accuracy at the expense of completeness. We want to see the two going together. That is important not just when we reach a fully fledged individual electoral registration system, but in the transition system. Schedule 5 is a vital part of the legislation. It takes us through the transition and ensures that when individual registration is introduced it has the support of the people of this country, including potential and actual electors. I hope that the Committee will consider the schedule carefully and give careful consideration to the amendments for which we argued passionately last Monday—

22:00

Proceedings interrupted (Programme Order, 23 May).

The Chair put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83D)

Amendment proposed: 20,  page 27, line 44, leave out ‘second’ and insert ‘third’.—(Mr David.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

22:00

Division 23

Ayes: 206

---

Labour: 201
Plaid Cymru: 2
Green Party: 1
Independent: 1
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 1

Noes: 276

---

Conservative: 230
Liberal Democrat: 45
Democratic Unionist Party: 1

Amendment proposed: 18, page 31, line 6, leave out ‘first’ and insert ‘second’.—(Wayne David.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

22:16

Division 24

Ayes: 205

---

Labour: 201
Plaid Cymru: 2
Green Party: 1
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 1

Noes: 275

---

Conservative: 230
Liberal Democrat: 45

Schedule 5 agreed to.

The occupant of the Chair left the Chair (Programme Order, 23 May).

The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again tomorrow.

Business without Debate

Monday 25th June 2012 Commons Chamber

Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Immigration

That the draft Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (Authority to Carry) Regulations 2012, which were laid before this House on 30 April 2012, in the previous Session of Parliament, be approved.—(Stephen Crabb.)

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Data Protection

That the draft Data Protection (Processing of Sensitive Personal Data) Order 2012, which was laid before this House on 14 May, be approved.—(Stephen Crabb.)

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Rehabilitation of Offenders

That the draft Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2012, which was laid before this House on 14 May, be approved.—(Stephen Crabb.)

Question agreed to.

Education

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6),

That the draft Office of Qualifications and Examination Regulation (Determination of Turnover for Monetary Penalties) Order 2012, which was laid before this House on 15 May, be approved.—(Stephen Crabb).

Question agreed to.

International Development

That the draft International Fund for Agricultural Development (Eighth Replenishment) Order 2012, which was laid before this House on 14 March 2012, in the previous Session of Parliament, be approved.—(Stephen Crabb.)

Question agreed to.

Estimates

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 145),

That this House agrees with the Report [20 June] of the Liaison Committee.—(Stephen Crabb.)

Question agreed to.

Sunday Trading (London Olympic and Paralympic Games)

Monday 25th June 2012 Commons Chamber

22:29

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

The petition of residents of the Scunthorpe county constituency states:

The Petition of residents of Scunthorpe,

Declares that the Petitioners are opposed to the changes to Sunday trading hours brought in by the Sunday Trading (London Olympic and Paralympic Games) Act, as the Petitioners believe that the changes put unfair pressure on shop workers, who value shorter working hours on Sundays as they allow people to spend more time with their families.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to bring forward legislation to reverse the changes brought in by the Sunday Trading (London Olympic and Paralympic Games) Act and ensure that Sunday Trading Regulations are not suspended during the London Olympic and Paralympic Games.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.

[P001100]

Policing (Devon and Cornwall)

Monday 25th June 2012 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Stephen Crabb.)

22:30

[Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD)]

I am grateful for this opportunity to raise policing in the Devon and Cornwall force area. Many people do not consider the police in detail until such time as we need to call on their support, services and advice. Complaints against the police are occasionally brought to the attention of MPs. As with all services, there is a tendency to focus on negative reports—people do not often take the trouble to come to their MP’s surgery to express their admiration and gratitude for a service—but hon. Members appreciate and are incredibly grateful for what police officers, police community support officers and police staff do in their constituencies to ensure that there is a great deterrent to crime and community engagement on tackling and resolving problems confronting that community, and that those who commit crimes are detected.

Devon and Cornwall is the largest force area in England—it is more than 180 miles from one end to the other. Fortunately, it is also one of the safest places to live and work. Recorded crime has been low in recent years in the area compared with other parts of the country, although in recent months, there are signs of a reverse in that trend. Perhaps we can expect that at times of economic hardship—sadly, we have seen crime rise in such circumstances in the past. That reverse is at an early stage, and we must keep it under close review.

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

Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that Charles Cross police station in my constituency is one of the busiest police stations—if not the busiest—in the whole of England, principally because of drug and alcohol abuse?

[Dan Rogerson]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point on one of the pressures on the police. That problem requires close cross-agency working, including health and social services, and local housing officers. The police have a great demand made of them from cross-agency working and they also have a huge contribution to make.

As I was saying, Devon and Cornwall police cover a huge area. It is mix of urban areas, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out—it includes Plymouth and other larger settlements—and rural areas. Another characteristic of the force is that its officer base is at the higher end of the age profile, which is somewhat driven by the high number of transfers into the force area. That brings with it the benefit of experience and a range of skills, but it also changes the characteristics of the force. Officers have raised that with me.

Devon and Cornwall police are highly thought of: according to studies, 68.7% of those who responded said that the force was good or excellent, placing it second out of the 42 forces, and 90% expected to be treated respectfully by the police, again putting them second. As I have said, it is also one of the safest places—in fact, in the top 10—in the country.

We are, however, in a time of deficit reduction, and the Liberal Democrats and our Conservative coalition partners have signed up to doing the right thing, which is to tackle the deficit left to us by the previous Government. Sadly, no one from Her Majesty’s Opposition is with us, but they have admitted the need to tackle the deficit. Of course, though, they are now in the happy position of being able to claim that they would not make a single cut to a single service when they are being debated in isolation, while claiming that they would still tackle the deficit, if over a slightly longer period.

The Government, on the other hand, must deal with deficit reduction as it manifests itself on the ground, which means cuts in public spending. The police service, like other services, has had to bear its share, although, as was made plain to me by officers and former officers, some feel that it has been made to take more than its share of the burden of deficit reduction. In Devon and Cornwall, as in other forces, it will mean a cut in police staff—the number of officers—and therefore in the force’s ability to deliver the full range of services they have been delivering in recent years.

[Mr Adrian Sanders (Torbay) (LD)]

An unintended consequence that could have severe implications in Devon and Cornwall is the simultaneous cutbacks in the Ministry of Defence police force, which will put pressure on the civilian police force to move into areas that, in the past, they relied on the MOD force to police. Dartmouth is an example, and so too is Plymouth. I am extremely worried that there might be a double-whammy effect from the necessary austerity measures.

[Dan Rogerson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There has been close working between MOD police and the local constabulary, and as those pressures are brought to bear on the MOD police, changes in working practice will be inevitable.

Perhaps the cuts in Devon and Cornwall are compounded by one or two aspects of the funding formula. First, the formula does not take into account, as some other public funding formulae do, the huge influx in the number of visitors. In the summer, the population of Devon and Cornwall increases dramatically. I no longer represent the town of Newquay, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert), but I did once, and I saw at first hand the huge explosion in population. That was welcome, because of the money it brought to the local economy, but it also increased the pressure on policing.

In the health service, bills can be re-charged to primary care trusts in the areas from which patients originate. Of course, it is not so easy for the policing formula to charge local police authorities for the work carried out on behalf of citizens who happen to be in the south-west of the United Kingdom for that period. As the Government consider police funding, however, there might be an opportunity to make the base formula take that issue into account.

Secondly, there is the issue of the funding formula as currently constituted and its assessment of the funding level that each force should receive. As I understand it, Devon and Cornwall force could receive an extra £4.9 million were they to receive their full allocation, as one would expect, under the formula. The reason they do not is the damping mechanism, which ensures that forces seen to be overfunded do not lose out in short order on a lot of funding to benefit forces such as Devon and Cornwall in the correct manner. I would, however, like to see a mechanism that shows that some progress is being made on the funding due to Devon and Cornwall. If that £4.9 million were to be made available, it would equate to 100 officers, which would make a huge difference to the programme of change and to the cuts being delivered as a result of deficit reduction.

Under the area cost adjustment, areas seen to be high cost—I could stray into the controversial topic of regional pay, but I will resist the temptation—are given extra funding. This spreads out from London as one heads westward. Sadly, it peters out around Dorset, so the Devon and Cornwall force does not benefit from area cost adjustment, whereas other forces in the south-west do. Yet again, I would suggest, there is an element of unfairness there.

We face the challenges of policing across a diverse, geographically widespread peninsular environment, the funding for which is, sadly, deficient in a number of respects. I fully accept that this is an historic issue—it is one that this Government have inherited, but I look to them to consider some of the issues so that they might be resolved in the future.

The cuts manifest themselves in planned cuts to the sworn officer base from 3,580 in 2010 to 2,810 in 2015—a 21.5% reduction, with 700 fewer officers. At the same time, there is a reduction in police staff of about 500. This puts pressure on the ability to deliver such services as specialist traffic police and accident investigation—not during the middle of the day, but perhaps over weekends and late at night, reducing the ability to examine the scene of an accident in detail. We could be looking at some reduction in the excellent community policing performed by the neighbourhood teams, and another stretched resource is response cover. That is particularly challenging in rural areas, as response times can be affected when areas are stretched. There are also more specialist areas of work—in diversity, for example—and there will inevitably be a reduction in the vehicle fleet infrastructure and estate. As I said earlier, we accept that some of these cuts had to come because of the strategy for dealing with deficit reduction. It is important, however, to look at how we can support the chief constable and those who have to deal with these issues on the ground.

It would be fair to say that, because of the financial challenges, police morale is pretty low. They are doing a fantastic job, but they are concerned about the future of the service and about their own careers. A few months ago, I attended a meeting in Launceston—I pronounce it that way for the benefit of those taking notes of our proceedings—and more recently in Bodmin, when I had discussions with a number of officers who work on the front line. They are feeling it pretty hard at the moment. They are concerned about the level of reduction in the number of officers and about one or two other changes under consideration at the moment and how they might impact on them.

Let me refer briefly to the pensions issue; it is not my main focus this evening, but as with those working in public services elsewhere, this is a matter of concern—particularly to officers who have served for some time and are worried that things might change during their period of service. With the Winsor review in mind, there is concern about pay, particularly about how a mechanism based on incremental points and length of service is going to be changed, while a skills threshold will also be introduced. For someone at the top of the constable scale, that could represent a reduction in pay if they do not qualify for the skills threshold. In the longer term, there is the problem of moving towards a different framework, while those serving for some time are also worried about possible loss of earnings through a structural change that does not reflect their policing career and their abilities.

[George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)]

Police officers have raised such concerns with me as well. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he disagrees with the Winsor proposals, or does he accept that such measures are necessary to modernise and reform the police force and make it more responsive to the needs of today?

[Dan Rogerson]

I bow to the hon. Gentleman’s understanding. He may be more of an expert on these issues than I am. However, I have been guided by discussions with serving officers, among whom there is a range of opinion. Some feel strongly that the status quo should continue, while others are open and sympathetic to change as long as it reflects performance and the reality with which they live from day to day. They fear that the proposed reforms may not entirely pass that test. I wanted to share the views of those local officers with the House for the Minister’s benefit.

One issue that has been brought to my attention is that of the starting salary, which will rise as a trainee moves towards becoming a constable, but may still be lower—at least at the beginning—than that of a police community support officer. Points have been made about their respective roles. There is also the issue of unsocial hours. It has been pointed out to me that the new way of rewarding officers for working at night may create perverse incentives. For example, officers who had been rostered to do evening work for which they were to have been be rewarded might be worse off if some of those hours were shifted to the daytime so that they could make a court appearance. That strikes me as a rather strange state of affairs.

We are understandably asking the police service, as we are asking other public services, to bear down on cost and deliver the most efficient service possible, and to deal with cuts in numbers. We should ensure that other changes that we are calling on the service to make at the same time pass the test—that they constitute the most efficient use of resources, that they will provide incentives and rewards for good performance, and that they will not act as a disincentive and further undermine the morale of the service.

The key points that I hope that the Minister will take on board relate to funding. The damping mechanism means that some areas are being overfunded and some underfunded, a process with which we are all too familiar in Devon and Cornwall in the context of other public services. There is also the issue of the area cost adjustment versus the huge costs of delivering a service across a rural area such as ours.

Given all the changes that we are asking police forces to make in order to bring about some kind of modernisation of the service, I should like to be reassured that we are listening closely to those on the ground who will have to live with those changes, so that we maintain their trust and good will. We are very fortunate to have a band of officers who are committed, who want to make a real difference in their communities, and who want to protect the public and community safety. I hope that when we reach the end of this period of change, we shall have a police service that is fit for purpose and does the best that it possibly can with the resources that we are able to give it, but which also motivates its members to give of their best.

22:48

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson) on securing the debate. I note that, while my hon. Friend has been here to speak with conviction about the importance of local policing and his own police force, supported by others on our side of the Chamber, no Labour Members are present on either the Front or the Back Benches to take part in this short debate.

My hon. Friend began by referring to the importance of the police service, and the importance of ensuring that its members—both staff and officers, as he made clear—feel appreciated. I strongly agree. It is important that this House constantly repeats that we value the British police service, that it is, indeed, the finest service in the world, and that we appreciate the role police officers play—which we do. It is also true that, as my hon. Friend recognised, we are having to take some difficult decisions to deal with the economic deficit, and policing must play its part. I will come on to that.

My hon. Friend made it clear that the Devon and Cornwall force can be proud of the fact that it is delivering for local people one of the lowest crime rates in the country. It has, in fact, the fourth lowest crime rate of all forces in England and Wales. That is not to say that there are not particular challenges, including the more recent ones to which my hon. Friend referred. It remains true that Devon and Cornwall is a relatively safe place to live, however, and that is thanks to the work of the police force and its partner agencies that help to deliver reductions in crime. It is also true that the force is highly thought of. It has higher satisfaction rates than other forces. Those who work in the Devon and Cornwall force can be proud of that.

Police forces have to play their part in our effort to reduce the deficit, and Devon and Cornwall is no exception. We have had to reduce central funding for police forces by 20% in real terms over the four years of the spending review, but it is important to note that not all funding for the police service comes from that central fund; some of it comes from local sources, and the police authority increased the precept by 2% for this year. Were the precept to continue to increase for the next two years—that will in future be for the elected police and crime commissioner for Devon and Cornwall to decide—the real reduction in resources would be 14%, or about 5.5% in cash terms. That is a challenging reduction, but it is manageable. Even if the precept were not increased, the real reduction would be 16%, so it is not a 20% reduction, as some have claimed. No force in England is suffering that level of reduction in funding, in fact.

Forces must find ways to make that reduction in spending while protecting the quality of their service. The Devon and Cornwall force is determined to do that. It has made a particular commitment to try to protect neighbourhood policing, which is highly valued by the public. That is a visible and available form of policing, in which Devon and Cornwall has to make some progress in comparison with other forces.

My hon. Friend said that police officers feel they are contributing more than their fair share in dealing with the deficit. I do not accept that. Savings have had to be made across the public sector, including in services with which the police work. Police officers will therefore be aware that other services have had to contribute savings. None of these decisions is easy, but the national priority must be to reduce the deficit, which this Government are successfully doing.

It is true that the reduction in spending in Devon and Cornwall will mean a reduction in police numbers. That is not desirable, of course. None of us wants police forces to have to reduce police numbers—albeit from a peak, it must be said. That is a reality, however. Every force is seeking to ensure that those reductions do not impinge on the front-line service.

It is pleasing that the senior leadership of the force are clear that they are determined to maintain that quality of service provision. Indeed, I note that on 12 March, the assistant chief constable of Devon and Cornwall, Paul Netherton, said:

“We have delivered an even better service than before, and we are getting to more jobs faster than before. In terms of service to the public, we have improved, despite having to deal with the consequences of a very challenging budget situation.”

It is important that that service quality be maintained, but it is also important that crime continues to be tackled. My hon. Friend rightly drew attention to his concern that there were signs that crime has increased over recent months in Devon and Cornwall, and the latest official figures showed a slight increase. That is in contrast to the majority of forces in England and Wales, so it is not possible to link that increase with the reduction in force numbers and police numbers, because that has happened to other forces as well, yet they have continued to reduce crime.

Devon and Cornwall know that they face a challenge and that they need to get back on top of crime and deliver the reductions in crime that we saw in the previous three years. At a time when the force is restructuring, yes, that is challenging, but the force’s senior leadership and everybody who works in it know that they have to rise to that challenge. We will expect the elected police and crime commissioner representing the people of Devon and Cornwall from November to attend to that in ensuring that the force’s past performance is restored.

I should note that of those forces that are most similar to Devon and Cornwall—so there is a fair size comparison—Cambridgeshire, for example, has experienced a 5.4% fall in police officer numbers, which is about the same as Devon and Cornwall, but it successfully delivered a 9% reduction in crime in the last year. Wiltshire has reduced overall crime by 5%, while at the same time officer numbers fell by 5.9%. So it can be done, and it is being done by other forces. Of course, the circumstances of each force are different, but it is important that that performance be maintained.

My hon. Friend mentioned the various issues relating to the funding formula. Other forces make the point about visitors and I am certainly willing to have a look at that, although it might be difficult to adjust the funding formula and to work out how that could be done. However, this issue does affect other forces as well.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Nick Herbert]

I am afraid I have only two minutes left, if my hon. Friend will forgive me.

On damping, which my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall mentioned, the Government are consulting stakeholders about our decisions on damping for the final two years of this spending review period. Devon and Cornwall should make their representations known, if they have not already done so; they have until 29 June. We are looking at this issue and there are some forces, such as Devon and Cornwall, that lose through the damping process, while others gain. These are therefore very difficult decisions to take, but our long-term ambition remains to move away from the application of damping towards the full application of the formula, which would be fair and right. The question is how to do that in a fair manner when there have to be spending reductions for forces.

Overall, Devon and Cornwall have a spend of £181 per head of population, including central costs, which is similar to the forces’ peer average of £178. So overall, the force is not losing in terms of spend.

On the morale of police officers, we are committed to ensuring that police officers remain the best paid among the emergency services—and so they should be, reflecting the unique nature of the job they do—and committed to valuing police officers. We will ensure that changes are negotiated properly, and the Government will follow the proper negotiating procedures and ensure that we treat officers fairly and value them as we should. My hon. Friend said that we are fortunate to have the policing and the police service that we do in this country, and so we are, not least in Devon and Cornwall.

Question put and agreed to.

22:59

House adjourned.

Ministerial Corrections

Monday 25th June 2012 Ministerial Corrections

Monday 25 June 2012

Justice

Monday 25th June 2012 Ministerial Corrections

Administration of Justice: Secrecy

[Frank Dobson]

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) with reference to Appendix J, paragraph 11 of the Justice and Security Green Paper, how many of the cases referred to concern material related to national security;

(2) when he plans to answer question 100537 on the Justice and Security Green Paper;

[Official Report, 25 April 2012, Vol. 543, c. 917W.]

Letter of correction from Kenneth Clarke:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) on 25 April 2012.

The full answer given was as follows:

[Mr Kenneth Clarke]

I am sorry for the delay in responding to the right hon. Member. 24 of the 27 cases referred to concern material related to national security.

The correct answer should have been:

[Mr Kenneth Clarke]

I am sorry for the delay in responding to the right hon. Member. 26 of the 27 cases referred to concern material related to national security.

King's Mill Hospital

Monday 25th June 2012 Ministerial Corrections

[Gloria De Piero]

To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many patients waited longer than four hours in the accident and emergency ward at Kings Mill Hospital, Nottinghamshire between (a) January and March 2012 and (b) January and March 2011;

(2) how many patients waited longer than four hours in the accident and emergency ward at Kings Mill Hospital, Nottinghamshire in each of the last three years.

[Official Report, 13 June 2012, Vol. 546, c. 483-84W.]

Letter of correction from Simon Burns:

An error has been identified in the written answer give to the hon. Member for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero) on 13 June 2012. The figures for 2010-11 in the second table were incorrect.

The full answer given was as follows:

[Mr Simon Burns]

Information is not available at hospital level. Information is however available at trust level. King's Mill hospital is part of Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust.

The numbers of patients who waited longer than four hours in the accident and emergency departments at Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust in quarter 4 2010-11 and 2011-12 is shown in the following table:

[Mr Burns]

Information is not available at hospital level. Information is however available at trust level. King's Mill hospital is part of Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust.

The numbers of patients who waited longer than four hours in the accident and emergency departments at Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust in quarter 4 2010-11 and 2011-12 is shown in the following table:

Written Ministerial Statements

Monday 25th June 2012 Written Statements

Monday 25 June 2012

Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander Ltd

Monday 25th June 2012 Written Statements

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Mark Hoban)]

Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander Ltd (KSF) was the UK subsidiary of the Icelandic bank Kaupthing bank hf. On 8 October 2008, the Financial Services Authority (FSA) decided that KSF was in breach of its threshold conditions under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA) and that it should be prohibited from accepting any new deposits.

Treasury officials have prepared a note on the events around the failure of KSF, focusing on: the chronology of events ahead of the failure of Icelandic banks in October 2008; why the FSA came to the decision that KSF had breached its threshold conditions; the discrepancies in reporting on whether Iceland would honour its obligations to UK depositors; and whether the actions of UK authorities triggered the administration of KSF Isle of Man (KSF IoM).

The note clarifies that, while the Treasury used asset-freezing powers in relation to Landsbanki Islands hf, another Icelandic bank, the use of these powers by the Treasury did not have any direct impact on the failure of KSF, KSF IoM or Kaupthing Bank hf.

I have placed copies of the document in the Libraries of both Houses.

Fukushima Nuclear Site

Monday 25th June 2012 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Charles Hendry)]

Today I welcome the findings and recommendations set out in Dr Weightman’s final report on the events at the Fukushima nuclear site and publish the final Government response to this report. I commend Dr Weightman and his team on the depth and quality of their work.

As part of his report Dr Weightman invited Government to report back on the recommendations by June 2012. In December 2011, Government gave their initial response. The Government response published today updates this and sets out the work we have done or intend to do in implementing Dr Weightman’s recommendations. This includes:

Further strengthening our work with international partners on nuclear safety, particularly through the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The UK has recently joined the IAEA’s global response and assistance network for nuclear emergencies, RANET.

Taking forward work from the nuclear emergency planning liaison group review of the UK’s national nuclear emergency arrangements in the light of the experience of dealing with the prolonged Japanese event—and implementing a new UK national strategic framework for nuclear emergency planning and response.

Ensuring that openness and transparency are enshrined in the work we are taking forward to create the Office of Nuclear Regulation as a statutory body.

Copies of the Government response will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses or can be obtained from the DECC website.

Winterbourne View Hospital

Monday 25th June 2012 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department of Health (Paul Burstow)]

I promised to update the House about ongoing activity in relation to Winterbourne View private hospital.

I am today publishing an interim report of the review which I set up to establish the facts and bring forward actions to improve care and outcomes of people with learning disability or autism and behaviours that challenge. The interim report has been placed in the Library. Copies are available to hon. Members from the Vote Office and to noble Lords from the Printed Paper Office.

This interim report does not cover what happened at Winterbourne View itself. I will be able to report on that once current criminal proceedings against former staff at the hospital are completed and all the evidence is published in the serious case review being conducted by South Gloucestershire council.

But there is already good evidence that the health and care system is not meeting the needs of people with learning disability or autism and behaviour which challenges, and there is an unacceptable gap between best practice and actual practice.

This interim report looks at the quality of the health and care support provided to the approximately 15,000 people in England with learning disabilities or autism who have mental health conditions or behaviour which challenges, and the quality of health and care services they receive. It draws on the reports of the Care Quality Commission’s focused inspection of 150 hospitals and care homes for people with learning disabilities, widespread engagement with people with learning disabilities, people with autism, family carers, voluntary groups, health and care commissioners, providers and professionals, as well as the regulators, and other evidence submitted to the review team.

The main findings set out in the interim report are that there are too many people in in-patient services for assessment and treatment and they are staying there for too long. This model of care has no place in the 21st century. Best practice is for people to have access to the support and services they need locally to enable them to live fulfilling lives integrated within the community. In too many services there is robust evidence of poor quality of care, poor care planning, lack of meaningful activities to do in the day, and too much reliance on restraining people.



All parts of the system—commissioners, providers, workforce, regulators and Government—must play their part in driving up standards of care and demonstrating zero tolerance of abuse. This includes acting immediately where poor practice or substandard care is suspected.

Our key objectives are to:

improve commissioning across health and care services for people with behaviour which challenges with the aim of reducing the number of people using in-patient assessment and treatment services;

clarify roles and responsibilities across the system and support better integration between health and care;

improve the quality of services to give people with learning disabilities and their families choice and control;

promote innovation and positive behavioural support and reduce the use of restraint; and

establish the right information to enable local commissioners to benchmark progress in commissioning services that meet individuals’ needs, improve the quality of care, and reduce the numbers of people in in-patient services for assessment and treatment.

The report sets out clear actions at a national level to support local improvement and ensure that we are able to deliver these key objectives.

I will continue to update the House and will publish the final report of the Winterbourne View review in the autumn.

Departmental Annual Report and Accounts

Monday 25th June 2012 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for International Development (Mr Andrew Mitchell)]

I have today published and laid before Parliament, the Department for International Development’s annual report and accounts for the year 2011-12.

The report covers DFID’s activities during 2011-12 in line with the International Development (Reporting and Transparency) Act 2006 and includes a full set of accounts for 2011-12. The report has been placed in the Libraries of the House of Commons and House of Lords for the reference of Members and copies will be made available in the Vote Office. It is also available online on DFID’s website (www.dfid.gov.uk).

The annual report contains results which are both clear and quantifiable. This has been possible because for the first time, this Government have established systems which allow us to measure and track, in detail, the results which UK aid is achieving.

Over the last two years aid from Britain has quite simply transformed the lives of millions in the world’s poorest countries. This has included:

vaccinating over 12 million children against preventable diseases;

improving the land and property rights of 1.1 million people;

supporting 5.3 million children (2.5 million of them girls) to go to primary school;

distributing 12.2 million bednets to protect people against malaria;

supporting 26 African countries to agree an Africa free trade area;

enabling 11.9 million people to work their way out of poverty by providing access to financial services;

preventing 2.7 million children and pregnant women from going hungry;

reaching 6 million people with emergency food assistance;

supporting freer and fairer elections in five countries;

improving hygiene conditions for 7.4 million people.

These results show what British aid can achieve. It is time that aid funded by the British people is easily and clearly identified as coming from the UK.

For that reason, I am today launching a new UK aid logo which we intend, in future, to apply to things like emergency grain packets, buildings and pumps. The logo features the Union flag and will be instantly recognisable across the world. The logo has been designed in-house at no additional cost to the taxpayer and will be introduced gradually as existing stocks run down.

Both the annual report and our new logo are testament to the extraordinary results which British aid is achieving. They are results of which this House and this country can be proud.

Grand Committee

Monday 25th June 2012 Grand Committee

Monday, 25 June 2012.

Arrangement of Business

Monday 25th June 2012 Grand Committee

Announcement

15:30

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Andrews)]

My Lords, if there is a Division in the House the Committee will, of course, adjourn for 10 minutes.

British Waterways Board (Transfer of Functions) Order 2012

Monday 25th June 2012 Grand Committee

Considered in Grand Committee

15:31

Moved by

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the British Waterways Board (Transfer of Functions) Order 2012.

Relevant documents: 58th Report from the Merits Committee, Session 2010-12; 43rd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, Session 2010-12; 1st and 4th Reports from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Taylor of Holbeach)]

My Lords, I hope that we will be able to debate the Inland Waterways Advisory Council (Abolition) Order 2012 at the same time as this order.

I am pleased that we have the opportunity to debate these two orders in Grand Committee today. As noble Lords will know, they are very important for the future of the leisure industry and as a national resource. The transfer order transfers the function of the British Waterways Board in England and Wales to a new charity, the Canal and River Trust, which I will refer to from now on as the CRT, and makes a consequential provision in Scotland. The British Waterways Board will continue to operate as a Scotland-only body and will be accountable to Scottish Ministers.

The second order abolishes the Inland Waterways Advisory Council, an independent advisory committee to the UK and Scottish Governments. The Scottish Parliament has given its consent to the transfer and abolition orders, and the National Assembly for Wales has given its consent to the transfer order. Both orders have been subjected to the enhanced affirmative procedure and examined by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee here in the Lords—I shall have to get used to the committee’s new name; we probably remember it as the Merits Committee—and by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee in the other place.

I shall now briefly summarise the aims and objectives of these orders and pay consideration to the points of interest that were raised by these committees. The background to this project began under the previous Government, and I am grateful for the cross-party support it has received. It is no exaggeration to say that it would not have made the rapid progress that it has without the broad consensus that has been reached across Parliament. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Goodlad and the members of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for their constructive engagement in scrutinising these orders. We have read the committee’s report carefully and I shall respond to its recommendations during the course of this debate.

The transfer of the waterways will give those who are passionate about them increased opportunities to get involved and influence the way in which their waterways are managed. We have consulted widely in preparing for this transfer. I am confident that the clear public support for this change will make CRT a successful charity. The Government have agreed to provide a 15-year grant agreement worth around £800 million, a settlement which the CRT has described as tough but fair. The grant agreement will give the waterways a level of financial certainty that will enable them to plan for the long term, as we would wish, realising efficiencies and achieving best value for money. As was requested by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, I have arranged for a draft of the transfer scheme to be laid in the Libraries of both Houses in advance of today’s debate. The scheme provides for the transfer of British Waterways’ assets and liabilities and is the counterpart of this order.

In order to allow for scrutiny of the financial development of the new organisation, I am happy to agree to the committee’s recommendation that Defra should provide Parliament with a Written Statement setting out the financial position of the CRT two years after the draft order is made.

In its consideration of the draft order, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee in the other place questioned the Government about property and charitable income projections for the new charity. I assure noble Lords that while there is a degree of uncertainty with any projection of future income, the CRT has undertaken extensive due diligence and is confident in the projections.

The estimates of charitable fundraising were finalised in 2011 and reflect recent attitudes to charitable giving. They are based on evidence-based market research, expert judgment and benchmarking by a leading consultancy in the sector. The CRT has recruited a fundraising team that is motivated, not daunted, by the challenge ahead.

The CRT trustees believe that the projections for growth in commercial income are prudent. British Waterways has a proven track record in property management and has outperformed industry benchmarks. It has shown itself to be an excellent custodian of the commercial property portfolio, which has become vital to the sustainability of the waterways. Its careful management of the property portfolio and the safeguards that we have put in place through this transfer will ensure that these assets continue to supply the waterways with much needed revenue.

We have also received a number of questions about volunteering. I am confident, indeed excited, that the move to the charity sector will significantly increase volunteering on the waterways. Indeed, the creation of the CRT has already boosted volunteering numbers—a sign of the public’s enthusiasm for the move ahead. This is a good thing for society at large and for the waterways, but let me assure your Lordships that the CRT will not be using volunteers to replace existing staff. Volunteers will be used only to undertake activities that British Waterways cannot do at current staffing levels.

During the 60-day procedure in Parliament, Defra received representations from two separate groups of private boaters. One group asked for reassurance about the consultation procedures to be followed for making orders under Sections 104 and 105 of the Transport Act 1968. Such orders concern changes to the classification of a waterway or to the prescribed navigation dimensions to which a waterway must be maintained. My officials have given the requested assurances, and the consultation process will be set out in the memorandum of understanding between Defra and the CRT, which I shall publish in due course.

The second representation was from the National Bargee Travellers Association, from whom many noble Lords will have received communications. This is one of a number of organisations that look after the interests of boat dwellers. The NBTA has already issued responses to our two consultations in 2011 and submitted reports to the EFRA Select Committee and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. We addressed the NBTA’s concerns about human rights and the application of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 in our evidence to parliamentary committees.

In response to its most recent representation, I can give the NBTA an assurance, on behalf of the CRT, that the CRT will not exercise its powers to remove a vessel that is thought to be someone’s home without first taking the matter to the county court and obtaining a declaration from the court that the removal is lawful.

Further, I assure the Grand Committee that the transfer order does not create new enforcement powers for the CRT. The CRT, as statutory undertaker, will have the same powers to manage the waterways as British Waterways has now. The existing safeguards that apply to the use of these powers will continue to apply to any enforcement action taken by the CRT.

In response to a recommendation from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, I am also happy, on behalf of the CRT, to assure the Grand Committee that the Canal and River Trust will take into consideration the specific needs of all stakeholders, including itinerant boat dwellers, in the development of all future by-laws. My honourable friend the Waterways Minister, Richard Benyon, will write to the NBTA in due course to set out our position on the other points it has raised.

The creation of the CRT will significantly improve our national dialogue about the waterways. The CRT’s governance model will bring some 200 people into the business of running the waterways, whether as trustees or as members of the council or the waterways partnerships. With all this expertise and engagement, the CRT will become the Government’s principal, although not our only, interlocutor on the waterways in the years ahead.

The creation of the CRT means that the Government will no longer need an independent statutory body to advise on the waterways. The proposed abolition of the Inland Waterways Advisory Council is part of the department’s simplification of our very complex delivery landscape. In addition to improved accountability arising from the creation of the CRT, the abolition of the IWAC will lead to greater efficiency, effectiveness and economy. It will, for example, save £200,000 a year.

I should acknowledge that the abolition of the IWAC has proved mildly controversial. There were only 35 responses to our formal consultation—less than a tenth of the responses to the consultation on the creation of the new charity, for example—but most of those who responded wanted to keep the IWAC, at least until the Environment Agency navigations transfer to the new charity from 2015-16. We have considered those views carefully. However, I believe that the practical work to prepare for the transfer of the EA navigations is better carried out by our officials, working very closely with our engaged and committed stakeholders. To the extent that we may need independent advice from time to time, it is more cost-effective to commission such advice as needed, rather than have a standing body, which, in the way of the world, would find work to do.

In moving the Motion to consider the abolition of the Inland Waterways Advisory Committee, I should acknowledge the very valuable knowledge and expertise of its current members. They have made a useful contribution to the development of government policy on inland waterways, and my honourable friend the Waterways Minister wrote to them all to encourage them to make their knowledge and expertise available to the CRT.

In conclusion, moving the waterways to the new waterways charity and abolishing the Inland Waterways Advisory Committee will bring many benefits. This transfer will enable waterways users to have the opportunity to play a role in the governance of the waterways and bring their passion and expertise to the waterways they cherish. Local communities will have a greater say in how their local canal or river is run. This is localism in action.

Volunteering will increase, benefiting society, heritage and the environment. The financial footing of the waterways will be sustainable into the long term. New commercial and private income streams will become available. The long-term grant agreement offers the security that the new project needs. Fifty years after British Waterways was created, it is time to move on. With that in mind, I commend these draft orders to the Committee and beg to move.

15:43

[Lord Grantchester]

I thank the Minister for his introduction of these two orders. If the Committee will allow me, I shall make a few remarks, reserving the right for my noble friend Lord Knight to respond from the Front Bench. I apologise and ask the Committee to forgive me if I have an eye on the clock and do not stay quite long enough to hear the Minister’s full response to the debate. I have pressing duties elsewhere.

From the perspective of south Cheshire, where I live and which along with neighbouring counties has extensive canals across it, the abolition of the IWAC is greeted mostly with resignation, neither receiving widespread support nor opposition. This would be in keeping with the low number of responses received to the consultation. In the past, I have been approached on several waterways issues, although on this one the Minister can be relaxed by and large. However, this lack of enthusiasm seems to be because there is a feeling among IWAC members that this order is a fait accompli, as evidenced when Defra announced the abolition of IWAC ahead of announcing the findings of the consultation about IWAC. I know that the Minister in the other place, Richard Benyon, had to issue apologies to Graham Evans MP for John Edmonds, the chairman of IWAC. Having said that, the arrangements, protections, appeals processes and so on will very much remain as before, so the change is viewed as largely cosmetic.

I know that all members of IWAC are very passionate about waterways and will always have their best interests at heart. I urge the Minister and his department to make full use of the knowledge and expertise of IWAC members, especially on such issues as volunteering, environmental protection, tourism and restoration, all of which will need to be addressed by the new Canal and River Trust. I know that members of IWAC, which is an independent, advisory and unpaid body, will give their time and expertise freely and would have gladly continued under the umbrella of IWAC. No doubt they will continue to do so. I am sure that the Minister would wish to confirm that his department recognises that that will continue to be the case, as these members would provide an excellent conduit to the CRT on behalf of all waterways users on all matters concerning the waterways.

[Baroness Parminter]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his clarity in setting out a number of issues around this order. Given that there are quite a few speakers, I shall focus on one issue and invite the Minister to say a few more words at the end.

The issue that I wish to raise is how we will ensure that the new charity—the Canal and River Trust—reflects the full duties and responsibilities entrusted to the British Waterways by Parliament. I refer specifically to the duty towards those who live on waterways without a fixed mooring. I have checked the Charity Commission website and can find no mention for the new charity of duties to those whose homes are on the bodies of water that the charity will control. As such, the new charity’s purposes and responsibilities do not reflect some duties that currently exist in legislation and which British Waterways undertakes. This is not a newly contentious matter as, at the beginning of the 1990s, British Waterways sought to remove the rights of boat dwellers who did not have a permanent mooring. Parliament took a different view and the result was Section 17(3)(c)(ii) of the British Waterways Act 1995, which enables boats to be licensed without having a permanent mooring as long as they do not spend more than 14 days in one place. The committee is concerned that people who have had the right to live on the waterways but without a fixed mooring might lose those rights.

As my noble friend mentioned, the Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee produced an excellent report on this recently. The evidence from Mr Evans of British Waterways to the committee says that the Canal and River Trust,

“will be a much more engaged organisation that will reflect the will of the people”.

However, reflecting the will of the people is not at all the same thing as recognising historic duties and responsibilities.

Having met representatives of the proposed new charity—as a former chief executive of a small conservation charity, I wish it well and know just how difficult it is to meet all the competing needs of stakeholders—I have no doubt that it intends through its council, its waterway partnerships and its specialist advisory groups to construct a far more open constitution than ever before on the waterways. However, engagement with some stakeholders is not always easy. Itinerant boat dwellers, for example, do not have a representative body, but their needs need to be considered alongside those of all other waterway stakeholders. To that end, it is illuminating that in the Government’s own explanatory document for the transfer, paragraph 7.16 highlights the “greater involvement” of,

“communities which live alongside waterways”,

and “waterways’ users” in how the waterways are to be managed in future, but excludes any mention of communities that actually live on the water.

I understand that any future by-laws from the charity will be subject to ministerial confirmation and I am grateful for the clarity from the Minister on that point. However, I would like it to be explicit on the record that the department will write to the CRT to ensure that the new charity must take all specific needs of stakeholders into account in developing future by-laws.

Further, it should be explicit that the grant agreement, which my noble friend also mentioned and which I think is for £800 million, accompanying the grant will set out the terms of the final agreement, and that it will make clear that the safeguard to consider the specific needs of all stakeholders, including itinerant boat dwellers, will be part of a condition for the grant being given.

To be clear, the House has a long history of ensuring that the rights of all stakeholders are upheld on the waterways. In the absence of any duty towards those people who live on the waterways in the new charity’s charitable remit, the Government must by other means ensure that this duty is safeguarded in the future. I welcome what the Minister has said, but I would like to be absolutely clear on the specifics of how the Government will assure that.

[Lord Smith of Finsbury]

My Lords, I begin by declaring my interest as chairman of the Environment Agency. I very much welcome the transformation of the British Waterways Board into the new Canal and River Trust and I am grateful to the Minister for the helpful way in which he introduced our discussion. I particularly welcome two things about what is happening. First, I welcome the encouragement and facilitation of increased public and community participation in decision-making about what happens to our waterways. I very much hope that the Government’s intentions in this respect will come to fruition in the way in which the new CRT operates. Secondly, I very much welcome the funding package which the Government have put in place to enable the transfer. In the spirit of the times, it is a somewhat generous package but it will enable a really good start to be made on the work of the new trust.

It is, of course, the Government’s ambition to go a bit further in two to three years’ time and to include the Environment Agency’s navigation responsibilities in the new Canal and River Trust. I welcome that ambition and we in the Environment Agency will do everything that we can to assist the process. At the moment, we have responsibility for something like 1,000 kilometres of statutory navigation. This includes, crucially, the River Thames and the River Medway, Rye Harbour, the Great Ouse, the River Nene, the Stour in Suffolk, the Wye and the Dee conservancy in Wales—substantial navigable rivers of iconic importance. Our responsibilities for those waterways include a duty to maintain them in a condition in which people can safely enjoy the statutory public right of navigation that exists on them. We will continue to endeavour to fulfil those responsibilities to the very best of our ability in the run-up to any transfer to the new trust.

We should remember how popular our waterways are. In 2009-10, the last year for which we have accurate figures, there were approximately 70 million visits to our waterways. There are 32,000 registration holders—boat owners and operators—on our navigations alone, let alone on the canals and waterways that will come under the new body. In the current financial year we will be investing around £10 million of grant in aid and £7.5 million of income, a considerable amount of that coming from boaters, in managing and operating the navigation structures on these waterways.

As we prepare for the further handover, and as we bear in mind the responsibilities that the new trust will have, a few points need to be borne in mind, and I very much hope that the Government will do so. First, on rivers in particular—this differs to a certain extent from canals—there are different traditions for different rivers; they do not all operate in exactly the same way with the same expectations for boat operators and users. Including an appreciation of the subtle differences between different waterways in any assessment of how things move forward is going to be important.

Secondly, and with the events of the past weekend weighing heavily on my mind, we need to bear in mind the need always to manage rivers for flood risk management. The importance of marrying navigation responsibilities with the continuing flood risk responsibilities that the Environment Agency will continue to have in waterways that transfer will eventually be an important part of what happens. Thirdly, it will be important that the money is there for any enhanced responsibilities that the new trust has when transfer occurs in a few years’ time.

Fourthly, in looking at how the new trust operates, both in its initial phase and in the second phase after the transfer of EA responsibilities, it is important that the new trust all the time bears in mind the interests of boat owners and users and the people who want to use our rivers for recreation, for quiet enjoyment and for the solace that very often our rivers can bring. It is being accorded an important responsibility. I have every confidence that the team and the arrangements that are being put in place will enable that to happen, but I hope that the Government will keep a wary eye on making sure that it does.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

My Lords, I also thank my noble friend for the explanation of this order. I share the enthusiasm of the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Finsbury, for this good and imaginative proposal. I do so for practical reasons. One is that, as it says in paragraph 8.12 of the Explanatory Memorandum,

“one of the benefits of moving out of the public sector will be that it should enable and encourage more innovation and diversity in the way the new charity grows its income”.

There is also an emotional reason: the first holiday I ever spent, aged 16, with three friends from school, was to hire a canal boat and travel the Shropshire Union Canal and over the Pontcysyllte aqueduct on the way to Llangollen. I doubt that you would be allowed to take a boat out now aged 16, but in those days we did not have as much health and safety as we do now. When one compares and contrasts some of the things that one sees on the waterways now with what was going on then, one sees that a lot of the developments and improvements have been made by voluntary labour, so this is a welcome extension of a trend that is already present in the waterways movement.

The putative board very kindly had a briefing meeting on 6 July last year. It explained its plans for the future, and exciting indeed they were. However, one of the questions that I would like to funnel to it through my noble friend regards the enormous cultural shift that there is going to have to be within the organisation in order to pick up and respond to the challenges of working in the private sector. As some noble Lords know, my life is in the City. When I said, “Just tell me a bit about the return on capital and post-investment appraisals”, and those sorts of things, there was an answer but not one that I would describe as being of sufficient crispness if this organisation is to hold its own against the very sharp commercial operators with which it will have to carry out joint ventures to develop its various assets. It was slightly hazy. It is important that this very imaginative proposal should succeed. Therefore, I very much hope that this body will be able to up the game, if that is the right expression.

16:00

I shall give an example as of today. I support these orders very much and because I felt that the organisation might feel that I was being slightly disobliging in my remarks, this morning I decided that I should ring the chairman and explain that what I was going to say this afternoon was important and constructive—it might be critical but I was trying to help him on his way. If you ring his private number, you get a recorded message saying, “Are you ringing about a boating mooring? If so, hang on. Otherwise, press 2”. After some time, you get through to a switchboard operator and ask to speak to the chairman. I was put through to the chairman but there was no answer and no one to take a message—nothing. I am all for people having boating moorings and I am sure it is a very important part of their life, but this is going to require a change of culture. When dealing with the private sector, the board will have to be a great deal sharper than that. I may have found the only weakness in its whole approach but I cannot help feeling that this is symptomatic of something that is going to need a fresh approach.

I turn to two other points. I was very grateful to receive my noble friend’s reassurance about the NBTA. I have received the letters, as I am sure have other noble Lords.

Finally, in the same spirit of constructive criticism, I ask my noble friend about pensions, which are covered on various pages of the explanatory document but in particular on pages 48 and 49. There is a reference there to historic public sector pensions. I assume that TUPE has played its role and that therefore those who are being transferred out of the public sector and into the Canal and River Trust will have access to the public sector pensions with which they began their employment. The word “historic” is used. Does that mean that future changes in the public sector that would otherwise have applied to these people will or will not apply? If they are going to apply to them, the board needs to realise that it is going to find itself having to answer for decisions in which it has played no part. It is important to be clear about that.

There is a feeling here of the board saying, “We’ve got the pensions sorted. There is a £65 million deficit and we are going to have it sorted by 2025”, or whenever it is. However, I urge it not to rest on its laurels as far as that is concerned because the great weakness or difficulty over pensions is longevity. Longevity is increasing, which for the individual is exceptionally desirable but collectively for a pension fund is financially disastrous. Therefore, I hope that the board will think carefully about this issue. A great deal can be done to unpick pensions by looking at individual groups of pensioners with different longevity estimates and, in that way, to transfer some of the risks to the balance sheets of major life companies, which not only are expert at this but will probably provide a better credit risk and therefore greater assurance to the Canal and River Trust. Slicing and dicing the pension liability to reduce that liability and to free up the balance sheet is a critical—possibly the most critical—part of the things that the board will undertake in the short term.

I may have sounded critical but I think that this is a great idea and I hope that it will be very successful. However, I hope that the organisation understands what it is taking on and how it needs to move forward. If it can, and when it does, it will certainly have my support.

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, when I first heard about this transfer by way of what I still call the quango cull Bill, I welcomed it. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Smith, that the settlement seems pretty good. The Parliamentary Cycling Group, of which I am a member, was taken along the towpath from Islington to a very nice cycle repair café on the canal called Lock 7. We were given a very interesting briefing about the changes taking place on the waterways. It was an excellent presentation and I came away thoroughly impressed. It is a great place to pedal along in the winter because there is a high-voltage cable under the towpath, so when everything else is snowy you can still go along without slipping into the canal.

The Minister said that the British Waterways Board had a prudent track record in property management, but that is not the view of the people who sent me e-mails—other noble Lords may have received similar messages—which I presume reflect the tenants’ view. The National Bargee Travellers Association, many of whose questions the Minister sought to answer, states:

“These families live on the waterways lawfully by virtue of s.17(3)(c)(ii) of the British Waterways Act 1995”.

Will the same rights of occupancy exist even if those families have to move under the new trust? They are clearly worried, saying:

“The assurances given by British Waterways of greater public accountability exclude itinerant boat dwellers”.

That is quite worrying, because there is no way in which they can seek parliamentary discussion as they could when BWB was state-owned. I hope that the Minister can give an assurance that nothing is going to change in that regard, even if there is less parliamentary scrutiny.

I heard also from a man who is one of apparently some 200 people who are in litigation with the British Waterways Board. I do not want to go into the detail of individual cases, but there are allegations of “criminally extracted licence fees” during the past 20 years on the Grand Union Canal and talk of costs reaching £500 million, which seems surprising. What will happen to cases that are pending or currently being heard in court when the transfer takes place? It is clear that people are worried about that. The Minister said that the Government would provide a Written Statement on the Canal and River Trust in two years. It might be useful to include in it a progress report on outstanding court cases from the old regime. I hope that these matters can be resolved without any more uncertainty. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord German]

My Lords, I, too, welcome the orders, which I believe are the result of long and very hard negotiation. If the preparedness of the new trust to handle the financial affairs of our waterways is an issue, satisfaction should be drawn from the number of noble colleagues and noble Lords opposite who have congratulated it on the amount of money that it has been able to extract from the Government. It is indicative of the robust way in which the new trust has engaged that it has brought to a conclusion financial matters that started some way back from the £800 million which the Minister mentioned. That protection over 15 years will enable the new trust to make plans, and the asset base along with that will provide it with a very useful way of driving forward change.

The issues I am slightly concerned about, and about which I seek some clarification from the Minister, concern the way in which the new governance structure will run and the ability of the new trust to ensure that it is inclusive and serves those who use our waterways. From the documents before us, it appears that the trust has decided not to go for a membership-base as an organisation, unlike the National Trust, which some people have suggested fulfils a similar task. Could my noble friend tell us what was the reasoning behind not going for a membership organisation, when this is clearly an opportunity to develop the uses of our waterways both for leisure and health purposes—not to mention the tourism benefits, which are obviously very important to us? The current structure of the organisation is that we have trustees, a national council and 12 waterways partnerships. I would like to congratulate those involved in the negotiations to secure an all-Wales waterways partnership in addition to that—and here I declare my interest as president of the Monmouthshire, Brecon and Abergavenny Canals Trust, part of which is affected by this order, part of which is not because it remains in local authority and other ownership.

The third issue I would like to raise, apart from governance, is that of safeguarding for the users. Paragraph 8.5 of the Explanatory Memorandum to the British Waterways Board (Transfer of Functions) Order 2012 talks about access to towpaths and refers to an explicit safeguard in the trust’s obligations. While it states that the transfer protects the status quo, a sentence or two further on it states:

“As the majority of towpaths are not currently public rights of way and access is permitted at British Waterways’ discretion, this is a significant new protection”.

There seems to be a contradiction here in that the status quo may prevail, but it is not clear whether it is the intention of this order to extend towpath access or simply to transfer the status quo and give the Canal and River Trust discretion over access? I would be grateful if my noble friend could explain this.

The other safeguarding issue relates to the by-laws, which I believe my noble friend referred to earlier. It is a requirement that they should be approved by the relevant Minister. Could my noble friend explain the publication procedure that the Canal and River Trust will undertake prior to these by-laws being submitted to the Minister and what the process will be for ensuring that this happens?

My final question, which again is a bit of a cheeky one but I am going to ask it anyway, refers to paragraph 8.13 of the same memorandum, which reports that the Government sought views on a name for the new charity. The most popular was the National Waterways Trust, “waterways” being the most popular word in the consultation. The trustees subsequently named the charity the Canal and River Trust. However, in Wales it will be known as Glandwr Cymru, meaning Waterways Wales, which seems an unusual choice when it is to be called the Canal and River Trust. I do not understand whether Canal and River Trust/Glandwr Cymru is the title of the new trust in its entirety, or whether waterways in Wales will come under a trust that is a subset of the Canal and River Trust known as Glandwr Cymru. Perhaps my noble friend could explain the translation, and indeed why the word “waterways” will be used in Wales but not in England.

I have one further point, which the noble Lord, Lord Smith, reminded me of: the Environment Agency transfer of navigation rights, which, as the noble Lord says, is part two of the agenda here. The Canal and River Trust as it now stands does not manage large-scale infrastructure in our waterways or large-scale weirs. Is that a necessary part of the exercise in this interim phase on what that transfer should do and where the expertise should come from in order that the Canal and River Trust can then manage these larger structures, which, like Teddington lock, are very important to the security and safety of our land in this country?

16:15

[Lord Framlingham]

My Lords, I am not sure whether my remarks relate directly to the transfer functions, but this is an opportunity for me to get rid of the bee that I have had in my bonnet for some time now about the relationship between waterways and youth unemployment. Some months ago I was studying a map of British waterways and it struck me that they wind throughout our country and are never very far away from centres of population. They could well be combined with an imaginative and, I hope, simple scheme to help our young unemployed. Many years ago I worked for British Waterways. This is not such a mad idea; I ran it past the Prime Minister, although admittedly on a social occasion and he did not hang around for long, and he thought, at least initially, that it sounded like a very good idea.

Think about it for a moment. The skills required to renovate and maintain our waterways include everything from pulling out Tesco trolleys to skilled bricklaying, piling and digging—all sorts of skills. I would have thought that it ought to be possible to invent a scheme that allowed young people to use their talents across that whole range of skills and give them something to do. At the end they could be given some kind of certificate or qualification that would benefit both them and the waterways. It would have to be kept simple but I envisage something really quite formal, with jobcentres throughout the country linking the whole thing together. Initially this might perhaps sound a little imaginative, but think about the geographical relationship of the waterways to centres of unemployment and the jobs requirement. A whole variety of jobs could be found for young people, and they could be given different kinds of qualifications, allowing them to start very simply and then build up their portfolio of qualifications as they went. I do not know whether they would need money; I would like to think that young people would work for the benefits that they were already getting, but I appreciate that that is a little controversial. They might well be prepared to do that, though, to get the value out of the schemes that they were being offered.

I put that on record as a suggestion but I will also follow it up in other quarters as best I can. I hope that the Minister might at least log it and give it some thought.

[Lord Greenway]

My Lords, I apologise for coming late to the Grand Committee, and I apologise if I say something that has been said already. It is especially pleasing to see the Minister back on maritime affairs in some form or another. He will recall that we spent many hours dealing with the Marine and Coastal Access Act some two or three years ago.

I welcome the proposed measures. As the noble Lord who sat down just now has said, as no doubt have many others, they were subject to extensive negotiations. I know full well that the British Marine Federation was very worried when they were first mooted but, as a result of the negotiations and especially of the welcome funding, its fears have been allayed. I certainly wish the new organisation a slightly better start than the Marine Management Organisation had. That was set up by the Marine and Coastal Access Act and the first few months, to put it mildly, were somewhat disturbing. Since then I am glad to say that things have improved enormously. I wish the new organisation well.

Finally, and rather flippantly, the Shropshire Union Canal was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts. Most noble Lords will know that I am a boating man, but I am very much a deep-sea boating man. I am afraid that I am a bit of a stranger to canals. However, I did once find myself standing above a bridge on the Shropshire Union Canal during the annual yachting shoot. It was a glorious, frosty, autumn morning, and never have I more wanted to be on a canal boat travelling along that most inviting-looking stretch of water. I might add that the only pheasant I saw all day craftily flew under the bridge beneath me, so the score was pheasant 1: Greenway nil.

[Lord Martin of Springburn]

My Lords, I, too, apologise for being late to the Committee. Monday is a day for travelling from Scotland, and I travelled within yards of the Forth and Clyde Canal, which I wish to talk about. I am dependent on trains and other modes of transport to get here. I declare an interest as I know that that is important in this place. I am a card-carrying member of the Forth and Clyde Canal Society, which was started at a time when people saw no value in the canal that runs from the west of Scotland to the east. At one stage in the 1960s, part of the canal was filled in to accommodate a motorway, but because of the good people in that organisation, that has been rectified and it is now navigable from the west to the east.

I remember from reading the history of the canal, which is absolutely fascinating, that the Member of Parliament who was responsible for putting the legislation through—we know that canals need parliamentary legislation—was a Mr Lawrence Dundas. I do not think he declared the fact that he owned land in the east coast in an area called Grangemouth, for which he was a Member of Parliament. However, I declare my interest here. I feel that British Waterways Scotland does an excellent job. Through the co-operation of everyone, including central government, the Scottish Government and the local authority, we have built the great Falkirk wheel—a fantastic piece of technology that lifts the barges from the Forth and Clyde on to the Union Canal. I understand that no more energy is used than would be used for 10 electric toasters. The early pioneers of canal building were fantastic surveyors, builders and civil engineers—Telford being one of them.

Over the years, the tow-paths of the canals have been used like a public park. They have become very safe places for dog-walking, cycling and running, so it is not only those who have a boat or a barge who can enjoy the canal. It should also be remembered that within our cities, the canal is the one area where young people, who are perhaps living in housing estates that could be improved, have the ability to see our wildlife without necessarily having to go into the countryside.

I know that this is not written into this order, but I put it to the Minister that if he is speaking to anyone in British Waterways, a major advantage of the Caledonian canal is that seagoing shipping can cross from Europe through to the west coast of Scotland because the waterway is very big and there is no worry about tides. However, at its east side the Forth and Clyde Canal ends at the River Carron, which goes into the River Forth and is tidal. That means that it is not so easy for anyone who has leisure or sea-going yachts to negotiate their way into the Forth and Clyde canal. I understand that there might be proposals to canalise, in the technical jargon, that part of the River Carron. I hope that that can come about because leisure and tourism are very important for our canals.

In my former constituency is an area called Port Dundas, which is a canal port. A great warehouse there was lying derelict but developers came along and developed it in a very positive way. As a result, one of the poorest municipal wards in Britain, if not in Europe, then had very wealthy people staying in that ward. That was a positive thing because it meant that there were then people in the community who could look at their neighbours’ problems and see what they could do to help. Many of them got involved in community projects in adjoining housing estates such as Possil Park and Hamiltonhill, which I do not expect other noble Lords to know about. My point is that that development helped other people socially. Those buildings were of course built very solidly and have become attractive flats. Other developers then came along and said, “Well, if it can be done at Port Dundas, it can be done along the banks of the canal”.

I hope I might be allowed to say that some development can be positive, such as the warehouses at Port Dundas, but that some other developments are not too attractive. The developer might come along in good faith and with the best of intentions. However, the community always has to have a say in what developments should go on because people are very proud of their canals and the environment thereof. I hope that whenever consultative bodies are consulted, it is borne in mind that the local communities, which have been there for years, should never be overlooked when it comes to the concerns that they might have about development.

16:28

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to contribute to this debate. We on this side of the Committee support these orders, but I shall qualify that as I go along, as is my job. It has been a debate in which some good points were made. I will not rehearse all those points, however good they were, for the sake of saving time.

It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Martin, not only because I heard him say the word “order” again, which brought back many happy memories from my time in the other place, but because, given that he talked about how well British Waterways was operating in Scotland through development and the various uses of the canals to which he referred, implicit in his speech was the question of whether as a result of this transfer, which does not apply in Scotland, British Waterways will have the capacity to continue doing that work in Scotland: and, indeed, given the demise of the Inland Waterways Advisory Council, whether a voice is being lost in Scotland for the users of waterways.

The ideas of the noble Lord, Lord Framlingham, around youth unemployment would have been ideal for the former future jobs fund. I shall be interested to hear whether the Minister thinks that the new youth contract will latch on to those interesting ideas about how the waterways and work around the waterways may be used.

The main point I wish to make is that these orders come from a cross-party consensus, and I was pleased that the Minister acknowledged that at the outset. I have heard from various interest groups and stakeholders about these proposals and, with the notable exception of the National Bargee Travellers Association, the feedback on the transfer has been very positive, particularly from the Inland Waterways Association and the British Marine Federation.

As we have heard, the diligence and strength already shown by the trustees of the Canal and River Trust in negotiating its 15-year funding agreement with the Government is a positive sign of things to come. It also demonstrates that many of the building blocks for the new trust are now in place and ready for the transfer. Clearly there is good potential now for improved governance and for new income sources to be developed for our waterways with, I hope, a reduced cost base and, as we heard from the Minister, an increased engagement by volunteers.

I also pay tribute to the work of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and, in particular, to its first report, which went into these issues in some detail. It reminded us of the tests that we should deploy when considering these orders, which arise from the Public Bodies Act, including the tests of efficiency, effectiveness, economy and accountability. The report ran through those issues in a helpful way. As the committee has set out, the tests of efficiency and effectiveness broadly revolve around how well stakeholders will be engaged. As I have said, I am comfortable with that.

However, we have now heard from a number of speakers in the debate about the concerns that have been raised with me and many others by the 5,000 to 10,000 itinerant boat dwellers who live on our canals. I look forward to what the Minister has to say on that issue because it also touches on the third test of accountability. The deputy chair of the National Bargee Travellers Association, Pamela Smith, in her e-mail to me—which I am sure many others have received—set out some of the details of the transfer of powers. She said:

“If the transfer takes place, the Canal and River Trust will have powers to make subordinate legislation; powers of forcible entry, search and seizure; powers to compel the giving of evidence and powers whose exercise will necessarily affect the liberty of an individual. Our homes will be at greater risk after the transfer”.

She said that they have no legal recognition or protection for their homes and that the transfer of British Waterways to the Canal and River Trust will remove the minimal protection of their homes that derives from the parliamentary scrutiny of British Waterways. It is obviously quite serious if that group of 5,000 to 10,000 people feel that there will be less accountability as a result of these transfers.

When the Minister responds, I would be grateful if he could comment on the role of the Waterways Ombudsman in helping to deal with some of these matters. Given that we are about to go into Committee tomorrow on the Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill, has the Minister given any consideration to a code of conduct for the new trust in respect of its relationship with this group of boat dwellers? With such a code, the ombudsman could then police for us. Would that help to give that community some reassurance about the operation of the trust?

The third of the tests that the committee reminded us of was that of economy. I was pleased to hear the Minister give a commitment to meet its request for a Written Ministerial Statement on the financial position of the new body two years after the trust has formed.

Finally, I should not let the passing of the Inland Waterways Advisory Council go without comment. Reading between the lines of the committee’s first report, I noted that it did not see that much of a case had been made for its abolition and looked forward to the Minister setting out more detail, which to some extent he has already done. I will be interested to know how stakeholders will be heard from in policy-making. However, I shall not die in a ditch over IWAC because, in my single year of being the Canals and Waterways Minister at Defra, I do not recall getting any real input from it. It can perhaps pass, therefore, without too much mourning. I look forward to the Minister’s comments.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, it is always good to hear from a former Minister about his experience of his portfolio. I understand the points that noble Lords have made, but I am also gratified by the fact that these statutory instruments have received widespread support in what they seek to achieve. That is a reflection of the fact that Parliament has felt that there is a role for a new form of governance for British Waterways, and the CRT represents just that.

I have a number of points to make, which I could rattle off in one go but it might be better to refer to them as best I can as I summarise the debate. There may be some things that I miss, in which case I hope that those behind me will remind me of them so that I might at least write to noble Lords.

The welcome given to the orders by the noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth, reinforced the view of the Grand Committee that they are proper orders to be presenting to Parliament. It was good to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Finsbury, his understanding of what the Government are seeking to achieve. We are looking at the possibility of bringing the Environment Agency’s waterways into the Canal and River Trust. I spent Friday afternoon at Black Sluice on the South Forty-Foot Drain, which is an example of the way in which the agency has provided for waterways users. It has built a lock at that sluice, and plans for that area and the Haven at Boston will mean that there should be increased use.

The Fenland waterways partnership represents important recognition that the Fenland waterways, which have relatively underused water courses, can be developed in this way. There is logic in that development, and we look forward to working with the Environment Agency and the noble Lord on achieving that. He was right, too, to tell us that there are important elements of flood risk management in the management of canals and, if we dare cast our minds back three or four months to when we talked about this, water management and supply. It is important that these elements are part and parcel of that. Leisure use is of course very important and will be the way in which most people judge these developments, but other aspects of policy will look to the waterways for other reasons.

On the creation of the CRT, I reassure the Committee about its transparency and openness; that is what it is about. We have set up a governance structure through the board of trustees, the council and the waterways partnership that is inclusive and gives all interested parties an opportunity to be represented and have their voices heard. I reassure my noble friend Lady Parminter that the council has four directly elected boaters within its ranks. It is not designed to be an exclusive body; it is inclusive in its very essence.

A number of noble Lords mentioned the NBTA. I understand that this group has been vociferous in trying to bring its particular concerns before Parliament, but I hope that it in turn is reassured, as the Committee will be, that the CRT is actually setting up a small advisory committee to advise senior managers responsible for boating and navigation matters—on a less permanent basis than the IWAC, I might say, but it will include at least one boater without a home mooring. I hope that his or her understanding, and the campaigns that they will be able to bring to that advisory committee, will be in the interests of itinerant live-aboard boaters.

It is important to emphasise to my noble friend Lady Parminter and indeed others that the rights of boat dwellers will not be removed or weaken as a result of this transfer order. The Human Rights Act, the Equality Act and the Freedom of Information Act will all apply to the CRT as it carries out its statutory functions. It will be a charity that seeks to engage with all its stakeholders, and there will be opportunities at every level of the organisation for stakeholders to be involved. It will be up to members of the public who are passionate about the waterways and want to get involved to get engaged with the CRT through its governance structure. I have already mentioned the advisory committees, which will have the responsibility for advising on boating and navigation matters.

I think that I have covered the point about resident boat owners. Their rights are contained in statute in the British Waterways Acts, not the charity’s articles of association. A number of noble Lords asked if I could reassure them on that; I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, made that point.

The noble Lord, Lord Knight, discussed the question of the Inland Waterways Advisory Committee. His personal anecdote reinforced the Government’s belief that we are doing the right thing in abolishing it, and his noble friend Lord Grantchester, who cannot be in his place now, made the same point. While it is right that the IWAC is abolished, though, I thank its members for their commitment and service. I hope that they will, as other noble Lords have suggested, engage with the CRT to enable the trust to benefit from their expertise in the future.

16:45

I welcome the cross-party support for the transfer of the CRT that has been expressed in this debate and over the past two years. That has helped to make it easier to present this legislation to Parliament, and we have been able to do so in a very short space of time. Moving the functions and assets of British Waterways in England and Wales to the charitable sector through the creation of the CRT will further liberate the potential for the waterways to provide benefits to the public, as a number of noble Lords mentioned, as it will enable local communities to have a greater say in how their local canal or river is run.

Parliamentary approval of the transfer order is really the final building block. Many are already in place, and it will make the new charity a reality. The board of trustees, the council and the waterways partnerships are all in place. As noble Lords have said, agreement has been reached on a tough but fair funding package that will extend over the next 15 years. The length of that commitment shows just how important it is.

My noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts said that he hoped there would be a cultural shift within the organisation. To the extent that that is necessary, I believe it has already taken place. Operating under a board of trustees and with the pressures of being responsive to community interests, I do not believe that it will be possible for the trust to create an ivory tower as a safe haven, if I may put it like that—or perhaps I should say “a safe mooring”.

My noble friend asked specifically about pensions, and I shall come to that at the end of my comments.

A number of noble Lords asked about tow-paths, recognising that much public benefit from canals comes not for the people in boats or narrow boats on the canals but for those who have public access. For the first time, there will be free public access for all pedestrians. Noble Lords may not be aware that currently there are not many places where the public have a right of way to tow-paths. Now, such public access will be assured. Indeed, there may also be access for bicycles, although probably on a permissive basis. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, will understand that bicycles and horses may not mix in all circumstances, but access on a permissive basis may be possible. Of course, the CRT’s waterways partnerships will put in place localism strategies that will address just these sorts of issues.

Perhaps I may go through some of the points that were raised. All litigation currently under way will be continued by the Canal and River Trust. In fact, it will be transferred to the CRT, which will inherit all the duties and obligations of British Waterways. The great majority of litigation enforcement concerns are about the non-payment of licence fees, although a minority concerns noise. None the less, these will be part and parcel of the process. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, who I think raised this issue, suggested that there might be an update on any outstanding inherited issues.

My noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts made a very good point about pension funds. I want to get through these questions, but I think it is important that I try to answer noble Lords’ concerns. The pension funds will be transferred, as will all public sector characteristics, and the rights to pensions will transfer under the transfer scheme. In other words, TUPE will apply to these things. The Government have paid £25 million into the pension fund to help manage its deficit, as the noble Lord mentioned to the Grand Committee. They have also guaranteed up to £125 million of pensions liability in the very unlikely event that the CRT should become insolvent. The British Waterways Board has prepared for the future viability of the scheme by adjusting its terms: the scheme is closed to new entrants and the defined benefits have been modified. New employees have access to a defined contribution scheme.

My noble friend Lord German asked why the Canal and River Trust is not a membership scheme. Well, that is up to its trustees. They decided that that was not an appropriate way of doing things, although it will have a friends of CRT group and will probably have the opportunity to elect members to the council.

My noble friend also asked about by-law consultation. I should explain to him that the CRT consults on the drafting process; that is statutory. The draft is discussed with the responsible departments, and once agreement is reached in principle it has to be published for statutory consultation. Representations to the Minister are then considered, but the Minister has to approve by-law changes.

Perhaps I can also answer my noble friend’s comment about Glandwr Cymru. My Welsh is not that good but, as I understand it, it means Waterside Wales. I cannot say why it was dealt with differently, but it was named following market research in Wales and obviously we are particularly sensitive about trying to achieve harmony with Welsh users of the waterways.

The noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth, alighted upon my noble friend Lord Framlingham’s comment. I thought he made a very useful point about the opportunities that exist in the new CRT, and I shall make sure that my honourable friend John Hayes, the Skills Minister, is aware of the comments that he made in debate here today—

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

I have since discovered that the future jobs fund did provide jobs for a number of people, including 56 young people who worked on the Leeds and Liverpool Canal, for which the fund won an award. Perhaps the Skills Minister will be pleased to learn of the success of that previous scheme and will look at ways for it to be replicated using the Groundwork charity.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

Here was I thinking we were in the vanguard of new ideas, but now I discover that we are actually trundling along behind. None the less, I shall still make sure that that is done.

Finally, I am delighted that HRH the Prince of Wales has agreed to be the trust’s patron. It is wonderful that the CRT canal boat was in the jubilee pageant, along with 60 others. I believe that we are achieving something very different and exciting for our historic and much-loved waterways, and that they will be cared for by future generations as a result.

Motion agreed.

Inland Waterways Advisory Council (Abolition) Order 2012

Monday 25th June 2012 Grand Committee

Considered in Grand Committee

16:54

Moved by

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Inland Waterways Advisory Council (Abolition) Order 2012.

Relevant documents: 58th Report from the Merits Committee, Session 2010-12; 43rd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, Session 2010-12; 1st and 4th Reports from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.

Motion agreed.

Electoral Registration Data Schemes Order 2012

Monday 25th June 2012 Grand Committee

Considered in Grand Committee

16:56

Moved by

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Electoral Registration Data Schemes Order 2012.

Relevant document: 2nd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, the order will provide the legal basis for a second electoral registration data-matching trial by enabling the sharing of specified data between the DWP and local authority electoral registration officers. An initial round of data-matching schemes took place in 2011 and, in the Government’s response to pre-legislative scrutiny and public consultation on individual electoral registration and amendment to electoral registration law under Command Paper 8245 of February 2012, the Government announced that they were minded to use data matching to simplify the transition to individual registration for the majority of electors, subject to further testing this year.

Before I set out what the order does, perhaps I may provide the Committee with some background, with which I think most noble Lords present will already be familiar. All sides of the House agree that we need to improve our electoral registration system. We need to make the register both more accurate and more complete than it is at the moment. We need to ensure that it is not vulnerable to fraud but that people find it as easy as possible to register and are encouraged to register.

The Committee will recall that an initial round of data-matching schemes took place last year. The initial trials involved comparing the electoral register against other public databases in order to identify people who were missing from the register, which would then give an electoral registration officer the chance to contact them and find out whether they wished to be added to the register. The 2011 data-matching schemes were also aimed at identifying potentially inaccurate and/or fraudulent entries on the register. The electoral registration officer would then be able to take the necessary steps to remove them.

The evaluation of these schemes told us that further piloting work was required, and I shall say more about that in a few minutes. An unexpected benefit of last year’s pilot schemes was the discovery that it might be possible for a significant majority of existing electors to be confirmed as accurate to an acceptable standard by matching the electoral register against data held by the DWP. We hope that this will address one of the criticisms of some of our individual registration proposals, but there may be a risk of a reduction in the number of registered eligible voters. In the transition to individual registration, those electors whose details were confirmed through data matching would therefore be automatically placed on the new individual electoral registration register without having to make a new application.

We want to test this proposition in the pilots run under the order, but with a larger sample so that we have good, robust evidence. The instrument before us now will enable us to test the capability of the data-matching process to confirm existing electors on the register. It will involve a range of areas in England, Wales and Scotland. The results of the trial will be evaluated by the Cabinet Office and the Electoral Commission and will enable us to confirm that this matching process will assist the transition to 2014 and enable us to find a process for carrying it out. I should add that the reason for not including Northern Ireland in this pilot scheme is that Northern Ireland already has moved to individual electoral registration.

16:58

The order enables the DWP to provide electoral registration officers with the data necessary for the data-matching schemes. The 14 local authorities planning to take part in the trial are listed in the schedule to the order. I should express my thanks and appreciation to them, and to the Department for Work and Pensions, for their constructive work to date.

The Committee may notice that there are 17 local authority areas in the schedule. Guildford and South Ribble are included not to take part in the confirmation testing but to pilot online electoral registration. It will not be piloted end to end, including the final verification process, as that would trespass on the House’s forthcoming deliberation on the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill, but we will look at front-end data collection. That will enable us to get some idea of how many electors might wish to take up an online method of electoral registration. We will also be able to see whether there are particular segments of the population for whom that method of registration would be most attractive. That will enable local authorities to gain a better idea of the different channels that people will use to register, and it will help some segments of the population that are currently not as well registered as they might be. This includes young people, who we suspect are much the most likely to wish to register online.

Since the draft order was laid, Colchester council has, unfortunately, had to withdraw from the pilot schemes. That does not affect the validity of the order, because inclusion in the schedule does not compel authorities to take part. Nor will it affect the validity of the eventual results of the pilot schemes, because there are enough local authorities taking part in the pilots for the results to be robust from a research perspective.

The draft order stipulates that before any data can be transferred, a written agreement must be in place between the ERO and the DWP setting out the requirements as to the processing, transfer, storage, destruction and security of the data concerned. It also sets 30 June 2013 as the date by which each of the schemes must have been evaluated by the Electoral Commission. After the pilots have ended and the evaluation has been completed, the personal information and data created and held for the purposes of the pilot schemes will be securely destroyed.

The Information Commissioner’s Office has been consulted on the draft order and has commented that if the schemes carried out under it confirm the results of the previous pilots, the transition to individual registration will be simplified and many individuals will not be required to provide additional personal information.

As mentioned earlier, the evaluations of last year’s pilot schemes also concluded that further trials were needed to ascertain the potential of data-matching to identify potential electors who are missing from the register. The order will also enable such schemes to be carried out in some areas, but if it is decided to extend the schemes to include further areas or datasets, a separate order will be laid before your Lordships at a later date.

With regard to the order before us today, I hope that Committee Members see the merits of this second trial and the benefits that it will have for strengthening our electoral registration system and ensuring that it is complete as well as accurate. I hope that the Committee will approve the order.

[Lord Rennard]

My Lords, I wonder at the outset whether the Minister might be prepared to make a short statement of principle about the purpose behind the orders. What I want to hear particularly is that the underlying purpose is at least as much about the completeness of the electoral register as it is its accuracy. That will be crucial in approving the direction in which the Government are travelling.

Perhaps I may ask him specifically about the decision not to provide a full regulatory impact assessment of the orders. The Government state that there should be no impact on the private sector, but potentially reducing significantly the completeness of the electoral register could have a big impact there. I know that the credit reference agencies have made a number of representations to the Government on this issue. We think nowadays about the way in which many businesses do business. They do it online over the internet; they provide goods and services to people to addresses that people fill in online. If they are unable to check the accuracy of those addresses, as they generally do on the electoral register, there could be a detrimental impact on business if we fail on the key issue of completeness of the electoral register.

It seems to me that the success of the transition to individual electoral registration will be hugely important for elections post the general election due in May 2015. It will be less important for the election of May 2015 because of the carry-forward provisions, but will be hugely important for elections in future. It will be hugely important to the boundary review process for future boundary reviews—not the present one, based on the current registration process—but for those due to begin on 1 December 2015. Will the Minister confirm that it is crucial to have independent verification of the success of the move towards independent electoral registration, of which these instruments are a part, before it is considered safe to proceed either with elections under the new system or with future boundary reviews?

I have a question on a detail that emerged from the previous pilots which the Minister now suggests will be addressed in future pilots. It was discovered in the initial pilots that quite a few people were eligible to be on the electoral register. The DWP database showed clearly beyond any reasonable doubt that these people were entitled to be on the electoral register, but they were not on it. I understand from the order that in future pilots, if people are entitled to be on the electoral register and it is clear beyond the shadow of a doubt that they should be on it, they will be chased to get them on to it. That would seem to be commendable, but if we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that someone should be on the register, why should we chase them to get them on to it?

I can see that if we followed models that I have advocated in the past that require a signature as part of the registration process, you could chase these people for a signature. However, if the DWP database has their national insurance number, name and address, and all satisfactory methods show that they should be on the electoral register, why chase them? If they are to be chased, how do we know that they will be chased effectively and consistently? It would be a great shame if, in chasing these people, some individual electoral registration officers sent a very cursory letter and left it at that, while others used best practice and perhaps sent a series of repeat letters or e-mails pointing out the likely future sanctions if people failed to comply with what will be a legal requirement. In making sure that this works effectively, there will probably be a requirement for ring-fenced funding for local authorities to make sure that they do their job in relation to this. I very much look forward to the Government’s and the Electoral Commission’s evaluation of these pilots.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I am delighted to have this opportunity to speak in this Grand Committee debate on the Electoral Registration Data Schemes Order 2012. I say at the outset that I agree with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Rennard.

I advise the Committee that I am a member of the Electoral Commission, which commented on this order earlier this year and which will evaluate the pilot schemes when they come to an end. I hope that the Government are in listening mode today. It is fair to say that they did not listen very much last time, which is part of the reason why we are back here today with a second set of orders. The last set of pilots was unclear. The pilots did not have a common methodological framework, which made it difficult to evaluate their effectiveness as a data-matching tool to prove complete accuracy of the register.

As has been said, the Government decided to speed up the IER process. Let us be clear, IER is already on the statute book. It was brought in by the previous Labour Government. The Minister needs to provide the Committee with proper assurances that everything is being done to make the register more accurate and complete. These powers will assist the process and action can be taken following the process. My concern is that these proposals may well improve the accuracy of the register but that completeness will suffer, with the register being less complete. As has been said, accuracy and completeness are different things.

I ask the noble Lord to clarify a few things in his reply. Can he explain the methodology behind the pilots? Will they test the processes that will be made available to local authorities if they are rolled out nationally? Can the Minister comment on the management of the pilots, as well as on the staff and budget provisions? What are the proposals for communication between the pilots, data holders and the Cabinet Office? Perhaps I may also ask him to comment on how he sees the data-matching process being used to confirm the identity of existing electors and how he sees the confirmation process working.

I would not say that the Government have wrapped themselves in much credit on these matters so far. These are serious issues and I hope that the noble Lord will give a commitment to write to me in detail on the points I have raised today. I do not want to have to raise them again when the order reaches the Floor of the House, but I give him notice that I will do so if necessary. With that caveat, I look forward to his response.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the order. I guess that if I have one word of advice for him, it is, “Listen to the last two speakers”. I know that my noble friend Lord Kennedy was an agent and could get votes where no others were found. Sadly, to our detriment, the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, also had a great ability for doing that—something for which I have never quite forgiven him. However, both noble Lords have a lot of wisdom and experience behind them in these matters.

We welcome this second set of pilots. Their aim is to ensure both the accuracy and, we hope, the completeness of the register, as both the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, and my noble friend Lord Kennedy have said. I think that we all rather bemoan low turnouts in elections, but of course the true level of participation would be lower if we took into account the votes of those who would be eligible to vote if only we could catch them all. Clearly the Government have a responsibility to act to ensure that we find and register all those for whom our predecessors, particularly of my gender, fought so hard for the right to vote. Just a few days ago, we heard of the great yearning of the people of Burma for the right to vote, and that puts an onus on all of us to make sure that those who have won that right have the ability to cast their vote and to do so easily.

The order is part of the process of checking on the proposed way of building up individually compiled electoral lists so that everyone, with the minimum of difficulty, is able to cast a vote, and we welcome that. I do not have 20 questions for the Minister but I am afraid that I do have a dozen.

First, and most importantly, is the fact that we will not have the evaluation of these pilots until after the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill becomes law. Therefore, what happens if the pilots demonstrate real concerns over the process used, such that we doubt whether the 2015 register will really be complete and accurate? What happens if they suggest that there are still adjustments to be made so that, although the system could eventually work, it will not be robust in time for that election or indeed for the boundary review that comes just after it, to which the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, referred?

Secondly, the evaluation will be held by both the Electoral Commission and the Cabinet Office, but what if their assessments vary? What discussion will take place in this House or the other place before individual registration continues, regardless of the outcome of the pilots?

Thirdly, there is still scope for additional pilots, but who would authorise them and would they be done in time?

Fourthly, what if the pilots were to indicate that extra resources were needed, either in particular localities or among particular age or other groups, to increase completeness? Will the Government respond to such an indicated need or will the pilots simply demonstrate the problem but not lead to solutions?

Fifthly, is the Minister satisfied that the spread of authorities is sufficiently varied to produce robust findings? The one that pulled out would obviously have had many students in its area, so some assurance about the student population in the others would be useful. Are there any provisions for any sort of understudy in case one of the remaining 14 was to pull out?

Sixthly, when this was debated in the other place, the question of a register for a Scottish referendum was raised—needless to say, by a Scottish Member of Parliament. Being equally parochial, on Friday I had been planning to ask the Minister whether the new register would be available in time for a referendum on the reform of the Lords, especially one on the electoral system to be used in selecting the new senators, given that the Government gave us a referendum on the election system for the House of Commons. However, having heard over the weekend that there is, I gather, going to be no referendum, either on the electoral system or on this major, significant constitutional change, I have a more minor question to ask instead. Will the Members of your Lordships’ House be able to vote for the elected one-third of the House in May 2015 and, if so, will we be caught by the data-matching pilots?

17:15

Seventhly, the impact assessment for the individual electoral registration Bill suggests that the,

“accuracy of the register … in the long run”,

should increase to 95% and its completeness to 85%. Are the Government content with 85%?

Eighthly, what do the Government estimate that the 2015 figure will be, in the light of likely results from these pilots? The worst-case scenario in that impact assessment is for the register to be less complete in the short term, with accuracy falling in 2014-15.

Ninthly, is this order the limit of the work going on to improve individual registration or are the Government also looking at Royal Mail, schools or other data which may be far more complete? Maybe the Government are now regretting pulling out of ID cards; I am sure that the Minister will not want to comment on that.

Tenthly, the Minister may well be aware that the Electoral Commission has continuing concerns about the current round of pilots, as was partly outlined by my noble friend Lord Kennedy of Southwark, and whether those pilots will be robust enough for the commission to undertake its statutory role of evaluation so that it can inform policy and practice on electoral registration. As has been mentioned, this is particularly about methodology. Can the Minister assure the Committee that the pilots will be delivered to an agreed methodology?

Eleventhly, are the pilots sufficiently and appropriately staffed to undertake, report on and analyse the exercise? I know that the commission is also concerned about whether the schemes will allow for a definitive assessment of the confirmation of lists of DWP data, given the complexity of the task. Can the Minister give some assurances that further work will be undertaken if needed as a result of the pilots?

Finally, should anything like the worst-case scenario occur and the register become less complete, what steps would the Government take to mitigate this fall, whether by ongoing data matching or by other means? I hope that the Minister, or people close behind him, will be able to respond to most of those questions.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I am tempted to start by saying that I now have writer’s cramp from attempting to write down all those questions as they were thrown at me. I remind the Committee that we all share an interest in this and I hope that it is very much an all-party concern that we should have as accurate and complete a register as possible. I think that we also all share an awareness that our electoral register has been becoming less accurate and complete, for a number of reasons. Young people have been moving around more and, in particular, I fear that a number of them are not actively interested in getting themselves on to the register. It has also been rather more difficult, particularly in some inner-city areas where people are in multiple accommodation and moving relatively quickly, to keep up with people as they move.

I think that we also all share an awareness that the issues about which people hold what data are moving very fast. The Government now collect a great deal of data that were not available for collection before. Private sources, from Experian to Google to Tesco, also collect a great amount of data, and there are some very large issues that we will have to deal with over the next few years about how that is handled and what privacy guarantees are introduced to hold on to the individual’s rights against what I see from one of my notes is regarded as the data-collecting state. In revising the register, we have to take all these different issues into account.

The purpose of the pilots is to ensure that individual electoral registration is as complete as possible. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, the issue of the impact on business and credit checks is one that we are aware of, but it is not something that many young people are aware of. When the Bill comes before the House we will have to discuss that in detail, because a lot of young people do not understand that your credit registration and the way in which business can operate with you partly depend on whether you are on the register. That is part of what may need to be an information campaign on all this.

There certainly will be independent assessment of the effectiveness of these bilateral pilots. I liked the question about what happens if the Cabinet Office and the Electoral Commission come to different conclusions on this; if they did, clearly they would have to discuss and reconcile their evaluations of the schemes. Actually, it is highly desirable that there should be two different forms of evaluation. I remember going to talk, when I worked at a think tank, to the new research director of a major international company and him asking his predecessor, who was introducing me, why they needed advice from a think tank when the company had its own research department. The former head of the research department said, “Because you might want a second opinion”, and the same is true in this case. Involving both the Electoral Commission and the Cabinet Office is a good way of making sure that there is a second opinion and, if the second opinion is different, that will have to be reconciled.

I think that I understood the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, as saying that we might even think about putting people on the register automatically if they were found on the DWP database or, alternatively, only if they responded to follow-up letters or visits. Again, that is something that we will be discussing when the electoral registration Bill hits the Lords. It is an important and difficult issue, because it raises questions about citizen involvement and responsibility as opposed to individual privacy when it comes to this public database—indeed, one of the most important public databases that we have.

I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, that local authorities manage registers, and electoral registration officers work for local authorities. With these pilots, we are very much concerned to look at the completeness dimension. Last year’s pilots looked rather more at accuracy and I assure the noble Lord that it is very much a concern of ours that this should be as complete as possible. Combining my answer to him with at least one of the dozen or so questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, that I wish to answer, I remind noble Lords that electoral registration officers already make use of a number of data sets that are available to local authorities. These include the register of births and deaths, council tax records, registers of households in multiple occupation, local land and property gazetteers, housing benefit applications, lists of persons in residential and care homes and, when allowed, details of attainers—those aged 16 or 17—held by education departments.

In Northern Ireland, the move to individual electoral registration has led to an improvement in the completeness of 18 year-olds coming on to the register because authorities have worked actively with Northern Irish schools to encourage 16 and 17 year-olds to come on to the register and to check names as they arrive. There are problems in some English local authorities where there are district and council authorities and the ERO belongs to one authority and the schools belong to another. That, again, is a question we might wish to discuss further when the Bill comes to the House. However, in looking at completeness, we hope that the use of secondary schools and 16 and 17 year-olds will help to ensure completeness in one of the precise areas where we are worried about the number of people who put themselves on the register.

Are we confident that the methodology in place this time is sufficiently robust to deliver successful pilot schemes? We are confident. We have adopted a more prescriptive approach to the pilot methodology than was possible last year. There is clear guidance for each of the pilot areas, on the basis of which we hope to draw robust conclusions from the evidence. We have developed the methodology in liaison with the Electoral Commission and we have asked all the pilots to agree to the methodology before they start work. That means that we have started work on developing a more sophisticated algorithm to reduce the resource intensiveness of the process for electoral registration officers.

As to the purposes of these orders, the impact is limited to the pilots and not beyond. Again, we will return to many of these issues when we are discussing the Bill. Are more pilots needed? This is an on-going process in consultation with the Electoral Commission and if more pilots are needed—and the area of young people is one that we are particularly concerned about—we will continue to a further pilot. Are we satisfied with the spread of authorities? We are satisfied that we have a sufficiently robust spread of authorities. One or two extra rural authorities might have been more appropriate—in the other place, the question of Scottish rural authorities was raised—but this is a fairly good spread across all three countries and across a range of different authorities. We are confident that this will give us a fairly strong result.

I am afraid that I am unable to say at the moment whether Peers will be able to vote in 2015 for the third of this House that will be elected. I was happy to hear the noble Baroness say “will be elected in 2015”. I promise to buy her a drink after she and I have been to vote on that occasion—if and when we have been allowed to do so.

Are there any other questions that I should have answered? Will further work be undertaken? We have said yes, it will. On the question of whether the new register will be ready for the Scottish referendum, we are determined that the same basis for the register will be in place throughout the country for each election. The impact of the pilots will not be used for a different foundation for the electoral register from one local authority to another. The purpose of these pilots, which have been worked on with the Electoral Commission and others, is to ensure, as far as possible, that everyone in the country and in different political parties has the maximum confidence that the new register is both as accurate and as complete as possible. We shall return to this issue if we need more pilots—it would require another order—and when we discuss the individual Electoral Registration Bill in the House.

Motion agreed.

Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation (Determination of Turnover for Monetary Penalties) Order 2012

Monday 25th June 2012 Grand Committee

Considered in Grand Committee

17:30

Moved by

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation (Determination of Turnover for Monetary Penalties) Order 2012.

Relevant document: 2nd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Hill of Oareford)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for their careful consideration of this order. Noble Lords will be aware that neither committee commented or thought that the House’s attention should be drawn to the order.

First, I shall give a little bit of history. Noble Lords will recall that it was as a result of concerns raised by Members of this House that we introduced a provision into the Education Act 2011 giving Ofqual new powers to impose financial penalties. That was against the backdrop of the errors in exam papers during last summer’s exam season. That power was commenced in May this year. It addresses the gap in Ofqual’s range of sanctions, as previously there was nothing between a power to direct and the ultimate sanction of withdrawing the awarding organisation’s recognition. This change brings Ofqual into line with similar regulators and is consistent with the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008.

At the time, last year, the Government accepted the argument that a strong regulator needs a range of powers, including the ability to impose financial penalties. Fining is a flexible sanction which we expect to act as a deterrent to awarding organisations breaching regulatory requirements. In many circumstances it would provide a more proportionate response than the most severe sanction of withdrawing recognition. At the other end of the spectrum, as we have seen with other regulators, fines give a stronger public signal about the significance of the breach than giving a direction to take corrective action or public censure.

It is of course important that there should be limits on any fine. For that reason, we agreed that Ofqual’s power to fine should be subject to a cap of no more than 10% of the awarding organisation’s turnover. We also agreed that the definition of turnover for these purposes would be set out in an order made by the Secretary of State and subject to the affirmative procedure.

A wide range of awarding organisations operate in England: Ofqual currently recognises 179. They possess very different characteristics, including in relation to the way in which they derive income and the relationship between their regulated activity and any other activities that they undertake. In order to gauge the balance of views on this issue, we undertook a 12-week consultation on the draft statutory instrument, which ran from December to March this year. Parallel consultations were carried out by Ofqual and by the Welsh Government in respect of a similar power that has been introduced in Wales.

When we discussed this matter last year, I explained that it was our intention to define turnover in relation to activity that Ofqual regulates, rather than using a broader definition based on all an awarding organisation’s activity, which could include unregulated activity and activities beyond the United Kingdom. However, when it came to drafting the statutory instrument, it was clear that this would prove difficult to achieve, because in fact a number of awarding organisations have no income from regulated activity. Sticking to our original proposals would have resulted in those awarding organisations being able to operate without threat of this sanction. That could have led, for example, to an awarding organisation that charges for proprietary qualifications being treated differently from an employer awarding body that awards its own, very similar, qualifications to its employees without charging. For that reason, we consulted on an order that defined turnover in relation to all an awarding organisation’s activity in the United Kingdom.

The 35 responses that we received to the consultation were broadly in favour of the power to fine in principle, of the geographical scope of the power and of the proposal to calculate turnover on the basis of a business year. However, concerns were expressed over the inclusion of all income in the definition of turnover, rather than limiting the definition to income from regulated activity.

We understand the concerns of both large organisations and small charities, especially those that generate none or very little income from regulated activity. We have considered those concerns carefully and looked at a number of different options, including one proposed by Pearson that we should adopt a two-tiered approach, using one definition based on regulated activity where appropriate and a second based on all activity when an organisation does not derive income from regulated activity.

Set against these concerns, we have had to take account of the importance of establishing a regulatory regime that is simple, fair and consistent in its treatment of awarding organisations. Having considered the alternative options, we were not persuaded that any of them met this test. We think that calculating turnover must be done in a way that treats all awarding organisations equally. As the scope of regulated activity is narrow, being concerned only with the award or authentication of qualifications to which Part 7 of the ASCL Act applies, income from related activity, such as the publication of textbooks, would have been excluded from any definition that uses regulated activity as its basis. A differential approach could therefore have the effect of limiting the exposure of an awarding organisation that derives income from regulated activity, while placing no such limits on one that does not.

The order that is before us for consideration today defines turnover in relation to all of an awarding organisation’s activity in the United Kingdom. That approach mirrors the one already agreed by Welsh Ministers, following consultation and debate. If agreed by Parliament, this order will provide a consistent framework for awarding organisations operating across England, Wales and Northern Ireland. That matter was important for respondents to the consultation.

Alongside the consultation on the statutory instrument, Ofqual consulted on its policy on fining. That policy was published in May and makes clear the factors that Ofqual will consider in determining whether an awarding organisation should be subject to a fine. It will consider the harm done and whether a fine is likely to improve compliance with regulatory conditions in the future. It will also consider whether another regulatory body, such as the Welsh Government, has already imposed a financial sanction in relation to the breach.

Having decided that a fine is appropriate, Ofqual will take account of a range of factors in determining the amount of that fine, to ensure that it represents a proportionate penalty. This includes the likely impact of the fine on the awarding organisation’s provision of regulated qualifications and its turnover from regulated activities in relation to its total turnover, to avoid a disproportionate impact on awarding organisations with multiple business interests. Ofqual is required to give notice of its intention to fine, setting out reasons, and then to have regard to any representations received in response. Should Ofqual decide following any such representations to confirm the fine, the awarding organisation has a right of appeal to the First-tier Tribunal. Appeals may be made on the basis of the imposition of the fine and on the level of the fine imposed. While the independent appeals arrangements are in train, any fine is suspended.

There is no financial incentive for Ofqual to impose a monetary penalty. All money received in the payment of a fine will be paid into the Government’s Consolidated Fund. The definition set out in the order allows Ofqual to have a flexible monetary penalty policy that can take into account the diverse nature of the qualifications market. We set out to define turnover in a way that is fair, transparent, relatively easy to administer and consistent with the approach taken by the Welsh regulator. I believe that that is what we have done. I also believe that Ofqual’s commitment to act in a way that is proportionate, accountable, consistent, transparent and targeted, and the safeguards that are in place, should reassure awarding organisations that the fining power will be used proportionately and appropriately. I therefore commend this order to the Committee.

[Lord Sutherland of Houndwood]

My Lords, I support the order and commend the Government for bringing such a sensible conclusion to a complex inquiry. In doing so, I declare an interest as being currently and for the next month chair of one of the bodies mentioned in the supporting papers, the Associated Board of the Royal Schools of Music. I mention that body also to illustrate how complex the measure is, because it probably means that the department, or certainly Ofqual, would have to check reasonably regularly that the way in which it had constructed the annual turnover figure was accurate. The figures for ABRSM given in the supporting paper show the turnover as being just over £31 million, which was probably the figure for two years ago. That turnover is based not simply on the 300,000 candidates in this country but on 300,000 candidates overseas and shows the complexity involved in determining turnover for activity in the UK. I know that it is simply an illustrative figure in an illustrative paper, but it makes the point that there would have to be accurate checks and agreement with the organisations in question. I do not think that the eventuality will arise, but, if it did, one would need to know in advance on what figure the 10% cap was based. Another slight complexity, again illustrated by the case of ABRSM, is that the figures are to be examined in Scotland as well as in the other three jurisdictions named in the paper. I am not sure whether that makes a difference, but it is the kind of detail that should be checked out. However, I support warmly the direction in which we are now moving.

[Lord Lingfield]

As noble Lords will remember, I brought up this issue during the passage of the Education Bill, so I shall not rehearse the list of difficulties that we all saw in the newspapers during 2011 and in previous years—the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, told us a lot about those, too. The principle of giving Ofqual powers to fine awarding bodies that have been in dereliction of their duty seems entirely proper and necessary, which is why I support the Government. Their proposals seem entirely fair. The awarding bodies are a disparate group and it was always going to be difficult to devise a scheme that coped with all the differences, but the decision to limit turnover for the purposes of Ofqual regulation to all activity within the UK seems appropriate. Sufficient safeguards are built in: there will be an appeal mechanism; Ofqual will be required to state its reasons for using its powers, as the Minister has told us; and there will be a review of the order and Ofqual’s activities. Those are enough. A great deal of needless distress was caused to pupils and their parents, and a lot of difficulties were created for colleges, schools and universities. I hope that the order will be used to alleviate those problems. We shall see whether it does, because it can be reviewed.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of the reasoning behind the order and for his earlier letter to the noble Lord, Lord Lingfield, providing an update on the steps taken since we last discussed this matter during scrutiny of the Education Bill.

We share the Government’s determination to drive up standards in the conduct of examinations and to ensure that Ofqual has the suite of tools necessary to hold awarding organisations to account for any mistakes made, particularly if they have a wider impact on overall public confidence in the exam system. We therefore approach scrutiny of this order with the positive view that it is in our interests for Ofqual to demand, and ensure, the highest possible standards in the administration of the exam system.

I could of course begin by questioning whether this order is already out of date given the Secretary of State’s apparent decision, leaked last week, that from autumn 2014 O-levels will be revived and the current exam board free-for-all replaced by a single exam board for each subject. Yet I realise that however short-lived this order turns out to be, we have a responsibility to deal with it as best we can. However, in one sense the Secretary of State’s announcement has a common cause with the order here today because the fact that there are so many different awarding organisations of every shape, size and constitution, as we have heard, is the central cause of the headache for Ofqual about how to regulate them fairly and consistently. I suppose that it begs the question as to whether we have allowed too many bodies to spring up to enable consistent marking and proper qualification comparisons to be achieved. In this context, however, I have a few specific questions.

17:45

First, as has been said, the enormous disparity in size between some of the awarding bodies poses a central challenge: how can we ensure that the proposed fines are proportionate, particularly when we are comparing large commercial companies with charities or not-for-profit providers? Our concern is whether there is a danger of unforeseen consequences, with some of the smaller niche providers being driven out of the sector by the threat or reality of fines. In applying the rules of proportionality, even when limited to a 10% cap, can Ofqual assure us that it will not use these powers to squeeze the smaller players out of the market?

Secondly, on how the scope of a fine should be determined, we accept that the dilemma of the 10% cap being on regulated or total turnover is real. I know that some awarding organisations were concerned about this, as has been commented on, but on balance we share the view expressed by noble Lords around the Committee that the latter—the total turnover—should be accepted as the fairest way to proceed, in all the circumstances that have already been discussed.

Thirdly, does the Minister agree with one of the sample comments in the Ofqual consultation? It made the point that,

“Ofqual should … publish full and clear guidance about fines, its fining procedure and what specific listed breaches of conditions of recognition will attract fines”.

Will Ofqual have clear procedures in place to address another of the consultation concerns: the danger of double counting, or being penalised for the same breach more than once?

Fourthly, these steps we are taking today do not fundamentally address the causes of the recent high-profile errors that have occurred. I realise that these are the subject of a separate investigation, but can the Minister assure me that as well as putting in place measures to punish failure in quality we are, in parallel, putting in place the drivers for improved standards? For example, the training of senior examiners needs to be improved. It should no longer be possible for exam papers to be set by individual examiners and not then checked by others. The pre-testing of exam papers should be encouraged and more rigorous cross-referencing of marking schemes introduced. These are the kinds of actions that would re-establish faith in the UK’s exam system, which has become battered and discredited in recent years.

Finally, can we be assured that protections will be put in place to ensure that any fines to awarding organisations are not simply passed on to schools and pupils in the form of higher exam costs but instead will impact on the profits of the organisations concerned? It would be an irony if the pupils and schools that had been disadvantaged by the mistakes of an awarding body simply ended up passing on the cost of the mistakes to the next generation of pupils within that school. Those are my only questions this afternoon and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

I am grateful for the brief comments that have been given in support of the steps we are taking. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Lingfield for originally raising this issue. We are glad to have been able to address it. I am also grateful for the support from the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland of Houndwood, who rightly pointed out the complexity and disparate nature of these organisations, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, also referred. That is what has driven us to the conclusion that we have reached.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, raised specific questions. First, I was grateful for her general support of these moves, and I agree that the desire behind them is to raise standards and confidence in our exam system. I know she shares that goal. I also agree with her concern that we need to guard against the unforeseen consequences of some of these moves. I shall try to respond to her specific questions.

Her first question was about the concern that smaller awarding organisations might inadvertently be driven out. I said earlier that the safeguards that Ofqual has put in place, on which it has consulted, are designed to ensure that the power is used in a way that will, I believe, be both appropriate and proportionate. In particular, Ofqual will exercise its discretion regarding whether to impose a fine and the level at which to do so. If the imposition of a fine would be likely to render the awarding organisation unable to provide regulated qualifications in future, I do not believe that Ofqual would use its fining powers. The case that she raised of the small or charitable organisation is guarded against in Ofqual’s discretion. At the other end of the spectrum, it is also the case that larger organisations might be concerned about the danger of a disproportionately large fine. As has already been said, the 10% figure is there as a cap; it is not a guide to the appropriate level of fine.

The Ofqual guidance makes clear the factors that it will take into account. Ofqual will certainly take into account the relationship between an organisation’s total turnover and its turnover from regulated activities, thereby protecting awarding organisations with multiple business interests. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, asked whether Ofqual will publish its policies so that we can see that in black and white. It published Taking Regulatory Action last month, section 6 of which sets out its policy on fining. I will make sure that a copy is sent to the noble Baroness. The document sets out all the various stages and processes in a very open way. She also raised the important question of safeguards against passing on fines. In its enforcement policy, Ofqual has set an expectation on awarding organisations that the cost of fines must not be passed on to users. If an awarding organisation’s fees do not represent value for money following the issue of a fine, Ofqual has a power to cap them, so I agree with her.

The noble Baroness raised concerns about potential double-counting and the need to guard against an awarding organisation being penalised twice for the same breach. One of the factors that Ofqual will have to consider when deciding whether a fine is the appropriate sanction is whether another regulatory body, such as the Welsh Government, has already imposed a financial sanction in relation to the same breach. It has a duty to be proportionate and will look at the circumstances in each case but this sanction is intended primarily for serious and persistent breaches. If all is going well, it will not need to apply these sanctions at all so awarding organisations should not fear being penalised twice for the same breach.

The noble Lord, Lord Sutherland of Houndwood, asked specifically in passing about Scottish qualifications. The order covers turnover based on all activity in the United Kingdom so it is the case that qualifications awarded in Scotland would count.

I certainly take the point on which the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, ended, that fining punishes failure and does not in itself improve standards, which is the key issue that we want to address. Ofqual has a range of measures in place to drive up standards and qualifications. It set these out in its published approach Taking Regulatory Action, which includes imposing general conditions of recognition on all awarding organisations and employing a risk-based approach to regulation. That has been set out and was published in the same document in May. I shall ensure that the noble Baroness has it.

I hope that that addresses the main concerns that were raised. I am grateful for the support for this measure and particularly to noble Lords who first brought it to the Government’s attention and urged us to move on it. I am happy to have done so.

Motion agreed.

Broadcasting (Local Digital Television Programme Services and Independent Productions) (Amendment) Order 2012

Monday 25th June 2012 Grand Committee

Considered in Grand Committee

17:57

Moved by

[Baroness Garden of Frognal]

That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Broadcasting (Local Digital Television Programme Services and Independent Productions) (Amendment) Order 2012.

Relevant document: 3rd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

[Baroness Garden of Frognal]

My Lords, this instrument is part of a series of measures that have been introduced recently to help a new generation of local TV services emerge across the UK. The UK is more or less alone in Europe in not having a developed local TV sector. The Government are seeking to address this anomaly. Parliament has already provided the communications regulator, Ofcom, with fit-for-purpose regulatory powers to license local TV services. Ofcom will select a strong infrastructure provider to support individual local TV services, and media businesses now have the freedom to enter new markets at local level.

Local TV will provide communities with relevant and targeted content and contribute towards the local democratic process. With the launch of Ofcom’s licensing bidding process in May, an initial 21 localities across the UK are in the running to get a local TV station, the first of which we hope will be up and running from next year. While the Government have already taken significant steps towards making local TV a reality across the UK, there is more that can be done to ensure the sustainability of this new market.

The instrument before the Committee is a deregulatory one. It seeks to remove a regulatory burden on new local TV services while ensuring that there is a diverse range of applicants participating in the licensing bidding process. The existing regulatory framework in respect of independent producers is designed to encourage investment in production at the national level through a national quota system, mitigating the dominance which large-scale broadcasters previously had in the production sector. However, these rules do not need to apply to local TV. Indeed, imposing a quota on new local TV services starting up for the first time could pose cost and compliance burdens.

In addition to imposing a production quota, the existing rules prevent independent producers holding a majority stake in a new local TV enterprise, unless they forfeit their independent status. The measure before your Lordships deals with both matters. This instrument will result in two changes. First, it will exempt local TV broadcasters from the requirement under Section 309 of the Communications Act 2003 to source 10% of qualifying programme content from independent producers. The quota and its compliance requirements could be a significant burden on local TV services, which are likely to have small programme budgets. It might be difficult for a local TV broadcaster to find independent producers to deliver suitable programmes against the quota obligations without distorting its programming strategy and commercial decisions. Local TV is a market which has historically faced a number of barriers preventing its success, so the Government would like to keep the regulatory burdens to a minimum.

The UK’s independent production sector is, of course, a very successful part of our media market and its growth has been partly due to the 10% commissioning quota. Removing the quota will not prevent local TV providers sourcing content from independent producers but it does relieve the local TV services from the potentially significant cost obligation of having to source at least 10% of their scheduled output when they are just emerging in a new market. Local TV providers can look to independent producers to provide high-quality and diverse content. We are saying that there should not be a legal requirement for local TV broadcasters to ring-fence a specific amount of content for independent productions. The proposed measure will apply only at the local level. The quota system will remain in place for all national and regional broadcasters.

18:00

The legislation which imposes the 10% commissioning quota was designed in the absence of a local TV market in the UK. Given that the legislation was designed with national and regional television production in mind, it would not be appropriate for the quota and ownership cap regulations to be applied in this context.

Further, removing the quota obligation for local TV service providers is entirely consistent with the European audiovisual media services directive 2010, known as the AVMS, which also requires member states to adopt an independent production quota system. That quota system, which exists independently of our domestic independent production quota system, requires that member states ensure that broadcasters source 10% of qualifying content from,

“producers who are independent from broadcasters”.

However, the AVMS directive specifically permits member states to disapply that rule in relation to local TV. Under European law, local TV services are therefore considered to be a special case when it comes to the independent production and quota rules, and this is what we are now implementing in UK law.

The second change which this order will make relates to the Government’s desire to maximise the number of potential entrants into the local TV market, allowing as many interested parties as possible to compete in the process, thereby increasing the quality and output of local TV. This change eliminates a difficulty which, at present, could discourage independent producers from taking up ownership of a local TV licence. At present, independent producers are unable to bid for and hold local TV broadcast licences without forfeiting their independent status. If an independent producer holds more than a 25% stake in any broadcaster, including a local TV broadcaster, it can no longer be classed as “independent”. Loss of independent status is commercially undesirable because broadcasters will be less keen to commission work from a producer whose work will not count towards the national and regional quota. It is therefore clear that, as things stand, independent producers may be discouraged from bidding for or taking up a local TV licence. This instrument addresses that difficulty by amending the definition of independent producer in the Broadcasting (Independent Productions) Order 1991 so that an independent producer may hold up to 100% ownership in a local TV broadcaster without losing its independent status, as long as that producer’s “main activity” is not broadcasting.

It is right that independent producers should have the same opportunity to bid for and own local TV licences as other potential operators. This measure provides independent producers with a much greater opportunity to be involved in this new market than is available at present, while protecting the integrity of the overall production quota system.

The Government are removing the ownership ceiling so that producers can hold a local TV licence without losing their independent status. However, it is important that the distinction between broadcaster and independent producer remains clear to ensure that we continue to comply with the EU independent production quota obligation. That obligation, as I have already noted, requires that member states ensure that broadcasters source 10% of qualifying content from producers that are independent from broadcasters. Being able to ascertain whether a producer, whether or not it holds a local TV licence, is independent of broadcasters is therefore important because broadcasters must be satisfied that the work that they are commissioning is indeed independent and can thereby count towards both the domestic and EU production quotas. The instrument therefore enables Ofcom to obtain from local TV licence holders that are also producers such information as may be required to determine whether such licence holders are independent producers.

I hope that the Committee agrees that these deregulatory measures are proportionate and necessary. Without these changes, unnecessary regulatory and cost burdens remain on new local TV providers. It is essential that we help to create incentives for independent producers to invest in local TV and simultaneously reduce regulatory barriers. I assure the Committee that the order is compatible with convention rights. I beg to move.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving us some context for the order. It is a pity that so few of our colleagues have turned up to debate and enjoy the discussion, because this is an interesting topic. I am even slightly surprised to see that the Minister has managed to lose her civil servants as well. They must have tremendous confidence in what she is proposing and I quail at the prospect of trying to put down a few points that she might consider. I apologise if my voice gives out; I have a sudden summer cold and I am struggling to get my points across.

As we have heard, the proposals are part of a package to get local TV up and running. These provisions remove the 10% independent production content quota from applying to local television services and remove the ownership ceiling for independent producers to have full ownership of local TV services without losing their independent status.

The UK independent production sector is a great economic and cultural success story. In less than 10 years it has grown from a cottage industry to the world’s biggest exporter of TV programme formats. Sector revenues have grown from £1.6 billion in 2004 to £2.3 billion in 2010, with companies of global scale emerging, and it is heartening that production companies can be found right across the UK, not just in London. The independent sector now makes around 50% of qualifying UK television programmes and employs more people than the combined TV divisions of the BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and channel Five. However, it would not be so successful—indeed, some people would argue that there would not be an independent sector at all—if it had not been for the 10% independent production quota. It is that simple.

The proposals that we are discussing today have been subject to a public consultation. However, we need to do a reality check here on several grounds. First, the consultation had a very limited reach. The DCMS confirms that a total of 12 responses to the consultation were received from a range of organisations, including potential local TV providers, independent producers, industry bodies and other interested parties. This is from one of the best resourced and most vibrant TV economies in the world. What, I wonder, does that tell us? Secondly, the limited number of responses received raises questions about what other parts of the industry think about these proposals. There was nothing from advertisers, nothing from ITV, nothing from Channel 4—although S4C responded—and nothing from regional newspapers or other media interests in localities. Scotland is represented, but what of Wales and Northern Ireland? Local government is not present, despite the ostensible impact that this will have on its initiatives.

Thirdly, although there are responses from the BBC, the trade union BECTU and PACT, which represents some 500 producers in the UK, the report does its best to reduce all responses to numerical equivalents across the 12 responses, with very little attempt to differentiate producer interest from public interest or potential licence holders from competitor interests at a regional or national level. I should be very grateful if the Minister would comment specifically on how she justifies basing her proposals in the order on this very flawed and inadequate consultation. Can she explain how the department considers it to have been a sufficient exercise? Can she also let us know whether it considered any other ways of getting a better sense of the industry’s views, which would have allowed it to draw meaningful conclusions about why these methods were rejected, if they were?

I thought that this Government accepted the need for evidence-based policy, but I struggle to see what compelling evidence exists on the 10% quota, for example, when I read:

“Of those who responded, three respondents supported removal of the quota, one suggested a quota increase, five did not comment and three were opposed to a change”.

The DCMS consultation response goes on:

“One industry body stated that there is a strong demand from independent producers to provide content for local TV services, so local TV licence holders should not have difficulties in finding independent producers willing to make content for them in order to meet the quota. However, other respondents (including potential local TV providers) suggested that a 10% quota would be a significant burden for any local operator, given the local TV station cost assumptions, and could present an administrative barrier to long term sustainability”.

One can, without much difficulty, assert that those bidding for a licence are likely to support the lifting of the quota as much as PACT, the independent film and TV-makers’ trade body, are likely to oppose it, but what evidence was produced to back up the Government’s assertion that a quota would indeed be a significant burden and should be refused? Perhaps the Minister could enlighten us later.

To be frank, this consultation was a complete failure. The fact is that there is nothing in the published responses to justify the decision that the Government want to take today. If you take the trouble to read the submissions made to the public consultation, as I have, you are left in no doubt that, despite the paucity of response, the general feeling is that there is no case for removing the 10% quota and there is a real danger in lifting the 25% ceiling on ownership by independent producers.

It is probably too late to revise this order, particularly as I understand that Ofcom is currently advertising local TV licences, so I will end by suggesting some things that the Government might wish to consider. There is strong evidence of a willingness by independent producers to provide local content for local TV services. The strength of the sector undoubtedly derives from the 10% quota applying elsewhere in the system and, if it ain’t broke, why fix it? I suggest that the Government should consider, as PACT rather generously, in my view, suggests, the introduction of a grace period of perhaps two or three years during which the quota would not be enforced at a local level.

Secondly, the Government should require Ofcom to publish the percentage of independent productions that has actually been transmitted by licensed local TV stations each year, so that we have an evidence base. The department should commit today to making local TV services compliant with the quota in, say, three years’ time.

There is concern in the production community that the removal of the quota in the case of local TV will be the thin end of the wedge as far as regional and national production is concerned. Therefore, I suggest that the Government confirm today that this is a truly exceptional case which is being considered only because the AVMS European directive permits member states to disapply the 10% quota in relation to television broadcasting intended for local audiences that does not form part of a national network. Also, in line with the AVMS directive, the Government should confirm that they have no intention of relaxing quotas for other broadcasters.

In relation to the proposal to remove the 25% ownership ceiling on independent producers owning a local TV licence, the Government should recognise and be sensitive to the fact that this will be seen as opening the door to pressure from other bodies to amend the definition of independent producer in other contexts. In particular, there is concern that this would reopen calls from Channel 3 licensees, such as STV, to qualify for independent producer status. We therefore suggest that the Government take this opportunity to confirm that they will not amend the current definition of independent producer more generally.

Finally, given that as a result of these and other changes one or more independent production companies would be able to own one or more local television stations, the Government should recognise that this undermines the fundamental rationale for the current distinction between independent production companies and broadcasters. These proposals, together with the Media Ownership (Radio and Cross-media) Order 2011, which removed all local cross-media ownership rules, would appear to suggest that a single media organisation will be able to run a majority of news services in a local area while at the same time potentially having a large interest in national news provision. I suggest that the Government take this opportunity to confirm that they are very concerned about media plurality and will require Ofcom to review the impact of these changes on that fundamental issue within three years of the first licence being awarded.

The Minister called this a deregulatory order and suggested that we should support it for that reason. However, I fear that it will cause quite a lot of damage to the independent production sector and will not be appropriate invigoration for local media activity. I apologise for my voice, which is just about to give out, and thank noble Lords.

18:15

[Baroness Garden of Frognal]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. I am grateful that his voice did not give out—although, in the absence of any officials, if it had given out a little earlier it would have made my task slightly easier. However, I shall attempt to respond to some of the questions he raised.

The noble Lord commented on the small number of responses to the consultation and their limited range and he asked why that was. The consultation was widely publicised and therefore the replies that came in were from people who were interested in coming back to it. I like to assume that the small number of responses was due to the fact that the proposals were widely acceptable within the industry. The order has met with positive responses from the people who responded to the consultation and from other people who were aware that it was going on but chose not to respond.

I share the noble Lord’s enthusiasm for the independent sector and I am grateful for the positive comments that he made on that issue. We certainly have a very lively independent television sector and we would not wish to do anything to disadvantage it. Part of the purpose of the order is to ensure that it can continue as a lively and vibrant sector.

The noble Lord asked about the relaxing of the 10% quota. This is purely for local television stations; there is no intention of relaxing the quota more widely. We recognise that the quota has been a significant factor in ensuring that independent television remains as well supported as it is. He indicated his concern about media plurality and we share his concern. Media plurality is an extremely important aspect and we would not wish this order in any way to impact on it.

The noble Lord made a number of other points which we will take away for further consultation. This is an ongoing issue. We know that 21 stations will be involved in the first pilot and that there will be more developments in due course. We will have time to review and amend if any of the proposals within the order do not work out as the Government intend them to.

I reiterate that the legislation will support the long-term success of the local television market by reducing the regulatory burdens and creating commercial incentives to invest, particularly at a local level and for smaller providers.

Motion agreed.

Armed Forces Act (Continuation) Order 2012

Monday 25th June 2012 Grand Committee

Considered in Grand Committee

18:18

Moved by

[Lord Astor of Hever]

That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Armed Forces Act (Continuation) Order 2012.

Relevant document: 3rd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Astor of Hever)]

My Lords, I am pleased to speak to the Armed Forces Act (Continuation) Order 2012. The purpose of the order is to continue in force the legislation governing the Armed Forces for a further period of one year, until November 2013.

I should like to say a few words about the legislation that the continuation order is set to continue—that is, the Armed Forces Act 2006 as amended by the Armed Forces Act 2011. The 2006 Act made significant changes to the legislation governing the Armed Forces and established a single system of service law for the first time. The single system applies to all members of the Armed Forces, wherever in the world they are serving.

The 2006 Act was fully implemented and came into force on 31 October 2009. I am pleased to say that the services say that the 2006 Act is doing a good job—the modest scale of changes made to it by the 2011 Act is testament to that—so I am confident that the 2006 Act will continue to serve the Armed Forces well for many years to come.

Your Lordships’ House has enjoyed full and interesting debates on matters of great importance to the Armed Forces, none more so than during last year’s passage of the Armed Forces Act 2011, which received Royal Assent on 3 November last year. That Act continued the Armed Forces Act 2006 for a further year, allowed it to be continued by annual Order in Council until 2016 and made various provisions to amend the Armed Forces Act 2006.

I should also like to say a few words about the 2011 Act. Although it is modest in size, its provisions are wide-ranging, partly as a result of the Ministry of Defence normally bringing forward primary legislation only every five years. I am pleased to report that over half the provisions in the new Act have been commenced, and an implementation programme for the remainder is well under way. Our aim is to complete the largest part of that work by spring 2013. Notably, for the first time, and as a result of this Act, the Armed Forces covenant is now recognised in legislation. The 2011 Act places an obligation on the Defence Secretary to report annually on progress made by the Government in honouring the covenant. The first report will be published at the end of this year. The Armed Forces covenant makes a clear commitment by the Government on how service people should be treated. Now, this and future Governments will be held to account on what they deliver on the covenant.

I should make a further observation about the order that we are considering today. Previous Governments have given an undertaking that Ministers moving instruments subject to the affirmative procedure will tell the House whether they are satisfied that the legislation is compatible with the rights provided in the European Convention on Human Rights. We believe that the order that we are considering today is compatible with the convention rights. I welcome this opportunity for another interesting debate. I beg to move.

[Lord Craig of Radley]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction. The Armed Forces Act 2011 introduced into law the concept of the Armed Forces covenant, as he has mentioned, and the particular requirement for the Secretary of State to prepare an Armed Forces report. I was pleased to note when that report is due to appear.

As the Minister knows, I have also tabled a Question for Written Answer about compulsory redundancies. I asked whether, in selecting personnel for compulsory redundancy, consideration was given to their immediate pension point. For the record, is the Minister able to answer this question now? There has been considerable anxiety and press coverage. There is a feeling that the Government are solely focused on achieving financial savings rather than showing understanding for the effect on the individuals involved of a sudden abrupt end to their aspirations of a lifetime career in the Armed Forces. Equally, it is a difficult time to find alternative employment in civilian life.

The effect is of course not confined to the individual but spreads to their immediate family and friends, who are as shocked, taken aback and worried about the future as the individual being made redundant. What steps is the Ministry taking to help those who are being sacked? There seems to be little in the public domain to give confidence that these individuals are being looked after with sympathy and real understanding for their plight. It would underline the value of the military covenant, and show that personnel should be considered, if a more proactive approach to the impact of redundancies on the individual were to be taken by the Ministry of Defence.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, lest any of the points I wish to make should be construed as meaning otherwise, I make it clear at the outset that we of course support this order, which enables our Armed Forces to remain in existence, by law, for at least a further year by providing that the Armed Forces Act 2006 will not expire on 3 November 2012, as currently scheduled, but instead will continue in force until 3 November 2013. As the Minister has said, the 2006 Act also brought together various orders of discipline in the Armed Forces while the 2011 Act enshrined the Armed Forces covenant in legislation.

Depending on one’s point of view, this order is either a piece of archaic ritual bearing no relevance to the way that we should be conducting the affairs of our nation, or indeed the affairs of our Armed Forces, in the 21st century or an essential constitutional prop, ensuring that anyone who might be tempted to think otherwise knows that our Armed Forces remain in existence to perform their role not because they think—or anyone else thinks—they should, but only because the representatives of the people in Parliament have decided that that should be so, with that decision having to be renewed and restated each year. As I understand it, the order that we are discussing stems from the Bill of Rights Act 1689, or 1688 by old-style dating, which restated in statutory form the declaration of right presented by the Convention Parliament to William and Mary in March 1689, inviting them to become joint sovereigns of England while further restricting the powers of the sovereign by laying down certain constitutional basic rights, in respect of which the Crown was required to seek the consent of the people as represented in Parliament. Among those basic rights was that no standing army could be maintained during a time of peace without the consent of Parliament.

I am not sure that the people of this country are quite as suspicious, in the 21st century, of a reigning monarch deploying a standing army as they were in the 17th. While other countries have suffered and do suffer from military dictatorship, I am not convinced that it is the existence or knowledge of the requirement for this Armed Forces Act continuation order to be agreed each year by Parliament that is preventing or deterring a takeover of this country by the military. There may just be other, rather more powerful and influential factors and considerations at play. Having said that, is it literally the case, as I understand it, that if this continuation order was not approved our Armed Forces would cease to exist from early November, or is there in reality other legislation or a decision of Parliament that would enable them to continue in being?

I make these points seriously to understand what failing to renew the Armed Forces Act 2006 for a further year—I stress that this is not a road I am suggesting we go down—would mean in practice, as opposed to theory. We have an Armed Forces Act every five years. If there is a continuing widespread feeling, as is presumably the case, that Parliament should have to make a regular decision in order for our Armed Forces to continue in existence, one wonders whether there is still a need for this to be done every year as opposed to, say, every five years in the Armed Forces Act. The debate on this annual order does not seem to be regarded as an opportunity for having a wide-ranging discussion or debate, no doubt because there are other, better ways of having more frequent and lengthier discussions and debates on our Armed Forces in your Lordships’ House. It is presumably also the case that if the other place had reservations or concerns at any time, it could bring things to a head—not least by declining to agree to the necessary expenditure needed to maintain our Armed Forces for the following financial year. Nor does it seem likely that your Lordships’ House, as an appointed House, would decide to vote down an order on such a major issue as retention of the Armed Forces, and surely not when the other place, the elected House, had voted for the order.

18:30

As I said, we support the order, but I hope that the Minister can say whether any consideration has been or is likely to be given to whether this remains the appropriate way or procedure in the 21st century to ensure the continuing existence of our Armed Forces and the vital role that they play in the life and security of our country, for which we will be expressing our thanks and gratitude on Armed Forces Day this Saturday. It would also be helpful if the Minister could clarify, as a point of factual interest, the consequences in practical terms for the continuing existence of our Armed Forces if the Armed Forces Act 2006 were not renewed beyond 3 November this year. I reiterate, though, that we support the order.

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for their support in the debate today. The noble and gallant Lord asked about compulsory redundancy. When selecting personnel of the Armed Forces for compulsory redundancy, no consideration was given to the proximity of the immediate pension point. As we reduce the size of the Armed Forces, our priority is to ensure that the services maintain the correct balance of the skills and experience across the rank structures that are required to deliver operational capability now and in future. It is that which has determined the redundancy fields.

The noble and gallant Lord asked whether we were focused just on financial saving. The department has gone to great lengths to carry out these redundancies as sensitively as possible. We fully understand that making the transition from the Armed Forces into civilian life can be daunting and we remain committed to helping service leavers in taking this important step. The Ministry of Defence offers service leavers a wide range of activities that help to facilitate the transition to civilian employment. The support offered is built around preparing the service leaver for future employment in terms of accessing appropriate opportunities for reskilling as well as accessing suitable civilian job opportunities.

The majority of resettlement provision is contracted out to the career transition partnership—the partnering relationship between the MoD and Right Management Ltd. The contract is successful as 97% of eligible service leavers use CTP, 93% of whom tell us that they succeed in becoming settled or gain employment within six months of leaving. That figure increases to 97% after 12 months, and 57% will have had two jobs.

I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. He asked whether, if we did not approve what we are doing today, the Armed Forces would cease to exist. He also asked whether there was other legislation or a more appropriate way of doing this. A change was proposed by the Ministry of Defence in the Armed Forces Bill in 2005 but was resisted by the Defence Committee and the Select Committee that considered the Bill. Both committees favoured retaining the present arrangements and the Ministry of Defence amended the Bill accordingly. What would the effect be if the order were not made? Unless the Armed Forces Act 2006 is continued, there would not be lawful authority for the disciplinary system that governs the Armed Forces. I hope that that addresses the issue.

[Lord Rosser]

Can I be clear, at least in my mind, that the only effect of not continuing this order would be the impact that it would have on the disciplinary system and not on the reality of our Armed Forces continuing to exist?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I think I need to write to the noble Lord. The disciplinary issue is pretty important but it is quite complicated, to the extent that I probably do not have time to provide an answer now, but I shall write to the noble Lord. If I may, I shall study the Hansard record of the points that have been raised and write to the noble and gallant Lord and the noble Lord if I have anything to add to these exchanges.

Motion agreed.

Statutory Auditors (Amendment of Companies Act 2006 and Delegation of Functions etc.) Order 2012

Monday 25th June 2012 Grand Committee

Considered in Grand Committee

18:35

Moved by

[Baroness Wilcox]

That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Statutory Auditors (Amendment of Companies Act 2006 and Delegation of Functions etc.) Order 2012.

Relevant document: 2nd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Baroness Wilcox)]

My Lords, the purpose of this order, which amends the Companies Act 2006, is to implement the legislative changes required to support the reforms to the Financial Reporting Council—the FRC—from 2 July 2012, announced by the Government in March.

The FRC is the UK’s independent regulator, promoting high quality corporate governance and financial reporting to foster investment. It discharges its responsibilities by setting codes and standards and monitoring the conduct of market participants in specific areas to ensure that they comply with the relevant regulatory requirements.

Noble Lords may remember that the House of Lords Economic Affairs Select Committee criticised the number of organisations engaged in the oversight of accounting and auditing in its report published on 30 March 2011. In addition, the Government’s The Plan for Growth report, published in March 2011, highlighted concern that the FRC’s structure might lead to a duplication of effort. This would potentially cause overregulation but also increase the risk that major weaknesses were not addressed.

The FRC is highly regarded but its structure is complicated and hard to understand. Its seven operating bodies, with separate boards and secretariats, restrict its ability to respond to issues that cut across structural divisions. For example, no single operating body has a remit sufficient to tackle broad questions around the handling of risk, the future of audit and corporate reporting. Following the 2008 financial crisis, such issues had to be addressed by the main board, making use of its ability to bring together the high levels of expertise across the operating bodies. Furthermore, the FRC’s effectiveness is constrained by its current powers regarding the accountancy and auditing profession that it oversees. The FRC is being restructured to ensure that it is best placed to meet the challenges created by the global financial crisis, but the board does not have the powers to achieve the necessary change on its own.

The Government and the FRC issued a joint consultation document on 18 October 2011 on the proposed reforms to the FRC’s structure and powers. A summary of responses was published on 27 March 2012. A total of 75 responses was received from stakeholders. There was a wide range of views, some supportive of the proposals and others challenging the case for reform. All views were considered carefully and taken into account in the joint government and FRC response. The FRC’s reforms will give greater clarity to the boundaries between the professional bodies and the FRC and enhance the FRC’s independence from the professional bodies in its role as the UK’s lead audit regulator.

The final-stage impact assessment, published alongside the Government’s and FRC’s finalised proposals, identified direct savings to business in the order of £0.4 million a year. These largely resulted from the ability to settle disciplinary cases without a public hearing, subject to the necessary publicity.

The order will delegate statutory powers to the FRC board rather than its operating bodies as at present, with the exception of the Financial Reporting Review Panel powers, which move to the new Conduct Committee; provide the FRC board with powers to determine and require, rather than request, that recognised supervisory bodies impose sanctions in respect of poor quality audit in certain circumstances; permit certain disciplinary cases to be concluded without a public hearing where the auditor concerned agrees, although they remain subject to appropriate publicity; and provide the FRC board with powers to impose directions and financial penalties on the recognised supervisory bodies and recognised qualifying bodies for shortcomings in discharging their regulatory responsibilities.

These changes, taken as a whole, will enhance the Financial Reporting Council’s effectiveness as part of the wider UK regulatory framework and ensure that the United Kingdom has a powerful, joined-up voice on the international stage. I therefore commend this order to the House. I beg to move.

[Lord Flight]

My Lords, I would like to put on record that this is important legislation. In effect, it sets up a full-scale regulator of the accounting profession comparable to the FSA in the financial services industry. To some extent, I am slightly surprised that this is only an amendment to the Companies Act as it contains many important changes. However, I welcome the order and its economies. I am glad that there was full consultation and I am curious to know the reaction of the institute and of the profession generally.

One or two important matters follow from the order. First, who appoints the senior executives of this new regulator? I have the highest regard for Stephen Haddrill, the present chief executive, but I do not know whether it is a self-appointed body or whether there is any accountability to Parliament or the Treasury Select Committee.

My first question at the time of the banking crash was: where were the auditors? The only point of an audit is to show whether institutions are in either good or bad order. Sets of banks’ accounts running to 500 pages were totally impenetrable and impossible to understand and, as far as I am aware, in no case were the auditors whistleblowers. I do not know whether this enhanced FRC will have the powers to change that situation, but some form of review of what happened to the auditors during the banking crash could be of some use.

My other point—the committee of the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, also made this point—is that the FRSA’s accounting standards have been a disaster. They have, in essence, painted an over-rosy picture in good times and an over-negative picture in bad ones. There is a widespread view that they need changing and that they are particularly unsuitable for banks. Every time this matter is raised, nothing ever happens and it is not clear where responsibility lies. However, I imagine that it will be a duty of the greatly enhanced FRC to consider the matter and make recommendations, not only to the profession but to the Houses of Parliament as well.

We have an important new body. It was necessary and timely to tidy it up in the way that it has been, but on those two points there is some unfinished business.

18:45

[Baroness Hogg]

My Lords, as chairman of the Financial Reporting Council, I thank the Minister very much for pursuing these reforms, which, as she has said, and this has been reinforced, were largely stimulated by an important report by a Select Committee of this House on its inquiry into the audit profession. These changes will enable us to break down some of the silos within the existing regulatory structure of seven operating bodies to which the Minister rightly referred. We need to be able to share knowledge across the organisation in order to operate more effectively, both in our conduct role in the UK and in the international debate on codes and standards, which has been so rightly pointed out. An example of the issues here is that the point is not just the forum in which the international financial reporting standards are set but the process for implementation, because a number of important changes are due to take place to elements of the IFRS, of great importance in respect of banks, that it falls to the European Commission to implement. At the moment, the Commission is taking the view that it does not wish to implement until all amendments have been concluded, but we are urging the Commission to get on with this because we think that some important changes are needed.

If I may help the Minister to respond on the appointment issue that has been much discussed, as the Minister is aware, I, as chairman of the FRC, am appointed by the Secretary of State, as is the deputy chairman. We then appoint the executive team. We have taken the view with these changes that there needs to be some outside input into the process for appointing other members of the board. In much the same way, we are adopting the practice that is common for many public appointments now of appointing an outside assessor to review the way in which we consider appointments to the council and are involved in the nominations process. There is no change in any of this with the change in the regulatory structure, but we thought it right to raise our game in this area and discuss this with the department, and we are putting those arrangements in place.

The changes before the Committee today are to enable us to determine and impose proportionate sanctions for poor quality audits and expedite action by the recognised bodies where we have identified areas for improvement. This enables us to cut across the different bodies in order to put in place inquiries regarding codes, standards and performance. For example, I draw the Committee’s attention to the inquiry that we launched under the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, to look at the issue of going concern, which is the critical issue that came to the fore in the discussions over where the auditors were in relation to bank auditing during the financial crisis. The Committee may have noted the publication of this report very recently.

We see the reforms very much as a beginning rather than an end in themselves. We hope that the consultation will be a start of a deeper and wider relationship with our stakeholders, not just in the profession but, very importantly, within it, and we hope that we will help other regulators and other interests to identify and address the challenges facing all those responsible for corporate governance and reporting in the UK. I thank the Minister very much for bringing the reforms forward.

[Lord Young of Norwood Green]

My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for her introduction to the statutory instrument. As we on the opposition Benches have argued for some time, we need a better and more responsible capitalism that better serves the people of this country.

That is why this side of the Committee supports the role of the Financial Reporting Council in promoting high standards of corporate reporting and governance in the UK which, as I think the Minister will recognise, we strengthened in 2004 through the Companies (Audit, Investigations and Community Enterprise) Act following major global corporate collapses such as that of Enron. With business rightly under particular scrutiny, the FRC’s work is more important than ever. The noble Lord, Lord Flight, stressed the importance of these changes and rightly asked where the auditors were during the financial crash. There are those who suggest that they were perhaps too close to the companies that they audited. I would welcome the Minister’s view on that.

Despite what I have just said, corporate reporting and governance in the UK are widely recognised domestically and internationally as being of a very high standard. The FRC’s integrated and market-led approach to regulation underpins these standards. We know that this approach continues to receive strong support from companies, investors, the accountancy profession and other stakeholders. The Minister may know that my honourable friend the Member for Hartlepool, following his line of questioning to the likes of Sir David Walker in the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill Committee, has said that he is keen for the UK to maintain its undoubted place as the best country in the world for high quality corporate governance. Inward investment and the location of multinational firms here in the UK flow to some extent from the high-quality and stable regulatory corporate governance and auditing framework we have here. We cannot be complacent on this matter, as noble Lords have already said, and must ensure that it stays best in class.

The FRC should be central in ensuring good remuneration practice and shareholder activism so that it remains in the spotlight. That is why the shadow Business Secretary, Chuka Umunna, has called on the Government to make provision for the FRC to produce an annual report on the state of corporate governance in Britain. This would ensure that shareholder activism, good pay and remuneration practice were kept high on the national agenda. I would welcome the Minister’s views on that.

While we welcome today’s measures, it is disappointing that the Government are watering down their corporate governance measures as contained in the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill with a climbdown on the proposal for annual binding shareholder votes on executive pay. On its own, this measure would not have been sufficient and would not have solved the issue of excessive director’s remuneration, but it would have been a step in the right direction.

I have a number of questions for the Minister. Michael Izza, chief executive of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, has been cautious about the proposed changes. He said recently:

“It is important for the FRC and the government to recognise that there might be a lot of people hoping that this new structure is effective but want it to be proved”.

That is not exactly a ringing endorsement from a key player in the accountancy profession. What evidence can the Minister provide to reassure those who have expressed concern about the new measures?

Page 17 of the impact assessment states:

“The primary focus for FRC regulation should be publicly traded and large private companies (defined as those with a turnover of £500m or more)”.

This is probably a naive question, because it is not an area in which I profess to be a great expert, but why was the limit set at £500 million or more? An awful of lot companies have turnovers just below that, so I would be interested to hear the Minister’s view.

With the FRC’s six standard-setting boards streamlined to two, the Accounting Standards Board will no longer exist. How will the Minister ensure that responsibility for ensuring the effective implementation of international financial reporting standards is maintained? Why will the reforms be reviewed only in three years? That seems a long time. Will there be any proposal for an interim review—let us say at two years, when I would think there would be quite a large body of evidence?

Given the importance of these changes, which has been stressed, I would have thought that would be worth while. Again, I would welcome that. Looking at the post-implementation review plan, under “Basis of review” it states:

“As part of its commitment to the principles of good regulation, the FRC is committed to reviewing the proposals in this reform package to ensure that they meet their objectives at a reduced overall cost to business”.

I do not cavil at reducing the cost to business; I understand that. However, I would tack on to the end of that, “while maintaining the quality of audit and independence”. I am sure that is what will happen, but when we are talking about the basis of the review, it seems to me that that ought to be on the top line, given the concerns we have expressed and not buried somewhere else in the post-implementation review plan.

The FRC’s inspection of accountancy firms earlier this year found that 10% of the audits sampled fell into the lowest category, with “significant concerns” raised, leaving the rate of improvement in auditing standards too slow in the aftermath of the financial crisis. Looking at the comment on page 23 of the Explanatory Memorandum, the situation really is quite disturbing. It states:

“Evidence from the Audit Inspection Unit shows that although standards of auditing in the UK are generally good there are areas for improvement. Of the 11 audits (13.5%) requiring significant improvements in 2010/11, six were listed or AIM companies and the audits of three unlisted subsidiaries of overseas banks (out of 10 bank and building society audits reviewed) were assessed as requiring significant improvements”.

I think that is quite a worrying comment, so once again I would welcome the Minister’s views.

Will today’s proposals make it easier for the FRC—[Interruption.] Someone has forgotten to turn their mobile to silent. We have all done it. Will today’s proposals make it easier, as the Government’s consultation paper has stated, for the FRC to,

“ensure it has the powers to respond proportionately and effectively where problems are identified”?

Page 27 of the Explanatory Memorandum says:

“The FRC estimates that the ability to resolve cases without going to tribunal will save the cost of 3 tribunals over the 10 year policy period”.

Again, I do not argue that that should not be done. I just want to add, “as long as we are confident that the quality of the investigation will not in any way deteriorate as a result of that change”. It makes me think back to the review process, which was perhaps shorter than the three-year proposed period.

What consideration has the Minister given to the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales Audit Quality Forum in pulling together these proposals? The forum has been in existence since 2004, tasked with promoting quality and confidence in the audit function. What specifically has the Minister taken from the forum’s work in drafting these proposals?

On a European dimension—and I certainly concur with what the noble Baroness, Lady Hogg, said—how does the proposal considered today fit in with the broader question currently taking place in the Commission regarding the future of audit and the condition of the audit market? What is the Government’s policy on some of the proposals coming out of the Commission, such as mandatory rotation of audit firms—which relates to the question of independence—mandatory tendering and the separation of audit from non-audit services?

While we are on the subject of Europe, are the Government satisfied that there is no risk that the new sanction powers proposed for exercise by the FRC will be subject to challenge from the European courts? What legal advice has the Minister taken with regards to this? I have read the impact assessment and see that the Government have downgraded the benefits provided by these proposals in the face of additional scrutiny from stakeholders. Has the Minister ensured that none of the measures proposed in today’s statutory instrument will inhibit investment and possible growth?

As we know, the FRC is connected to the capital markets, and capital-raising forms a part of this. Has an assessment of the efficiency of capital markets been made? Will the Minister act upon the demands of my honourable friend the Member for Streatham in the other place and get the Financial Reporting Council to produce an annual report on the state of corporate governance in Britain? Can the Minister confirm that the statutory requirement to publish business plans will not impede the existing flexible arrangements between the FRC and recognised supervisory bodies, which allow the flow of confidential information between the bodies? Is the Minister satisfied that the FRC is abiding by its own good governance guidelines—in particular, applying lay membership to its own oversight committees and ensuring independence in this regard from the operations of the body? Has the Minister seen any examples to date of the recognised supervisory bodies failing to exercise sanctions that fell short of what the FRC/BIS would have preferred to be applied?

I think that I have given the Minister enough to cogitate upon. I apologise for the number of questions but I concur with the noble Lord, Lord Flight, that this is a fundamentally important change. Given the problems resulting from the financial crisis and the eternal question, “Where were the auditors?”, I think that my questions are merited. I shall quite understand if the noble Baroness cannot answer every single one of them but I hope that I shall receive something in writing in due course.

19:00

[Lord Flight]

Perhaps I may just correct myself. I think that I said FRSA when I meant IFRS. I apologise.

[Baroness Wilcox]

I thank noble Lords very much for the exchanges that we have had. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hogg, for being here today—I am delighted about that. She seems to have answered several questions for me, which is an enormous help. Of course, there are many questions to answer. This is a very big and wide area, and it affects so many different organisations that it is right that I should receive more questions than I can answer at the moment. However, I shall endeavour to answer some of them. In talking about appointment issues and so on, the noble Baroness, Lady Hogg, has more than likely provided answers but I shall try to respond to some of the questions from my noble friend Lord Flight.

I think that he asked who appoints the senior executives—a point that I think the noble Baroness, Lady Hogg, answered. The FRC is a company overseen by its board and it will appoint its senior executives in line with the best human resources practices. The additional points made by the noble Baroness were very useful and she gave a better answer than mine.

The Accounting Standards Board sets standards for financial reporting and has regard to best practice. This includes reference to international developments—the IFRS—as well as responding to developments and thinking in the United Kingdom. The use of international accounting standards is subject to EU approval, as always. The adoption of international standards, and amendments to those standards, follows consultation with the member states, and the FRC and the UK work closely with the EU and the IASB to influence these wherever they can.

My noble friend Lord Flight asked who the FRC will be accountable to following the reforms. The FRC will continue to be accountable to government and ultimately to Parliament in relation to the exercise of its statutory powers, and it will also be accountable to the key stakeholders, including the investor community, which relies on the quality of corporate governance and reporting in the United Kingdom. The FRC will report annually to the Secretary of State on the exercise of its powers.

My noble friend Lord Flight and the noble Lord, Lord Young, asked where the auditors were during the financial crisis. When considering financial institutions, it is important to note that the primary regulator of those institutions which was most prominent during the financial crisis was the Financial Services Authority and not the FRC. The FRC works closely with the Financial Services Authority with a view to ensuring that regulatory action is taken where appropriate. We believe that the changes to the FRC’s structure will enable it to bring its full resources to address any emerging problem much more quickly and effectively than was done at that time.

The financial crisis has been looked at, as we heard, by the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee. Although it raised a number of issues relating to auditing, some of which are addressed by these measures, the Government do not take the view that these issues were at the heart of the crisis. The “going concern” issues mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Hogg, are important, but there were also failures of prudential regulation. If I have missed anything from those questions, it will of course be picked up by the sturdy band behind me, who have been frantically trying to answer all these questions.

Thankfully, the noble Lord, Lord Young, welcomed this measure before setting off with a flurry of questions, all of them right and relevant. I shall try to answer a few for the moment and then, if it is all right, I will reply in writing. Why is the FRC jettisoning the tried and tested ASB/APB brands, and what effect will this have on the FRC’s capability to influence at an international level? International influencing is a central objective of the FRC. The Government and the FRC recognise the contribution that the FRC’s standard-setting bodies have made, while remaining convinced that the changes proposed are needed to strengthen the UK voice. In the new structure the FRC should be better equipped to tackle the most strategic issues and to provide high-quality thought leadership, as well as continuing to develop excellent technical solutions. Standard-setting is increasingly debated in the United Kingdom, in the European Union and internationally in fora that cover a wide range of issues. The FRC needs to exert influence accordingly in these areas. The FRC board has the experience, the seniority and hopefully, through the new structure that we propose, the authority to do that.

On the question from the noble Lord, Lord Young, on auditors’ independence, the Government and the FRC acted in the wake of the crisis to improve transparency. Furthermore, proposals are now being considered in Europe on this very question. The noble Lord also asked about reporting on corporate governance. The FRC is required to make an annual report on its activities, and that report is laid in Parliament.

[Lord Young of Norwood Green]

Will that include corporate governance?

[Baroness Wilcox]

A quick nod from the Box, or a quick “We will write to you”?

[Baroness Hogg]

My Lords—

[Baroness Wilcox]

Please. An intervention might help enormously.

[Baroness Hogg]

If I may help noble Lords, we have recently undertaken to produce an annual report in addition to this one on the operation of the corporate governance code, which embraces all aspects of corporate governance, and another one on the stewardship code, which covers the activities of investors and the extent to which they are performing as active owners of the companies. Those are two separate reports produced every year in addition to the main report that the Minister has mentioned.

[Baroness Wilcox]

Absolutely marvellous; I thank the noble Baroness. On executive pay, the answer that I have is that the Government’s proposals will introduce the necessary restraint and shareholder involvement without unduly burdening shareholders and business more widely.

The noble Lord, Lord Young, asked whether there will be an interim review. There is no proposal for such a review, but the Government have regular contact with the FRC and will continue to do so in future. We will also meet key stakeholders regularly and ensure that any emerging issues are addressed quickly as part of our normal engagement with members of the board and senior executives.

We are continuing to negotiate in Europe on the EU proposals on auditing. Some, such as the mandatory rotation of auditors, concern us while others, including the proposal on improving the auditors’ report, we support in principle. Those are the answers that I have at the moment to the noble Lord’s questions. There were a lot more, but I hope that he will feel that I have tried to reassure him that we are on the job. We will definitely be writing in response to his other questions.

I thank noble Lords for their consideration of the draft order today. Consistency and continual improvement in the regulatory landscape are essential if we are to provide an even stronger, more supportive environment in which businesses can prosper and grow for the benefit of the whole economy. The order will mean that the FRC is better placed to respond more quickly to matters of concern in the market. Its approach will be more targeted and proportionate, and I believe that it will have a more powerful, joined-up voice both domestically and in the international arena. I commend the order to the House.

Motion agreed.

Care Quality Commission (Registration and Membership) (Amendment) Regulations 2012

Monday 25th June 2012 Grand Committee

Motion to Take Note

19:11

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

That the Grand Committee takes note of the Care Quality Commission (Registration and Membership) (Amendment) Regulations 2012 (SI 2012/1186).

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of an NHS foundation trust, a consultant in the health service and a trainer in relation to Cumberlege Connections.

When we debated the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) Regulations 2012 in Grand Committee on 22 May, we touched on CQC’s governance, the PAC report of 12 March and the department’s capability review. The noble Earl will know that the PAC expressed some serious concerns and that his department’s capability review acknowledged that CQC could have done more to manage operational risk and provide better strategic direction.

The review recognised that the department and CQC had underestimated the scale of the task of combining three regulators into one organisation while developing and implementing a new regulatory model. The review also made recommendations to strengthen the board and the board structures, and to establish a unitary board with a majority of non-executives but with senior executives sitting on the board to enable a tighter accountability relationship between non-executives and senior executives. Let me say at once that the Opposition do not oppose these changes which bring CQC governance more into line with that of the National Health Service. While governance is important, underlining it are probably questions about CQC’s capacity to discharge its wide and important responsibilities.

I have read very carefully CQC’s response to the performance and capability review that has now been published. That fairly sets out the scale of the challenge that it faced. However, the CQC acknowledges that the strategy devised at the outset of the new regulatory body failed to take into account the complexity of the changes in the regulatory review regime and, in particular, the workload implicit in recognising so many providers, merging three organisations into one, while reducing costs and changing the working patterns and skill requirements of many of the staff who were either inherited or taken into the new organisation.

That is a very helpful recognition. Many who have been concerned with the architecture of CQC would have to take some responsibility for that; I do not detract from my own Government’s responsibility. We are trying to learn some of the lessons and hope that they can be embraced within the new strategy that CQC will take forward under its new leadership.

Nor do I ignore the progress that CQC has made. Creating a single regulator of health and adult social care services spanning, as CQC points out, more than 22,000 providers of 40,000 services is no mean challenge. Today’s Written Ministerial Statement in another place by the Minister of State, Mr Paul Burstow, concerning the Winterbourne View private hospital, which draws on the reports of the Care Quality Commission’s inspection of 150 hospices and care homes, also indicates the value of the work that has been undertaken by CQC.

19:15

I also want to repeat something that I said when we debated CQC only a few weeks ago. I do not seek to criticise the leadership qualities of either the chair or the chief executive, Cynthia Bower. They are both people whom I admire and respect. I believe that the task given to them was, if not undoable, a very challenging one. I also welcome David Behan’s appointment as the new chief executive. He comes with support from many people who have known and worked with him and from the stakeholder community generally. Having said that by way of introduction, may I ask whether the noble Earl is really convinced that that body is now able to fulfil the challenging programme that it has been set? Can he say something about the resources that are likely to be available to CQC in the next few years? I also come back to the point about the requirement for CQC to register 9,000 providers of primary medical services in the 2012-13 financial year. Is he convinced that CQC will be able to do that without detracting from its other major responsibilities?

I would also like to ask the noble Earl about the effectiveness and consistency of the regulatory model that CQC has adopted. I know that the commission has gone through a process of review and streamlined some of the processes, after criticism that the original process was too unwieldy and cumbersome. On the architecture and the philosophy of CQC using a generic model of regulation across all sectors, I know that that is becoming more frequent among regulatory bodies. I do not want to debate the HPC today, but the model is simple and it does not really matter whom you regulate; when you have the model, you can take on more and more organisations and sectors. I understand that up to a point and I understand, too, that CQC is committed to ensuring that the right level of specialist expertise is available when needed. However, thinking about the wide span of the organisations involved, which ranges from huge London teaching hospitals on the one hand to very small nursing homes on the other, I wonder whether that is the right approach. Particularly when it comes to large NHS organisations I wonder, too, whether instead of relying on their own inspectorate a peer-group review system might not be more appropriate.

Perhaps I can take the noble Earl back to what we lovingly called CHI, which was the first health regulator. It attempted to send teams of senior people into parts of the NHS. There was a problem because it was very difficult to persuade chief executives of major NHS bodies to serve on the CHI inspecting teams. What tended to happen was that primary care trusts provided most of the chief officer representatives. I always felt that we should have insisted that good chief executives, directors of finance and directors of nursing should as part of their duties have committed themselves to at least two to three weeks a year inspecting similar organisations. I wish we had done it.

I realise that the noble Earl will not be able to give a definitive response but I wonder whether part of the answer to the CQC’s problems is to embrace much more the people delivering services within the inspectoral regime, rather than relying on its own inspectors and bringing in specialists. Its credibility might be enhanced and it might share the load. If senior people in the NHS took part in the inspection of other areas of the NHS, it could be an important development process for them. I hope to hear from the noble Earl that, under the new director, the CQC would be prepared to look at these issues and its regulatory model and to talk to the people who are being regulated about ways in which the system might be developed in future.

Overall, the Opposition wish to support the CQC and to see it grow in credibility and responsiveness. However, we also look for reassurance from the noble Earl about its capacity to deliver the task that it has been set. As I said, I hope also that CQC will be prepared to review the way in which it carries out its business. It has a massive task and it must be difficult to come up with a model that will deal with the trust of the noble Baroness, Lady Wall, on the one hand and the very small residential home on the other. It would be worth while for the CQC to reflect on the way in which it will develop its regulatory regime in the future. I beg to move.

[Baroness Jolly]

My Lords, we all want the CQC to be effective and efficient. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, has laid out a clear description of its history and where it is now. It has a difficult task: it has to balance registration complexity for those providing both health and social care and ensure safety and quality of services. Of course, since the Act of 2012, all providers in the public, private and voluntary sectors are involved and it has to extend its remit to include dentists and GPs. It has a huge task. There have clearly been failings in the past, but the organisation as a whole has faced up to them and has made many strides forward.

We have this SI as a result of the Health and Social Care Act 2012. It is in two parts—registration, and governance and membership—and it throws up more questions than answers. I was reminded of a long time ago when I was a CHI reviewer. The training was superb; the teams went in and the inspection was intensive and penetrated every corner. Perhaps there would be some mileage in looking back at that model to see whether it could be incorporated into what currently exists.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

I was interested in the noble Baroness’s comments about the CHI training process. Does she agree that one of the great advantages of the CHI approach was that, when a team went in, it had respect because the people in the team were the equals, if you like, of the people whom they were inspecting and, although it was an inspection and allowed people to work with an inspection team, it was almost a development opportunity for the organisation as well?

[Baroness Jolly]

Certainly that was my experience. Although there were instances where we had uncomfortable inspections, afterwards an awful lot of work was put in to try to remedy issues that had been raised. The team went in as a team and worked as a team. Everyone on the team had experience of working within the NHS in one format or another and, although we may not have carried out identical roles to those that we were inspecting, there was a clear awareness that we knew what we were about. I shall not carry on at great length because of the time.

The amendments to the registration are a tidying-up exercise. All that we are doing is replacing the National Patient Safety Agency with the NHS Commissioning Board Authority, so it is a cut-and-paste job, if you like. Will the Minister confirm that in due course this will subsequently transfer to the board when the board becomes the board and not just the authority? Will the Minister clarify the situations where deaths and other incidents in these situations involving service users—vulnerable people—are reported and say why they might be reported to the board and not to the CQC? If we are to learn anything from this information, it is critical that the board commits to publishing it on a regular basis. It also needs to be part of the board’s regular agenda.

On a related issue, will the Minister update the Committee on deaths of service users and untoward incidents, which cause difficulty for carers and, in the case of untoward incidents, the patients themselves? During the consideration of the 2012 Bill, there was much debate about the duty of candour. Will the Minister give us some sort of update on where things are? I remind him of his comment on 27 February:

“I reiterate the commitment that I have given today that the Government intend to use the ‘standing rules’ regulations to specify that the contractual duty of candour must be included in the NHS standard contract”.—[Official Report, 27/2/12; col. 1055.]

That was a welcome move but I would appreciate it if the Minister could update us on where we are. I appreciate that this will not happen overnight; it will require training and a large amount of cultural change.

I move on to the governance and board membership issue. Today we had the interesting interim report on the Winterbourne View Hospital. Bearing that in mind, will the Minister reflect on whether he believes that the new governance arrangements proposed in these regulations will minimise or even avoid a repetition of this level of behaviour or such an appalling lack of dignity for those with learning disabilities? Does he believe that adequate funding is available for the CQC? Again, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, gave us a long list with numbers relating to its remit—it is really broad and deep. The Committee would probably feel comfortable if it felt that the CQC was being ably supported with adequate resources. It has had a difficult role in changing times and it can use its registration requirements to drive up quality. To that end, the Government must work with it. I think that we would all agree that service users and carers deserve no less.

[Baroness Wall of New Barnet]

My Lords, I, too, support my noble friend’s view of the CQC. I want to mention, as he has done, the work carried out by the previous chief executive and the chair of the CQC, and welcome the new chief executive. The noble Lord may remember that when we had a discussion in the House on the social services Bill about care in some care homes, he made a plea, in response to a question, that we should look at the CQC’s responsibilities and not blame the CQC itself for everything that happens. More and more, that is certainly my view.

I am not aware of any detail of the alternative ways that the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, have mentioned, but I am concerned about—my noble friend raised this issue—the credibility of the CQC. I have noticed from my experience in the trust that the more responsibilities the CQC has been given, the greater the perception that it is going to be very thinly spread and that its expertise will in some way be weakened. That may be people’s view rather than the reality, but I think that we owe it to everyone who has a relationship with the CQC not to dilute it by continually adding to its responsibilities. I know from my own experience how important its inspections are, certainly in hospitals.

The noble Lord referred to my trust, which covers a two-district general hospital, and also to some very small GP practices and other areas of work. I am a great supporter of the CQC, as the noble Lord will know. I feel that it has done a tremendous job and has made a difference compared with what happened before it came into being. I want to strengthen that rather than in any way to dilute its reputation. For example, people who work in my hospital say, “My goodness, it’s doing everything now”, but what does that really mean? I am sure that the noble Earl will have listened to everything that has been said and that he will think very carefully about what the CQC’s credibility means to all of us in terms of its responsibilities.

19:30

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords who have spoken and shall endeavour to cover the questions and points they have raised in a moment. However, before I do so, perhaps I may briefly take the Committee through the purpose of this instrument.

The regulations before us today make changes to two areas of the legislation that affect the operation of the CQC. The first component of this statutory instrument makes two small amendments to the Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009 to replace references to the National Patient Safety Agency, the NPSA, with references to the NHS Commissioning Board Authority. The second relates to the make-up of the commission’s board. I shall say more about the purpose of these changes in a moment but I should like to reflect on the importance of the Care Quality Commission as the independent regulator of health and adult social care services in England.

The commission plays a vital role in providing assurance that patients and service users receive the standards of care that they have a right to expect. All providers of regulated activities in England, regardless of whether they are public, private or voluntary sector organisations, are required to register with the commission. Providing a regulated activity without being registered is an offence. In order to be registered, providers have to comply with a set of registration requirements that set the essential levels of quality and safety. Where providers do not meet these essential levels, the commission has a range of enforcement powers that it can use to protect patients and service users from unsafe care, including, in the most extreme cases of poor care, closing down services. The changes to the commission effected through the Health and Social Care Act 2012 are to strengthen the CQC as the quality regulator of health and adult social care services.

I shall now explain why we need to make these changes to the regulations included in the instrument under debate. Under Regulations 16 and 18 of the CQC registration regulations, registered providers of regulated health service activities have been required to notify the CQC of unexpected deaths of service users or other serious incidents, except where such providers have already reported the death or incident to the NPSA. This exception was designed to reduce the reporting burden on providers, preventing the duplication of reporting to both the NPSA and the CQC. Notifications to the NPSA were processed through the national reporting and learning system, the NRLS, and notifications made in the circumstances described in Regulations 16 and 18 of the registration regulations were passed on to the commission by the NPSA. However, from 1 June, responsibility for oversight of the NRLS transferred from the NPSA to the NHS Commissioning Board Authority. Therefore, the amendments to which I referred were needed to reflect the changing ownership of and responsibility for the NRLS and to update the exception and allow it to continue from 1 June.

Relevant notifications to the NRLS will continue to be passed to the CQC under the new arrangements. To set this in context, as noble Lords are aware, the arm’s-length bodies review in 2010 recommended the abolition of the NPSA, and provision is made for the recommended abolition in Section 281 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012. Provision in the Act is also made for the NHS Commissioning Board to have responsibility for the patient safety functions formerly carried out by the NPSA. I shall briefly reiterate why we believe this to be entirely sensible and in the best interests of patients. Patient safety has to be the key priority for all those working in the health service. It can never be allowed to be seen as an add-on or an afterthought.

For that reason the Act puts safety at the heart of the NHS, not at arm’s length. Safety is, of course, a central part of quality and we believe that the board, as a body legally responsible for ensuring continuous quality improvement in the NHS, will be best placed to drive a powerful safety agenda throughout the NHS. Embedding safety across the health and social care system is vital. That is why oversight of the patient safety function has been conferred on the shadow body—the NHS Commissioning Board Authority—from 1 June. The NPSA did not have the authority or position to fully exploit the information gained from the NRLS. In contrast the board will have the necessary authority and, being positioned at the very heart of the system, will be better placed to lead and drive improvements. Patients rightly expect that all NHS services will be safe. We believe that by making the board responsible for safety, we are placing that responsibility at the centre of the NHS.

The second part of the regulations makes changes to the regulations setting out the composition of the Care Quality Commission’s board. These changes are in response to the recommendations of the Department of Health’s review into the performance and capability of the commission. The review recommended that the department should take steps to strengthen the board, including changing its structure to that of a unitary board, so that instead of comprising only non-executives, senior executives can also be appointed and held to account by the non-executive members. The model of a unitary board also potentially offers strength in combining the strategic views of the non-executives with the organisational knowledge of the executives. In addition, the performance and capability review recommended that the Secretary of State should strengthen the board by appointing new non-executive members to existing board vacancies. The regulations, therefore, remove the bar in the commission’s existing regulations stating that the Secretary of State cannot appoint an employee of the commission to the board, so allowing for the creation of a unitary board. The regulations also extend the number of members who can be appointed to the commission’s board so as to accommodate the senior executives. The upper limit is currently set at 10, and these regulations extend that to 12. That allows flexibility in the appointment of new executive and non-executive members to strengthen the board’s capability.

I was very grateful for the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, on the appointment of David Behan as chief executive of the commission. I am sure he will agree that David’s wealth of experience around adult social care and local government system reforms at the department as director-general for social care, local government and care partnerships will stand him in excellent stead for his new role as chief executive of the CQC. David’s previous experience as the first chief inspector of the Commission for Social Care Inspection and as president of the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services, as well as his other front-line experience, will also be a great advantage to the commission.

All noble Lords who spoke asked about resources and funding. It is important to recognise that the CQC recovers fees from providers to cover the cost of registration. In addition, it receives grant in aid to cover its other functions. Every year, the CQC agrees its business plan with the Department of Health and its financial position is kept under constant review. We have agreed that the CQC will receive additional funding for staff recruitment in 2012-13.

Allied with the question of resources was that about the CQC’s capability. We have every confidence in the CQC’s ability to provide the effective regulation of providers of health and adult social care. I welcomed what the noble Baroness, Lady Wall, had to say about that. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has acknowledged, huge improvements are being made in the delivery of its core task of providing assurance that services for patients and service users are safe and of appropriate quality. The CQC leadership is now demonstrating greater confidence and challenge. The recommendations that we made in the performance and capability review are aimed at building on performance during the past 12 months to strengthen capability further and to improve accountability, including accountability with the department.

We are committed to supporting and strengthening the CQC. We are clear that the CQC should continue to focus on its core role of assessing whether providers meet the essential levels of safety and quality through its registration function. The department is assured that the CQC is delivering its core functions and learning from its implementation of the registration system, improving the way in which it carries out its core business to provide a better service. We have emphasised to the CQC the importance of ensuring that providers continue to comply with regulations and safety and quality requirements. The CQC continues to monitor closely the information on service providers that it receives and takes regulatory enforcement action if it finds the safety and quality of services to be lacking in any case.

We are committed to developing the role of the CQC as the quality regulator of health and adult social care services in England. The functions that the CQC will gain as a result of the Health and Social Care Act 2012—joint licensing with Monitor, information governance monitoring and hosting Healthwatch England—and the potential transfer of functions from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority and the Human Tissue Authority, subject to consultation, are all aimed at strengthening its role in assuring the safety and quality of health and adult social care services.

I emphasise that these changes will not happen overnight. For example, the delivery of joint licensing is not expected until 2014, and any transfer of functions from the HFEA or the HTA will not happen until 2015. The CQC will have a number of years to prepare for these functions, including assessing the resources needed to carry them out. During this time, the department will work with the CQC to ensure that it is ready to take on the functions at a pace that avoids distracting the commission from its core responsibilities and placing the delivery of its current functions at risk.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, spoke about the CQC’s methodology and in particular the “generic model of regulation”. Professional regulation, as he knows, conducted through the GMC, the GDC and other professional regulators, focuses mainly on the competence of the individual professional. However, the way in which organisations are managed and their systems work, together with factors such as the suitability of premises, also affects the safety and quality of the services provided. CQC registration will ensure that competent individuals meet the needs of their patients without putting them at risk from potential system or premises weaknesses. It is encouraging that both the General Practitioners Committee and the Royal College of General Practitioners have issued joint statements with the CQC illustrating the profession’s acknowledgment of the need for CQC registration and the light-touch approach that the CQC is taking to bringing providers into registration.

I argue that there is a generic element to the regulation process, but that does not mean that the CQC approaches its task on a one-size-fits-all basis. I have accompanied CQC inspectors when visiting a dental practice, and I know that there are non-generic elements of its methodology that apply only to dentistry. The CQC has worked with stakeholders and trialled its processes to keep these to a minimum, but it is important that it has the capacity to take action where services do not meet essential standards.

19:45

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, advanced an interesting proposal involving peer-group participation in the review system. The CQC, as part of improving and refining its regulatory model, is building up a pool of experts to work with it, bringing specialist knowledge and credibility. It has adopted this model already with dignity and nutrition work and learning disability inspections. It has also taken and continues to take into account the views of people using services, including taking them on inspection visits where appropriate. The noble Lord’s idea is already one that the CQC is working on, but if I can gain any further information on that front, I will gladly pass it on to him.

My noble friend Lady Jolly asked about the state of play, if I can put it that way, regarding the duty of candour. She will know from our debates on the Bill that we believe this to be an extremely important element of the safety culture, ensuring that staff across the NHS are open with patients. The responses to the public consultation on the contractual duty of candour are currently being analysed and considered. While we currently believe that a contractual duty is likely to be the most effective mechanism to improve openness in the NHS, we are fully considering all the consultation responses received. We are also aware that Robert Francis QC has said that he is likely to comment on the proposed duty of candour in the report of the inquiry into the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust. We remain committed to giving full and careful consideration to the findings and recommendations of the inquiry, including any recommendations on the duty of candour, and to taking whatever action we consider necessary as a result.

My noble friend also referred to today’s announcement by the CQC in its national overview report of learning disability inspections, alongside the department’s interim learning disabilities review report. While this has found that failings on the scale of those seen at Winterbourne View are not widespread, it has found that 48% of the inspected providers were not providing care that met the essential levels of safety and quality, and that is simply unacceptable. The department’s interim report sets out the national actions that we are taking now to address the serious issues that we have already identified. The national actions will set the strategic direction, create the policy and legal frameworks and look at what longer-term changes are needed in monitoring and inspecting services. Today’s interim report will feed into the wider Department of Health review of Winterbourne View, which is due later in the year. Once criminal proceedings are concluded, Ministers will report its findings to Parliament and determine what further action is necessary.

My noble friend asked why incidents are to be reported to the board and not to the CQC. The requirement remains to report serious incidents and unexpected deaths to the CQC, but that requirement can be met by reporting incidents to the board using the national reporting and learning system. This prevents the need, as I explained in my earlier remarks, for double and duplicate reporting. The model of CHI—that is, both CHI and CHAI—was cited by my noble friend Lady Jolly and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt.

The CQC’s approach is to work wherever possible with providers to identify compliance but, unlike its predecessors in the NHS, it now has enforcement powers that it can use to ensure that providers are brought back into compliance. Inspections are structured to ensure that they are able to identify and address poor practice. There has of necessity been a shift in the CQC’s working method compared with its predecessors for those reasons.

I have listened carefully to all the speeches, including that of the noble Baroness, Lady Wall, whose points I have not fully addressed. However, in so far as I have failed to cover points and questions, I shall of course write after the debate. I commend the instrument to the House.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his comprehensive response and the noble Baronesses, Lady Wall and Lady Jolly, for joining the debate.

The noble Earl can take it that there is general cross-party support for the work of the CQC; we wish it and Mr Behan well. The tasks that it faces are formidable, but I hope that with the resource increase referred to by the noble Earl and the spirit of support and co-operation, it will be able to make progress in the next few years.

I should like to raise two points. First, I did not mention the National Patient Safety Agency in my opening remarks, although I was tempted to do so. I understand the point the noble Earl is making. The main responsibility of the NPSA, of which I was chair a few years ago, was to record these incidents and then send out reports of the trends. The issue was with what happened to put that into practice. The noble Earl’s argument is that by bringing that into the NHS Commissioning Board it will be more in the mainstream of the architecture and more likely that the reports of those trends will be taken account of in the health service. The risk is that the National Reporting and Learning Service will no longer be seen as independent because it is part of the management structure and that, in the future, staff will be more reluctant to report incidents. All I ask of the noble Earl is that his department keeps a close eye on the number of incidents that are reported. If there appears to be a tailing off, the Government might need to revisit the issue of where the NRLS is placed.

Secondly, on the approach and methodology of the CQC, I fully accept that life has moved on since the CHI model. The CHI model was certainly not perfect but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, suggested, it benefited from high-quality inspection teams. I am glad that the noble Earl listened carefully to what I had to say on that matter and I hope that this can be the start of a more general engagement on the work of CQC and its methodology. It enjoys support for what it does and we want it to do well in the future, but we would also like to take part in these important discussions.

Having said that, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate.

Motion agreed.

Committee adjourned at 7.53 pm.

House of Lords

Monday 25th June 2012 Lords Chamber

Monday, 25 June 2012.

14:30

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Birmingham.

Introduction: The Lord Bishop of Worcester

Monday 25th June 2012 Lords Chamber

14:37

John Geoffrey, Lord Bishop of Worcester, was introduced and took the oath, supported by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of Birmingham, and signed an undertaking to abide by the Code of Conduct.

Transport: Isles of Scilly Ferry Link

Monday 25th June 2012 Lords Chamber

Question

14:41

Asked by

[Lord Berkeley]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to create a lifeline passenger ferry link to the Isles of Scilly in line with the Scottish Government’s ferries policy.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I am aware that passenger transport services to and from the mainland are regarded by residents of the Isles of Scilly as a lifeline. Ferry services, unlike most of those to the Scottish Islands, are able to operate commercially without subsidy and have done so for many years.

[Lord Berkeley]

I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. Perhaps he is not aware that Cornwall has the lowest GDP in the UK and has been awarded continuing convergence funding, and that it also has the fourth lowest average wage in the UK as well as very expensive housing.

His Answer is correct but the ferry only runs for seven months every year and the return fare is £90. This compares with Islay in Scotland where there are several ferries a day all the year round and the return fare is £12.50. Will he not take forward the report from the Council of the Isles of Scilly proposing an affordable lifeline service every day of the year and as a start allow the Council of the Isles of Scilly to use some of the ERDF money that is still outstanding for some key extensions before the deadline runs out?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I am aware of the economic difficulties in Cornwall. As regards the comparison with the Scottish situation, it is difficult to make valid direct comparisons when the circumstances vary and the service is rather more complicated.

It is important to remember that transport links to the Scilly Isles are provided on a commercial basis, whether by sea or by air. Cornwall Council rules itself out of leading the smaller-scale infrastructure schemes so development work has been undertaken by the Council of the Isles of Scilly and Penzance town council. These involve improving provision for freight handling, extending the quay at St Mary’s and dredging at Penzance to accommodate a deeper-hulled vessel. The noble Lord is quite right that the ERDF funds are time-limited.

[Lord Bradshaw]

Will the noble Earl consider the fact that the present ship engaged in the seven months of the year service will not be replaced on a commercial basis because the helicopter and the ship are running on borrowed time? Will he give serious consideration to extending the PSO arrangements in Scotland to the Scilly Isles? They are part of our economy but they will be more or less cut off when the existing ships and infrastructure fail.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, we are not currently minded to consider a PSO because there is no need to do so as the ferry service is currently run on a commercial basis. The steamship company has recently announced that it will invest in the ship to maintain it in operational use until at least 2018 and we are not aware of any major structural defects that will necessarily prevent seaworthiness beyond that time.

[Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde]

My Lords, does the Minister accept that the statement of commercial viability is a thin veneer that masks the real poverty levels in the Scilly Isles? As my noble friend said, Cornwall has one of the lowest GDPs in the country. The fact that the ferry runs for seven months of the year is due to the tourist trade. However, behind that is the local community, which lives in poverty and depends on the mainland for its economy and health services. Will the Minister please review the statement that he has just made to the House?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I cannot agree to review the statement that I made to the House because it is considered government policy. I accept that there are difficulties in the Isles of Scilly, particularly the dependence on the tourist trade.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester]

Is the Minister aware of the great concern in both the Isles of Scilly and Cornwall over the long-term viability of the helicopter service that presently serves the islands in addition to the ferry? I understand that it is about to move from Penzance to Newquay but there is concern over whether it will survive in the long term. Does the Minister’s briefing cover that matter?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, my briefing covers that. There are two air services. There is a fixed-wing aircraft, which goes from St Mary’s to a few destinations on the mainland, and there is the helicopter service, which is by definition much more flexible in where it can land. There is an issue over the condition of the runway at St Mary’s; it will not last for ever.

[Lord West of Spithead]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the unrelenting application of free market principles to our merchant marine, which has resulted in it having its smallest ever numbers of officers and men, is very damaging, bearing in mind that it is the fourth service and absolutely necessary strategically for global operations? Are the Government doing anything whatever to support the merchant marine?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, wondered how far my brief would stretch. Unfortunately, it does not stretch as far as the condition of the Merchant Navy.

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

My Lords, surely the Minister has already recognised that the viability of the service depends on the tourist trade and that the people who live on the Scilly Isles—on very low incomes—are paying the tourist price for the vessels, namely £90. As my noble friend indicated, that is more than four times the amount that you would expect to pay to make a similar journey in Scotland. Is it not time that the Government looked at this very seriously? There are clear potential threats to the existing services, which in any case do not meet the islanders’ need.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I am confident that there will be a service in the short term. The noble Lord asked about the cost of a ticket for the ferry. I understand that a day return is £35 and a period return costs £85 to £95. However a Scilly Isles resident’s return is £20.50, so they do get a discount.

Women: Training and Upskilling

Monday 25th June 2012 Lords Chamber

Question

14:48

Asked by

[Baroness Prosser]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what are their plans with regard to training and upskilling women workers.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Baroness Wilcox)]

My Lords, we want to build a stronger, more prosperous nation and to help women who are on career breaks or upskilling, who wish to return to work or to improve, to make a full contribution to our economic future. We recognise that the skill needs and barriers to opportunity vary widely for each individual, with women often having a more fragmented career path. That is why we are reforming the skills system to make it responsive to the needs of different groups and to ensure that we draw on the talents and skills of all.

[Baroness Prosser]

I thank the Minister for that reply. Between 2006 and 2012, the Women in Work Sector Pathways initiative provided, via the sector skills councils, training for almost 25,000 women, with employers’ contributions in cash and kind far outstripping those of the Government. Will the Minister tell the House what measures will be taken to ensure that women get a fair share of available training under the new employers’ investment fund, how this is to be measured and what strictures will be laid on employers to encourage them to include women?

[Baroness Wilcox]

The noble Baroness, Lady Prosser, chaired the Women and Work Commission, the Women’s National Commission and is now deputy chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, so to answer a question from her required a bit of study on my part. She was kind enough to let me have sight of her supplementary question. The Women and Work Sector Pathways Initiative was indeed very successful. That is why funding has been made available to sector skills councils to build on that legacy. In addition, the United Kingdom Commission for Employment and Skills has today said that it is willing to consider bids specifically to take forward the work of the Pathways Initiative. We want employers to take greater ownership of a skills system that provides better opportunities for women, so one of the criteria for the bids is their sustainability in upskilling women.

[Baroness Harris of Richmond]

My Lords, can my noble friend tell us how many women are undertaking engineering degrees? If she cannot give us that figure today, perhaps she would leave a note in the Library, as this is an important area for women to be involved in.

[Baroness Wilcox]

My noble friend Lady Harris is very kind in allowing me to say that I do not have the data with me. I will send a list to her and a copy in the office. I know that 56% of women are now in full-time work, which is useful to know, and the number of women employed rose by 23,000 this quarter. Sadly, I cannot give her the data sets today. We are working hard to make sure that the apprenticeships women take up—and more than half the apprentices in this country are women—are much higher skilled and very often jobs which would have gone to men without even a second thought. So we are on the job.

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote]

My Lords, as well as this important side of training women for relevant jobs—retraining them in many cases—would the Minister also ensure that adequate attention is given to young girls? They should be made aware of the needs of the nation and the fact that these are often in completely different areas than the ones that are their favourites today.

[Baroness Wilcox]

I am delighted to answer that question. We are starting in schools; we have an all-age careers service, which will come into schools to talk to girls much earlier than we have done in the past, to give them much more idea of what is available. We have more than 200,000 different apprenticeships available now, including in nuclear decommissioning and all sorts of wondrous things that girls can learn. So, yes, it is an excellent idea.

[Baroness Wall of New Barnet]

Does the noble Baroness acknowledge, in the way she responded to my noble friend, the value placed on the sector skills councils in producing these 25,000 women going through the course? What she said sounds like good news, but in the context of the remarks by the noble Baroness on the Liberal Democrat Benches, it is also important to realise that many of the sector skills councils will no longer be involved. There are four sector skills councils left. All are really good and will ensure that engineering has a high profile for women, including Semta, Cogent and others. Any effort that the Minister can make on behalf of the whole process will be really welcome.

[Baroness Wilcox]

I agree completely with what the noble Baroness has said, and I will continue to make sure that we watch what is going on. I visited a building site recently where women who had been long-term unemployed were training as electricians. I was very taken with a mother and daughter who decided to make a team, because they realised that most electricians were male and put all the plugs in the wrong places. They were going to set up their own business, because they think it would be rather good to have a woman electrician coming to a woman’s flat or house at night, and making sure that the hairdryer is going to be plugged in at the right place.

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords, while I congratulate my noble friend and applaud her aspirations and achievements, is it really necessary to downgrade the English language in order to upskill these women?

[Baroness Wilcox]

There is no doubt that the world is moving on and we just have to learn new words such as upskilling.

[Baroness Turner of Camden]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that some years ago when I was a member of the EOC we ran the successful WISE campaign—Women Into Science and Engineering. It involved visits to schools and employers, and so on, and was highly successful. Is there not a case for running a similar campaign now?

[Baroness Wilcox]

I, too, remember WISE. I also remember the noble Baroness on these Benches who was one of the first woman engineers in the country and she was very keen on WISE. It is sad that it has gone but we like to think that the things we are doing now are being taken across the board to ensure that girls get the opportunity to do everything available to them.

[Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top]

Is the Minister aware that many women who want to get into the type of jobs she is talking about may not have done well at school and therefore may need to do basic further education training and access courses? Does she think that the imposition of loans and fees at the further education level will encourage such women?

[Baroness Wilcox]

Further education is a special area, about which we are very concerned. We are very keen to make sure that there are all-age apprenticeships and, from 2013, we will introduce further education loans so that people will not be restricted from taking up new opportunities because they are unable to take part.

Government: Procurement

Monday 25th June 2012 Lords Chamber

Question

14:56

Asked By

[Lord Haskel]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to encourage the use of new technology in the United Kingdom through Government procurement.

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, the Government are removing procurement barriers facing innovative companies and SMEs and creating an environment in which they can thrive. We are investing more in the small business research initiative, creating a level playing field for open-source solutions and making the procurement process as a whole faster and simpler. In particular, the G-Cloud framework provides a simple, fast and transparent route into government for the suppliers of new technologies.

[Lord Haskel]

My Lords, those aspirations are all very well but are the incentives in place for public-sector buyers to carry them out? The Office of Government Commerce tells me that there are 40,000 points of procurement. Why should it take the risk of an innovation failing? After all, it is more likely to get a pat on the back for saving money in these circumstances than for encouraging innovation. How will the Government change this culture?

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, I am disappointed at the noble Lord’s cynicism. Since we took office, central government’s direct spend with small companies—particularly the SME sector, which the noble Lord is interested in—has doubled from £3 billion to £6 billion. We are achieving this by publishing tenders and contracts through the contracts finder website which eliminates many of the difficulties that small and medium-sized businesses were facing. The noble Lord should be aware that more people can access information online now than could previously.

[Lord Walton of Detchant]

Is the noble Baroness aware that the Medical Technology Group—which represents the interests of both large companies and SMEs in the medical technology field—is very concerned that many of the most important and vital new developments in medical technology are not being fully exploited within the National Health Service? Will she ensure that the concerns of the Medical Technology Group are brought to the attention of NICE so that these developments can be exploited fully?

[Baroness Verma]

I take the noble Lord’s views on board and will take them back to the department. I also hope I can reassure him that we are working closely with the health service and through the services provided by the online G-Cloud strategies that we have formulated to shorten the gaps he envisages.

[Lord Rennard]

My Lords, will the Minister tell the House the Government’s policies in relation to the development of the computer code or software they pay for and whether it should be made more freely available for others to use and extend? Does she accept that allowing this could sometimes prevent the public sector wasting money by paying more than once to develop the same software and that it would also be incredibly helpful to the private and voluntary sectors?

[Baroness Verma]

The noble Lord is absolutely right to raise that point. As part of the Chancellor’s Autumn Statement last year government departments agreed to release a substantial package of data including material relating to many of the major departments. Most people will also be able to access data rather freely through our Open Data Institute, which we hope to have fully launched by September.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords, what proportion of the Government’s expenditure on science and technology is accounted for by Ministry of Defence procurement? Is the Minister satisfied that that allocation of resources is well judged to encourage the most productive take-up of new technology in the United Kingdom?

[Baroness Verma]

The noble Lord raises a specific point which I think I need to take back with me as I would not want to quote a wrong figure on the Floor of the House. I will take it back and come back to him.

[Lord Hughes of Woodside]

My Lords, did the Minister see the horrendous reports at the weekend about health service patients waiting months and months for medication because of procurement difficulties? Will she ask the relevant Minister to come to this House to give a full explanation of something that really should not happen?

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, I do not speak on behalf of my noble friends. The question has been noted and I am sure that the relevant Minister will take it up.

[Lord West of Spithead]

My Lords, I do not know whether the Minister is aware that the Royal United Services Institute recently did a study in which it discovered that if things that are designed and built in this country are then purchased, 34% of the money will go straight back to the Treasury. Will the Treasury therefore look at this report? Clearly, if things designed and built in this country are a third cheaper straightaway, and forgetting all the other reasons why one would want to buy high-tech things that are made here, it would be a bit of a nonsense to buy those things off-the-shelf from overseas.

[Baroness Verma]

I think that the noble Lord has answered his own question. I am sure that the Treasury is not aware of all reports but, again, I will raise this one with it.

[The Earl of Erroll]

Is the Minister aware that smaller innovative companies often have great difficulty joining in on some government IT projects because of the stranglehold that the large systems integrators have on them? Many of the regulations make sure that smaller companies cannot join in and bid for these projects, and many of the frameworks even exclude them from doing so.

[Baroness Verma]

Absolutely—the noble Earl identifies a serious problem. We have formulated the G-Cloud strategy so that smaller businesses can contract out as well as tender for contracts alongside the large companies. The PQQ requirement has also been ended where contracts are for less than £100,000. We are asking for much less information from smaller companies so that they do not stumble at the first block.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, the financial crisis has made the regional imbalance worse because manufacturing has actually suffered more than the financial sector. What are the Government doing, as the nation’s largest purchaser of goods and services, to help rebalance the economy between north and south?

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, the economy is a major issue whether it is in the north or the south. The Government are making sure that whatever is available is accessible to people either up in the north or down in the south so that nobody misses out on the opportunity to bid for public contracts. As the noble Baroness will be aware, many bids on contracts now come from smaller companies as well as from across the country.

Education: Special Educational Needs

Monday 25th June 2012 Lords Chamber

Question

15:03

Asked By

[Lord Touhig]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they will take to ensure that young people with special educational needs are appropriately supported to enter further education, higher education, training, apprenticeships and employment.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Hill of Oareford)]

My Lords, Support and Aspiration: A New Approach to Special Educational Needs and Disability—Progress and Next Steps sets out our aspirations to help young people in England with special educational needs to make a successful transition to adulthood. The new education, health and care plans will require services to work together to agree a plan which reflects the young person’s needs and their future ambitions covering education, health, employment and independence. We have also developed supported internships as a way of providing meaningful work opportunities for young people, which we will be trialling from September.

[Lord Touhig]

I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is he aware that Work Choice, the scheme intended to help the disabled into employment, has had very little success in helping people with autism to find a job, while the Work Programme itself seems to find great difficulty in placing anyone with autism in employment at all? Given that the noble Lord, Lord Freud, has said that the Government will double the number of people with autism in employment from 15% to 30%, will the Minister tell the House when the Government will publish a programme to achieve that?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

My Lords, first, I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, about the importance of doing everything that we can to address the problem of how we help young people with autism into work. The previous Labour Government published a strategy on that in 2009, which the current Government are working with and trying to build on. As the noble Lord says, my noble friend Lord Freud is working in this area. He recently set up an employer round table, where guidance was published for employers to help them with recruiting young people with autism. That is clearly work that we have to carry on. I do not have an immediate and easy answer because, as the noble Lord knows better than I do, this is a long-rooted and difficult problem. But I can say that the Government are committed to doing what we can to work with a range of organisations to address the problem.

[Lord Addington]

Does my noble friend agree that when dealing with the less commonly occurring disability groups there will need to be a driving sector for unusual problems? Has my noble friend got an example of where this has been successfully achieved—for instance, with the Department of Health being able to drive what happens in the Department for Work and Pensions or the Department for Education and Skills?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

I think the point that underlies my noble friend’s question is the importance of finding good practice and sharing it, and trying to make sure that the historic divisions and silos between different parts of Whitehall are overcome. I cannot find an immediate example, although he may have one that he can share with me. But we need to find ways in which to overcome those silos—and that is, of course, the principle that underlies the proposals of my right honourable friend Sarah Teather on reforming the whole special educational needs system.

[Lord Flight]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the new technical colleges led by the noble Lord, Lord Baker, are already playing an invaluable role for children whom our schools have failed? They may not have special educational needs, but they have come out of schools inadequately educated. Will the Minister comment as to the commitment to extend the new technical college programme going forward?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

That takes us a little away from autism, and it is the case that we need to think about the particular help that we put in place to help children with special educational needs and learning disabilities all the way up to the age of 25. I would not like to lose sight of that, as that is what lies behind the Question.

As for the university technical colleges, the Government have increased the number significantly. We have a number now going forward. We inherited one from the previous Labour Government, and I have been happy to build on that. Now, some 34 have been approved and are moving towards opening.

[Lord Ramsbotham]

My Lords, can the Minister confirm that support will also be given to those with special educational needs who are in the hands of the criminal justice system?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

Yes, my Lords. I know that that is a subject that the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, feels very strongly about. He and I have had the chance to discuss that issue, and we need to do what we can to address those needs. It is obviously the case that special educational needs and behavioural issues often lie behind the reason why those young people are in those institutions in the first place.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

My Lords, we very much support the principle in the SEN Green Paper that a simplified plan involving social care, education, health and benefit providers would make it easier for young people to access the support they need to flourish in the employment market. But given the complexities involved in these proposals, can the Minister confirm that the current pathfinder pilots, which are only just getting under way, will be completed and evaluated before introducing the very radical changes in primary legislation that will be needed to make the proposals happen?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the support that she has given to the idea that lies behind our SEN reforms, which is to try to bring these services more closely together. As regards the evaluation of the pathfinder pilots, 20 are under way and we will be publishing regular quarterly reports. I think that the first one is out today and I will make sure that the noble Baroness has a copy. A more formal interim report will be published in the autumn, which will help shape the pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill that is also scheduled for the autumn. The lessons that we learn from the pathfinders will help shape that legislation. We will all need to scrutinise that very carefully.

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes]

Is the Minister aware that people training to be dental chairside assistants are allowed to sit the relevant exam only three times? I met one such person recently who has failed the written exam twice and has now discovered that she is dyslexic. She says that to get special assistance she will have to produce many hundreds of pounds, and that if she does not get that assistance and does not pass the exam the next time she will not be allowed to continue in employment although the dentist who employs her is completely satisfied with everything that she has done. She has passed all the other sections of the exam except the written part. What help is available to people like her?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

I afraid that I am not aware of that case, but perhaps I could have a word with my noble friend afterwards and look into that on her behalf.

Crime and Courts Bill [HL]

Monday 25th June 2012 Lords Chamber

Committee (3rd Day)

15:11

Relevant documents: 2nd Report from the Delegated Powers Committee, 2nd Report from the Constitution Committee.

Clauses 13 and 14 agreed.

Clause 15: Abolition of SOCA and NPIA

Amendment 64

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

64: Clause 15, page 11, line 25, leave out subsection (2)

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, this is mainly a probing amendment although not entirely given the complexity and variety of some of the issues involved and the fact that some of the functions of the National Policing Improvement Agency are being transferred before the Bill completes its passage. This short amendment covers a major issue and through it I seek to understand why the Government are proposing this course of action, what benefits arise from abolishing the National Policing Improvement Agency and dividing its functions up between various different agencies and organisations, and what problems need to be addressed in so doing. Even though a number of the functions have already been transferred in that some have gone to SOCA and will go to the NCA and others will go to the Home Office and to the new IT company, the Government need to provide their justification for believing that this is the best way forward. I still feel slightly puzzled by some of the decisions that have been taken around the National Policing Improvement Agency. They show a tendency on the part of the Government to shoot first and ask questions later. That has become a bit of a theme with the Government. We saw it with the health Bill, where actions were taken before the legislation had gone through Parliament, and we are seeing the same thing with this Bill.

The functions of the NPIA are crucial. When reading the history of these proposals, I was somewhat surprised to learn that so little detail had been made available when decisions were being taken. That was the case almost through to the very end of decisions being taken. I have still been unable to get absolute clarity on what is happening to the various functions of the National Police Improvement Agency, so I struggle to find out why decisions are taken when there is so little detail, and so little follow-up is available. On the functions of the NPIA, the organisation itself commented that it was established in part in response to a perception that,

“existing arrangements for delivering support to police forces and implementing national initiatives—in response to demands from disparate bodies—were inefficient, often mutually contradictory and inconsistent”.

Therefore a number of objectives were assigned to the NPIA:

“The identification, development and promulgation of good practice in policing; the provision to listed police forces of expert advice about, and expert assistance in connection with, operational and other policing matters; the identification and assessment of: opportunities for and threats to police forces … and the making of recommendations to the Secretary of State in the light of its assessment … the international sharing of understanding of policing issues”—

which again, has been very important to the police—

“the provision of support to listed police forces in connection with information technology, the procurement of goods, other property and services, and training and other personnel matters”—

and it ends with a catch-all:

“the doing of all such other things as are incidental or conducive to the attainment of any of the objects described above”.

However, in practice, it has brought a large number of responsibilities together: information services, including the fingerprint identification database; Airwave; automatic number plate recognition; the police national computer; police information infrastructure; the police national network; and the National DNA Database. There are also operational policing services such as the Missing Persons Bureau, the Crime Operational Support Unit and the Central Witness Bureau, as well as issues on people and development services: exams and assessment; the National Senior Careers Advisory Service and the Police Advisory Board. That is just a sample of the whole range of absolutely crucial and important functions undertaken by this organisation. It seems to me that the National Police Improvement Agency has successfully managed critical national infrastructure services. It pioneered the police national database and delivered value-for-money savings through its procurement services.

Why, then, did it have to go? What was the rationale behind it, that the Government thought that this organisation had to be abolished and started to dismantle it before the legislation has even gone through Parliament? As I looked through comments that Ministers have made, the Government said in 2010 that they would axe the NPIA as part of “streamlining the national landscape”, and that,

“now is the right time to phase out the NPIA, reviewing its role and how this translates into a streamlined national landscape”.

I am not sure that I understand what that means, because it seems that we will have fewer police bodies undertaking these functions, and yet we are seeing the creation of new bodies. It would be helpful if the Minister could correct me if I am wrong on this, but it appears that the functions will be allocated across four different bodies, three of which are completely new agencies: the National Crime Agency, NewCo—the new ICT company—the police professional body, and the Home Office. That is what I mean by shoot first and ask questions later.

I looked at the Select Committee evidence. It noted in its conclusions published in September 2011 that,

“from the little that is already known about the likely distribution of the National Policing Improvement Agency’s functions, phasing it out is unlikely to lead to fewer bodies in the national policing landscape, as Ministers had hoped. In this sense, the landscape will not be more streamlined as a result of its closure. However, there remains a possibility that the landscape—and thus, more importantly, the police service itself—may operate more effectively once those functions have been redistributed.”—

and the committee said that it explores this later in the report.

Involving more organisations to carry out the functions than did so originally is not streamlining. Perhaps it was about saving money. Was there a plan to save money and is that why the organisation was to be axed? I looked at the Government’s case for saving money and I found that to be flawed also. There is no doubt that the National Police Improvement Agency could be streamlined and made more efficient and effective—and it undertook that role itself. The NPIA has delivered £1 billion in savings for the police through ICT and procurement transformation; it has itself changed in the past two years and found £100 million of savings; and it has reduced its head count by 36%. Given the cuts that have already taken place and the way that the spoils are being divvied up, it is hard to understand—and there has to be uncertainty and legitimate concern over—the effect that the proposal will have on the future delivery of services. It would be helpful if the noble Lord, when he responds, can give some information and say why he is, I assume, assured that there will be no dilution of service or of quality of service.

One area that gives cause for concern is that roughly half the NPIA’s employees are destined for the new police professional body, which will also take on a large number of the NPIA’s existing functions. What is the justification for axing the agency? There is the cost involved and the potential loss of expertise that that brings with it. About 250 jobs, including posts involved in cost-effectiveness, are due to go, and the National Senior Careers Advisory Service is, I understand, due to be scrapped. There will not be that same kind of advisory service for the police that exists within the NPIA. The service is moving to NewCo, the new police ICT company, whose budget will be cut by £60 million by 2014-15. That creates enormous uncertainty for some of the critical infrastructure services that are provided.

I am sure that the Minister is aware that that has eroded morale within the NPIA. There is a huge morale issue. The staff have done their best and have gone out of their way to make cuts and savings and to create efficiencies; but the organisation is being abolished and some of the staff still do not know where they are going to go. I worry about the specialist staff who are being lost. There is also the great danger that this preoccupation with reorganisation and structural change has taken the focus away from delivering further technical innovations that have helped to reduce costs in the first place.

There is also the issue of timing. I checked what Ministers have said previously about whether the transfer of services will be completed in time. The Home Secretary said that the transfer of functions of the NPIA will be complete by the end of 2012—although originally she said that it would take place by spring 2012. I double-checked and a number of times back in June, the Minister for Police and Criminal Justice said that he believed in consulting “very carefully” with professionals, and that,

“we will shortly be announcing the broad direction of travel”—

even back in June 2011 he was still talking just about the broad direction of travel—

“in terms of where the functions that lie within the NPIA should land, and then further detail will be worked upon and consulted after that”.

The Minister was pressed on what “shortly” meant, and he said, “Before the Recess”. This is still ongoing. I now struggle to know how the new arrangements will be set up by the end of this year. Perhaps the noble Lord can give us some assurances on that, and say whether he believes that the timescale is currently on track.

I looked at what has happened regarding the police professional body, which will perform many of the crucial functions to be taken from the NPIA. No chief executive, no chair and no shadow board have been appointed. The Government have not provided the detail that is needed on how the new body is to be structured. I have to say to the noble Lord that if the Government fail to meet their self-imposed deadline—they chose it; it was not imposed from on high—there could be huge consequences for the service in loss of expertise, delay to service benefits, and the potential for the transitional costs of moving from the NPIA to the NCA, the police professional body, the Home Office or other new companies to be much more expensive if there is any further delay.

I would like the Minister, during today’s debate, to answer a number of questions which arise out of the clause, which would abolish the organisation. First, we need a justification for, an understanding of, the Government’s reasons for axing the NPIA. I appreciate the argument about savings, but I think that has been knocked back, because the NPIA has made its own savings. I understand the Government’s intention to streamline the landscape, as they put it, but I have already shown that the landscape has not been streamlined; in fact, it has grown. There must be some other justification or explanation for why the Government want to take this action. Also, is there an estimate of the savings that will be made by scrapping the NPIA? I do not include the savings that have been made already by the NPIA, or those in the pipeline, but only those made by the changes proposed in the Bill.

One thing I have struggled with—which I mentioned at Second Reading, and to which I hope the Minister can respond—is where all the functions are going. I have been trying to work out a master plan to show which functions go to this or that organisation. It seems that there may be some functions which fall through the colander. Can the Minister provide some kind of master plan, or at least tell us which of the functions of the NPIA will be scrapped as a result of its abolition? It is quite a confusing picture for anyone trying to track where functions are going, and what are the cost implications.

A number of police forces have raised the issue of whether there will be any additional funding burdens on local police forces as a result of the transfer of NPIA functions, in particular those functions that will not go to the police professional body, such as training and careers advice. If those have to be taken on by local police forces, that will incur a cost at a time when their budgets are being cut by 20%, far greater than the Chief Inspector of Constabulary recommended. There is a lot of concern among police forces that they will be asked to make up for some of these cuts and changes, and will not be able to do so.

Another point is the loss of expertise. What actions are the Government taking to prevent the loss of expertise as a result of this restructuring? What efforts have been made? Which posts have not been identified? Which posts have been identified as needed to retain skills? In this kind of restructuring it is always the case that people in skilled posts, who have been there a long time, may seek the opportunity to take early retirement, particularly if their future is uncertain. What efforts have been made to retain them and their skills?

Within the new professional policing body—which is not properly set up yet, and there are still some concerns about that—I gather there will be, within that body, another body called the chief constable’s council. We need to understand how that is going to work. How will it improve on the delivery of the existing services currently provided by the NPIA? Will there be some loss of quality, or is it not expected to undertake the range of functions that the NPIA undertakes? All those are crucial functions.

The final question is, how will the Government ensure that the 2012 deadline is met? Will there be another deadline and then another, as we have seen before? I struggle to understand how that deadline can be met, given that so little work has been done already.

As I said at the start, this is a small amendment, but it opens up many questions. It is an enormous cause for concern if the Government have not worked out the plans for what is happening. I would like the noble Lord to reassure me on some of those questions, including one I have not yet mentioned: the premises and the estate, and what will be undertaken with those. It would be helpful to have some answers as we move forward with the discussion on this. I beg to move.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, my noble friend talked about the Government shooting first and asking questions later. It seems that the decision to abolish the NPIA stemmed from the Government’s desire to be seen to be abolishing quangos of various sorts, irrespective of considering whether the quango was being effective. I do not say that the National Policing Improvement Agency was working as well as it might have, but that does not mean that our first step should be to abolish it. That is the approach of, “If it ain’t broke, take it to pieces anyway”.

15:30

I would like the Minister to be absolutely clear with the House, before we move on, about what will happen. I will not go through all the different functions of the NPIA but will focus simply on the technology role that the NPIA currently fulfils. I understand that existing major national policing infrastructure contracts are not going anywhere other than to the Home Office. They will pass to Home Office civil servants, for whom I have the greatest respect. They are renowned for their ability to negotiate and manage large technology contracts. They are renowned for their ability effectively to retender those contracts when they come to an end so as to deliver the best value for the public purse. I am sure that the noble Lord will be able to convince us that the change will be definitely for the better and that the management of these contracts in-house by civil servants will be the best way to deliver best value for the taxpayer.

I am confident of that because at the same time, a new technology company will be set up. When we were first told that this company would be set up, we were told that it would be necessary to pay a professional a sum possibly of the order of £500,000 a year to run it effectively. I assume that there has not been a sudden decision by the Home Secretary that civil servants in the Home Office should be paid something in the order of £500,000 a year. Therefore, these very important infrastructure contracts will be passed to the management of Home Office civil servants, but without the professional expertise that is thought necessary for other technology contracts. Again, I look forward to the Minister’s explanation of why this is a sensible way to manage these high-value contracts.

The new technology company that will be set up—I listened to a very interesting presentation on it from Mr Bill Crothers, the architect in the Home Office and now the Cabinet Office of these proposals—will be a new entity that will place contracts with technology companies to provide IT services to the police. At the moment, it has no staff, no expertise and no revenue—but somehow it will place all these contracts for new technology for the police service. It will also negotiate the best terms in the absence of knowing whether any police force in the country will buy the technology. The Government have said that they do not want to see police forces mandated to use the services that will be provided through the new technology company. How will the new company negotiate the best terms with private companies if it does not have any staff and cannot give any indication of the size of the market for which they will provide a service? It will not be able to provide them with any indication of the size of the market because it will not be able to say, “Actually, all the police forces in the country will be mandated to use this, so you will be providing for 200,000 police officers” or whatever, because police forces will not be mandated to use the service. It will not even be able to say that any particular police service will use the new technology because none will have bought into it. How will the new technology company be able to negotiate the keen terms that we are promised, particularly when it will not have any revenue to do so? You only get the revenue at the point at which you place the contracts, so how is this negotiation process going to operate? I am sure that the noble Lord has detailed explanations in his briefing notes outlining how this is going to happen and why it will work under any conceivable set of circumstances.

The question that ultimately has to be answered is why this will be better and why we are doing it on this timescale. My noble friend Lady Smith highlighted the slightly moving deadline for the abolition of the National Policing Improvement Agency. We are now being told that the end of this calendar year is a firm deadline so that all these new arrangements, such as the new national police professional body and so on, will be in place. Indeed, steps are already being taken to create the new IT company—an organisation which will not have any staff or anything it can use to negotiate with the commercial sector that provides these services, but which will somehow deliver better prices than the existing NPIA can ensure. This is already being set up in shadow form. The Government have agreed that representatives of the Association of Police Authorities should be the driving force for this new company. I am a vice-president of the association and therefore have great confidence in the ability of police authority chairs to lead this organisation. However, the Government were intent in previous legislation—the passage of which through your Lordships’ House the noble Lord managed to miss taking part in—that the very same police authorities should not be responsible for the delivery of policing or oversight of policing in the future. It is exactly the same people who are now in charge of creating this company.

I do not know anything about the psychology of those who will be elected as police and crime commissioners in November. I suspect that many of them, particularly the Labour ones, will be extremely independent-minded and extremely trenchant in how they pursue their duties. However, it is difficult to see how these incoming, newly elected police and crime commissioners can say, “This strange technology body, set up by a bunch of people from the police authorities that we are supposed to be replacing and better than, is somehow going to deliver a better service than we can negotiate ourselves”. I want to understand the thinking about timing. Why rush ahead and create the new technology body before the police and crime commissioners—who are supposed to be the ultimate beneficiaries in terms of the revenue savings it will allegedly, magically produce; and without it mandating, being able to negotiate or having any expertise—are elected?

As this is obviously one of those areas of government policy that a great deal of effort and thought has gone into, I am sure that the Minister will be able to satisfy us. I look forward to his explanation of why this is palpably a better system and how it will work smoothly.

[Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top]

My Lords, I want to speak about a particular aspect of the work of the National Policing Improvement Agency: training. I confess that I also speak from a very specific point of view as Harperley Hall—the NPIA’s newest building, as well as most recently refurbished building, for training—is within two miles of my home. I was the constituency Member of Parliament for much of Harperley’s existence and my father was the MP before that when Harperley Hall served Durham constabulary. I therefore know Harperley very well.

I would not expect the Government to maintain a facility simply because it is in the north-east, where we have real challenges in terms of employment, particularly of highly skilled workers. Harperley is an absolutely beautiful place in the most beautiful place in the country—the foothills of Weardale, although I know that that, too, is irrelevant to today’s debate. However, it is attractive to those who go there because it provides a chance to concentrate on the training and the tasks in hand.

Harperley Hall now concentrates on forensic training, and I am sure that the Government will want to ensure that every force in the country has nothing but the highest quality forensic training. How will the Government ensure that in the new structure? Forensic training constantly moves forward and improves, and while I am not going to attack what happened to the Forensic Science Service, because my own party set that in train while in government, it is true that at the moment there is some anxiety, at least about the performance of some of the players. What lessons have the Government learnt from the changes made to the provision of forensic science services? How many cases over the past couple of years have struggled in the courts because of mistakes? We all know about the problems around the tragic death of the MI5 officer when people thought they had DNA evidence, but in fact it had been contaminated. Is that the only case or are there others? Have the Government learnt from that and will they seek better assurances on quality control for forensic training?

I have had the privilege of attending several awards ceremonies for different forces throughout the country. I recall going to one held at Durham University for Harperley Hall a year after the 7/7 bombings. The knowledge and understanding of forensics was absolutely critical to that investigation, and people who had graduated from Harperley Hall had been very much part of it. I am convinced that the Government think that this is important, so how are they going to maintain the quality in forensics training that they currently enjoy if places such as Harperley Hall are not going to continue? How will the Government ensure that what Harperley Hall does so well is maintained? At the moment, it trains people from virtually all the forces in the country, as well as taking on important work internationally by training other forces. That establishes good contacts between police forensic experts in this country and others around the world. Those contacts, let alone the knowledge that is shared, become critical in monitoring, examining and controlling terrorist activities. It is important to keep those contacts going, and I think that a national service helps towards that.

Who will undertake the research and development that drives improvements and developments in forensic science and thus in forensic training? That is a very important point. We have seen forensics change incredibly in my lifetime, certainly in the past 20 years, and training, of course, has to keep up with that. I have had the privilege of seeing some of this at Harperley and it is always great fun for folk such as me, who are real amateurs, to see what magic the forensic people are delivering, but I always know, even when I am enjoying it, that it is much more serious than that, because it is a critical weapon in tracking down offenders of all natures. We must not lose that facility.

15:45

I know that forces are now collaborating on shared forensic services. Are the Government confident that there is an overarching strategic approach to that, so that it is not simply a cost-cutting exercise, but an exercise that will add value and deal with the more strategic issues that I know the Minister knows are part of the development of forensics?

I echo my noble friend Lady Smith in needing to be reassured about the governance of new bodies. I think governance is very important for reassuring the public that we are really interested in policing for them and with them. The development of forensics sometimes takes place outside that and we have to make sure that governance connects the public to what is going on in forensics and forensics training, but it is also very important that the NPIA workforce have an idea of what is going to happen; whether they are still going to be there and whether the work that they have built up is still going to be valued in the new structures. It is not just governance that is really important; it is what the new structures are going to be. I hope that the Government can share with us their views on what the new structures governing forensics training will be.

As people have said, the NPIA is due to end at the end of this year. I am not sure that the Bill will have Royal Assent by then—maybe it will, maybe it will not. Are the Government bringing in transitional arrangements, so that people can be reassured, both the public and those people responsible for the work? If you lose morale, people do not perform as well and that could be very dangerous for us, particularly with what is coming up in the next few weeks. It is important, as my noble friend said, that we get reassurance that the Government have an estates strategy, or at least have a timetable for knowing what its estates strategy will be.

I cannot emphasise too strongly the confidence I have in the people who work at Harperley. They are a tremendous bunch of people and they have done terrific work there. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure me—and through me, them—that there is a future for Harperley and a future for forensics training in this country, and that they will continue to be able to do what they do for this country in working with forces overseas. I am sure that the Minister has not been there: it is not too far for him to go from home. I hope that he will find time over the summer to visit Harperley.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Henley)]

I assure the noble Baroness that I visit Durham with great regularity; it is not far from home and I am always delighted to visit any police force anywhere in the country, but even keener to visit police forces in the north of England. I will make a point, sometime over the summer, if I can arrange it, to do just that.

[Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top]

I thank the Minister for that. It is of course not a police force establishment these days but an NPIA establishment. I just hope that it will find a future within the new structure. I sincerely plead for Harperley Hall not simply because it is in the north-east but because it does excellent work on behalf of this country which has saved lives and improved the quality of forensics work both here and across the world. I do not believe that as a country we can afford to lose that. I hope that the Government have some warm words for us this afternoon.

[Lord Blair of Boughton]

I agree with the conclusions of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and the noble Lord, Lord Harris, that the abolition of the NPIA is hasty, ill thought out and potentially extremely damaging. I want to build on a question put by the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, about training. What is the future plan for Bramshill House? There it sits, a grade 1 listed building, a place at which I was present when one of the Minister’s friends, Kenneth Clarke, was Home Secretary. He arrived late for a meeting, having just been appointed, to say that he was sorry he was late but he had stopped in the driveway to ring the Prime Minister to tell him that he had found a very suitable residence for the Home Secretary.

Bramshill provides two things of vital importance. First, it provides the strategic training for the most senior officers of the police service. Secondly, it is a centre of excellence for international and European police training. Are there plans for what will happen to Bramshill when the NPIA is abolished?

[Baroness Butler-Sloss]

I endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Blair of Boughton, just said. I had the great privilege of being invited to Bramshill on several occasions to speak to different groups of police about family issues. The time I particularly remember was being left with the most senior group being trained, who I understood were destined for high office. I was introduced in two sentences and the door was shut, and I was facing about 50 men—as it happened the group was made up entirely of men—many of whom were not from United Kingdom police forces. Having somehow or other got my way through that, I learnt, when going to lunch, how enormously valuable it is for the police forces round the world to have the opportunity to go to Bramshill. It is a wonderful institution and I hope, as the noble Lord, Lord Blair said, that it will be given the greatest possible respect and encouragement to remain doing what it does so well at the moment.

[Lord Henley]

I will start at the end of the debate and deal with questions relating to both Bramshill and Harperley Hall. I ought to declare an interest in relation to Bramshill House. A branch of the Henley family lived there many years ago. That was not my own branch but a branch to which I am connected. It might be that they built it and lived there for a couple of hundred years. Later on it became a police college. I must declare that interest. As the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong of Hill Top, knows, I also have—as she does—a hereditary interest in Durham. My family comes from there. As I said, if possible I will visit Harperley Hall and see what it does. I agree with her that its work is very important.

I want to get over the message that no decision has been made on either of these sites, particularly on Bramshill, but that we will be making a decision fairly soon. I should stress—all noble Lords should be aware—that Bramshill is a very expensive property. It costs something of the order of £5 million a year merely to maintain it. That is before one has thought about its actual function as a police training college. I also understand how important it is to the entire police service. I was a Minister many years ago in the MoD at about the time that we were thinking of disposing of Greenwich. I understood the importance of that to the Navy. I understand that Bramshill plays a similar role for the police service so any decisions on that will obviously be difficult to make. I hope that all noble Lords will accept that they will have to be made in due course. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary will update both Houses in due course with her thoughts on these matters.

I want to try to answer the various questions on the abolition of the National Policing Improvement Agency that were put by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and echoed by other noble Lords. She wanted to know about our rationale. She wanted an estimate of the savings and to know where the functions are going, whether the abolition will increase the funding burden on other police forces, whether it would lead to a loss of expertise, what the police professional body is going to do, what is its likely shape and what is the timing.

The most important thing is to get over the rationale behind the changes. I hope that in doing so I will answer some of the questions that have been put by other noble Lords. I was grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, in posing his group of questions on this, which were slightly different from those of the noble Baroness, although they come to the same point, accepted that the agency is not working as well as it might—I think those were his words—so this is not a decision that we want to get wrong.

All our reforms of the policing landscape must be underpinned by clarity of responsibility and appropriate governance arrangements to support an effective and efficient law enforcement response. We accept that the National Policing Improvement Agency has done much to bring about welcome changes to policing but now, in the context of these reforms, is the time to review its role and contribution. The closure of NPIA is a crucial element in a wider programme of reform that is reshaping the way that our policing is delivered and supported to provide a service better equipped to meet the challenges of the future.

Since the agency was established in 2007, its mission has grown considerably. It has operated and managed the development of the police service’s most critical national services, provided specialist operational services to police forces, helped to improve policing practice and developed national learning, leadership and people strategy products. We believe that that is a broad agenda for one agency to deliver and that the agency has collected too diverse a range of functions and responsibilities to retain strategic coherence. Put very simply, we think it has grown like Topsy. Despite some achievements, the agency’s mission is now too unfocused to deliver efficiently and effectively the level of professionalism that we need to see in policing. In these challenging times, we cannot afford to support organisations that are unfocused or unclear about their priorities and accountabilities. To support our wider policing reforms, we need focus and attention at the national level in priority areas. Closure of the agency provides a timely opportunity to ensure that key functions are given greater priority in successor bodies.

If I wanted, I could go through the areas where all the different bits are going and say which bits are going to the National Crime Agency, which are going to the Home Office and which will go to the new professional policing body. I do not know whether it would assist the Committee if I went through all those in detail or whether it would be easier to write a letter in due course and put a copy in the Library.

16:00

I appreciate that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, has previously expressed concerns regarding the reallocation of NPIA functions. I want to reassure the House that we have not rushed into the closure of the NPIA or the reallocation of its functions. There has been considerable thought and careful and detailed discussions with both the police service and other key stakeholders which have taken place to ensure that these critical decisions are made appropriately. We are working with the police service, with the NPIA and other policing and criminal justice partners to ensure that public safety is maintained.

My right honourable friend has already set out plans to transfer many of the agency’s functions. The noble Baroness suggested that both Houses had not been told much about it and I repeat an assurance that we put out two Written Ministerial Statements—one at the end of last year and one in March this year, I forget which—setting out what we would be doing. We will continue to work with all those bodies to make sure that everyone, including both Houses, knows what is going on.

A number of those functions has already been moved into SOCA—the Serious Organised Crime Agency—in anticipation of it forming part of the National Crime Agency once it is established. Some functions will transfer to the Home Office and the majority of the agency’s functions will transfer to either a new police protection body or a new police information communications technology company.

Technology and information are two of the most important weapons used by the police in their fight against crime. I note what the noble Lord, Lord Harris, had to say about these matters but currently there is a failure to fully exploit the full potential of economies of scale that could come when the 43 forces are spending £1.2 billion, which is the figure for 2010, on information communications technology. Poor deals, often with the same suppliers, are signed by different forces and changing this way of business could bring tangible benefits to forces and reduce the cost to taxpayers.

I rather regret the tone of the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, about some of these matters. He was very careful in his use of words but seemed to imply that Home Office civil servants were not capable of delivering in this area. I think that tone is regrettable but we are still looking at the long-term options for some of the technology and other matters in terms of that transfer in this area. I shall give way to the noble Lord.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

I am sorry at the reluctance that comes into the noble Lord’s voice every time I stand up. I am grateful to him for the courtesy with which he gives way on every occasion. If it was the view of Government that for the new IT company to function effectively it had to have in its leadership a chief executive who was paid at a commercial rate to attract the degree of expertise necessary, which might be of the order of £500,000 a year, to negotiate those contracts better than existing police services do and presumably better than the NPIA is thought to do at the moment, how will that not be the same argument that applies for these infrastructure contracts which will go to the Home Office? I am assuming that the Home Office will not be able to pay those sorts of sums to attract the technical expertise which is thought necessary for the other contracts.

[Lord Henley]

The two matters are not related; the Home Office has the appropriate expertise to deal with these matters. I was regretting the tone of voice that the noble Lord carefully used to make it clear that he did not think that there was the appropriate expertise in the Home Office to deal with these matters. We believe that that expertise does exist.

I was about to deal with the issue of the new information communications technology company which will be owned and controlled by police and crime commissioners. It will be led and funded by its customers, who will determine the services it provides. It will be responsive to local operational needs, offering forces a route to better value for money and innovation in the delivery of police information technology services. The company will ensure a more efficient approach to police information and communications technology provision and aggregate demand to exploit the purchasing power of the police service to get a good deal for the taxpayer.

The police professional body will directly support police officers at all ranks and police staff to equip the service with the skills it needs to deliver effective crime-fighting in a challenging and what must be a leaner and more accountable environment. The body will ultimately be independent of the Home Office. It will have a powerful mandate to enable the service to implement the standards that it sets for training, development, skills and qualifications. Its core mission will be to support the fight against crime and safeguard the public by ensuring professionalism in policing.

The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, was also keen to discuss timing and allegations that we had not met our targets. I appreciate that this frequently happens and that there can be slippage. I have known this throughout my career. There have been a number of times when one has announced that something will come out later in the spring and “later in the spring” has turned out to be July. However, we are on track to transfer the functions of the NPIA by the end of 2012. We began a phased transition of functions last year, with the non-ICT procurement moving to the Home Office. In April 2012, the following functions moved to SOCA: the Central Witness Bureau, the National Missing Persons Bureau, serious crime analysis, the Specialist Operations Centre and crime operational support. Obviously, more needs to be done and there are challenges, but I am more than happy that we will reach the target and do that by the end of the year. If we have any further problems, no doubt we will be the first to let the House know.

The noble Baroness was worried that the transition from the NPIA risked a loss of expertise. Giving staff certainty about their future is key to retaining their expertise, of which we are very proud. That is why we have been making announcements about this for some time and will continue to do so. Again, we are on track to complete those functions by the end of 2012. As a result, the majority of the NPIA’s staff will transfer to its various successor bodies by December 2012. Any reduction in staffing levels will arise from the already agreed budget reductions, which were part of the 2010 spending review.

Having looked at timing, rationale and other matters, I hope I have answered most of the questions that the noble Baroness and others asked. Obviously, we will have to say more later, particularly about the future of Bramshill and Harperley and the police professional body. Announcements will be made at the appropriate time. I hope that the noble Baroness will now accept that the abolition of the NPIA is a necessary part of the changes that we are making and of the Bill. Now is not necessarily the time to revisit what has, in effect, been a long-standing commitment, ever since the first announcement by my right honourable friend. Given the advanced state of wind-down of the agency and the transfer of its functions, now is the time to press on with our reforms, instead of looking back. Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for taking the time to go through many of the points and concerns I raised. Despite his efforts, he has not alleviated all those concerns. He called the closure of the NPIA a timely opportunity. It is an opportunity the Government created because they wanted to close the NPIA. I can certainly take on board some of his points. I can understand wanting to streamline the agency and the functions that he thought were better placed with other organisations. My amendments never suggested that there should be no change, but given the change that the NPIA itself had made, full abolition seems unnecessary. I am still not satisfied that the way in which it has been undertaken has not been piecemeal, as and when the Government think a part of it can be moved somewhere else. The Minister will have understood the concerns from around the House on this, not just on these Benches. I wonder whether he has read Lewis Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland? It may have been some time ago, but I will refresh his memory. There is a trial scene and the comment is made: “Sentence first—verdict afterwards”. That is what has happened with the NPIA. The Government decided that the NPIA was to go and then had to work out where all the functions went. They are still doing this. Yes, it was big for one agency; it grew like Topsy, because new functions came along that were best undertaken there; there was room for improvement and change; but the baby has gone with the bathwater.

On timing, the noble Lord says that all these arrangements will be in place, I note originally, by spring 2012. He may have been relying on typical British weather, but it still does not feel like spring 2012 even now. They are now expected at the end of the year. I expect we may see a further spring—perhaps snow again—before these bodies are in place. The police professional body has no chief executive, no chairman and no board. As we heard from my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey, the new IT company does not have all the processes or financial arrangements in place to enable a smooth transfer. This is an issue that we will have to return to, in order to fully understand and be assured that all the “t”s have been crossed and the “i”s have been dotted. When I looked at the new landscape of policing and what the Government said back in 2010 and 2011, it seems that the goalposts have moved. All we had then was a broad outline. Now we have some detail, but the flesh is not on the bones. I would understand if the Minister said the timescale cannot be met and we are re-examining it. He has not said that, so we will return to it on Report and look at some of the functions and how they will be carried out. For now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 64 withdrawn.

Clause 15 agreed.

House resumed.

G20 Summit

Monday 25th June 2012 Lords Chamber

Statement

16:13

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)]

My Lords, it may now be a convenient moment for me to repeat a Statement that has just been made by the Prime Minister in another place on the G20 conference that took place last week. The Statement is as follows:

“The G20 needed to address the five big threats to the global economy. First, the problems in the eurozone; secondly, the mountain of debt and persistence of imbalances in the world economy; thirdly, the lack of growth; fourthly, the rise of protectionism; and, fifthly, the failure to regulate our banks properly. Let me take each in turn. First, the eurozone. Britain is not in the eurozone and we are not going to join, but when 40% of our trade is with the eurozone, its future affects our future. It is in our national interest for the eurozone to resolve its difficulties. As a full member of the European Union and a significant net contributor to its budget, it is not only vital, but also quite right that we speak plainly about what needs to happen.

In the short term, we need rapid action by the core of the eurozone, including the European Central Bank, to restore financial stability and confidence to the countries on the periphery of the eurozone as they undergo their vital structural reforms. This needs to be reinforced in the medium term by improvements to the governance of the eurozone that recognise the remorseless logic of being in a currency union.

This clearly was not a eurozone summit: it was a G20 summit. None the less, at this summit, the eurozone countries made some steps towards both. First, they agreed to take all necessary policy measures to safeguard the integrity and stability of the eurozone, including breaking the link between sovereign debt problems and bank instability.

Secondly, they committed to take further steps towards fiscal and economic integration, including through a banking union. Britain does not want to stand in the way of these measures towards closer integration of the eurozone but we will not be part of them. We did not join the eurozone precisely because we did not want to give up the kind of sovereignty over our national economy that is essential to making a currency union work. We have been clear that whatever long-term decisions are made about the governance of the eurozone, the rules that govern the single market must always protect the interests of all its 27 members. This is a red line for Britain: it is vital to our national interests. The eurozone now needs to get on with implementing the agreements reached at the G20. I will be working at the European Council this week to make sure that the eurozone takes these steps in a way which protects the UK’s interests.

To deal with the wider risks of contagion to the global economy, the G20 also welcomed the commitments to increase the resources available to the IMF by more than $450 billion. It is a basic principle of the IMF that the help it offers is for countries not for currencies. Indeed, almost all the IMF’s 50 programmes are for countries outside the eurozone. No country has ever lost money lending to the IMF. Britain’s contribution is a loan on which interest is payable and it will be used only if troubled economies meet strict conditions to get their economies back on track.

Thirdly, on debt and imbalances, as at the G8, there was absolute agreement that deficit reduction and growth are not alternatives. You need the first in order to get the second. The G20 also reaffirmed its commitment to reduce global imbalances with deficit countries strengthening their public finances and surplus countries taking further actions to increase demand and move towards greater exchange rate flexibility.

We welcomed in particular China’s commitment to allow market forces to play a larger role in determining movements in its exchange rate, and to continue reform and increase transparency in its exchange rate policy. This is an important advance for the G20 in dealing with global imbalances—one of the underlying causes of the crisis in 2008.

In a debt-driven crisis where many countries lack the fiscal space to stimulate their economies, the most powerful tools for growth that we have are monetary activism and structural reform. The G20 agreed that monetary policy should continue to support the economic recovery and every G20 country has put on the table specific structural reform commitments to strengthen global demand, foster job creation and increase growth potential.

The Los Cabos growth and jobs action plan includes mechanisms to hold G20 members accountable for delivering on the reform commitments made. Vitally for Britain, this includes completing the European single market. The G20 did not just focus on growth in the largest economies; it also reaffirmed its vital commitment to supporting private-sector-led growth in the poorest countries as the best way of helping people to lift themselves out of poverty. Britain led a significant breakthrough on two of the biggest barriers to a successful private sector in developing countries.

We drove forwards the G20’s anti-corruption plan, including securing agreement on important new principles which will deny entry to all G20 countries by corrupt officials or those who corrupt them. On the inability of farmers to access the technology that makes their farming viable, Britain made a substantial contribution to the Ag Results initiative which will harness the creativity of the private sector to help put new technology in the hands of the world’s poorest farmers. We will be building on this further at our special event on hunger at the Olympics in London in August.

Fourthly, on trade, we expressed our deep concern about rising instances of protectionism around the world. The President of Argentina had a number of arguments during this summit—not just with me—and it was made very clear to her that recent behaviour by Argentina on both investment and trade protectionism was not acceptable. At this G20, free trade again won the day. We extended our commitment to avoid any new protectionist measures until the end of 2014 and agreed to roll back new protectionist measures that have arisen, including new export restrictions. Most significant of all, the US and the EU reached a ground-breaking political agreement to move forward with a deep but credible trade agreement with a clear and agreed timetable. The EU-US High Level Working Group will now produce recommendations for taking this forward by the end of this year. The EU and the US make up half of the world’s GDP, so completing a deal here could provide an enormous boost to growth across the world—meaning jobs and growth for Britain.

Fifthly, on financial regulation, this G20 maintained the political impetus behind the reform of regulation across the global economy. We endorsed the strengthening of the Financial Stability Board in holding all G20 countries to account for delivering on their commitments: something specifically recommended by the UK report on global governance at the Cannes Summit last year. We also agreed to push forward with completing the implementation of Basel III.

Finally, in the margins of this summit, I had useful discussions on some of our key foreign policy priorities. On Syria, where the regime continues to pound civilian areas with mortars, attack helicopters and snipers, the EU is today, as a result of UK efforts, extending sanctions to ban any EU companies from insuring ships taking arms to Syria. We will continue work with our international partners, including through the United Nations, to stop the appalling slaughter and to help forge a political transition to a democratic future, which protects the rights of all its communities.

On the Falkland Islands, I took the opportunity to emphasise the importance of the planned referendum to President Kirchner. The islanders have to put up with endless attempts at endless summits to put a question mark over their future. They want to determine that future themselves. No one should be in any doubt that, as far as the British Government are concerned, it is the Falkland Islanders who will determine the sovereignty of the islands and their view will be respected by this House, by this country and by the world”.

I commend this Statement to the House.

16:22

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, the Leader of the House, for repeating a Statement given in the other place by the Prime Minister on the recent G20 meeting. Unusually, I did not see a copy of the Statement in advance. I am not complaining, but it does make life rather difficult.

I will start with the foreign policy issues. On the Falklands, there is support from this side of the House for the absolute need to protect the principle of self-determination of the islanders. On Syria, there is deep concern on all sides of the House about the continued failure of the Annan plan to deliver a cessation of violence, and there is cross-party consensus on the appalling nature of the Assad regime and the need for the toughest sanctions against Syria. We welcome today’s extension of EU sanctions but given the urgent need for an immediate end to the dreadful and escalating hostilities, does the noble Lord the Leader of the House agree that it is now vital that the wider international community unites around the need for the toughest sanctions against Syria?

The Prime Minister said in his press conference that:

“President Putin has been explicit that he is not locked into Assad remaining in charge in Syria”.

If correct, this clearly represents an important step forward. However, Foreign Minister Lavrov said afterwards in a statement that these comments did not “correspond with reality”. Can the Leader of the House clarify the position?

I now turn to the main business of the summit—the economy. With our country in double-dip recession, with world growth slowing and with the eurozone crisis, if ever there was a time for the international community to come together and act, this was it. All we got from this summit was more of the same: drift and inaction in the face of a global crisis. The Prime Minister claimed afterwards that the summit had made “important progress” on a number of issues,

“on the Eurozone, on the lack of global growth and on the rise of protectionism”.

This sounded familiar. Then we realised why—because the Prime Minister said exactly the same after the last summit, in Cannes last November.

The Prime Minister now says:

“In terms of the slide towards protectionism, I think that has been halted”.

Can the Leader of the House confirm that the Prime Minister told us precisely the same thing in November? That summit was a success because action had been taken to,

“stop the slide to protectionism”.

That was a great triumph—the slide that had been stopped last November has been halted again.

On global growth, the Cannes summit communiqué said that,

“should global economic conditions materially worsen”,

countries should,

“agree to take discretionary measures to support domestic demand”.

Well, global conditions have worsened and therefore, being true to that communiqué, this G20 should have been a coming together of world leaders to work for a co-ordinated plan for jobs and growth. And what did we get? The communiqué just repeated the same words:

“Should economic conditions deteriorate significantly further, those countries with sufficient fiscal space stand ready to coordinate and implement discretionary fiscal actions to support domestic demand”.

No change, no action.

On the eurozone, I note that the Statement says:

“As full members of the European Union, and a significant net contributor to its budget it is vital that we speak plainly about what needs to happen”.

I think that our partners would have listened to us more if the Prime Minister had not decided to use the veto that never was in December. Actions for short-term political gain have long-term consequences.

The Prime Minister said that while this was not a European Council meeting, progress was made with,

“significant agreements. Now the eurozone countries need to get on and implement them”.

But is not the reality that there is no agreement on the main issues of substance, such as how to recapitalise Spanish banks; how the European Central Bank can stand behind member countries; how to prevent the escalation of problems in bond markets; or how to boost the size of the firewall fund to make it work? Instead, we had more of the same.

For people here at home, the economic reality is that things are getting worse, not better, and there is nothing in this summit’s conclusions to make any difference to that. And there is a simple reason why there was nothing for Britain at this summit: because we have a Prime Minister, and a Government, who simply argue for more of the same. What a contrast with France, where the president is passionate about growth, understanding that it is a prerequisite for dealing with deficits. Austerity is not working; with Britain in a double-dip recession, one of only two G20 countries in that position, can the Leader of the House tell us whether at the G20 the Government were actually arguing for anything different from what they were arguing for last November? From today’s Statement, it does not look as though they were.

Can the Leader of the House confirm that at the time of the Cannes summit, UK growth for 2012 was forecast to be 1.2% and that now the average of independent forecasts is just 0.3%? On the world economy, what this summit needed was a co-ordinated plan to generate greater growth, but the international community is divided between those who want a move towards greater growth and jobs and those whose answer to the failure of the last two years is simply more of the same. I fear that, on this issue, this Government and this Prime Minister are on the wrong side of that argument.

There is one important lesson for the Government from the last week. A global summit in the face of an economic hurricane needs action, not words. The reality is that the Government and the Prime Minister have come back from this summit with nothing for Britain—nothing to cope with double-dip recession, nothing to help Britain’s families and nothing to ensure growth in the world economy. I trust that when the Prime Minister returns from the European summit next week he has growth at the top of his Statement and agenda. Britain deserves more than was achieved at the G20 summit, and we deserve a change of direction; a change of economic strategy; a change that puts action first, not words; and a change that puts jobs and growth first.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, the noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition is on good form today. Typically, she sees a socialist president being elected in France, looks over the water and believes that everything over there is going swimmingly. However, she has not read what the good president has said. He said that,

“national debt is the enemy of the left and the enemy of France”.

We agree with that. Mr Hollande would balance France’s budget faster than the coalition plans for the United Kingdom. When asked how he would stimulate growth, the French President said, “The means cannot be extra public spending since we want to rein it in”. We can agree with that; the noble Baroness and her party cannot.

We very much welcome the noble Baroness’s support on the Falklands and Syria. The situation in Syria is immensely dangerous, difficult and complicated. We are still discussing with key partners what more we can do, including in the United Nations, to support the Annan plan. There remain differences over sequencing and the exact shape of how a potential transition can take place but we have put in place a strong EU arms embargo, are closely tracking other shipments to Syria and want to work with countries and companies around the world to stop them. We have had useful conversations with Russia but the key thing is to get together, to work together and to try to implement the Annan plan, if at all possible.

I rather admire the fact that the noble Baroness’s research led her to spot that some of the words in this communiqué were the same as those used at the Cannes summit. She read that as signifying that nothing had changed. However, it may also prove some admirable consistency emanating out of G20 summits in that there are still common problems with which to deal, and they are going to be dealt with.

The noble Baroness took a pot shot at what my right honourable friend the Prime Minister did at the EU summit at the end of December, which was not to sign up to the communiqué. As I said at the time, the reason my right honourable friend did not sign that communiqué was because he believed in protecting British interests, which is what he did. The noble Baroness and her party would have signed it and, we believe, would have sold vital British interests down the river.

The G20 was a success in the sense that many of these gatherings are a success as an opportunity for the leaders of different countries to discuss some of the key issues facing the world and to try to come to an agreement. There was no shying away from the fact that one of the most difficult issues facing the world at the moment is the problems in the eurozone. We have come up with what we believe to be helpful and constructive words to try to encourage the eurozone to find a solution in preparation for the European Council later this week. However, in the end, the countries in the eurozone have to make those decisions themselves.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I remind the House of the benefit of asking short questions in order that my noble friend the Leader of the House can answer as many questions as possible.

16:32

[Lord Kinnock]

After £325 billion worth of quantitative easing and consecutive quarters of zero growth, is it not evident that the monetary activism of which the Prime Minister spoke earlier cannot get any traction without substantial fiscal stimulus? Therefore, why do the Government continue to resist the proposition that they should establish a national investment bank that through the use of public funds will attract private investment in order to stimulate growth, employment and development in this undergrowing economy? Secondly, when it is clear, as the Prime Minister said, that deficit reduction is not an alternative to growth but is contingent on growth, why do the Government continue to advocate expansionist growth policies in the eurozone but firmly resist exactly the same approach in the United Kingdom, which sorely needs those policies? Is it not clear that the Government’s maxim of securing growth through austerity is oxymoron economics?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I do not agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Kinnock, has said. Neither do I accept his characterisation of what we are doing in the United Kingdom and what we are exhorting our colleagues in the eurozone to do. I take his point about a national investment bank in order to try to encourage growth, but our solution has always been to try to encourage the private sector—and private sector banks—to have the confidence to invest in British business.

The UK economy is recovering from the deepest recession in living memory. It was even deeper than was previously thought: over 7% was wiped off the economy. Inevitably, recovery will be choppy, and by historical standards subdued, because household business and government debt rose unsustainably. Naturally, the eurozone crisis is making the recovery even more difficult.

The main point is that we have managed to maintain the lowest interest rates that this country has seen in modern times; a one percentage point rise in our interest rates today would add £10 billion to family mortgage bills alone. You only have to look at the interest rates in Spain, Italy and of course in Greece, to see just how much better off we are today than those nations. Despite having a deficit similar in size to that of Greece, the UK has interest rates at historic lows, similar to those in Germany; France’s interest rates are more than 50% higher, and Italy’s interest rates more than three and a half times higher. We can have a philosophical debate—even an economic debate—as to whether or not austerity and growth go together, but our firm view is that they can.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

My Lords, will the Minister accept my thanks for that Statement? I must say that I found it a trifle Panglossian, but I do not wish to take issue with what was in it.

Are the Government not concerned that these G20 meetings are becoming of rather waning relevance, and that as each meeting succeeds each other the hopes that the world placed in the G20 when it was set up at the height of the crisis are not really being realised? Are they not, increasingly, simply photo opportunities and things of threads and patches that make no overall effort to get to terms with the challenges that confront us? If the Government are concerned about that, do they have any thoughts about how the G20 machinery could be made to work a little bit better?

Perhaps as an illustration of that, the distinctly disappointing outcome of the Rio meeting on the environment, which was held only shortly after the G20 meeting, was perhaps highlighted by the fact that the G20—the economies that are responsible for between 80% and 90% of the world’s emissions, because they are responsible for 80% or 90% of the world’s economic activity—did not even find time to talk about this subject. No effort was made to prepare a position that might have provided the 193 countries that went to Rio—which could not possibly have produced, in one or two weeks, a very meaningful outcome—with some guidance and momentum. That, too, seems to be lacking from the G20’s present agenda.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, the noble Lord makes an interesting point, particularly with his background and experience, on the role of the G20 and, indeed, of the G8. The role of these organisations has changed, particularly over the course of the last five or six years, given the economic situation. However, there is a very important role in their meeting—both G8 and G20—to work through an agenda and come forward with conclusions. The important thing in those conclusions is that they make sure that there is a vibrant system that can check back to see who committed to doing what and to make them accountable. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, has views on how to streamline the secretariat, or indeed to make it more strategic, and I would encourage him to put those down on paper.

Do we believe that the G20 has made no difference at all on climate change? No; all G20 countries were committed to implementing the outcomes of the COP 17 in Durban, and we made it clear that we wanted a successful outcome to the COP 18 in Qatar later on this year. As far as Rio is concerned, the deal delivers much of what the UK wanted and worked hard to achieve, and it puts the sustainable development agenda very firmly back on the map.

[Baroness Goudie]

My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. I declare an interest as a member of the La Pietra Coalition, which is a group of international NGOs and global corporations that came together three years ago to try to influence the G20. Among the items on which we have been trying to influence the G20 is access to finance for women and youth around the world. I am very grateful to officials in Treasury and DfID who have worked very closely with us over the past three years, and I am pleased that at long last there is the following phrase in the communiqué:

“We recognise the need for women and youth to gain access to financial services and financial education”.

It is stated that the OECD and one or two other international organisations will be responsible for this. Given that this Government have played such a part in this matter over the past three years, we should officially take this policy on board, keep an eye on it, and ensure that that access to financial services and financial education does happen, because we know that the GDPs of countries change enormously when women have access to finance and can educate their children.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, the noble Baroness is quite right and I very much welcome her welcome for the initiative. The Government are very pleased to receive these independent reports from NGOs, particularly regarding the extremely important areas of access for women and financial education. We certainly should keep an eye on it and I shall make sure that officials in the departments are aware of what the noble Baroness said.

[The Lord Bishop of Ripon and Leeds]

My Lords—

[Lord Lester of Herne Hill]

My Lords—

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, can we hear first from the right reverend Prelate?

[The Lord Bishop of Ripon and Leeds]

My Lords, I am grateful for the particular stress that the Leader of the House put on support for the poorest countries of the world. As I understand it, there were three strands to that support and to the UK’s part in creating it. The first was an anti-corruption plan. Can he be more specific on how corruption can be tackled within the poorest countries of the world and how the UK can contribute to that? The second strand relates to the inability of the poorest countries to access modern technology. What sort of help can be provided by the UK and does that have implications for our aid budget and aid policy? Thirdly, welcome though the hunger event at the Olympics, to which reference was made, would be, how is that intended to support the poorest countries of the world?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate for his general welcome. I cannot add anything more on the anti-corruption plan because G20 officials have been asked to come forward with details over the next few months. We will have to wait and see what will happen on that. As to food security and technology, the UK met its L’Aquila financial commitments in full and will continue to provide broadly equivalent resources to help food security. We made welcome progress at the G20 on implementation of commitments made last year at Cannes, including rolling out the Agricultural Market Information System to improve transparency, endorsing the Scaling Up Nutrition movement, and pledging to continue our work in other areas, such as the platform for agricultural risk management. This is an area to which a substantial amount of importance is given, as is the hunger event at the Olympics in London during August. I think that the idea is to hold a conference to concentrate people’s minds on the issue of hunger around the world, but if I can add more I shall let the right reverend Prelate know.

[Lord Lester of Herne Hill]

My Lords, is my noble friend the Leader of the House aware that when a great democratic socialist—namely, Roy Jenkins—served as Chancellor of the Exchequer, he was of the view, and remained of the view when he became Home Secretary in the second Wilson Government, that the national debt should not occupy more than about 40% of GDP? That view was expressed by Mr David Laws in an interesting article in the Sunday Telegraph this weekend. Is my noble friend aware that it is possible to have that view and yet be a democratic socialist?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I think my noble friend is trying to be helpful. Indeed, he is being very helpful. Our net debt to GDP is considerably higher than 40%. My noble friend is right: as President Hollande has shown, the answer does not lie in increasing debt.

[Baroness Hooper]

My Lords, I am delighted that the Prime Minister was able to make it quite clear to the President of Argentina that the British people and the British Government stand beside, and behind, the people of the Falkland Islands in deciding their own future.

Can my noble friend the Leader of the House let us know whether, in the margins of the G20 meetings, the Prime Minister was able to talk with political leaders in Mexico, given the importance and vitality of the Mexican economy, and in view of the forthcoming elections there?

[Lord Strathclyde]

Yes, my Lords. Certainly, on the first question, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister made a point on the future of the Falklands which he has made continually, which I know the whole House will agree with. We do not see that this question should be put into any doubt whatever. We have made the proposal that there should be a referendum. We believe wholeheartedly in self-determination. That is the right way forward and we encourage the people of Argentina and its Government to agree with us on this vital matter.

I can also confirm that my right honourable friend had a further meeting with Mexico, and an inward investment meeting of British businesspeople in Mexico. It was extremely successful and useful, and showed again this Government’s firm desire to demonstrate our need to grow our economy through exports.

[Lord Hollick]

The Leader of the House will recall that the verdict of the Office of Budget Responsibility on all of the growth measures announced by the Government is that they will have no impact. Now that the Prime Minister has signed up to the growth plan for the G20, when will the Government bring forward measures to give that some substance?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, the Government are continually bringing forward all sorts of plans and prospects—not least the speech my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made at the Bank of England only 10 days ago, where he made a specific commitment to try to improve liquidity of the banks, so as to increase lending, which will also lead to growth.

[Lord Hughes of Woodside]

My Lords, in the Statement, there was a repetition of the conviction that only the Annan plan will lead to peace in Syria. Is the Leader of the House aware that since it was first announced, the situation has not got better? It has got worse and worse. There is a dreadful parallel here with what happened in Libya. Will he assure us that we are not interested primarily in regime change, and that there have to be intense discussions at a very high level to bring this slaughter to an end?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I have a lot of sympathy for what the noble Lord said about Syria. I said earlier that the situation was extremely difficult and complicated, and continues to be appalling. Syria is descending rapidly into a bloody and tragic civil war, with potentially irreparable consequences for its people and for the future.

We are continuing to discuss with key partners, including in the UN, exactly what the best way forward will be. We still believe that the essential framework of the Annan plan is the best way forward, and that is what we will continue to discuss. We have put forward a strong EU arms embargo, which we are currently tracking, and we will maintain that. The EU has announced further sanctions against the Syrian regime today. The UK is at the forefront of imposing the 16 rounds of EU sanctions against 129 individuals and 49 entities.

I cannot be sure that those things in themselves will work. As the noble Lord said, the international community at the highest level is aware of what is going on. There is a lot of activity and pressure is being applied to the Syrian regime. We have to hope and believe that in due course we will reach the end of this appalling conflict.

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon]

My Lords, like other noble Lords, I believe that the Statement is rather bland. I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, that the influence of the G20 appears to be declining. My only question concerns the speech that Mr Barroso made to the G20 in which he blamed the United States for the economic and financial problems that we have today. Was he speaking for all the nation states of the European Union, including our own? Such a statement is hardly likely to improve relations between the United States and the EU.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I speak on areas for which I am responsible and Mr Barroso speaks on areas for which he is responsible within the European Union. I do wonder whether what he said will influence relations not just with the United States but with the UK, and whether there is enough of a fundamental understanding of the problems that have occurred over the past five years, and therefore of the solutions that will need to be taken into account.

Crime and Courts Bill [HL]

Monday 25th June 2012 Lords Chamber

Committee (3rd Day) (Continued)

16:51

Schedule 8 : Abolition of SOCA and NPIA

Amendments 65 and 66 not moved.

Schedule 8 agreed.

Clause 16 : Interpretation of Part 1

Amendment 67

Moved by

[Lord Rosser]

67: Clause 16, page 14, line 23, leave out “local policing bodies” and insert “Police and Crime Commissioners”

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, the amendment would ensure that persons representing the views of police and crime commissioners are included in the definition of “strategic partners” set out in Part 1. The definition refers to,

“such persons as appear to the Secretary of State to represent the views of local policing bodies”.

Earlier in Part 1, a “policing body” is defined as including within its scope a police and crime commissioner. Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether the reference to “local policing bodies” in the definition of “strategic partners” also means local police and crime commissioners, or whether it means something different from the earlier definition of “policing body”—and if so, why.

It is important that police and crime commissioners are included as strategic partners. Under Clause 3, the Secretary of State is required in determining strategic priorities for the National Crime Agency to consult strategic partners. Bearing in mind that a police and crime commissioner will be responsible for issuing a police and crime plan and in so doing will have to have regard to the strategic policing requirement issued by the Secretary of State, it would seem odd if the Secretary of State were not required when determining his or her strategic priorities for the National Crime Agency to consult with persons representing the views of police and crime commissioners. Likewise, in preparing his or her annual plan, the director-general of the National Crime Agency must, under Clause 4 in Part 1, consult with the strategic partners. It would seem inappropriate if these partners did not include police and crime commissioners, bearing in mind that the annual plan sets out how the director-general intends that the National Crime Agency functions should be exercised. This could well have an impact on the functioning of local police forces, including whether that force is efficient and effective, which it is a statutory responsibility of a police and crime commissioner to secure.

We also learnt from the Minister last week in Committee that the unelected director-general of the National Crime Agency could direct a chief officer of an England and Wales police force to perform a task of unlimited magnitude, impact and scope specified in such a direction without having to obtain the consent of the Secretary of State or even having to consult the elected police and crime commissioner responsible for the force whose chief officer the director-general is ordering to take that particular course of action. That might be, for example, as the Minister told us,

“to take the lead to disrupt a human-trafficking gang that is predominantly based in that force area”.—[Official Report, 20/6/12; col. 1800.]

Potentially, that is hardly a minor task in terms of either time or resources.

On top of that, we were also told by the Minister that the unelected director-general of the National Crime Agency could direct a chief officer of an England and Wales police force to provide unlimited specified assistance to the National Crime Agency, also without having even to consult the elected police and crime commissioner responsible for that force—even though, as the Minister said, providing assistance involved transferring resources from the command of one force to another force or organisation.

To many people, that will seem an odd state of affairs, designed to marginalise the elected police and crime commissioner. If elected police and crime commissioners, now that we are going to have them, are not even one of the strategic partners to be consulted by the Secretary of State when determining strategic priorities for the National Crime Agency, or by the agency’s director-general when preparing the annual plan, then it would be further confirmation that police and crime commissioners are intended, in many ways, to be little more than figureheads—a situation and role that any self-respecting elected police and crime commissioner will, I am sure, be unwilling to accept. I move this amendment and await the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I have Amendment 68 in this group, and it is another amendment to the definition of “strategic partners”. The relevance of strategic partners is their role as consultees of the Secretary of State when she determines the strategic priorities for the NCA. We are all familiar with the scope and importance of the NCA’s functions. My amendment would add to the list of strategic partners the Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service and GCHQ. There was a time when a fiction was maintained about the existence or otherwise of at least one of these organisations but I think that we have moved beyond that. It seems to me unthinkable that the Secretary of State, given the subject matter of consultation on strategic priorities, would not consult those agencies.

Last week, on Second Reading of the Justice and Security Bill, I commented on how the priorities and concerns of the Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism, which is embedded in the Home Office, seem to have affected—I am not making a judgment on this—all the Home Office’s thinking. As I say, I simply cannot believe that these services and agencies would be omitted in such a consultation. If it is not the case, then why not say so? If it is, then why is it?

17:00

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Henley)]

My Lords, I hope that I can deal with both amendments relatively briefly. I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, that the list of the NCA’s strategic partners currently includes, as he said,

“such persons as appear to the Secretary of State to represent the views of local policing bodies”.

We have used those terms because local policing bodies include not only the PCCs but two others—the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime, and the Common Council of the City of London, which acts as the police authority for the City of London police area. For that reason, the noble Lord’s amendment is completely unnecessary in that the provision achieves everything he seeks. Having said that, I accept what he says about the necessity of discussing all these matters with the people he was concerned about. Just to put him at ease, the term “local policing bodies” covers them all.

I turn now to my noble friend’s amendment, Amendment 68. I think she said that there was a time when a fiction was maintained that the intelligence and security agencies did not exist. We now acknowledge that they do exist and we accept that the functions and responsibilities of these agencies go much wider than purely crime reduction and criminal intelligence. They have a limited statutory function in relation to serious crime because that is not their primary focus and they are therefore not included in the list of partners that the Home Secretary or the director-general must consult—it is the word “must” that I stress to my noble friend on this occasion—when setting strategic priorities in drawing up annual plans. However, I can give her an assurance that the security and intelligence agencies will have an important relationship with the NCA. Provisions in the Bill allow the Home Secretary and the director-general to consult them when it is appropriate to do so. What we think is not appropriate is the use of the word “must” here, and that is why we have not included the agencies in the list set out in the interpretation clause, Clause 16.

I hope that that explanation is sufficient for my noble friend, and that the explanation I gave with regard to Amendment 67 is sufficient for the noble Lord, Lord Rosser.

[Lord Rosser]

I thank the Minister for his reply and for confirming that the reference to local policing bodies includes a police and crime commissioner. I think he also said that the provision has been written in this way—namely with a reference to local policing bodies—because, as well as a police and crime commissioner, it also includes the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime and the Common Council of the City of London. That rather begs the question of why earlier in the clause, where a “policing body” is also defined, it states that it means a police and crime commissioner, the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime and the Common Council of the City of London. When we look down the same page to the “strategic partners”, why does the clause not make it equally clear by simply repeating that they include a police and crime commissioner, the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime and the Common Council of the City of London, instead of describing them as “local policing bodies”? Alternatively, if the phrase “local policing body” is satisfactory, why in the reference earlier on the page to “policing body” does it not simply say, instead of setting out the first three categories, “local policing bodies”?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I am not a parliamentary draftsman—I do not think that I ever will be, and I am simple in terms of my understanding of the law. But even I, and I dare say the noble Lord, can probably grasp this one little point. If he looks up to line 4 on page 14 he will see that the meaning of “policing body” is set out in paragraphs (a) to (c):

“(a) a police and crime commissioner;

“(b) the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime”

“(c) the Common Council of the City of London as police authority for the City of London police area”.

Later the meanings under “strategic partners” are set out, with paragraph (c) stating,

“such persons as appear to the Secretary of State to represent the views of local policing bodies”.

The local policing bodies go back to “policing body” at that point. It does not take much understanding of drafting—I appreciate that I am not a draftsman—to understand that what is included in the first bit, “policing body”, must be included under “strategic partners”.

[Lord Rosser]

The only comment I would make in response to the noble Lord—like him, I have no great wish to prolong this matter—is that since the first reference is to “policing body” and the second is to “local policing bodies”, one might be entitled to ask, what is the difference between the two? Is there a subtle difference or not? Why is it not simply described again as “policing bodies” when it comes to the definition under “strategic partners”?

[Lord Henley]

I think that the noble Lord is protesting too much, but I will consult those who advise me on drafting matters and ask them whether they can give me a good explanation. I think that “policing bodies” must include “local policing bodies”, so there is no problem. The noble Lord is looking for conspiracies here, I suspect, but there is no conspiracy—it is straightforward, I can assure him of that. We are including the PCCs and the other two that I mentioned.

[Lord Rosser]

I assure the noble Lord that I do not think that there is a conspiracy. He has made it clear what the reference to local policing bodies covers and that is now in Hansard for the record. I do not believe in any conspiracy theory. However, I would certainly be interested to know, if he would write to me, why it is described as “policing body” in one place, with a definition, while a bit further down—under strategic partners—rather than repeating it as “policing body”, it says “local policing body”. One might wonder, why the difference? The Minister has said that he will look at it and write to me and I am extremely grateful for that. No, I do not believe there is a conspiracy, because the Minister has made it clear that police and crime commissioners are included in the reference to local policing bodies. This amendment sought to ensure that that was the case and in the light of the Minister’s response, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 67 withdrawn.

Amendment 68 not moved.

Clause 16 agreed.

Clause 17 : Civil and family proceedings in England and Wales

Amendment 68A

Moved by

[Lord Beecham]

68A: Clause 17, page 16, line 21, at end insert—
“(7) There shall be no restriction on the number of days that a family magistrate may sit in the family proceedings court.”

[Lord Beecham]

I shall speak to Amendments 68A, 68B and 68C and, notionally, give an indication on the stand part question on Clause 17.

I begin by repeating a declaration of interest: I am an unpaid consultant in the firm of solicitors of which I was a senior partner. I will be saying something about the Court of Protection, with which the firm and I have had dealings which partly inform some of what I will say this afternoon. In addition, I should perhaps, through an abundance of caution, declare that my daughter sits as a part-time deputy judge; but whereas I have occasionally briefed her when I was at the office, she has not briefed me in connection with today’s proceedings.

I shall go from the very particular to the general in discussing these amendments, and deal first with Amendment 68A, which seeks to remove the limits on the numbers of sittings that magistrates may make when sitting in the family court. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, raised this matter at Second Reading and I share her opinion that it is undesirable to impose such a limit, given the necessity of building up expertise and providing continuity on the part of that part of the magistracy which deals with these very sensitive family issues. That is not a view universally shared, but it is my view and it will be interesting to hear the Government’s response and their justification, if they see that there is one, for maintaining the limit. I believe that the Norgrove report advocated its abandonment and it has logic on its side.

The remaining substantive matters are Amendments 68B and 68C. I should say immediately that the indication that I would move that Clause 17 not stand part of the Bill was a procedural device to allow a general debate which has been superseded by the amendments that I have now tabled. I will not move that Clause 17 not stand part of the Bill. We accept that it is desirable to move to the structure of single courts. The question is how they will be administered and what steps can be taken to ensure that the whole system of justice is adequately reviewed, kept under review and improved from time to time.

Amendment 68B seeks to require a report on the creation of the single court and how it works. As I say, we accept the concept in principle. We would like the Government to undertake a review after a relatively short time to see how it works in practice. There are concerns—some of which I will touch on when I come to the next amendment—around access, the venue and the like, particularly in the civil courts. Also there is a question about how the new family court will work. We are reasonably confident that it will work provided that it is adequately resourced but it would be sensible to review the situation before much time passes.

Having said that, my main concerns are reflected in Amendment 68C, which seeks an annual review by the Lord Chancellor of the workings of the whole Courts and Tribunal Service to take into account the experience that will accumulate over time, particularly the experience of practitioners and parties, but also to reflect other changes which are now in train. The civil justice system is undergoing massive change, not only as a result of the proposals in the Bill but also as a consequence of Lord Justice Jackson’s comprehensive if—as we have debated at some length on a previous Bill—controversial review which paved the way for a radically different approach to the provision of legal aid and advice, and the financing of litigation.

In pages 428-34 of his report, Lord Justice Jackson called for improvements in courts administration in the light of a pervasive feeling of dissatisfaction on the part of many litigants and their advisers, occasioned in part by a high turnover of staff and an excessive time spent on processing documents unlikely to involve judicial input. His report called for the establishment of regional centres which could attract long-term staff. It was felt that if you had a small number of centres instead of having them dispersed across the whole country you would be able to find and retain staff with the necessary expertise. There seems to be some force in that intention. However, Lord Justice Jackson stressed that it would,

“be wrong to compel everyone to issue proceedings at regional centres. Litigants who wish to issue claims in person at their local county court and to pay fees at the counter should be free to do so”.

In the event, the Government, for ever waving the banner of localism—I remind your Lordships that “waving” can be spelt in two different ways—have established a system in which all money claims have to be issued not just in regional centres but exclusively in Salford. Salford not only hosts the BBC and Manchester United, it also—

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)]

Does it?

[Lord Beecham]

Not Manchester United. I withdraw that disgraceful slur on Salford or Manchester United—whichever way you want to look at it. All right, we have the BBC and the Lowry gallery in Salford and we now have the courts’ business centre there, too. Unfortunately, the establishment of that centre has led to a torrent of complaints about delays and loss of documents reported on several occasions; for example, in the Law Society Gazette on 12 February, 8 March and 12 May, when the headline was “Civil Court System Faces ‘Meltdown’”. On 24 May—as recently as that—it reported on a work to rule by staff intended to last until 31 July which is,

“evidence of a civil courts service reaching breaking point”.

The same story describes district judges being put up in hotels when on duty in Salford, because that is where they have to go, with a deputy district judge—not my daughter—complaining:

“New cuts are announced daily, and yet HMCTS is now squandering taxpayers’ money on hotels”.

17:15

Nor is this the only part of the system to have suffered major criticism from parties and the legal profession. The Court of Protection and the Office of the Public Guardian have long been the subject of complaints over delays, failure to reply to correspondence and, most importantly, failure to protect the interests of people who, by definition, are incapable of looking after their own affairs. This neglect, incompetence or inefficiency can take two forms: first, the management of the funds in court held on behalf of claimants where the Court of Protection has been roundly attacked for keeping funds in accounts paying all of 0.5% interest and secondly, on the other side of its responsibilities, failing to organise timely and effective visits to patients in order to monitor progress.

Again, staffing levels appear inadequate in terms of both numbers and skills. I had occasion some years ago to write to my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer to point out that in a case that I was dealing with in the Court of Protection, it was virtually impossible to secure a reply to correspondence concerning the patient’s affairs, that there was apparently no single individual in charge of any file—it seemed to be passed around the office—and I did not feel that anything like an adequate service was being offered to the deputy, or the receiver, as he was then known. The nomenclature has changed since. The patient was a young man who had suffered very severe brain injuries. There was a substantial amount in court, but there were also very substantial problems. It seemed that staffing was an issue. I have to say that that issue—not just that individual case, of course—did not appear to receive any adequate response in terms of change, and although there have been changes in the system with people moving out from London to Birmingham and Nottingham, the problems still seem fairly substantial.

There has, of course, been a change in the law involving the Court of Protection because now, instead of the enduring power of attorney, we have the lasting power of attorney, a new form of document to facilitate the conduct of the affairs of people incapable of looking after themselves. That has led to a huge increase in the number of documents being filed, but that has not apparently been matched by a sufficient investment in staffing or IT, and there have been recurrent problems in this area. Indeed, the Court of Protection was the subject of a critical “File on 4” programme on BBC Radio 4 in 2010 that highlighted cases, in one of which a patient said that the Court of Protection had cost him £50,000 because of the way it had managed his financial affairs. There was a series of other cases and there have been other newspaper reports, including in the house journal of the Conservative Party—the Daily Mail—that were very critical of the way that the court has operated. Indeed, last November, Sir Nicholas Wall, who heads the Court of Protection, called for it to be opened up to public scrutiny. It is fair to say that his principal concern was not so much the matters that I have been referring to but the delicate and difficult issues about making judgments on medical aspects and the degree to which these were at one time made in secret—certainly not in the full light of day. So, from a variety of perspectives, there are difficulties with that particular area of the court system.

In addition, the Government are abolishing the Public Guardian Board, which was established to have oversight over the operation of the Mental Capacity Act, and are replacing it with three people. Once again, because we have discussed this in the first part of the Bill in relation to the National Crime Agency, the Government are vesting a dual role in a single pair of hands. The public guardian is also to be the chief executive of the guardianship office. So there is no separation of powers; at the moment there is a Public Guardian Board, which is just about to come to an end, with an independent chairman and independent people serving on it. That will be replaced effectively by two people taking on this combined post of chief executive and public guardian—one will have IT experience and the other experience in the mental health field. That is not a satisfactory arrangement.

In her final report, the outgoing chairman has called on the Government to reform and streamline the lasting power of attorney process, which I have just mentioned, replace a creaking IT structure, as she puts it, develop relationships with stakeholders and appoint a powerful and independent champion for the Mental Capacity Act. I invite the Minister to say, not necessarily tonight because he has not had notice of this question, whether he will respond positively to those suggestions.

In addition to these particular problems, there is a major area of concern over access to justice in two senses. The first might be described as physical access, which for many people means local courts within a convenient distance. Many county and magistrates’ courts have already closed, making it more difficult for parties and witnesses to attend. The Government need to ensure that, while they perfectly properly seek to reduce the cost of the system, they do not deter nor disadvantage those who need access to it. Bear in mind that they have already ignored Lord Justice Jackson’s recommendation about allowing proceedings and money claims to be issued at a local court. The closure of courts makes any kind of access that much more difficult, unless you happen to live close to a building which has been retained.

In that context, it will be important to assess the impact of existing and any planned closures and staff reductions as well as the way in which allocations to local venues—which will happen under the Bill, but cases will be allocated to a local court— actually works. The Minister may have indicated to the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, that at the moment no further closures are in the pipeline but perhaps he could indicate whether that can be reopened in the context of the next review of the national finances, when the Government are apparently looking for a further substantial tranche of savings.

Allied in part to this is the question to which the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, alluded in the Second Reading debate, the question of the lay magistracy. As I said at Second Reading, there are some feelings that there is an inexorable slide towards a paid judiciary in the lower courts and, where this displaces lay magistrates in criminal cases, criminal justice runs a risk of moving from involving trial by one’s peers based in the community to a professional system less rooted in local communities. That is a questionable direction and perhaps the Minister could indicate whether the Government have any plans to continue this trend. The point of my amendment is to ensure that these matters are at least considered from time to time.

Then there is the impact on access to civil justice of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act. With some 650,000 people being excluded from legal aid and advice, it will be essential to monitor the impact not only on those who need such advice and the organisations that the Government expect to take the strain, but on the courts and tribunals themselves. There will almost certainly be a substantial increase in the number of litigants in person, with all the difficulties that that can present to a tribunal—whether a court or an administrative tribunal—in managing and helping people through the process when they do not have the benefit of legal advice or assistance.

The Government also rely heavily on mediation and alternative dispute resolution as alternatives to litigation. However, as some of us said in the debates on the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act, these are by no means appropriate in all cases. It will be essential to assess their efficacy, which will depend on both the availability of suitably qualified personnel to conduct the processes and at least a rough equilibrium in the capacity, in all senses, of the parties. Again, it will be important to review and report on progress in these matters and how the new system is working, and to make changes if necessary.

The Government have also increased the financial limits in the small claims court and plan further increases in future. This potentially disadvantages claimants, who will be unable to recover their costs even when successful. Again, the impact of this policy, the prime beneficiaries of which will be insurance companies in personal injury cases and the like, will have to be assessed. The Government should commit themselves to a thorough review before any further increase to the small claims court limit is made, for which parliamentary approval should be sought.

Four years ago, in his report Should the Civil Courts be Unified?, Sir Henry Brooke rejected the notion of combining the High Court and county courts, which is not the proposition in the Bill, and did not even appear to call for a single county court, although we do not dissent from that proposition, provided that the mechanics of issue and venue are satisfactory. However, Sir Henry said that,

“we have been sleep-walking into a crisis, so far as civil justice is concerned”.

This was under the previous Government; it is not a matter that has appeared overnight. He called for,

“a five-year strategy for reviving the civil justice system, to be implemented collaboratively by the judiciary, the Ministry of Justice and HM Courts Service”.

I would add the Tribunals Service to that. Instead, we have a piecemeal approach that, moreover, does not at all ensure that the strategy includes, as Sir Henry recommended,

“adequate financing of the system on a long-term sustainable basis”.

It is for this reason that I move the amendment, which is intended to ensure that the Government keep all these matters under review, together with all those affected by the provisions in the new legislation—within the service, those who use the service and those who practise in the service—from the judiciary to the individual applicant, appellant or litigant. In that way, the Government’s aspirations can be better fulfilled. It is necessary to respond to changing circumstances, to be as economical as possible and, where possible, to reduce costs through better case-management and the like. However, it cannot be taken for granted that simply legislating in this way to create these new structures will achieve that objective. Therefore, the amendment is intended to create a framework within which the whole structure can be kept under comprehensive and regular review. I beg to move.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss]

My Lords, I am very relieved that the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, does not oppose the government proposal for a single family court. I agree to a considerable extent with what he said.

To take Amendment 68A, the single family court will implode the family proceedings court at the magistrates’ level. The family proceedings court already takes a considerable burden of difficult family cases, both care cases and private law cases. The magistrates find that sometimes in the family proceedings court they have to sit for several consecutive days. In private law cases, families at odds with each other find it almost impossible to have their case dealt with to their satisfaction at one hearing. As a former president of the Family Division, my experience was that cases returned with monotonous regularity. I would be astonished if they returned with any less regularity to the magistrates’ court, as they deal with a lot of quite difficult private law cases.

17:30

Bearing in mind that legal aid will be removed from almost all private law disputes, other than domestic violence and one or two small matters, very much longer work will go on in the family proceedings court. As I understand it—certainly in the past and to some extent it may happen now—those who wish to sit in the family proceedings court are expected to carry their full share of the criminal courts, sitting in the criminal part of the magistrates’ court. That means they are not necessarily available to sit on repeat hearings. One of the really important aspects of family proceedings is the continuity of the court. The judges at every level—district, circuit and High Court—try as hard as they can to keep the same judge if possible. Under the present system, where magistrates who are particularly good at family work find themselves having to sit in the criminal court, they might not be available for that necessary continuity. I am not suggesting that family proceedings magistrates should sit every day of the year, but in proportion to how they sit in the criminal court and family court, I would like very much greater flexibility. Where appropriate and when experienced, they should be able to spend their time sitting in the family proceedings court. The lack of legal aid will be a significant factor in the magistrates’ family proceedings court, as I expect it will be in the district court.

I also very much support Amendment 68B. It would be very important to have a review of the provisions of the single family court, and I have no doubt that a review of the single county court will also be sensible. I am particularly concerned about the lack of legal aid at the single family court, with the impact on the family court at district, circuit and High Court judge levels. There will not only be problems with access to justice; perhaps more serious is the impact of longer cases. As I said at Second Reading, where litigants in person have lawyers, they can usually get the case tried quite quickly. If they do not have lawyers, it is impossible for a couple to settle their grievances—if they could have settled, they would not have come to court. The judge has great difficulty in getting them to settle and basically has to sit and hear the case. Therefore cases that would settle in half an hour are going to be heard for one or two days and sometimes longer. That is going to create an additional delay at several courts, particularly at the district judges’ court.

It will have an impact in those courts where care cases are heard where, according to Norgrove and supported by the Government, they should begin and finish in six months. It is important that the effect of these various proposals should be reviewed by the Government, particularly on the legal aid aspect, in the next year to 18 months. Thereafter, however, looking at Amendment 68C, I wonder whether an annual basis might not be excessive. It is excessive in the sense that it will cost money and I would prefer to have it less frequently—every two or three years—but it should be in depth and action then taken by the Government of the day to improve what that report has said. I would not think that an annual basis was an entirely sensible proposal, but in principle I support these amendments.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede]

My Lords, I rise to support this group of amendments. Essentially, they are about monitoring the outcome of what has been the largest overhaul of the courts system for a long time. Many courts have closed and some have opened. Last Thursday, I went to the opening of the new Westminster Magistrates’ Court by the Lord Chancellor. It is a magnificent building and I hope that it will be a centrepiece of London justice for the next 100 years. While this is set for London, over the whole country—including London—there have been many closures of smaller courts, which mean we are moving away from the principle of local justice which is administered locally. The reasons for these sweeping changes should be monitored and that is the main purpose of this group of amendments.

I will now move to the idea of a single family court with a single point of entry. I understand that this change is generally welcomed by all those involved in the family court system. I will repeat a point that has been made before, that lay magistrates are looking for reassurance that they will continue to play an important part in the family proceedings courts. When I have raised this issue before, that reassurance has always been forthcoming from Ministers. I repeat that request today, although it will be in the details of the proceedings of the courts themselves—which I understand will be a separate Bill at a later stage—where the lay magistrates’ concerns will be most likely to get their reassurance.

Amendment 68A states:

“There shall be no restriction on the number of days that a family magistrate may sit in the family proceedings court”.

That is to meet the recommendation of the Norgrove report, as my noble friend Lord Beecham said. As the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said, the main purpose is to increase flexibility and case continuity for repeat hearings. It is my understanding that it is for the Lord Chief Justice and Lord Chancellor to determine both the maximum and minimum amount of sittings by magistrates, and it is not a matter for primary legislation. I would argue that it is important that lay magistrates maintain their activities outside court and are not professionalised through excessive sitting. It is right that the route to appointment as a lay family magistrate is through the adult criminal lay Bench, as it is today. That should continue. I acknowledge that it is a conundrum to meet the needs which the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss said, while at the same time maintaining a lay Bench which is genuinely lay.

There is an answer. These matters could be determined locally by bench chairmen and I understand that experienced family magistrates can choose to give up their adult criminal work, with the approval of their bench chairman. There are ways round these problems which can be administered locally. The purpose of this group of amendments is to look at the many changes and be reassured that the Government want to review them, write reports about them and keep an open mind about what they are introducing. I wholly support this aim.

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, I am very grateful for the opportunity to discuss these proposals. I should put on the record that Manchester United is in the borough of Trafford. It is very dangerous for people such as the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, to wander west of the Pennines with football knowledge: they are just not up to it.

[Lord Beecham]

The noble Lord will acknowledge, and I am pleased to say, that sometimes it is very dangerous for Manchester United to venture to the north-east.

[Lord McNally]

I agree. The noble Lord kindly gave me a plank on which to walk to firmer ground. His points about the operations of the Court of Protection are wider than the scope of this Bill and it would be better if I write to him and put a copy in the Library of the House. This has been mainly a debate about the fundamental overhaul of the civil and family court system in England and Wales, which has the aim of providing an effective, proportionate and efficient system for resolving disputes.

With these principles in mind, Clause 17, as has been said, establishes a new single county court and a single family court for England and Wales. In January 2008, the Judicial Executive Board commissioned the former Lord Justice of Appeal, Sir Henry Brooke, to conduct an inquiry into civil court unification, and the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, quoted from Sir Henry’s report. In that report, Sir Henry recommended that there should be consideration on the creation of a single national court.

Our proposals mean that a single court will provide a more efficient civil justice system where litigants can achieve a more efficient, proportionate and speedier resolution to their disputes. Access to justice will be increased as the single county court will enable Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service to introduce more modern means for citizens to engage with courts in a cost-effective way. Court users in general will see a more responsive and consistent service through more effective use of information and communication technology, and the ability to centralise and standardise back office functions.

The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, mentioned the record of the business centre in Salford, which processes 1,800 claims every day. It does that within two to three days of their receipt. Some concerns have been raised but they are mainly as a result of bedding in a new service. The service is on a par with that previously experienced in the individual county courts.

Turning to the new family court, members of the public bringing family proceedings before the court rarely do so as a matter of choice. In many cases it is preferable for the parties and any children involved to be helped to resolve their differences outside the court arena. However, there are cases that are properly and appropriately brought to court for a judicial decision. The Government consider it is vital that individuals, many of whom are under stress when bringing family proceedings to court, are confronted with a system that is easier to use and access, and which provides swifter resolution of issues than is possible under the current court structure.

As your Lordships will be aware, the proposal to establish a single family court came from the independent review of the family justice system by a panel chaired by David Norgrove. A single family court will provide clarity and simplicity for the court user. It will increase accessibility to the court and reduce confusion. In particular, it will help those involved in family proceedings without representation who currently may be unsure whether their particular application should be made to a magistrates’ court or a county court and, if so, which category of county court.

The creation of a single family court will allow cases to be allocated appropriately by a judicial gatekeeper on the issue of proceedings, as all judges and magistrates hearing family matters will be judges of the family court. That flexibility will benefit the court user as the early identification of the appropriate level of judiciary will minimise delay. As with the new county court, the creation of the single family court will also lead to greater efficiencies in the use of administrative and judicial resources.

17:45

Amendment 68A seeks to lift the restrictions on the number of days magistrates will be able to sit in the new family court. I note the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Beecham and Lord Ponsonby, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. First, perhaps I may give the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, the reassurance he seeks. I support the magistrates in the family proceedings court and elsewhere. I can assure your Lordships that there is no intention of using the creation of the single family court as a way of diminishing the role of magistrates in family proceedings. The purpose of these provisions is to create a more efficient and flexible system that is better able to respond to fluctuations in demand. The Government recognise the crucial and invaluable role that magistrates have to play in the family justice system and have no wish to undermine this.

Among the proposals by the Family Justice Review, judges and magistrates should be able to and encouraged to specialise in family matters. As part of this, the review recommended that the Judicial Office should revisit the restriction on magistrate sitting days. The Government accepted this recommendation and in our response to the review stated that,

“those willing to sit extra days to accommodate family cases should not be discouraged from doing so due to an arbitrary threshold”.

In considering this, I will take back the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. The Government will work with the Judicial Office to look at the feasibility of making such changes. I am happy to keep the noble Lords informed of progress in this area. With that assurance, I hope that the noble Lord will feel happy to withdraw that amendment.

Amendment 68B would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of the single county court and single family court, and to publish a report to Parliament within 18 months of commencement of these provisions. As the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, will be aware, the previous Administration introduced a system of post-legislative reviews of all government legislation. This is a valuable process and one that this Government have been happy to continue. Such reviews are conducted some three to five years after Royal Assent. Given this standing arrangement, I am not persuaded that we need to write a review mechanism into the Bill.

I can assure noble Lords that, in line with the standing arrangements for post-legislative scrutiny, we will be conducting a review of the new single county court and family court. Indeed, we included a commitment to this effect in the impact assessments which we have published alongside the Bill. These provide for a review to be carried out within five years. This timeframe will allow the new county and family courts to bed down and so enable the full benefits to be fully and properly evaluated. I put it to noble Lords that a review that starts just 12 months after commencement will be too soon to enable a proper evaluation to take place and to draw meaningful comparisons with the old arrangements. The longer timeframe we have in mind will enable appropriate statistical evidence to be compiled and the views of court users and others to be obtained based on a realistic period of operation under the new arrangements.

I am similarly not persuaded of the case for Amendment 68C. Under Section 1 of the Courts Act 2003, the Lord Chancellor is already under a general statutory duty to ensure that there is an efficient and effective system to support the carrying on of business in the courts and to report annually to Parliament on the discharge of this duty. Moreover, both Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service and the Office of the Public Guardian publish annual reports. As the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, pointed out, imposing a requirement for an annual review would be excessive and unnecessary. I would be interested to know whether the noble Lord has put a cost on such annual reviews.

I was very pleased the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, said that he would not press his opposition to Clause 17 standing part of the Bill, and that there is general support around the House for these reforms. Now is the time to let them go forward and bed in. I take the point made about the magistracy, which I strongly endorse. In those circumstances, I hope that the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Beecham]

I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. In particular I welcome his response to limits on the time magistrates might sit in the family court. I also take the point made by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, that an annual review, as called for in the amendment, is perhaps too frequent. However, I do not agree that it is simply good enough to rely on the present system with the Lord Chancellor reporting and then the other courts reporting separately. We need a comprehensive periodic review—I accept that annually may be too frequent—to look at how the whole system is working particularly in the light of other legislative changes, notably the Legal Aid Act, which is clearly going to impinge very substantially on the way the courts work. I do not think a review after five years, or even three, is adequate to assess how things are going, given the scale of the changes and the potential implications for parties and indeed the system itself. However, a periodic review perhaps less frequently than one year but more frequently than currently occurs across the whole system is required so that we can look at the effect of change—these statutory changes and others outside the province of the legislature—on society itself and whether it is adequately dealt with by the different parts of what is, after all, supposed to be effectively a single system which ought not to be too difficult for people to navigate.

In the circumstances, I will not press these amendments today but I am likely to return at least to the question of a comprehensive review, albeit perhaps on a different time basis, when we come to Report. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment 68A withdrawn.

Clause 17 agreed.

Amendments 68B and 68C not moved.

Amendment 68D

Moved by

[Lord Beecham]

68D: After Clause 17, insert the following new Clause—
“Provision of information service for court users
An adequate information service must be provided for court users at each county court, which may be provided in partnership with a voluntary organisation.”

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, this is a relatively simple amendment. It arises from discussions with citizens advice bureaux nationally which have pointed out that the practice of there being reception staff at county courts has lapsed in many places. I understand that in many courts there is staffing available for only two hours a day. In some courts there is no staffing at all now. Given the changes in the legal aid and advice system increasingly people are going to be finding their own way, unsupported, to the courts and will find little or no help or advice available. The purpose of this amendment is simply to endeavour to require that there should be an information service accessible to people at the courts, not necessarily provided by the courts. Citizens advice bureaux and possibly other agencies might well be interested in undertaking this responsibility It is surely important, particularly for those who find the whole process of litigation difficult, as many do, to have accessible advice at the point where it is most needed—that is, at the court door, as it were. I hope that the Government will look at ways in which this might be achieved, particularly involving the voluntary sector. It would ultimately assist the efficiency of the courts because otherwise, I suspect, we are going to get increasing problems, as I have already indicated, from the number of litigants in person. At least if litigants in person can receive some advice at the outset, it might ultimately repay itself in financial and other terms quite profoundly with a reduced impact on more expensive court time, which is better deployed in determining cases. I beg to move.

[Lord Woolf]

My Lords, I hope that what the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, is proposing here is given most careful consideration. In order to obtain what we all want—access to justice for the citizen—information is critical. In Access to Justice, for which I was responsible many years ago, I hoped that we would one day reach the situation where the courts’ role changed from what it had been in the past. In the past, its purpose was to respond to the litigant’s activities and not to be proactive. I urged that the courts should become proactive and the citizen who come to the court shall receive not only the judgment, which sometimes they would be looking for, but also guidance as to the most economic and efficient way of resolving their dispute. Information provided as envisaged by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, could play a critical role in this respect. Commendably, following Access to Justice, some courts provided very good services of this nature. It is very easy, when one is forced to make the economies that the Lord Chancellor is forced to make, perhaps not immediately recognise that although the service is a modest one it pays for itself over and again. It is important to the possible litigant seeking from the court general guidance on the resolution of their dispute. I hope what the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, has proposed will be taken away and considered very carefully and sympathetically.

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, is very much in line with what we are trying to do but I cannot believe that it is necessary to have a statutory duty. We went through some of this in the LASPO Bill. I think that sometimes noble Lords do not accept just how much these days people get their information via the telephone and the internet, and from well-prepared, well-produced literature. There is a role for the voluntary sector and certainly we will be willing to explore with it the role it can play. However, surveys we have carried out show that only a small minority of attendees at court counters were there to seek information. Overwhelmingly, people get their information through well-produced literature, the telephone and the internet. Part of the thrust of the reforms we are carrying through at the MoJ is to make sure that our online services are as full as possible with information and guidance to steer people through the processes.

Yes, it is quite true that places such as the CABs can play an important part in being the first point of contact to help people to go online and make the right phone call. Certainly, as I said, we would be willing to talk to third sector advice agencies. Indeed, the MoJ and the court services already provide some grants to those organisations for that purpose. I recognise the importance of ensuring that information is widely available without requiring citizens to travel to their local hearing centre to find it. Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service already provides a wide variety of information to users and does so through a number of different channels, including websites, telephone and at court counters. In doing so, we already routinely work with third sector organisations. To keep pace with how citizens access information, and in keeping with other public services, we believe it is more appropriate to focus resources on providing information through online and telephone services so we can better serve the population as a whole to gain access to information from anywhere at any time. Equally, when people attend court, they will continue to have the information that they need to use our services effectively. With the assurance that county court users will continue, as now, to be provided with appropriate information, I hope that the noble Lord will be willing to withdraw his amendment.

18:00

[Lord Beecham]

It is certainly possible to underestimate the degree to which people access online services, but it is equally possible to overestimate the willingness and capacity of people to use such services or, for that matter, the adequacy of the services themselves. In endeavouring to prepare for today’s debate, for example, I went on to the MoJ website to track down documents referred to by the Minister, Mr Djanogly. I simply could not do that. It might well have been me, but it also might have been the MoJ. I cannot believe that it is universally the case that people, particularly people in sometimes difficult and distressing circumstances, which is why they are going to court in the first place, will necessarily be able to find information easily.

I know that the Minister is well intentioned in this, but it would be helpful if he could indicate whether, by the time we get to Report—after all, with the Summer Recess, it will be some months before we do that—he would endeavour to have these discussions with the third sector and indicate an outcome. At that point, it may not be necessary to press the matter further, but I would like something a little more concrete than good will before abandoning the proposal, for which I am very glad to have received the support of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf.

[Lord McNally]

The noble Lord said that some in the voluntary sector had said to him that they had ideas. Short of committing money, I am very willing to talk to them about this issue, and we can look at it and report back at Report—perhaps not with an amendment from him. My good will is certainly there, but I believe that with understandable websites, the telephone and the use of the voluntary sector we can meet his concerns.

[Lord Beecham]

I am grateful for that assurance. I know that the Minister is sympathetic to the objective, if not necessarily the means. I hope that he can have some discussions with the sector and resolve matters, but I shall reserve my position until then. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 68D withdrawn.

Schedule 9 : Single county court in England and Wales

Amendment 69

Moved by

[Lord McNally]

69: Schedule 9, page 99, line 10, leave out “chairmen of employment tribunals” and insert “Employment Judges”

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, wearing another hat, I am a member of the public business committee that guides public business through both Houses. That business committee usually takes the strongest possible exception to any government department in any Bill where a large number of government drafting amendments appear on the order paper. So I am a little bit embarrassed to be moving this amendment, although I am assured by those who advise me that the amendments are entirely necessarily.

The amendments cover a number of pages in the Marshalled List, but they are technical in nature. They include a number of minor or consequential amendments to take account of the creation of the single county court and single family court. With the creation of the single county court, the 170 existing county courts will cease to exist as separate courts or jurisdictions but will remain as hearing centres with court offices attached to them. Perhaps I can use this opportunity to answer a point made in an earlier debate. No, there is no secret hit list behind this legislation in creating the two single courts. But what is left are numerous statutory references to “a county court”, which now need throughout the legislation to be amended to “the county court.”

However, some provisions require more than merely substituting one word for another. In some cases, the relevant provisions extend to other jurisdictions, most notably Scotland and Northern Ireland. Accordingly, although still consequential, some amendments require further work to ensure that they have effect only in England and Wales. In other cases, when certain proceedings are required to be undertaken in a county court in a particular district, it has been necessary to amend those provisions to reflect the fact that there will now be only one county court with a general jurisdiction. In future and where necessary, specialist jurisdiction will be conferred on particular hearing centres by secondary legislation.

Amendments 71 and 72 clarify the rules designed to prevent any conflict of interest by part-time judges in the county court. The amendments provide that a part-time judge in the county court may not act as a judge in relation to any proceedings in the court in which he or she, or anyone with whom the judge is in practice, is directly or indirectly engaged as a legal representative. The amendments are needed in light of the expanding number of business entities within which solicitors may now work following the enactment of the Legal Services Act 2007. Amendments 80 to 82 introduce parallel provisions for the family court. As with the single county court, the amendments to the family court provisions are also largely minor and consequential. These amendments take account of the creation of a single family court from the existing three levels of court which currently deal with family proceedings in England and Wales.

As I am sure your Lordships will appreciate, the process of creating a new court necessitates a plethora of consequential amendments to various enactments. The majority of the amendments in this group are intended to ensure that the family court has the same jurisdiction as the courts that currently deal with family proceedings. This process involves, among other things, substituting numerous references across many different Acts to the “magistrates’ court” for the “family court”.

I should draw to the Committee’s attention one particular amendment relating to the family court. Amendment 83 removes the provision in new Section 31D of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984, which, by applying Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, gave the Lord Chancellor the power to require the Lord Chief Justice to make rules on the composition of the family court and the distribution of business among the judges within the family court. On further consideration, we have accepted that this power is unnecessary as the Lord Chief Justice will, regardless of this power, need to make rules to ensure the practical and efficient implementation of the single family court. As a result, we accept that there will be no need for any direction from the Lord Chancellor for him to do so.

There is also one final set of amendments in this group to which I should draw the Committee’s attention. Amendments 69, 70, 78, 79, 134, 136, 141, 142, 143, 144 and 146 all make consequential amendments to various enactments as a consequence of the renaming of chairmen of employment tribunals as employment judges. These amendments simply ensure that the relevant legislation reflect the new nomenclature. As I indicated in my opening remarks, I appreciate that there are quite a few pages of amendments in this group. But as I have tried to explain, they are overwhelmingly of a technical nature. I would, of course, be happy to explain particular amendments in further detail if necessary, but for now I would simply move Amendment 69.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving us a quick guide through this jungle of amendments, about which I have nothing to say except that I note that the inflation of nomenclature is even greater than RPI: everybody now ends up as a judge, which I am sure is a great consolation to the legal profession. Clearly, these are technical and useful amendments and they should certainly stand.

Amendment 69 agreed.

Amendments 70 to 77

Moved by

[Lord McNally]

70: Schedule 9, page 99, line 11, after “Wales” insert “or for Scotland”

71: Schedule 9, page 100, line 1, leave out from “(1)” to end of line 3 and insert “(officer of a county court and officer’s firm not to be engaged as representative in any proceedings in that court, subject to exception in subsection (4) for deputy district judges)—
(a) for the words from the beginning to “be” substitute—“A fee-paid part-time judge of the county court may not act as a judge of the court in relation to any proceedings in the court in which—(a) the judge,(b) a partner or employer of the judge,(c) a body of which the judge is a member or officer, or(d) a body of whose governing body the judge is a member,is”, and(b) omit “in any proceedings in that court”.”

72: Schedule 9, page 100, line 5, leave out sub-paragraph (4) and insert—
“(4) Omit subsection (4) (provision about deputy district judges which is incorporated in the amended subsection (1)).”

73: Schedule 9, page 106, line 4, at end insert—
“( ) In section 125(1) (execution of warrants) for “a court” substitute “the court”.”

74: Schedule 9, page 110, line 1, at end insert “, and
(b) for “county court rules” substitute “rules of court”.”

75: Schedule 9, page 114, line 17, at end insert—
“Part 2AFurther amendmentsAmendment of references to “a county court”51A (1) In the provisions listed in sub-paragraph (2) (but subject to any specific amendments made by or under this Act)—
(a) for “A county court”, in each place, substitute “The county court”, and(b) for “a county court”, in each place, substitute “the county court”.(2) The provisions are—
Access to Health Records Act 1990: section 8(5),
Access to Justice Act 1999: sections 17, 17A, 21 and 54 to 57,
Access to Medical Records Act 1988: section 8(2),
Access to Neighbouring Land Act 1992: section 8(3),
Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1933: section 7(2),
Administration of Justice Act 1960: sections 12 and 13,
Administration of Justice Act 1970: section 11(b) in the words before sub-paragraph (i), and section 41(3),
Administration of Justice Act 1977: section 23(4)(a),
Administration of Justice Act 1982: section 38,
Administration of Justice Act 1985: section 53(2)(c),
Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003: sections 13 and 26A to 28,
Charging Orders Act 1979: sections 1(1), (2)(c) and (d) and (6), 3(4A)(a) and 6(2),
Charities Act 1992: section 58(1),
Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982: section 18(4A)(a),
Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002: sections 66(1) and 107(1),
Commons Act 2006: sections 34(5) and 46(7)(a),
Companies Act 2006: section 1183,
Communications Act 2003: section 124Q(7)(a),
Compensation Act 2006: section 8(2),
Contempt of Court Act 1981: section 14 (but not in its application to Northern Ireland as set out in Schedule 4 to that Act),
Crime and Disorder Act 1998: sections 1B(1) and 10,
Criminal Justice Act 2003: section 329(8)(c),
Data Protection Act 1998: section 55D(2)(a),
Education Act 1996: section 336(2)(g),
Education and Skills Act 2008: sections 56(5), 57(2), 58(4)(b), 59(4) and 65(3),
Electricity Act 1989: sections 39B(4)(a) and 44A(6)(b)(i),
Employment Rights Act 1996: sections 110(6)(a), 194(4) and 195(4),
Employment Tribunals Act 1996: sections 7(3)(e)(i), 13(1C), 15(1) and 19A,
Environmental Protection Act 1990: section 78P(8),
Equality Act 2006: sections 21(7)(b), 22(6), 24 and 32(9)(b), and paragraphs 11 and 12(2) of Schedule 2,
Equality Act 2010: sections 114(1), 119(1), 120(6), 124(6), 127(9), 138(8), 140(6) and 143(1), paragraph 12(5) of Schedule 20 and paragraphs 4(2) and 5(7) of Schedule 21,
Finance Act 2003: paragraph 5(1)(a) of Schedule 12, and the first “a county court” in paragraph 5(3)(a) of that Schedule,
Financial Services and Markets Act 2000: paragraphs 16(a) and 16D(a) of Schedule 17,
Gas Act 1986: sections 15A(6)(b), 27A(9)(b) and 33AB(4)(a),
Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003: section 155(7),
Highways Act 1980: sections 79(8) and (13) and 308,
Horserace Betting and Olympic Lottery Act 2004: section 9(6),
Housing Act 1980: section 86(1),
Housing Act 1985: sections 82A(2), 110(1), 181(1) and 272(5), and paragraph 6(5) of Schedule 18,
Housing Act 1988: sections 6A(2) and 40(1) and (3), and section 40(4) until its repeal by the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 is fully in force,
Housing Act 1996: sections 95, 138(1), 153E(6), 154(1), 155(6), 157(1) and 203(5),
Housing Act 2004: sections 214(1) and 215(2A), and paragraphs 5(3)(a) and 13 of Schedule 13,
Immigration and Asylum Act 1999: section 43(2)(a),
Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006: section 17(6)(a),
Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965: section 60(8)(a),
Insolvency Act 1986: sections 196(a), 373(2), 375 and 429(1),
Land Registration Act 2002: sections 75(4), 76(5) and 132(3)(a),
Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995: sections 8(4) and 10(4),
Landlord and Tenant (War Damage) Act 1939: section 23(1),
Landlord and Tenant Act 1954: section 63(2) and (9),
Landlord and Tenant Act 1985: section 20C(2), and paragraph 8(2) of the Schedule,
Landlord and Tenant Act 1987: sections 52(1) and (3) and 60(1), and paragraphs 4(3) and 9(3) of Schedule 1, and section 52(4) until its repeal by the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 is fully in force,
Learning and Skills Act 2000: section 145(5),
Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993: sections 90, 93(3) and 101(1), paragraph 4(3) of Schedule 8 and paragraph 4 of Schedule 14,
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012: sections 24(3)(b) and 36(5), paragraph 5 of Part 3 of Schedule 1 and paragraph 2(3) of Schedule 2,
Legal Services Act 2007: section 141(7),
Local Government Act 1972: section 146(3),
Local Government Act 2000: section 77(6)(e),
Local Government Finance Act 1992: paragraph 11(4) of Schedule 4,
Local Land Charges Act 1975: section 10(8),
Localism Act 2011: section 159(5),
London Building Acts (Amendment) Act 1939 (c. xcvii): sections 103 and 143, and entry (xxxiv) in the table in section 148(2),
London County Council (General Powers) Act 1955 (c. xxix): section 7(4),
Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980: sections 87(1) and 111A(3)(a),
Mental Health Act 1983: section 31,
Mines and Quarries (Tips) Act 1969: section 28,
National Health Service Act 2006: sections 90(5), 94(3)(h), 105(5), 109(3)(h), 122(5) and 139(8), and paragraph 3(3)(j) of Schedule 12,
National Health Service (Wales) Act 2006: sections 48(5), 52(3)(h), 62(5), 66(3)(h) and 97(8), and paragraph 3(3)(j) of Schedule 7,
National Minimum Wage Act 1998: sections 19E(a), 38(2) and 39(2),
Patents Act 1977: sections 41(9), 61(7)(a), 93(a) and 107(2),
Pension Schemes Act 1993: sections 53(1B)(a), 115(6)(a), 150(8)(a) and 151(5)(a),
Pensions Act 1995: section 10(8A)(a),
Pensions Act 2004: sections 103(9)(a), 217(2)(a) and 218(5)(a),
Pensions Act 2008: section 42(2),
Planning Act 2008: section 171(4), and paragraph 24 of Schedule 12,
Policing and Crime Act 2009: section 49(1), and paragraph 1(9) of Schedule 5A,
Protection from Harassment Act 1997: section 3A(2),
Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976: section 26,
Rent Act 1977: sections 96(3), 132(6) and 141,
Representation of the People Act 1983: sections 78(4), 86(1)(c) and 167(1), and rule 56(1), (4) and (5)(a) of Schedule 1, with a view to the inserted references to the county court including (as in other places in that Act) a county court in Northern Ireland,
Representation of the People Act 1983: section 167(3), and paragraph 9 of Schedule 4,
Reserve and Auxiliary Forces (Protection of Civil Interests) Act 1951: section 2(1),
Senior Courts Act 1981: section 29(4),
Social Security (Recovery of Benefits) Act 1997: section 7(4),
Social Security Act 1989: paragraph 9 of Schedule 5,
Social Security Administration Act 1992: sections 71ZE(1) and 126(3)(a),
Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992: section 12(7),
Solicitors Act 1974: sections 61(6), 68(2), 69(3) and 74(3),
Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992: section 277(3), and paragraphs 19E(5), 28(6) and 120(6) of Schedule A1,
Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007: sections 27(1)(a) and 78(3), section 92(1) (in the inserted section 15D(3)), section 93(2) (in the inserted section 1(6)), section 93(3) (in the inserted section 3(4A)(a)), sections 93(6), 95(1), 104(2), 115 to 118, 119(1)(b), 122(2) and 123(1), paragraph 12(2)(b) of Schedule 5, paragraphs 3(1), 60(8) and 66(4) of Schedule 12, paragraphs 77 and 79(2)(a) of Schedule 13 (in the quoted or inserted text), paragraphs 2(2), 5, 7, 10, 18 and 21 of Schedule 15 (in the inserted text) and paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 16 (in the inserted section 429(1)),
Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996: section 23(3),
Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006: section 4(1),
Water Industry Act 1991: sections 30A(5), 51B(5) and 150A(6), and
Welfare Reform Act 2012: section 105(1) (in the inserted section 71ZE(1)).
Amendments of other references51B In section 7(1) of the Access to Neighbouring Land Act 1992 for “the county courts” substitute “the county court”.
51C In section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1956 for “a county court”, and for “that county court”, substitute “the county court”.
51D In section 26 of the Administration of Justice 1964 (Inner and Middle Temples in City of London for certain purposes including the law relating to county courts) omit “county courts,”.
51E In section 96(1) of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 omit the definition of “county court”.
51F In section 18(5) of the Agricultural Marketing Act 1958 omit the words from “within the district” to “may be brought”.
51G In section 5 of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1954—
(a) in subsections (2) and (3) for “county court rules” substitute “rules of court”, and(b) omit subsection (4) (powers of district judge).51H In section 6 of the Allotments Act 1922 for “the judge of the county court having jurisdiction in the place where the land is situated”, and for “a county court”, substitute “the county court”.
51I (1) In section 82(1) of the Arbitration Act 1996, in the definition of “legal proceedings”, after “civil proceedings” insert “in England and Wales in the High Court or the county court or in Northern Ireland”.
(2) In section 105 of that Act—
(a) in subsection (1) after ““the court”” insert “in relation to England and Wales means the High Court or the county court and in relation to Northern Ireland”,(b) in subsection (2) before paragraph (a) insert—“(za) allocating proceedings under this Act in England and Wales to the High Court or the county court;”,(c) in subsection (2)(a) after “this Act” insert “in Northern Ireland”,(d) in subsection (2)(b) after “or in” insert “the county court or (as the case may be)”,(e) in the first sentence in subsection (3) after “a county court” insert “in Northern Ireland”, and(f) in the second sentence in subsection (3) omit “England and Wales or, as the case may be,”.51J In section 22(6) of the Architects Act 1997 (appeals) after “appeal” insert “in England and Wales to the county court or, in Northern Ireland,”.
51K In section 17(6) of the Audit Commission Act 1998 for “the county courts” substitute “the county court”.
51L In section 5(1) of the Caravan Sites Act 1968 (meaning of “the court”) omit the words from “and any powers” to the end.
51M In the Chancel Repairs Act 1932—
(a) in section 3(1)—(i) omit “for the district in which the chancel is situate”, and(ii) for “a county court” substitute “the county court”,(b) in section 3(3)—(i) for “a judge of county courts” substitute “the county court”, and(ii) for “the judge” substitute “the court”, and(c) in section 4(1) for “county court rules” substitute “rules of court”.51N In sections 10(7), 29(4) and 29A(1) of the Chiropractors Act 1994—
(a) after “appeal” insert “in England and Wales to the county court or in Northern Ireland”, and(b) before “the sheriff” insert “to”.51O In section 18(2)(b) of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 for “or”, in the second place, substitute “in the High Court or the county court or in”.
51P In the Civil Procedure Act 1997—
(a) in sections 1(1)(c) and 2(2)(e) and (f) for “county courts” substitute “the county court”, and(b) in Schedule 1 (civil procedure rules)—(i) in paragraph 3(1)(b) for “between county courts” substitute “within the county court”, and(ii) in paragraph 3(2)(a)(ii) for “by another county court” substitute “elsewhere within the county court”.51Q In section 25(5)(c) of the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005, in the definition of “legal proceedings”, after “civil proceedings” insert “in England and Wales in the county court or in Northern Ireland”.
51R In paragraph 11 of Schedule 11 to the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 for “a county court”, and for “such a court”, substitute “the county court”.
51S In section 41(1) of the Commons Act 2006 omit “in whose area the land is situated”.
51T In section 2(7) of the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 after “exercisable” insert “in England and Wales by both the High Court and the county court and in Northern Ireland”.
51U In sections 115(1), 205(1) and 232(1) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 for “,Wales and” substitute “and Wales the county court and in”.
51V In section 8(4) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 for “county courts” substitute “county court”.
51W In section 30 of the Courts Act 1971 for “county courts” substitute “the county court”.
51X In section 1B(5) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 for “which made an order under this section for it” substitute “for an order made under this section”.
51Y In section 10(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977 for “by any” substitute “the”.
51Z In section 15(1) of the Data Protection Act 1998 after “exercisable” insert “in England and Wales by the High Court or the county court or, in Northern Ireland,”.
51AA In section 5 of the Debtors Act 1869—
(a) in paragraph (a) of proviso (1) for “or his deputy” substitute “of the court”,(b) for “any county court” substitute “the county court”, and(c) for “other than a” substitute “other than the”.51AB In the Deeds of Arrangement Act 1914—
(a) in section 10(1) for the words after “copy of the deed to the” substitute “county court.”,(b) in section 10(2) omit “the registrar of”, and(c) in section 16 for “a county court” substitute “the county court”. 51AC In section 8 of the Disused Burial Grounds (Amendment) Act 1981—
(a) omit “in whose district the land is situated who”, and(b) omit the words after “costs of the application”.51AD In the Enterprise Act 2002—
(a) in section 16(6) after “High Court” insert “or the county court”,(b) in section 215(5)(a) omit “England and Wales or”,(c) in section 215(5) before paragraph (a) insert—“(za) the High Court or the county court if the person against whom the order is sought carries on business or has a place of business in England and Wales;”, and(d) in paragraph 25(a) of Schedule 4 for “a county court in England and Wales or” substitute “the county court in England and Wales or the High Court or a county court in”.51AE In the Estate Agents Act 1979—
(a) in the definition of “court” in section 11A(4) omit “England and Wales and” and before paragraph (a) insert—“(za) in England and Wales, the High Court or the county court;”, and(b) in paragraph 6(1) of Schedule 4 after “appeal” insert “in England and Wales to the county court or, in Northern Ireland,”.51AF In section 133(8)(a) of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 before “as if” insert “in England and Wales, as if it were an order of the county court or, in Northern Ireland,”.
51AG (1) In section 22 of the Friendly Societies Act 1974 after subsection (2) insert—
“(2A) In the application of subsection (2) to England and Wales, for the words “for the district in which the member resides” there shall be substituted “if the member resides in England and Wales”.
(2) In section 80(2)(b) of that Act after “brought” insert “in England and Wales in the county court or, in Northern Ireland,”.
(3) In section 93(3) of that Act—
(a) for the words from “make an application—” to the end of paragraph (a) substitute “make an application to the county court in England and Wales if the chief or any other place of business of that society or branch is situated in England and Wales or may make an application—”, and(b) for “such application” substitute “application under this subsection”.51AH (1) In section 82(4) of the Friendly Societies Act 1992 after “brought” insert “in England and Wales in the county court or, in Northern Ireland,”.
(2) In section 119(1) of that Act in the definition of “the court” for “Wales or” substitute “Wales, the county court;
(aa) in the case of a body whose registered office is situated in”.51AI (1) In section 48 of the Government Annuities Act 1929 after subsection (2) insert—
“(2A) For the purposes of this section, England and Wales is to be treated as the district of the county court in England and Wales.”
(2) In section 61(1) of that Act after “a county court” insert “in Northern Ireland or the county court in England and Wales”.
51AJ Omit section 59(4) of the Highways Act 1980 and, in consequence, omit paragraph 8(2) of Schedule 3 to the Administration of Justice Act 1982.
51AK In paragraph 6(2) of Schedule 18 to the Housing Act 1985 for “a county court judge”, and for “the county court judge”, substitute “a judge of the county court”.
51AL In paragraph 13 of Schedule 13 to the Housing Act 2004 for “such a” substitute “that”.
51AM In the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999—
(a) in section 25(5)(a) after “granted” insert “in England and Wales by the county court or in Northern Ireland”,(b) in section 43(3)(a) after “a county court” insert “in Northern Ireland, or the county court in England and Wales,”, and(c) in sections 89(7), 92(1) and 112(4) after “a county court” insert “in Northern Ireland or the county court in England and Wales”.51AN In section 42(3)(b) of the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965 for “that county court or” substitute “the county court or that”.
51AO In section 25(1) of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 in the definition of “the court”—
(a) for “a county” in both places substitute “the county”, and(b) for “22 of this Act” substitute “25 of the County Courts Act 1984”.51AP In the Insolvency Act 1986—
(a) in section 117(2) (county court winding-up jurisdiction)—(i) for “the amount of a company’s” substitute “in the case of a company registered in England and Wales the amount of its”, and(ii) omit “of the district in which the company’s registered office is situated”,(b) omit section 117(4) and (6),(c) in section 197(1)(a) for “a specified” substitute “the”,(d) in section 373(1) for “county courts” substitute “county court”,(e) in section 373(3)(a) for “Central London County Court” substitute “county court”,(f) in section 373(3)(b) (jurisdiction in relation to insolvent individuals)—(i) for “each” substitute “the”, and(ii) for “the insolvency district of that court” substitute “any other insolvency district”,(g) in section 374(1) for the words from “of each” to the end substitute “, or districts, of the county court.”,(h) in section 399(3) for the words from “a county court” to the end substitute “the county court.”,(i) in section 399(5)—(i) for the words from “each” to “Parts” substitute “the county court”, and(ii) for “two or more different” substitute “both”,(j) in section 399(6) for “another” substitute “the other”,(k) for section 413(3)(d) substitute—“(d) a district judge;”, and(l) in paragraph 2 of Schedule 9—(i) omit “or a registrar of a county court having jurisdiction for the purposes of those Parts”, and(ii) omit “or, as the case may be, that county court”.51AQ In Schedule 1 to the Interpretation Act 1978, in paragraph (a) of the definition of “County court”, for “a court held for a district under” substitute “the county court established under section A1 of”.
51AR In section 26(7)(g) of the Judicial Retirement and Pensions Act 1993 omit “in the county courts”.
51AS In the Juries Act 1974—
(a) in sections 1(1), 2(1) and 12(6) for “county courts” substitute “the county court”, and(b) in section 7 for “any county”, and in sections 17(2) and 23(2) for “a county”, substitute “the county”. 51AT In section 1(6A) of the Land Charges Act 1972 for “county courts” substitute “county court”.
51AU In section 10 of the Landlord and Tenant (Requisitioned Land) Act 1942, and in section 2(2) of the Landlord and Tenant (Requisitioned Land) Act 1944, after “exercised” insert “in England and Wales by the county court and in Northern Ireland”.
51AV In paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 to the Leasehold Reform Act 1967—
(a) omit “making the order or another county court”, and(b) for “county courts” substitute “the county court”.51AW In paragraph 4 of Schedule 14 to the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 omit “or another county court”.
51AX In section 194(10) of the Legal Services Act 2007 in the definition of “civil court” as originally enacted and as substituted by section 61 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2007 for “any county” substitute “the county”.
51AY In section 35(3) of the Limitation Act 1980 for “any county” substitute “the county”.
51AZ In paragraph (a) of the second sentence in section 1(1) of the Litigants in Person (Costs and Expenses) Act 1975 before “in a county court” insert “in England and Wales in the county court or in Northern Ireland”.
51BA In sections 62(1) and 87(2) of the Local Government Act 1948 omit “for the county court district in which the property in question is situated”.
51BB In the London Building Acts (Amendment) Act 1939 (c. xcvii)—
(a) in section 103(2) for “such court”, in both places, substitute “that court”, and(b) in section 107(1) omit “of the district in which the premises are situate”.51BC In Schedule 1 to the London Local Authorities Act 1996 (c. ix)—
(a) in paragraph 9(1) for “if a county” substitute “if the county”,(b) in paragraph 10(1)(a) for “a county” substitute “the county”, and(c) in paragraph 10(1)(c) omit “which made the order”.51BD In section 64(2)(b) of the London Local Authorities Act 2007 (c. ii) for “if a county” substitute “if the county”.
51BE In paragraph 7 of Schedule 1 to the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 (c. iii) until its repeal by the Traffic Management Act 2004 is fully in force—
(a) in sub-paragraph (1)(c) omit “which made the order”,(b) in sub-paragraph (5) for “a district judge” substitute “the county court”,(c) in sub-paragraphs (6), (7) and (8)(d) for “district judge” substitute “county court”, and(d) in sub-paragraph (7) for “he” substitute “the court”.51BF In section 25 of the London Overground Wires &c. Act 1933 (c. xliv) for “any county court having otherwise jurisdiction in the matter” substitute “the county court”.
51BG In paragraph 8(3) of Schedule 3B to the Medical Act 1983 after “made” insert “in England and Wales to the county court or, in Northern Ireland,”.
51BH In paragraph 28 of Schedule 3 to the Medicines Act 1968 after sub-paragraph (2) insert—
“(2A) For the purposes of this paragraph, England and Wales is to be treated as the district of the county court in England and Wales.”
51BI In section 31 of the Mental Health Act 1983 for “County court rules” substitute “rules of court”.
51BJ In section 5(1) of the Mobile Homes Act 1983, in paragraph (a) of the definition of “the court”, omit “for the district in which the protected site is situated”.
51BK In section 73 of the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963—
(a) in subsections (1) and (2) for “county court within whose jurisdiction the premises are situate” substitute “court”, and(b) for subsection (3) substitute—“(3) In subsections (1) and (2) “the court”, in relation to any premises, means—(a) the county court if the premises are in England and Wales, or(b) if the premises are in Scotland, the sheriff within whose jurisdiction the premises are situate.”51BL In section 4(2) of the Open Spaces Act 1906 after “shall” insert “in England and Wales be either the High Court or the county court and, in Northern Ireland, shall”.
51BM In sections 10(7), 29(4) and 29A(1) of the Osteopaths Act 1993—
(a) after “may appeal” insert “in England and Wales to the county court or in Northern Ireland”, and(b) before “the sheriff” insert “to”.51BN In paragraphs 4(4) and 12(4) of Schedule 4 to the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 for “a county court” substitute “the county court in England and Wales or a county court in Northern Ireland”.
51BO In section 23(2) of the Partnership Act 1890 for “or a county court,” substitute “or the county court in England and Wales or a county court in Northern Ireland,”.
51BP In section 152 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993—
(a) in subsection (1)(a) for “county courts” substitute “the county court”, and(b) in subsection (2) for “the county court rules” substitute “rules of court”.51BQ In paragraph 11(2) of Schedule 3 to the Plant Varieties Act 1997 for “the county court rules” substitute “rules of court”.
51BR In the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000—
(a) in section 48(12)(a) for “or” substitute “means the county court and, in”,(b) in sections 77(4), 92(4) and 115(4) after “may apply” insert “in England and Wales to the High Court or the county court or, in Northern Ireland,”,(c) in sections 77(12) and 92(8) for the words after “In” substitute “its application to Gibraltar, subsection (4) has effect as if for the words between “apply” and “leave” there were substituted “to the Gibraltar court for”.”, and(d) in paragraphs 2(7), 6(7), 9(4) and 13(3) of Schedule 19C after “is to” insert “(in England and Wales) the county court or (in Northern Ireland)”.51BS Omit section 9(2) of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 (exercise of jurisdiction by district judges).
51BT In section 9(5) of the Protection of Children Act 1999 after “imposed” insert “in England and Wales by the county court or in Northern Ireland”.
51BU In section 32(10) of the Public Audit (Wales) Act 2004 for “courts” substitute “court”.
51BV In paragraph 6(2)(a) of Schedule A1 to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 for “a county court” substitute “the county court in England and Wales or a county court in Northern Ireland”.
51BW In section 104(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (conduct of proceedings)—
(a) for “before the registrar of a” substitute “the”, and(b) after “may” insert “,except in the county court if rules of court provide otherwise,”.51BX In section 113(3) of the Settled Land Act 1925 for “any county” substitute “the county”.
51BY In paragraph 9(3)(a) of Schedule 5 to the Social Security Act 1989 for “such a” substitute “that”.
51BZ In paragraph 3(1) of Schedule 4 to the Social Security Contributions (Transfer of Functions, etc.) Act 1999 after “proceedings” insert “in England and Wales in the county court or in Northern Ireland”.
51CA In the Solicitors Act 1974—
(a) in section 61(6) for “any county” substitute “the county”,(b) in section 68(2) for “that county” substitute “the county”, and(c) in section 69(3) for “any county court in which any part of the business was done” substitute “the county court”.51CB In section 61(3)(a) of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 for “county courts” substitute “the county court”.
51CC In section 66(1) of the Taxes Management Act 1970 after “proceedings” insert “in England and Wales in the county court or in Northern Ireland”.
51CD In the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977—
(a) in section 4(4)—(i) for “under section”, in the first place, substitute “for the High Court in England and Wales”,(ii) omit “84 of the Senior Courts Act 1981”, and(iii) omit “99 of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act 1925”,(b) in section 4(5)—(i) after “in relation to county courts” insert “in Northern Ireland”,(ii) after “High Court” insert “in Northern Ireland”, and(iii) omit “84”, “99”, “of the said Act of”, “1981”, “1925”, “section or” and “section 75 of the County Courts Act 1984 or”,(c) in section 4 after subsection (5) insert—“(6) Subsections (1) to (4) have effect in relation to the county court in England and Wales as they have effect in relation to the High Court in England and Wales.”,(d) in section 9(3) and (4) after “brought” insert “in England and Wales in the county court or in Northern Ireland”,(e) in section 9(3)—(i) before “county court rules” insert “rules of court or”, and(ii) for “same county” substitute “same”, and(f) in section 13(3) for the words from the beginning to “if” substitute “In this section “the court”, in relation to England and Wales, means the High Court or the county court and, in relation to Northern Ireland, means the High Court or a county court, save that a county court in Northern Ireland has jurisdiction in the proceedings only if”.51CE In section 75(1) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 for “or a county court having” substitute “,or the county court where it has”.
51CF In section 82(2)(b) of the Traffic Management Act 2004 for “if a county” substitute “if the county”.
51CG In the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007—
(a) in section 121(8) for paragraphs (a) and (b) substitute—“(aa) in relation to an administration order or an enforcement restriction order: the county court;”, and(b) omit sections 123(6) and 131(2), and paragraph 79(2)(b) of Schedule 13.51CH In section 67(2) of the Trustee Act 1925 for “county courts” substitute “the county court”.
51CI In section 11(1)(a) of the UK Borders Act 2007 for “a county court, in England and Wales or” substitute “the county court in England and Wales or a county court in”.
51CJ In section 5CE(5)(a) of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 for “a county court” substitute “the county court in England and Wales or a county court in Northern Ireland”.
51CK In paragraph 11(1) of Schedule 15 to the Water Resources Act 1991 omit “for the area in which the land or any part of it is situated”.

76: Schedule 9, page 114, line 21, at end insert—

“Literary and Scientific Institutions Act 1854 (c. 112)	In section 30, “the judge of” and “aforesaid”.
Hovercraft Act 1968 (c. 59)	In section 2(1), “27 to 29,”.
Senior Courts Act 1981 (c. 54)	In Schedule 5, the entry for the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977.
County Courts Act 1984 (c. 28)	In Schedule 2, paragraph 64.”

77: Schedule 9, page 114, line 35, at end insert—

“Legal Services Act 2007 (c. 29)	In Schedule 16, paragraph 69(a).
Access to Justice Act 1999 (Destination of Appeals) (Family Proceedings) Order 2009 (S.I. 2009/871)	Article 9(1) and (2).”

Amendments 70 to 77 agreed.

Schedule 9, as amended, agreed.

Schedule 10 : The family court

Amendments 78 to 84

Moved by

[Lord McNally]

78: Schedule 10, page 116, line 20, leave out “chairmen of employment tribunals” and insert “Employment Judges”

79: Schedule 10, page 116, line 21, after “Wales” insert “or for Scotland”

80: Schedule 10, page 116, line 39, leave out from beginning to “a” in line 43

81: Schedule 10, page 116, line 44, leave out from “court” to “may” in line 45

82: Schedule 10, page 116, line 47, after “judge,” insert “or a body of which the judge is a member or officer, or a body of whose governing body the judge is a member,”

83: Schedule 10, page 117, line 40, at end insert—
“(7A) Paragraph 5 of that Schedule (duty to make rules to achieve purpose specified by Lord Chancellor) does not apply in relation to rules under this section.”

84: Schedule 10, page 123, line 20, leave out from “1958” to end of line 21 and insert “, the Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1972 or Part 1 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982.”

Amendments 78 to 84 agreed.

Amendment 84A

Moved by

[Lord McNally]

84A: Schedule 10, page 126, line 25, at end insert “or the first rules under section 31O(4)”

[Lord McNally]

I beg your Lordships’ pardon; I have lost my place. I apologise to the Committee for the delay in getting to my feet. I do not think that I have ever got so many amendments through at one go. I was overwhelmed by my success. However, I am slightly worried as the Chamber looks rather like a scene from the Alfred Hitchcock film “The Birds”, in which the birds start to appear rather menacingly. I am looking at the Cross Benches, where noble Lords are starting to come in and wait.

These amendments implement one of the recommendations of the Delegated Powers Committee’s report on the Bill. In line with that committee’s recommendation, the amendments provide that the first rules to be made specifying the functions of judges of the family court which can be performed by legal advisers or their assistants will be subject to the affirmative procedure. Any subsequent rules will, as the Bill currently provides, be subject to the negative procedure. I beg to move.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I do not belong to the flock to which the noble Lord referred but I want to speak briefly to this amendment because I have some concerns about this matter, not so much as regards the procedure in terms of requiring resolutions but on the substance of the functions that are proposed to be conferred on legal advisers, as they appear to be very wide. Of course, justices clerks can take certain decisions now but it seems that that could be much extended under the provisions in Schedule 10, at page 124, which would allow the Lord Chancellor, with the agreement of the Lord Chief Justice, to,

“make provision enabling functions of the family court, or of a judge of the court, to be carried out by a legal adviser”.

It is a long time since I participated in a magistrates’ court, whether as regards the criminal law or a family court, but it is not clear to me what this is aimed at.

The concern has been expressed before in your Lordships’ House, and I have touched on it again today, about the potential to displace the lay magistracy with professionals. In that context I think of people who used to be called stipendiary magistrates but are now district judges. That is a displacement upwards in the qualification stakes, as it were, but this provision is not necessarily a measure of that kind. It would allow a legal adviser, a justices’ clerk or an assistant legal adviser to take decisions around family matters. I am not sure whether that is the intention but perhaps the Minister could indicate what sort of decisions are envisaged to be delegated to a legal adviser as opposed to a properly constituted family court judge or a bench of judges. I would be reluctant to see significant functions determined by the legal adviser to which this amendment refers. However, I may have got it wrong. I await the Minister’s enlightenment with interest, if there is such enlightenment.

18:15

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, I am happy to try to clarify the thinking behind this. The Delegated Powers Committee made this recommendation because it felt that the provision in the Bill represented an expansion of the existing power in Section 28 of the Courts Act 2003. Under this Act, functions of the magistrates’ court may be delegated in rules to justices’ clerks if a function is one which may be undertaken by a single justice.

As part of the creation of the family court, all judges, including magistrates, who deal with family proceedings will become judges of the family court. New Section 31O of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 provides a power for the Lord Chancellor to make rules to enable functions of the family court, or of a judge of the court, to be carried out by a legal adviser. As is the case with rules made under Section 28 of the Courts Act 2003, this power will be exercised only with the agreement of the Lord Chief Justice and after consulting the Family Procedure Rule Committee.

This new measure provides scope for justices’ clerks and assistant justices’ clerks acting as legal advisers and assistant legal advisers to the family court to carry out a wider range of the court’s functions than they currently perform. This is because the functions of the family court will be wider than those of the magistrates’ courts currently dealing with family proceedings, since the family court will have jurisdiction to deal with a wider range of family proceedings.

We are discussing with the judiciary how the new powers may be used. As I say, as in the case with rules made under Section 28 of the Courts Act 2003, this power will be exercised only with the agreement of the Lord Chief Justice and after consulting the Family Procedure Rule Committee.

[Lord Beecham]

I am grateful to the Minister for that information as far as it goes but I am afraid that it does not help me to understand what kind of decisions might now fall to be made by a legal adviser or assistant legal adviser that are not currently being made. I appreciate that the Minister may not be able to give an answer to that at this point, but it would be very helpful to have that indication before Report. Presumably there is time for consultation. There must be some concept of what would be different under a new regime, if agreed by the courts. I understand, of course, the rules procedure and indeed the approval procedure that the amendment prescribes. However, I still do not understand the outcome, and I am aware that there is concern about it. My noble friend Lord Rosser has shown me a document from the London courts which expresses concern about this general issue of the movement of decision-making away from magistrates themselves, who will be judges of the family court.

It would be helpful to your Lordships’ House to understand exactly what difference is anticipated to emerge from these discussions and consultations in the actual operation of the courts—where decisions will be made, who will make them and what they would cover. Again, I repeat that I do not expect the Minister to deal with that tonight, but it would be helpful to have an assurance that we can have clarity about this when we get to Report.

[Lord McNally]

It is a very fair question and I will try to give the noble Lord a very full answer.

Amendment 84A agreed.

Amendments 84B to 99

Moved by

[Lord McNally]

84B: Schedule 10, page 126, line 26, at end insert “or rules”

85: Schedule 10, page 126, line 39, at end insert—
“Debtors Act 1869 (c. 62)1A (1) In proviso (1) to section 5 of the Debtors Act 1869—
(a) for the words from “any court other than” to “is to say,” substitute “the county court—”, and(b) omit paragraph (c).(2) In that section—
(a) for “superior courts may” substitute “High Court or family court may”,(b) for “by a superior court”, and for “by any superior court”, substitute “by the High Court or family court”, and(c) at the end insert—“Section 31E(1)(b) of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (family court has county court’s powers) does not apply in relation to the powers given by this section to the county court.””

86: Schedule 10, page 126, line 41, at end insert “, but sections 2(1) to (5), 2A and 5(2) to (4) of that Act as applied by section 36(3) of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (re-registration in different Northern Ireland court of orders made in England and Wales or Scotland and registered in a Northern Ireland court) have effect without the amendments made in them by this Schedule.”

87: Schedule 10, page 128, line 39, at end insert—
“9A Section 18 (powers of magistrates to review committals etc) is repealed.
9B (1) Section 20 (registration, variation and arrears) is amended as follows.
(2) Omit subsections (1) and (2) (magistrates’ courts: applications for registration, revocation or variation of maintenance orders).
(3) In subsection (8) (repeated complaints to enforce payment)—
(a) for “a complaint” substitute “an application”, and(b) for “complaint”, in the second and third places, substitute “application”.(4) For the title substitute “Repeat applications to enforce payment of maintenance arrears”.
9C In section 21(1) omit the definition of “magistrates’ court”.
Public Records Act 1958 (c. 51)9D In paragraph 4(1) of Schedule 1 to the Public Records Act 1958 (records which are public records) after paragraph (a) insert—
“(aa) records of the family court;”.”

88: Schedule 10, page 129, line 12, at end insert—
“Civil Evidence Act 1968 (c. 64)11A In section 12(5) of the Civil Evidence Act 1968 in the definition of “matrimonial proceedings” for “a county” substitute “family”.
Administration of Justice Act 1970 (c. 31)11B (1) In section 11 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 (restriction on powers of committal under section 5 of the Debtors Act 1869)—
(a) omit the “and” at the end of paragraph (a),(b) in paragraph (b) for the words from “in respect” to “judgment” substitute “in respect of a judgment”, and(c) after paragraph (b) insert “; and(c) by the family court in respect of a High Court or family court maintenance order.”(2) In section 28 of that Act (interpretation)—
(a) for “, “county court maintenance order”” substitute “and “family court maintenance order””, and (b) for “, a county court” substitute “and the family court”.”

89: Schedule 10, page 130, line 5, leave out “(a)” and insert “(a)(ii)”

90: Schedule 10, page 131, line 12, at end insert—
“Litigants in Person (Costs and Expenses) Act 1975 (c. 47)27A In paragraph (a) of the second sentence in section 1(1) of the Litigants in Person (Costs and Expenses) Act 1975 before “in the Senior” insert “in the family court,”.”

91: Schedule 10, page 134, line 25, at end insert—
“50A In section 42(1)(a) and (b) (engaging in vexatious civil proceedings is ground for High Court making order under the section) after “High Court” insert “or the family court”.”

92: Schedule 10, page 135, line 6, at end insert—
“( ) In section 38(4) (regulations about orders which court may not make) after paragraph (d) insert “; and
(e) may make different provision for different purposes.””

93: Schedule 10, page 135, line 28, at end insert—
“Administration of Justice Act 1985 (c. 61)62A In section 53(2) of the Administration of Justice Act 1985 (costs where judge unable to act) before the “and” at the end of paragraph (b) insert—
“(ba) proceedings in the family court;”.Insolvency Act 1986 (c. 45)62B In section 281(8) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (discharge does not release bankrupt from bankruptcy debt arising under order made in family proceedings), in the definition of “family proceedings”, for paragraph (a) (but not the “and” following it) substitute—
“(a) proceedings in the family court;”.”

94: Schedule 10, page 138, line 26, at end insert—
“74A (1) Section 28 (functions of justices’ clerks and assistant clerks) is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (5) insert—
“(5A) For the purposes of subsections (1) to (5) the functions of justices of the peace do not include functions as a judge of the family court.”
(3) Omit subsection (9)(b) (requirement to consult Family Procedure Rule Committee) but not the “and” following it.”

95: Schedule 10, page 140, line 2, at end insert—
“Legal Services Act 2007 (c. 29)83A (1) For paragraph 1(7)(c) of Schedule 3 to the Legal Services Act 2007 (rights of audience in chambers of exempt persons) substitute—
“(c) the proceedings are not reserved family proceedings and are being heard in chambers—(i) in the High Court or county court, or(ii) in the family court by a judge who is not, or by two or more judges at least one of whom is not, within section 31C(1)(y) of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (lay justices).”(2) In paragraph 1(10) of that Schedule in the definition of “family proceedings” after “also includes” insert “any proceedings in the family court and”.”

96: Schedule 10, page 140, line 35, at end insert—

“In Schedule 7, paragraphs 23 and 24.”

97: Schedule 10, page 141, line 14, at end insert—

“Family Law Act 1996 (c. 27)

In Schedule 8, paragraph 49.”

98: Schedule 10, page 141, line 21, after “paragraphs” insert “22,”

99: Schedule 10, page 141, line 33, leave out “101” and insert “103”

Amendments 84B to 99 agreed.

Schedule 10, as amended, agreed.

Schedule 11 : Transfer of jurisdiction to family court

Amendments 100 to 114

Moved by

[Lord McNally]

100: Schedule 11, page 145, line 23, at end insert—
“16A (1) In section 15(2) and (3) (service of process: endorsement by, and declarations before, justices of the peace etc) for “justice of the peace” substitute “judge of the family court”.
(2) In Schedule 2 (forms)—
(a) in the form numbered 1 (endorsement of summons) for “justice of the peace” substitute “judge of the family court”, and(b) in the form numbered 2 (declaration as to service) for “Justice of the Peace” substitute “judge of the family court”.”

101: Schedule 11, page 148, line 17, at end insert—
“Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1972 (c. 18)27A The Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1972 is amended as follows.
27B (1) Section 3 (magistrates’ court may make provisional maintenance order against person residing in reciprocating country) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) for “a magistrates’ court” substitute “the family court”.
(3) In subsection (4) (application not to be transferred etc)—
(a) before paragraph (a) insert—“(za) a court to transfer proceedings from the family court to the High Court,”, and(b) in paragraphs (a) and (b) after “magistrates’ court” insert “in Northern Ireland”, and(c) in those paragraphs after “High Court” insert “of Justice in Northern Ireland”.(4) In subsection (6) (effect of order being confirmed) omit “magistrates’”.
(5) Omit subsection (7)(b) (Northern Ireland: application of subsection (4)).
(6) In the title omit “magistrates’”.
27C In section 4(6) (Scotland: application of section 3(5) and (6)) after “for references to” insert “a court that are references to the family court or”.
27D Omit section 5(3A) (modification of section 60 of Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 in relation to maintenance orders to which section 5 applies).
27E In section 7 (confirmation of order made in reciprocating country)—
(a) in subsection (5A) (court to exercise one of its powers under subsection (5B) upon confirming order)—(i) for “a magistrates’ court in England and Wales” substitute “the family court”, and(ii) for “shall” substitute “may”,(b) in subsection (5B) (available powers)—(i) in each of paragraphs (a) and (b) for the words from “the designated” to “Wales” substitute “the court”,(ii) in paragraph (b) for “59(6) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980” substitute “1(5) of the Maintenance Enforcement Act 1991”,(c) in subsection (5C) (deciding on exercise of powers)—(i) for “which of the” substitute “whether to exercise any of its”, and(ii) omit “it is to exercise”, and(d) in subsection (5D) (power to require account to be opened) for “Subsection (4) of section 59 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980” substitute “Subsection (6) of section 1 of the Maintenance Enforcement Act 1991”. 27F In section 8 (enforcement of registered maintenance orders)—
(a) in subsection (3) (offence of not giving notice of change of address to appropriate officer)—(i) for “a registered order” substitute “an order registered in a court in Northern Ireland”, and(ii) for “appropriate officer of the registering” substitute “clerk of that”,(b) omit subsection (3A) (meaning of “appropriate officer”),(c) omit subsections (4) to (4B) (enforcement by magistrates’ courts in England and Wales), and(d) in subsection (5) (magistrates’ court to take prescribed steps) for “The magistrates’ court” substitute “A magistrates’ court in Northern Ireland”.27G Omit section 9(1ZA) (modification of section 60 of Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 in relation to registered order).
27H In section 10(3) (transfer to other magistrates’ court)—
(a) after “magistrates’ court”, in the first place, insert “in Northern Ireland”, and(b) for the words from “that part” to “court is” substitute “Northern Ireland”.27I (1) In section 14(3) (compelling attendance of witnesses etc)—
(a) for the words from “Section” to “1980” substitute “Articles 118(1), (3) and (4), 119 and 120 of the Magistrates’ Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981”, and(b) after “a magistrates’ court” insert “in Northern Ireland”.(2) Omit section 14(6) (Northern Ireland: modifications).
27J In section 17 (proceedings in magistrates’ courts)—
(a) in subsection (4) (courts in same area have same jurisdiction)—(i) after “magistrates’ court”, in the first place, insert “in Northern Ireland”,(ii) omit the words from “acting”, in the first place, to “Northern Ireland,”, and(iii) for “district)” substitute “district”,(b) in subsection (5A) (jurisdiction where respondent resides in reciprocating country) for “a magistrates’ court in England and Wales”, in both places, and for “such a court”, substitute “the family court”,(c) in subsection (7) (proceedings in absence of respondent) for “a magistrates’ court”, in both places, substitute “the family court in England and Wales or a magistrates’ court in Northern Ireland”.27K (1) Section 18 (magistrates’ courts rules) is amended as follows.
(2) Before subsection (1) insert—
“(A1) Rules of court may make provision with respect to the matters that would be mentioned in any of paragraphs (b), (c), (e) and (f) of subsection (1) if references in those paragraphs to a magistrates’ court, or to magistrates’ courts, were references to the family court.”
(3) In subsection (1) (provision which may be made in rules of court)—
(a) for the words before paragraph (a) substitute “The matters referred to in subsections (A1) and (2) are—”, and(b) in paragraph (a) for “local justice area”, in both places, substitute “petty sessions district”.(4) In subsection (1A) (further provision about rules of court in relation to England and Wales) for “(1)” substitute “(A1)”.
(5) For the title substitute “Rules of court”.
27L In section 21(1) in the definition of “the appropriate court”—
(a) after ““the appropriate court”” insert “— (a) ”, and(b) for “Wales or” substitute “Wales means the family court; and(b) in relation to a person residing or having assets”.27M (1) Section 23 (orders registered in High Court under Maintenance Orders (Facilities for Enforcement) Act 1920) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) (orders registered at time when 1920 Act ceases to apply)—
(a) after “High Court”, in the first place, insert “or the High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland”,(b) for “the High Court”, in the second place, substitute “subsection (1A) applies in relation to the order.(1A) Where the order was at that time registered in the High Court, that court may, on an application by the payer or the payee under the order or of its own motion, transfer the order to the family court, with a view to the order being registered in the family court under this Part of this Act; and where the order was at that time registered in the High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland, that court”,(c) after “magistrates’ court” insert “in Northern Ireland”, and(d) after “registered in that” insert “magistrates’”.(3) Before subsection (2) insert—
“(1B) Where the High Court transfers an order to the family court under this section it shall—
(a) cause a certified copy of the order to be sent to an officer of the family court, and(b) cancel the registration of the order in the High Court.”(4) In subsection (2) (certified copy to be sent to court which is to register order) after “High Court”, in the first place, insert “of Justice in Northern Ireland”.
(5) In subsection (3) (officer to register order) omit “appropriate”.
(6) In subsection (4)—
(a) for “the magistrates’” substitute “a”, and(b) for “appropriate officer of the court” substitute “officer registering it”.(7) Omit subsection (5) (Northern Ireland: modification).
(8) In subsection (6) (meaning of “appropriate officer”) for the words from “means—” to the end substitute “, in relation to a magistrates’ court in Northern Ireland, means the clerk of the court.”
27N In section 26(6)(a) (appropriate officer) for the words from “the designated” to the end substitute “an officer of the family court”.
27O In section 27B (sending application to which section 27A applies to appropriate magistrates’ court)—
(a) in subsection (1) for the words from “designated” to the end substitute “family court”,(b) in subsection (2) (attempted service of respondent)—(i) for “Subject to subsection (4) below, if” substitute “If”,(ii) for “a magistrates’ court having jurisdiction to hear it” substitute “the family court”,(iii) for “designated officer for the” substitute “family”, and(iv) for “he” substitute “the family court”,(c) omit subsections (4) and (5) (sending on of application to another magistrates’ court), and(d) in the title for “appropriate magistrates’” substitute “family”.27P In section 27C (applications to which section 27A applies: general)—
(a) in subsection (1) for “a magistrates’” substitute “the family”, (b) omit subsection (2) (disapplication of section 59 of Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980),(c) in subsection (3) (court to exercise one of its powers under subsection (4) upon making order) for “shall” substitute “may”,(d) in subsection (4) (available powers)—(i) in each of paragraphs (a) and (b) for the words from “the designated” to “Wales” substitute “the court”, and(ii) in paragraph (b) for “59(6) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980” substitute “1(5) of the Maintenance Enforcement Act 1991”,(e) in subsection (5) (deciding on exercise of powers)—(i) for “which of the” substitute “whether to exercise any of its”, and(ii) omit “it is to exercise”,(f) in subsection (6) (power to require account to be opened) for “Subsection (4) of section 59 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980” substitute “Subsection (6) of section 1 of the Maintenance Enforcement Act 1991”, and(g) in subsection (7) (registration)—(i) omit “designated officer for the”, and(ii) omit “in the court”.27Q In section 28 (applications by spouses under the Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates’ Courts Act 1978)—
(a) in subsection (1) (orders court may make)—(i) for “The magistrates’ court” substitute “On”, and(ii) after “1978” insert “, the family court”, and(b) in subsection (2) (modifications of 1978 Act)—(i) in paragraph (a) for “to 27” substitute “, 26”, and(ii) omit paragraph (b), but not the “and” following it.27R In section 28A (applications by former spouses under the Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates’ Courts Act 1978)—
(a) in subsection (2) (jurisdiction of magistrates’ court) for the words from the beginning to “it” substitute “The family court shall have jurisdiction to hear the application”,(b) in subsection (3) (court’s powers) for “magistrates’ court hearing the application” substitute “family court”, and(c) in subsection (6) (modifications of 1978 Act)—(i) in paragraph (e) for “and 25 to 28” substitute “25, 26 and 28”, and(ii) omit paragraph (f), but not the “and” following it.27S Section 28B (certain orders under Schedule 11 to the Children Act 1989 do not apply) is repealed.
27T (1) Section 32 (transfer of orders) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2) (transfer to other magistrates’ court)—
(a) for “the appropriate officer”, in the first and second places, substitute “the clerk”,(b) after “magistrates’ court”, in the first place, insert “in Northern Ireland”,(c) for the words from “that part” to “court is” substitute “Northern Ireland”, and(d) for “the appropriate officer”, in the third place, substitute “that clerk”.(3) Omit subsection (2A) (meaning of “appropriate officer”).
(4) In subsection (8) in the definition of “the appropriate court”—
(a) after ““the appropriate court”” insert “—(a) ”, and(b) for “Wales or” substitute “Wales, means the family court; and(b) in relation to a person residing”. 27U In section 33 (enforcement of orders)—
(a) omit subsections (3) and (3A) (enforcement by magistrates’ courts in England and Wales),(b) in subsection (3B) (enforcement by courts of summary jurisdiction in Northern Ireland) after “jurisdiction”, in the first place, insert “in Northern Ireland”, and(c) in subsection (4) (magistrates’ court to take prescribed steps) after “court” insert “in Northern Ireland”.27V In section 34 (variation and revocation of orders)—
(a) in subsection (1) (powers of registering court etc) omit “subsection (3A) below and”,(b) in subsection (3) (officer to whom application to be sent) for the words from “shall” to the end substitute “shall—(a) if the registering court is the family court, send the application together with any documents accompanying it to that court,(b) if the registering court is a magistrates’ court in Northern Ireland, send the application together with any documents accompanying it to the clerk of that court.”, and(c) omit subsection (3A) (modification of section 60 of Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 in relation to registered orders).27W (1) Section 34A (variation of orders by magistrates’ courts in England and Wales) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) (application of certain provisions)—
(a) for “a magistrates’ court in England and Wales” substitute “the family court”, and(b) for paragraph (a) substitute—“(a) section 1(3A) of the Maintenance Enforcement Act 1991;”.(3) In subsection (2) (court may exercise one of powers under subsection (3) upon varying order) for “a magistrates’ court in England and Wales” substitute “the family court”.
(4) In subsection (3) (available powers)—
(a) in each of paragraphs (a) and (b) for the words from “the designated” to “Wales” substitute “the court”, and(b) in paragraph (b) for “59(6) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980” substitute “1(5) of the Maintenance Enforcement Act 1991”.(5) Omit subsections (4) to (8) (variation by justices’ clerk).
(6) In subsection (9) (deciding on exercise of powers)—
(a) for “subsections (2) and (8)” substitute “subsection (2)”,(b) for “which of the” substitute “whether to exercise any of its”,(c) omit “it is to exercise”, and(d) after “debtor” insert “or the creditor”.(7) In subsection (10) (power to require account to be opened) for “Subsection (4) of section 59 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980” substitute “Subsection (6) of section 1 of the Maintenance Enforcement Act 1991”.
(8) In subsection (11) (meaning of “creditor” and “debtor”) for “section 59 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980” substitute “section 1 of the Maintenance Enforcement Act 1991”.
(9) In the title for “magistrates’ courts” substitute “the family court”.
27X In section 35 (further provision relating to variation etc of orders by magistrates’ courts in England and Wales)—
(a) in subsection (1) (powers exercisable notwithstanding that applicant resides outside England and Wales) for “a magistrates’ court in England and Wales” substitute “the family court”,(b) in subsection (2) (powers under section 34A not exercisable) omit “, or of the clerk of the court,”,(c) in subsection (3) (proceedings in absence of respondent) for “a magistrates’ court in England and Wales” substitute “the family court”, and (d) in the title for “magistrates’ courts” substitute “the family court”.27Y (1) Section 36 (admissibility of evidence given in convention country) is amended as follows.
(2) Before subsection (1) insert—
“(A1) A statement contained in a document mentioned in subsection (1) shall—
(a) in any proceedings in the family court arising out of an application to which section 27A(1) of this Act applies or an application made by any person for the variation or revocation of a registered order, or(b) in proceedings on appeal from proceedings within paragraph (a),be admissible as evidence of any fact stated to the same extent as oral evidence of that fact is admissible in those proceedings.”(3) In subsection (1) (statements made in convention country to be admissible)—
(a) for “A statement contained in—” substitute “The documents referred to in subsections (A1) and (1A) are—”,(b) omit the “or” following paragraph (a) and the “or” following paragraph (b),(c) after paragraph (c) insert—“(1A) A statement contained in a document mentioned in subsection (1)”,(d) after “magistrates’ court” insert “in Northern Ireland”, and(e) omit “an application to which section 27A(1) of this Act applies,”.27Z In section 38 (obtaining evidence at request of court in convention country)—
(a) in subsection (4) (application of provisions of Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980) for the words from “Section” to “1980” substitute “Articles 118(1), (3) and (4), 119 and 120 of the Magistrates’ Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981”,(b) in subsection (4) after “a magistrates’ court” insert “in Northern Ireland”, and(c) omit subsection (6) (Northern Ireland: modifications).27Z1 In section 38A(1) (rules of court) after “done by” insert “the family court or”.
27Z2 In section 42 (provisional order to cease to have effect on remarriage) in subsection (1) and in the title omit “magistrates’”.
27Z3 In section 47(3) (interpretation: jurisdiction of magistrates’ courts) for the words from “construed—” to “in relation to”, in the second place, substitute “construed in relation to”.”

102: Schedule 11, page 153, line 10, at end insert—
“Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (c. 27)55A (1) The Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act is amended as follows.
(2) In the second sentence of section 5(1) (enforcement of maintenance orders under 1968 Convention) after “Article 32” insert “but, if the appropriate court is a magistrates’ court in England and Wales, the Lord Chancellor is to transmit the application to the family court”.
(3) In section 5(2) (determination of transmitted application) for “officer of that court” substitute “officer—
(a) of the family court if the application is transmitted to that court, or(b) in any other case, of the court having jurisdiction in the matter”.(4) Omit section 5(5A) to (5C) (enforcement in magistrates’ courts in England and Wales).
(5) In section 5(7) omit “England and Wales or”.
(6) In section 5(8) omit paragraph (a) (including the “and” at the end).
(7) In the second sentence of section 5A(1) (enforcement of maintenance orders under the Lugano Convention of 2007) after “Article 39” insert “but, if the appropriate court is a magistrates’ court in England and Wales, the Lord Chancellor is to transmit the application to the family court”.
(8) In section 5A(2) (determination of transmitted application) for “officer of” substitute “officer—
(a) of the family court if the application is transmitted to that court, or(b) in any other case, of”.(9) Omit section 5A(5) (enforcement in magistrates’ courts in England and Wales).
(10) In section 5A(7) omit “England and Wales or”.
(11) In section 5A(9) omit paragraph (a) (including the “and” at the end).
(12) Omit sections 6(3)(a) and 6A(3)(a) (appeals in England and Wales).
(13) In section 7(4) (interest on arrears)—
(a) omit “England and Wales or”,(b) omit “section 2A of the Maintenance Orders Act 1958 or”, and(c) for “enable” substitute “enables”.(14) In section 15(3) (jurisdiction of magistrates’ courts)—
(a) after “particular magistrates’ court” insert “in Northern Ireland”, and(b) for “in the same local justice area (or, in Northern Ireland, for the same petty sessions district)” substitute “for the same petty sessions district”.(15) In section 36(1)(b) (registration of maintenance orders) for “county court order, a magistrates’” substitute “family”.
(16) In section 48(3) (rules of court relating to maintenance orders)—
(a) in the words before paragraph (a) for “magistrates’ courts,” substitute “the family court, the power to make rules of court for magistrates’ courts in Northern Ireland,”,(b) in paragraphs (a) and (g) after “purposes of” insert “the family court or”, and(c) in paragraphs (f) and (h) after “which” insert “the family court or”.(17) In section 50 (interpretation) in the definition of “court of law”—
(a) after paragraph (a) insert—“(aa) in England and Wales, the Court of Appeal, the High Court, the Crown Court, the family court, the county court and a magistrates’ court,”, and(b) in paragraph (b) omit “England and Wales or”.”

103: Schedule 11, page 154, line 38, at end insert—
“71A In section 14(1) (enforcement of residence orders in magistrates’ courts) omit “under section 63(3) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980”.”

104: Schedule 11, page 157, line 5, at end insert—
“Criminal Justice Act 1991 (c. 53)93A In section 60(3) (applications under section 25 of Children Act 1989 in certain cases) for “92(2) of that Act or section 65 of the 1980” substitute “92(7) of that”.”

105: Schedule 11, page 165, line 9, at end insert—
“170A In section 98F (power of constable to assist in exercise of powers of entry)—
(a) omit subsection (5) (which applies Schedule 11 to the Children Act 1989 to proceedings under section 98F), and(b) for subsection (6) (meaning of “the court”) substitute—“(6) In this section “court” means the High Court or the family court.””

106: Schedule 11, page 166, line 5, after “paragraphs” insert “105, 109,”

107: Schedule 11, page 166, line 6, at end insert—

“Magistrates’ Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (S.I. 1981/1675 (N.I. 26))

In Schedule 6, paragraphs 21 and 25.”

108: Schedule 11, page 166, line 10, leave out “and 70” and insert “, 45, 50, 70 and 89(2)”

109: Schedule 11, page 166, line 15, leave out “paragraph 3” and insert “paragraphs 3, 13, 14, 18 and 21”

110: Schedule 11, page 166, line 18, leave out “paragraph 2(7)” and insert “paragraphs 2(7), 7, 9 and 15”

111: Schedule 11, page 166, line 24, at end insert—

“Access to Justice Act 1999 (c. 22)

In Schedule 13, paragraphs 73(1) to (3), 79 and 80.”

112: Schedule 11, page 166, line 30, at end insert “151 to 153, 154(a), 155(2)(a), 157, 158(a), 159 to 163,”

113: Schedule 11, page 166, line 31, after “196(2),” insert “268, 269,”

114: Schedule 11, page 167, line 10, column 2, leave out from beginning to “8.” in line 12 and insert “Articles 5 to”

Amendments 100 to 114 agreed.

Schedule 11 agreed.

Clause 18 : Judicial appointments

Amendment 115

Moved by

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

115: Clause 18, page 16, leave out lines 24 to 27

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

Amendments 115 and 116 are both concerned with the constitution of the Supreme Court. Amendment 120 is concerned with diversity, and applies not only to the Supreme Court but to the Court of Appeal and the High Court. These amendments were all grouped together, but it might be convenient for the Committee to hear the argument first on Amendments 115 and 116, and to hear the Minister’s reply on that before I develop the argument on Amendment 120. They are closely connected, and so that might be convenient, as it would enable me to rest my voice and the Minister a chance to get in—I was going to say, before it is too late.

At Second Reading I expressed some surprise, even incredulity, that we should be seeking to introduce part-time judges into the Supreme Court. So far as I know, there are no part-time judges in the Supreme Court of the United States, or in the International Court at The Hague, or indeed at any other supreme court anywhere else in the world. The Explanatory Notes give no reasons for this sudden change in the constitution of the Supreme Court so soon after its creation. However, the reason appears to be that the Government want to encourage more women and ethnic minority judges to apply for membership of the Supreme Court. Thus, if the Government’s view is accepted, one could have 11 full-time white judges—including, by convention, always two from Scotland and one from Ireland—plus one part-time woman judge and another part-time black judge, making 13 judges in all, but only 12 full-time equivalents. That seems to be the idea.

What, then, is the difficulty? Everybody agrees on two things. First, that in choosing judges at any level, one must always choose the best available candidate. This principle is now enshrined in Section 63(2) of the 2005 Act, which says that selection must be solely on merit. I said that everybody agrees about that, but that is not quite true, because the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, does not agree. He believes that merit is only a threshold, and is supported in that view by Professor Cheryl Thomas. However, their view was, I think I can say, decisively rejected by the Constitution Committee, so I will say no more about it.

The second thing on which we are all agreed is that we need greater diversity among the judges, and particularly at the top. The difficulty is how to achieve that second objective without infringing the first. This problem has been around for a long time—almost for as long as I can remember. If there had been a quick solution, successive Lord Chancellors would, I am quite sure, have found it by now. However, sadly, there is no quick or easy solution.

The Government think that they may now have found a way forward. They argue that we should be able to appoint part-time judges in the Supreme Court in order to enable women with family commitments to apply for that appointment. I say at once that that is a very strong argument—indeed a decisive one—at the circuit judge level and below, where applications are likely to come from much younger women. However, I cannot see what relevance it could have to the Supreme Court, where the only family commitments that any applicant is likely to have will be those of a grandparent. I cannot for the life of me see how the argument could apply in the place of male judges from ethnic minorities.

The truth is that if we enact Clause 18 and Schedule 12, it will not make the slightest difference to the number of women or black judges applying to become Supreme Court judges. In practice, therefore, if this part of the Bill is enacted, it will do nothing at all to increase diversity at that level, which is the whole object. I suggest that since that is the only reason given for taking this novel course, we should think no more about it.

It may be said at this stage that this is a depressing outlook, which was a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, during my speech at Second Reading, and I was very glad that he made that intervention. However, I have to tell him and the Committee that it is not all gloom. If one takes the figures given on page 25 of the Constitution Committee report, in 1998 only 10% of all judges were women. By 2005 the figure was 17%, and now it is 22%—more than double. Of the 2,500 appointments made by the Judicial Appointments Commission since 2005, 35% have been women. One finds the same picture in the 2010 report from the advisory panel.

In 1998, there were no women sitting as Law Lords, only one woman in the Court of Appeal, and only nine in the High Court. By the end of 2011, there was one woman sitting in the Supreme Court; there were five women in the Court of Appeal, in contrast to one; and 18 in the High Court, in contrast to nine. There are at least 78, and probably many more, on the circuit Bench.

18:30

[Lord Lea of Crondall]

Given that the noble and learned Lord kindly mentioned my intervention, he will agree that it specifically related to another aspect of inequality of access, whereby 75% of judges—and the percentage is higher, the higher up you go—as compared with 7% of the population, were educated at public schools. Although his point about women is a good one, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, said that my point on public schools was a bad one on the grounds that there is no way in which you can manipulate appointment on merit to deal with something that happened 50 years ago, such as where you went to school. I simply ask the noble and learned Lord, if I concede that you cannot do anything in terms of social engineering at this level, whether he will agree that the judiciary should take on board that it is highly damaging if nothing is seen to be done at the junior barrister level regarding access to chambers. Mummy and daddy can afford to take you through that period, but working-class people cannot have that access. Will the noble and learned Lord take that point in any way at all, because he did not do so at Second Reading?

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for intervening again. I had interpreted his question at Second Reading as referring to diversity as a whole, and not limited to the number of judges who had been to public school. The Government’s case is based on the need to appoint more women judges, rather than more men, from people who have not been to public school. I am afraid that I do not have the comparative figures from 1998 and today on those who have been to public school, but I could perhaps find them and let the noble Lord know in due course.

The lesson that I draw from the figures that I have given is surely clear enough. If you want more diversity at the top, in the sense that Government and all of us want diversity, you must start at the bottom and work up, as we have already done and as the figures show. Women with family commitments are already being appointed in large numbers as part-time judges to the circuit Bench and below. In due course, the best of those women—and I can tell the Committee that from my experience the best are very good indeed—will, like the best men, reach the top via the High Court and the Court of Appeal. Yes, we all accept that it is a slow process, but there is no short cut to the top—a short cut implied in the proposal to allow women to sit part time in the Supreme Court—nor should there be such a short cut without infringing the overriding principle that the appointments must be solely on merit.

I have one last point. Introducing part-time judges into the Supreme Court would, on any view, be a major change. The court has been in existence only since 2010. It is surely too soon to effect such an important change without much more thought and further consultation. This is a point that I suspect will be developed by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. The answers given to question 13 in the recent consultative exercise would have been all but useless in relation to the Supreme Court, even if the basis on which that question was asked had been comprehensible, which it was not—to me at any rate. In contrast, the composition of the Supreme Court was given much thought by the Select Committee in 2004. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, was a member of that committee as Lord Chancellor and he played a full part. He will remember that there was much discussion about whether the Supreme Court should consist of 15 judges, as some thought, or nine, as others thought, so that it could sit en banc. However, it was never once suggested by the noble and learned Lord or anyone else that we ought to have part-time judges in the Supreme Court. Yet the diversity problem at that time was even greater than it is today.

[Baroness Jay of Paddington]

My Lords, I simply wish to ask the noble and learned Lord whether or not the strictures that he has applied to appointments to the Supreme Court would apply also to the High Court and the Court of Appeal, because—I speak in my capacity as chairman of the Constitution Committee, which the noble and learned Lord kindly cited—we recommended that the Senior Courts Act 1981 should be amended to allow flexible working to be included at a senior level, but not at the Supreme Court.

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

Indeed. I have to answer the noble Baroness by saying that I am certainly not at the moment persuaded that part-time judges should be appointed to the Court of Appeal. I simply do not see how it would work. I take the same view about High Court judges. The way to the High Court Bench for the sort of women whom the noble Baroness has in mind is via the circuit Bench. There is a clear way through for them. Indeed, one noble Baroness who is here today has taken exactly that course.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

Perhaps I may follow up on that. I am not clear why the noble and learned Lord thinks that it is okay for there to be part-time circuit judges but not part-time High Court judges. I say that because I appointed High Court and circuit judges who had young children. I am completely unclear as to why the noble and learned Lord draws a distinction.

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

The noble and learned Lord, as Lord Chancellor, never appointed a part-time judge to the High Court. He quite rightly appointed plenty of part-time judges to the circuit Bench, and that was correct because they are obviously likely to be younger. We have to encourage young women with family commitments to come forward at that stage. The noble Lord will be the first to accept that not many such women apply to become members of the Supreme Court.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

The noble and learned Lord will confirm that I was not legally entitled to appoint them to the High Court. That is the point of the amendment.

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

I confirm that the noble and learned Lord was not entitled to appoint to the High Court, but there was no need for him to do so because he could, and did, appoint to the circuit Bench, from which High Court judges would emerge. He knows that very well.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

Perhaps I may be permitted to intervene on this matter. The lifestyle of a High Court judge is of course very different from that of a circuit judge. High Court judges sit half the time in London and half the time on circuit. Circuit judges do what they are entitled to do; they sit on circuit. Looking after a family is far easier if you are a circuit judge than if you are a High Court judge.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

I will not intervene on his intervention, but the noble Lord is wrong.

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

I beg to move.

[Lord Carswell]

My Lords, I support the amendment—

[Lord Goodhart]

I am sorry to interrupt, but it appears that in the order in which these matters are printed, I am the second and final person specifically connected with Clause 18 in this group, and it seems to me that this is the point at which I should be able to state my views on this matter.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall)]

My Lords, I believe that the amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, has been moved, and the name of the noble Lord is not, I think, on that amendment. However, the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Carswell, is on it.

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

My amendment has been moved by me and supported by two other noble Lords who would like to speak to it.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

I think that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd is correct that because the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Carswell is on the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Carswell, should come next.

[Lord Carswell]

I am grateful to your Lordships, and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, will give us the benefit of his wisdom very shortly. I support Amendments 115 and 116, moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick. Your Lordships know him very well. You know his history and his distinguished attainments. Perhaps I may shortly explain where I come from, both literally and figuratively?

I was for 25 years a judge, first in the High Court of Northern Ireland, in the Court of Appeal. For seven years I was Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, and very closely concerned with appointments at all levels. Then, for the final five years before I retired I was a member of the Appellate Committee of this House, sitting as a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, and hearing a very wide range of appeals, including some of considerable significance in the public interest.

I also gave evidence to the Select Committee of this House on the constitution, and I regret rather that they did not see fit to accept all of my submissions. I do not say that out of any feeling of personal pique, but rather because of the strength of my belief that one must appoint the best persons to judicial posts. By best, I mean most fitted to carry out judicial functions. That must and shall always be, I hope, the paramount criterion.

It is vital to do that to preserve the quality of justice and of the legal system, to which other persons have paid tribute on other occasions. I accept without reservation that that requires a certain amount of diversity. First of all, diversity of skills and experience—that goes without saying—so that the Court may have the benefit of the best advice and participation of those who really know about a particular subject. Secondly—and this is a more delicate area—diversity of background, gender, ethnicity, and professional experience and background.

I also accept, quite unreservedly, that facilitating part-time working is highly desirable, to help women in particular to pursue their careers and combine them with family responsibilities. I am strongly in favour of this where it is achievable. The provisions of paragraphs 2 and 10 of Schedule 12 are designed to assist this admirable object. My point is that the intention is excellent but the method is wrong.

Part-time appointments at the higher level—High Court, Court of Appeal, and Supreme Court—simply will not work. First, judges in any of those courts have to be available to shoulder their share of the burden of long and complex cases. That is simply not possible for a part-time judge. That applies most obviously at trial court level, where you might have to take a six-month trial, or a long civil case. If you cannot take your share of those, you are obviously deficient and in default in some respect.

18:45

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine]

I am very cognisant of the difficulties that might be involved in those scenarios, but has it never happened in the Supreme Court, or in its predecessor court, that a judge in the middle of a trial got ill for an extended period of time? I suggest that both the noble and learned Lords, Lord Woolf and Lord Carswell, are framing this debate in terms of part-time far too narrowly. There is far greater flexibility in the reality of part-time working than the noble Lord suggests.

[Lord Carswell]

Perhaps I might develop the point as I come to it. I have no experience myself of a judge taking ill and being unable to carry on, but I do not think that that really assists the argument.

It also applies—and I say this from my own observation—at trial court level, where it is most obvious. It is a significant factor in appellate courts. No doubt in the Supreme Court many cases are quite short—two days, sometimes even less—but there are many cases, and the most important and significant cases tend to be somewhat longer. If a part-time judge is unable to sit on these for practical reasons, and cannot pull his or her weight, then that judge is downgraded in the eyes of other people to being a second-string member of the court. That is no good for anybody.

Secondly, on the practical level a part-time judge would normally need some fixity of schedule, so that the rest of the judge’s life can be arranged. That is why a person is likely to want to be a part-time judge on, let us say, Monday and Tuesday of each week. The timetable would have to be juggled to ensure that the judge is able to sit on those regular days. Obviously difficulties would arise if for various reasons an appeal needs to be listed on the other days of the week, and of course that happens, in fitting in the appeals for which that judge’s particular skills are required.

It is not as easy as turning up on fixed days and taking cases on those days. I fear that it is bound to lead to a feeling that part-time judges are not pulling their weight. This is highly detrimental to collegiality, which is of prime importance on an appellate bench. It may be viewed—however unfairly—by others that that judge is not a proper member of the court. The judge may also feel, subjectively, concern that she is not fully accepted as a full member. That, although it may not be exactly the feeling held by the others, would undermine the judicial confidence which is so necessary for high-class judicial work.

It is important that we try to find ways of accommodating this problem and of using the talents of able women, of which I am very strongly in favour myself. It is important that we can work out a way of not confining them to the junior ranks where it is easier in practice for them to carry out their functions part-time.

A suggestion has been mooted by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, that one could do that by stages, for a woman. If she has family responsibilities at an earlier part of the time when she is ready for judicial life, then she could be appointed to a lower-tier court, with a clear assurance that when family circumstances change and she would be available for full-time work, she would receive proper and serious consideration for early promotion to the higher levels, and that that assurance should be fully honoured by those who are making the appointments. Paragraph 2 was a well intentioned attempt to facilitate women or other people by extending part-time appointments, but I fear that it did so in the wrong way.

[Lord Woolf]

My Lords, I spoke on the subject at Second Reading. What I said is on the record and I will not repeat it. However, I am most anxious that it should not be thought, as a consequence of my speaking in succession to the noble and learned Lords, Lord Lloyd and Lord Carswell, that retired members of the senior judiciary are against increasing diversity. I stress as forcefully as I can that the contrary is true. I know from the times when I was Chief Justice or held other senior offices that we did everything we could in co-operation with successive Lord Chancellors to improve the position. The message that became clear as a result of our efforts was that achievements would be brought by approaching the matter in stages.

The first step involved tackling those who were attending law schools in this jurisdiction and ensuring an egalitarian approach there. I am happy to say that if one goes now to the law schools of this country, one finds at least an equal number of women and men studying to become our lawyers and judges of the future.

The next stage is to make sure that any hurdle that can reasonably be removed is removed from the path of those who enter the legal profession. At the moment our task is to ensure that they realise that the opportunities for judicial appointments are greater today than they have ever been. The appointments system that we have will treat applicants on a totally equal basis irrespective of their sex and of any background that they might consider a possible handicap. The judiciary plays its part in ensuring that the message is heard by those entering the legal profession and by those within it.

On the issue raised by the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, to which I put my name, it is no use putting something in legislation that will have no practical effect. I refer to part-time judges for the Supreme Court, because it seems it is here where the argument seems clearest. From my knowledge of those who might seek this judicial appointment, I can conceive of nobody who could not take a full-time appointment to the Supreme Court but might be able to take part-time employment there. Having made that proposition, I point to the nature of the Supreme Court and to its role in our legal system now that it has been established. It is the highest court we have, and it has the heavy responsibility of maintaining the reputation established by generations of Supreme Court judges, who in the past were called Lords of Appeal in Ordinary. The court is looked on internationally as one of the finest law courts that there is, and its decisions are treated with the greatest respect.

We must do two things. First, we must not fall into the trap of using legislation to make gestures. To put into this legislation a provision that refers to part-time Supreme Court judges, for the purpose of trying to give a message to those who might be coming through the system that they should seek to become a Supreme Court judge, would be unrealistic if it implied that someone of mature years—probably 60—who wished to be a Supreme Court judge could apply for the highest pinnacle of our judiciary on any basis other than full-time. If there is to be an educational process, it should take place at a lower level in the system. I urge the Committee not to put into the Bill a provision that will have the effect of offering part-time employment in the Supreme Court when there is no realistic possibility that there will be any candidate for that part-time post who could be appointed in the foreseeable future.

The result will be that people will say, “Look, in 2012 Parliament specifically passed legislation that was intended to make available to a woman the possibility to sit as a part-time Supreme Court judge—but nobody has done that”. It will not happen because there has never been a candidate who could apply to be a Supreme Court judge under present circumstances.

[Lord Goodhart]

My Lords, I have proposed the removal from the Bill of Clause 18 and Schedule 12. I make it clear that this is not done to abolish the provisions that are dealt with in Clause 18 and Schedule 12. Instead I intend to enable the Government to provide, in proceedings that are separate from the Bill, a better system for the extremely important issue of judicial appointments. The provisions included in the Bill are inadequate and unsatisfactory.

The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 was of great importance. It modified the functions of the Lord Chancellor. In fact, it not only modified the functions but completely altered them. It created a Supreme Court to replace the jurisdiction of the House of Lords. The constitutional importance of the Act was recognised by those who negotiated it and by many others. I am well aware of this because I was one of the Members of the House of Lords who negotiated the matter in detail. Others included the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, who I am very pleased to see in his place and who was then the Lord Chancellor, and the late and greatly missed Conservative Lord Kingsland.

As far as I am aware, the Crime and Courts Bill is the first Bill to make significant amendments to the Constitutional Reform Act. Significant amendments appear first in Clause 18—although all that the clause does is tell us to go and look at Schedule 12, which is tucked away at the back of the Bill. It starts on page 167 and continues to page 201. It starts with the provision that enables any number of judges to be appointed to the Supreme Court provided the judges serving on the court do not permit,

“the full-time equivalent number of judges of the Court at any time to be more than 12”.

This is a very significant alteration to the 2005 Act. There should be no attempt to tuck alterations into the back of a much wider Bill such as this one. It is highly doubtful whether this particular alteration should be adopted at any time, and I agree with the proposal from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, to leave out paragraph 2.

19:00

Section 26 of the 2005 Act is amended considerably in Schedule 12. Section 27 of the Act is also amended considerably by paragraphs 1 and 2 of Schedule 12. So it goes on for another 32 pages before we come to the end of Schedule 12. Schedule 12 is much too important to be stuck in as a long schedule, close to the end of Clause 18. Not everything in Schedule 12 is wrong, but the contents are important and should be rewritten and transferred into a separate Bill. Schedule 12, and the minimal Clause 18 that introduces it, raises important issues that need to be considered much more thoroughly and in a different Bill. This is too important a matter to be left as it now is.

I was unable to attend the Bill’s Second Reading but a number of other noble Lords spoke in a way that I support to a greater or, in some cases, lesser extent. Those whom I support include the noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington, at col. 993 of Hansard; the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, whom we have already heard speaking, at cols. 996-997; and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, at cols. 1041 to 1044. However, those whom I draw most attention to are the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, at cols. 1016 to 1018 and the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, at cols. 1024 and 1025. I would refer particularly to a passage from the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, except that she is here tonight and I hope that she will explain and put forward her views on this matter herself. I am in total agreement with what she said.

If the Government had been willing and able to pay attention to those objections before Committee stage, it might have been possible to reconsider them then. It is plainly not possible now. The rest of the Bill should of course proceed but Clause 18 and Schedule 12 should be put aside and replaced by a new Bill. Since I introduced my proposal that Clause 18 and Schedule 12 should be removed entirely from the Bill there have been a number of additional amendments to remove parts of them and to add some new parts. I welcome these changes, which would improve the Bill considerably. It remains my view that it would be better to take Clause 18 and Schedule 12 out of the Bill, because they involve some important constitutional changes. However, I have to face the fact that a good deal of work has already been put into Schedule 12 on both sides. In this case, I would be willing not to proceed with my proposal provided it is acknowledged that Clause 18 and Schedule 12 should be replaced by another Bill. Schedule 12 contains some important constitutional changes and it should be recognised that constitutional changes must be clearly identified and justified by those seeking to enact them.

I would be happy if Clause 18 and Schedule 12 went ahead provided that it was done with a reasonable degree of agreement between the parties. I would much prefer it if they went into another Bill, but it is even more important to make clear on this occasion that this has, to some degree, been a mistake. It is necessary to remember that in the future for different issues when we get important matters mixed up with matters which are much less important, as here. I would be willing to support the Bill—I am not saying what provisions I myself would put in it—but we must recognise that something of this kind should not be allowed to happen again and that provisions that make important changes in the constitution should be handled differently.

[Baroness Jay of Paddington]

My Lords, the Minister will undoubtedly reply to the broad-brush criticisms that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has raised. I will just say, on one of his points, that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and the Secretary of State, Mr Clarke, have been very kind in attending to the Constitution Committee since Second Reading. We have specifically discussed Clause 18 and Schedule 12 with them both, and I must put on record that their dialogue with the Constitution Committee at least has been productive.

I briefly return to the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd. Of course, I defer to him, his judicial colleagues and other noble Lords in their experience in the courts, but I would pick up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, about them addressing the issue of part-time working—or as I would more easily describe it, flexible working—in a perhaps somewhat narrow and therefore slightly more difficult way. The noble and learned Lords, Lord Woolf and Lord Carswell, gave evidence to the Constitution Committee during our inquiry into this matter. They said many of the things that they have said tonight and many more things as well. I hear precisely the issues that have been raised about the practical problems. As the debate has widened slightly into the general issue of diversity and appointments generally to the judiciary—which was why I asked my earlier questions to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, about which particular aspect he was concerned with—it may be of interest to the Committee if I quote from the Lord Chief Justice. In evidence to us, he said that,

“we should be able to organise the sitting patterns for female High Court judges or male High Court judges who have caring responsibilities, so that during, for example, half term”—

which was just one example they gave—

“they can be at home ... I think those sorts of very small changes … will help”.

I want the Committee to understand that there is not a uniformity of views among the senior judiciary, both past and present, about the absolute impossibility of trying to be more flexible in this way.

I also say, with some deference and temerity, that I wonder whether noble Lords and senior judges are perhaps looking exclusively at their profession and not looking more broadly at the ways in which other professions have adapted to flexible working over the past decade. I raised very briefly at Second Reading the example of the medical profession, which has had very entrenched working practices at the senior level, particularly in the surgical specialty, and has now adopted flexible working in a way that met with many of the same problems in theory as have been raised this evening and on other occasions about flexible working within the judiciary. The situation is, of course, different but some of the issues in principle were the same. The adaptation has worked, so that senior members of the medical profession are now much more broadly spread between the genders and there is a much greater sense of genuine diversity.

In this instance, perhaps I may refer the Committee to the evidence of the chairman of the Judicial Appointments Commission, who said to the Constitution Committee:

“This is the first profession that I have touched in my working life where there is not easy access to flexible working arrangements for senior positions. Having salaried part-time working in the High Court would be transformational”.

As I say, I speak with some deference on these matters, but it is worth the Committee hearing the views both of the chairman of the Judicial Appointments Commission and the Lord Chief Justice.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss]

My Lords, I am sorry that yet another former senior judge is speaking. I recognise entirely the advantages of flexibility, but in this area there is a limit, and I want to say a few words about it. As a woman, I strongly support diversity on the Bench, particularly having been one of the earliest women judges. I also support encouraging those who leave either side of the legal profession in their thirties and forties for family reasons, very often to bring up young children, so that they can come back and sit on the Bench at a suitable level. To sit part time as a district judge or the judge of a tribunal is an excellent way of wooing back those who we would otherwise lose, to the detriment of the administration of justice. They are an obvious pool for promotion to more senior judicial posts. However, the point comes on the ladder to senior positions when a part-time judge inevitably will be less useful, and there would be some serious objections and disadvantages to part-time sitting.

I can see that it could be difficult for many centres where circuit judges try long and difficult cases, but it would be even more difficult for High Court judges and above. Perhaps I may give two examples. High Court judges, of which I was one for several years, often try—as one would expect—long and complicated cases that last for weeks, months or, occasionally, years. Listing officers would have real difficulties in listing cases if there were part-time judges. Further, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, has already pointed out, High Court judges go out on circuit for six weeks or sometimes longer. They are a long way from home and return only at the weekends. As a High Court judge I went out on circuit and I can tell noble Lords that, as the mother of a teenager and two younger children, doing so was not easy. However, it is manageable. I felt that otherwise I could not be a High Court judge.

This leads to the second disadvantage. If there are part-time judges at the highest levels, the full-time judges in heavy cases would be likely to bear the heavier burdens. They would try the longer cases. That is because if there is to be any flexibility at all, and a case is going to last for six to nine months, it is unlikely that someone who wants to sit part time would actually be able to take it. That is particularly the case when going on circuit and there is a long case that may take the whole term. How on earth is someone who would prefer to work part time going to leave the family to take a long case? That would be certain to produce a certain degree of resentment among colleagues, who would be expected to take those cases because the part-time judge really could not take on the burden.

In the Court of Appeal, where I also sat, and in particular the Supreme Court, where I did not sit—and they are the purpose of these amendments—the idea of part-time sitting seems very difficult to achieve. How would it work in practice? However, most judges in the Court of Appeal and, perhaps I may say, even more so in the Supreme Court, are older. If candidates wanted the job at that stage of their lives, they would be able to give a full-time commitment, having given a part-time commitment when they were younger and had children to care for. I have to say that by the time I was in the Court of Appeal my children could manage on their own and I had to go home and worry less often about what they were doing—slightly less often since, as a mother, one does not ever stop worrying about one’s children. I cannot understand, therefore, why those who start out as part-time judges at a lower level and who are clearly high performers and ought to rise up the ladder, as I went up having started as a district judge, cannot, when they are older, take on the full-time commitment that they were unable to bear when they were younger and had responsibilities for children.

I have to say also that if these clauses are intended as a gesture to underline the undoubted importance of diversity, and are not intended to be reapplied in the higher courts, I would not be too worried. If, however, as I fear, the Judicial Appointments Commission feels that it is its duty to try to apply these clauses when and if they become law, feeling that it will be criticised if it does not do so, that will be very difficult to achieve. If it is achieved by the commission, I believe that it would create major problems. We have to think again about this. I really do not understand why older women, having got over the problems that required them to work part time, could not take on a full-time commitment in the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.

19:15

[Lord Pannick]

My Lords, I find this a much more difficult issue than some noble Lords who have spoken. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, emphasised that we all agree about the importance of diversity, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, emphasised his personal commitment to diversity, which I am aware of and, of course, I recognise. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, referred to the statistics and said correctly that some progress has been made, but the position is still woefully inadequate. Some 16% of High Court judges and only 11% of Court of Appeal judges are women. These figures are simply unsatisfactory and urgent progress is desperately required.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington, mentioned, the Constitution Committee, of which she is the distinguished chairman and I am a member, conducted an inquiry into judicial appointments and reported in March. We found that one of the reasons for there being so few women on the Bench at High Court level and above is the inflexibility of the working arrangements. At paragraph 112 of our report, we observed that one significant reason for the increasing proportion of women at senior levels in other professions in recent years has been due in large part to the greater use of flexible working hours. At paragraph 117, we recommended that allowing flexible working, certainly at the High Court and Court of Appeal levels, was the “minimum change necessary” to promote diversity. We said that:

“For the number of women within the judiciary to increase significantly, there needs to be a commitment to flexible working”.

We need to recognise that many women will either want or need to take career breaks, or work part time or flexibly for family care reasons.

As I understand them, the noble and learned Lords, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, Lord Carswell and Lord Woolf, are essentially concerned about the practicality of part-time working, certainly at the Supreme Court level, but mention has also been made in this debate of the High Court and the Court of Appeal. In my experience, from the perspective of the Bar, I must say that the overwhelming majority of cases in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal and certainly in the administrative court occupy three days or less. Of course, there is much work to be done by judges out of court—I do not for a moment suggest that judges work only between 10.30 am and 4.15 pm—but actual time in court, which has been mentioned, occupies three days or fewer. Of course, there are longer cases, sometimes six or nine months, but they are unusual, exceptional or out of the ordinary. In any event—this is why I find this a more difficult issue than some noble Lords who have spoken hitherto—we ought to bear in mind that even at the Supreme Court level, judges have taken time away. They continue to do so, as I understand it, for a month at a time to sit in the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal. As shown by a notorious example recently, judges at the Supreme Court level take time off, for very good public interest reasons, to sit on inquiries. We should not proceed on the basis that every judge works exclusively, full time in a particular court.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, mentioned—he is absolutely right to emphasise this point—the high reputation of our Supreme Court and, indeed, of our whole judiciary. It is a remarkable fact that as the public have lost confidence—regrettably—in many other institutions of our society, including, most regrettably, Parliament, but also the press and the City, the public rightly retain the utmost confidence in the judiciary. It is one reason why the public are quite prepared to listen carefully, as I am sure they will, to what Lord Justice Leveson will say about press freedom. However, we ought to bear firmly in mind that the confidence of the public in the higher judiciary is in danger of being undermined to the extent that the higher judiciary reflects and is composed of so high a proportion of men with such a small proportion of women.

The point was also made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, that surely, when someone has reached their late 50s, or 60s, when in the normal course of events they would be eligible for appointment to the Supreme Court, they ought to be prepared to sit full-time. However, surely one can envisage circumstances in which a women aged 60—slightly younger or older—may have a child aged 15 and may find it difficult to sit on the Bench during school holidays. She may also have an elderly relative for whom she is caring. These are not unrealistic examples.

In any event, I suggest that the provisions in the Bill which concern the noble and learned Lords who have spoken are merely permissive. They would obviously not be applied in relation to a Supreme Court appointment unless and until an occasion arose when it was practical to do so. I suggest to noble Lords that, given the importance of a real commitment to flexible working, it would be most unfortunate indeed if the Bill were to contain that commitment but exclude it in principle in any circumstances at Supreme Court level.

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws]

This is an issue close to my heart. When I was a young lawyer in the 1970s I contributed to a book called The Bar on Trial, written by a group of young lawyers seeking to address the nature of the Bar at that time. I wrote the chapter on women and I have been writing about women and law ever since. The issue of flexibility is the one that exercises women in the profession more than probably any other. It is the reason why women’s careers look different—they are the people who have children and who are the primary carers.

Increasingly, women now at the Bar, perhaps unlike those of previous generations, have a different way of wanting to deal with their role as mothers. Their children are not going off to boarding school in their primary school years, they are not away from home, they are still living with their parents and there is therefore the issue of who is the primary carer. Still, I am afraid, it usually falls to women, so I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for emphasising that this is about flexibility. I regret that the words “part-time” are used. Can we find a way of reformulating this so that it is about flexibility?

I am concerned that often the ways of doing things are still championed by those who have gone through the system and come out at the other end—and I say that respectfully to those who are now retired as judges. We have to be capable of changing to deal with a changed world and the changed aspirations not just of women in the profession, but also sometimes of men in the profession and of the general public, if we want to see our judiciary change in its appearance.

It is right that we are talking first about the High Court. Currently, judges go out on circuit. It is a problem, and I do not know how to square this circle, because I think it is important that judges go out on circuit to try, for example, big criminal cases. It still matters because there is something wrong with the idea that there is a local High Court judge to deal with these things—local circuits can become too cosy and it is sometimes better that someone from outside comes in to try big, difficult cases in which a lot of public outrage might be involved. It deals with the question of whether there is too much cosiness or familiarity when the same judges are always trying the same cases.

I want to pick up the comments of my noble friend Lord Pannick. When it comes to the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, it is very rare that women still have very young children, but it must be possible for there to be flexibility when our children are adolescents, when they are taking exams or having time out of school. It must be possible to make arrangements so that judges can have time to deal with such domestic issues. It became an embarrassment even to raise those things at one time, but it is now possible and sets of chambers accommodate those men and women who want to have time for their families—that is how the working world has to be.

When it comes to the Supreme Court, of course it is right that at the moment, by and large, those who go to sit on the Supreme Court will be about 60—that is the sort of age we are looking at—but, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, sometimes a woman of 60 is the mother of adolescent children taking exams and going through important parts of their growing lives. It should be possible to find ways of accommodating that. There is something wrong with a system when, of 25 people consulted on the recent appointments to the Supreme Court, 24 were men. Is it any wonder that we only have one woman on that court? I can say emphatically that there are women who could have taken up those new appointments, but who were not considered. I hear retired judges, and even sitting judges, saying, “We only want the best”. Of course, we only want the best, but I want us to open up what those ideas of “the best” are. Sometimes they are defined by men who have no idea about the contribution that highly intelligent women of a different experience might bring to those senior courts. That is why it is not good enough to stick with the old system. We have to embrace change if we want to see a different kind of judiciary. We should see the Bench as a whole, and not replicate the same people with those cut from the same cloth. I strongly endorse the efforts to change the arrangements and so am against the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd.

19:29

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

Could I ask the noble Baroness a question? Much of what she said dealt with flexibility. I think that everybody in the House is in favour of maximum flexibility, both at the High Court level and above where it is possible. The real question is whether flexibility demands part-time judges. The view of some of us is that it does not.

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws]

If I may respond to the noble and learned Lord, it seems to me that it has to be one of the possibilities in the whole panoply open to those making appointments. I do not imagine that it would happen very often but it might be that someone exceptional could be appointed who would say, “I will sit during these parts of the year and will be available to you then”. I do not believe that that would bring about resentment from other colleagues once they saw the quality of the work done by people of real ability.

[Baroness Neuberger]

Much of what I had wanted to say has been said by others, notably by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Kennedy and Lady Jay. I chaired the Advisory Panel on Judicial Diversity and we took a great deal of evidence from both men and women who were either judges or interested in becoming judges. Of the many components needed to create a more diverse judiciary, flexible working was pretty near the top of the list. It was near the top of the list for people in their late 50s and in their 60s, who were not on the whole talking about looking after children—although, like the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, I think one ends up worrying about one’s children for ever—but about caring for elderly parents.

Increasingly, because we are living longer, people in their 60s are caring for parents in their 80s and 90s. It is likely that people who are going to work as much as they possibly can in their 60s may still need to work more flexibly than was hitherto the case because they need to look after, or make sure that somebody else is looking after elderly parents. That point was made to me almost as much by men as by women and almost as much by solicitors as by people who came from the Bar. We must make provision for flexible working given the way that our population is ageing and that we are likely to look after parents in our 60s and 70s.

Therefore, the need to be more creative and flexible in how we think about these issues has never been greater. That was felt very strongly by people from whom we took evidence. Those people, including some members of the present High Court, also said that to them flexible working was not about working two days one week and three days the next, but about working possibly for nine or 10 months of the year and simply taking slightly more holiday than other people. That holiday, which would in fact be to allow them to carry out their responsibilities, would simply have to be factored into the system. Sending out a message to the wider world that we are not prepared to consider flexible working for the judiciary when we consider it for every other profession in the country would look very strange indeed.

[Baroness Northover]

I suggest that the debate on Amendment 115 be adjourned and that the Committee does not resume again before 8.20 pm.

19:34

Sitting suspended.

20:20

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine]

My Lords, I apologise for not having spoken at Second Reading. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, is not in her place. She would have appreciated that I was probably not able to speak at that stage of the Bill because I am a 50-something mother of an adolescent child who, in her words, was probably too busy supervising the child’s exam-taking. For the purpose of declaring an interest, I should also say that I am a member of the Constitution Committee, but I was not involved in the report on judicial appointments. However, I was involved in the Constitution Committee’s report on this Bill.

I want to pick up a few points that have been made. As I have already said, the framing of the debate is rather narrow. The past hour or so has involved a discussion of women serving as judges of the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeal. I want to inject a little pluralism into the debate about diversity by suggesting that there are other groups that are also affected by this: all the protected groups, people with disabilities, people from lesbian, gay and transgender backgrounds, but, particularly, people from ethnic minorities.

I think it was implied at some point in the debate that the clauses for flexible working would probably not be taken up by black and minority-ethnic community people, particularly men from that community, because at the age at which these jobs would be open to them, they would have no use for them. As a woman from that community, I have made it my life’s mission to ensure that men from black and minority-ethnic communities take caring responsibilities for their children and their parents—in other words, be new men—and I do not intend to give up now. I do not see why that category of men or women would not be better served by provisions for flexible working. I would not distinguish them, and I would certainly not set them apart from women who might, or might not, have children.

I think it was also implied that the Supreme Court has a heavy responsibility for maintaining the high reputation that the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords built up over decades—probably centuries—and whose decisions were treated with the greatest respect. I completely agree with noble and learned Lords and noble Lords who have spoken in this debate that that is the case. I did quite a lot of work on the Latimer House principles for the Commonwealth which involved agreeing a balance on the principles of accountability and the separation of powers between the judiciary, the Executive and the legislature. It is absolutely true that the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom is held in extraordinary esteem certainly by 54 Commonwealth countries and beyond those shores, but I do not accept the implication of the debate that, because it is held in such high esteem and such great respect, if it were to move to a more flexible pattern of working, let us say, with the inclusion of perhaps more women or more ethnic minorities, that would inevitably diminish the quality and standard of the judgments it handed down.

It was also implied that this was gesture politics and that there would be no realistic possibility of any candidate capable of being so appointed to be able to do it or even want to do it. My answer to the critics of these proposals is that that may well be true. I have no evidence to show that it might work either way. But we know that the past has not delivered the diversity that we want, so perhaps changing this may well do so. Let us try it and see.

It is said that full-time judges would be left in a position where they would be trying the heavier cases—in other words that they would have a disproportionate burden put upon them by those who had a need occasionally to work flexibly, and that colleagues would resent this. Before I came into this House I worked in senior positions where successive employers granted me flexible working conditions in pretty full-on jobs. Most people who work flexible hours—there is evidence for this and I will get it for Report stage as I did not know the debate would go this way—tend to overcompensate for the fact that they are putting a burden on others and they therefore tend to work longer hours, be it on a Saturday or Sunday at home or elsewhere, in order not to allow an illusion to develop that they are not pulling their weight.

We have been debating in this House and will debate in the future options for increasing the targets of women serving on boards in the corporate world. As the noble Baronesses, Lady Neuberger and Lady Jay of Paddington, said, in the medical profession we have ample evidence of how difficult it was to convince people of this change, how well it works, and so on. In all other senior positions diversity has been found to add to decision-making and, if not positively to add to it, certainly to create a more plural set of inputs into decision-making. So it is extraordinary that for one category of professionals, some of the most esteemed professionals in the land, there is a question about having a change to slightly more flexible working. That does not mean, as many noble Lords have inferred, that the subject individual would say “I will not work on Mondays and Tuesdays, irrespective of what comes my way”. That is not the meaning of flexible working and that is not the meaning of part-time working either, if we are being pedantic about words in the Bill. The meaning of part-time or flexible working is that people recognise or say openly to their employer that they will be occasionally needing flexibility in terms of their personal arrangements and will be taking that flexibility from time to time. The people who make it into those positions are usually dedicated to fulfilling the task that they are appointed to do in the best manner that they are capable of. That is the basis on which this clause should be debated.

[Baroness Brinton]

My Lords, I rise to speak on the important matter of improving the diversity of our judiciary. I start with an apology that a previous engagement elsewhere in Parliament meant that I was unable to attend and speak at Second Reading.

I oppose Amendments 115 and 120 and want to speak in support of the proposals put forward by the Government, specifically to the elements in Schedule 12(2)(3) on the appointment to increase diversity, assuming that all candidates are of equal merit. I refer to the excellent reports by the noble Baronesses, Lady Neuberger and Lady Jay of Paddington, and their committees. Both reports make the demand for change absolutely essential.

20:30

Prior to addressing that, I will briefly take up the point on which much of the previous debate focused—part-time and flexible working. I regret somewhat that, with a couple of noble exceptions, the assumption has been that flexible working would only ever be accessible to or needed by women. That is absolutely not the case. One of the real benefits would be that male judges would feel that it was appropriate for them to take advantage of that as well.

Twenty years ago I was bursar of Lucy Cavendish College, which had the honour of hosting the Law Society summer schools for women. They tried to give women the tools they needed to achieve the promotions that they deserved. It may have taken 10 to 15 years to see real change in the senior members of the solicitor profession. We need to see that elsewhere. Clear action by the Law Society to support those young women in their aims had a significant benefit.

Much of the debate this evening has focused on the practical arrangements. Frankly, many other sectors have been resistant to change and have argued the same points that we have heard this evening. Perhaps we need to remember that the statistics demonstrate the problem of diversity in the judiciary. Unfortunately, encouragement from the sidelines alone has not improved it. Firm but careful steps need to be taken to protect the absolute principle of appointment by merit, while making sure that those from underrepresented groups—not just women—are given a full opportunity if all other skills and competencies are equal. The equal merit provisions safeguard the quality of members of the judiciary and ensure that no woman or black, Asian or minority ethnic judge feels that they have been appointed as a token gesture. This is vital.

Figures published only last week demonstrate why this measure is needed. Prospective women circuit judges for heavyweight crimes made up one-fifth of eligible candidates, but this was reduced to 14% of applications and an even smaller number of 8% were recommended for appointment. That is, nearly half of those recommended for interview were not recommended for appointment. The news of appointments for women during the year has been rather better, which is good, but there is still a long way to go. I understand that part of that issue relates to the number of women in the family courts.

The position for those from BAME groups was also mixed. Their appointment to tribunals was good, but not to higher salaried positions. No one from a BAME background who applied to be a deputy judge of the Upper Tribunal—the Immigration and Asylum Chamber—in 2011 was appointed. The figure for recorders showed a substantial rejection of BAME candidates, with 13% at application but 8% appointed.

There is a tendency in human nature to appoint those who look and feel like us. This is the main reason why women have often found it difficult to break through the glass ceiling in traditional areas. With women making up just over 50% of the population, the problem can be very visible. However, other underrepresented groups face the same problem and may not have the advantage of visibility if they represent an even smaller part of the population. My noble friend Lady Falkner of Margravine has already referred to them. Herein lies the problem. Those who do not want even these moderate steps argue, “Trust us. We will always appoint the best, and the best women and BAME candidates will come through”. However, the best may not look or feel like us, and might therefore be excluded at an earlier stage, possibly even in the figures that I outlined earlier.

Last week, the former President Jimmy Carter was honoured by the Just the Beginning Foundation in Atlanta for his bold step in appointing 57 minority and 41 women judges in the late 1970s. These included federal and Supreme Court appointments. Nathaniel Jones, who was appointed by Carter to a federal appeals court position, said:

“President Carter, by virtue of his core values, had a capacity to identify wrong and a capacity and the courage to correct it”.

He later added:

“You have given justice, American justice, a good name around the world”.

Carter, typically modest, replied:

“The credit doesn’t go to me … It goes to the performance of the people I was honored to appoint”.

I cite that example because, in addition to the excellent performance of these candidates, the American system became more flexible as a result. It is fair to say that the American way of affirmative action is not ours, but this example serves to prove that quality does not need to be compromised by providing support for candidates who otherwise would find it difficult to be appointed, because they did not look like those who came before.

In Canada, there has been a similar process in which the Commission for Federal Judicial Affairs passes the names of applicants on to advisory committees who are then charged with respecting diversity when making their recommendations—a process not dissimilar to ours. Ontario has the Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee, which is responsible for contacting individuals from underrepresented groups who might want to apply for judicial posts. This has seen a significant improvement in the number of women in the Canadian system. Unfortunately, only two out of 100 recent appointments were not white. The Canadian system can be described by ethnic minorities as opaque and this is much exercising the Canadian press at the moment—indeed just last week.

I believe that the measures that the Government propose in this Bill provide a mechanism that ensures merit and excellent quality, while ensuring that the appointment of underrepresented groups improves, so that our judiciary begins to look like the nation. We have heard that call for our legislature as well, where we are still working at improving the diversity of both these Houses of Parliament.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

My Lords, my understanding is that we are debating the part-time provisions relating to the High Court, Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. I understood that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, said that it might be sensible then to deal with the other amendments in this group. I have in mind in particular the tie break provision amendment and my amendment about whether or not the Lord Chancellor should remain involved in appointing circuit judges. As I understand it, what was envisaged was that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, would reply on the part-time issues, then, without going on to another group, we would move on to the tie break and maybe the other amendment as well. Although the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has dealt with the tie break, at this stage I will restrict my remarks to the part-time issue, following the lead of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd. I would envisage that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, would open the debate on the tie break as well.

[Lord McNally]

We had better get this straight from the start. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, said that he wanted to move Amendment 120. He did not mention the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. I will take advice from the clerk, but if we are discussing only Amendment 115, whether Clause 18 should stand part of the Bill and, presumably, Amendment 116, then in normal circumstances we would go on to Amendment 117, not Amendment 120.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

Our problem is that if I talk about the tie break, it is before the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, has made his points about why the tie break is wrong. The natural sequence of events is that I speak, then the Minister, we do not put a question but go round again, which is perfectly okay in Committee. If everybody is happy, that is the right course that I would envisage. A preliminary point: initially, I thought the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart’s, point was that the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 was such an important Act that it could never be amended. I tended to agree with that proposition. As I understand it, and I agree with this, he then went on to say that when a Bill makes a significant constitutional change, it is wrong to put it in the form of a schedule introduced by a section which does not, as it were, preview that it is a major constitutional change. The right way to make major constitutional changes, so that this House—which has a special responsibility in relation to constitutional changes—is aware of what is going on, is by an individual Act of Parliament.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, in relation to this because here we are dealing with an important constitutional issue as regards the position of judges. Like the noble Lord, who is a practical and sensible Member of this House, I fear that we are where we are. We are in Committee and it is obvious that we will pass something along the lines of Clause 18 and Schedule 12. Therefore, it is necessary for us to debate the merits of those. But it is extremely important that the Government recognise that where one is dealing with important constitutional issues, it does not in any way inhibit any programme of constitutional change, it just means it is right that it is properly flagged up so that we know where we are.

[Lord Goodhart]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord. That is exactly the view I have taken today.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

I support the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, in what he says but, as a matter of practicality, I recognise that we have to move on. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, is much loved around the House and a genuine supporter of sensible constitutional change. He was a significant supporter of the Constitutional Reform Bill in that he allowed it to go through in circumstances where it might not otherwise have gone through, so I have a particular personal reason for believing that the noble Lord is a supporter of constitutional change. It would be worth while if he could say something in response to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart.

We are dealing with three tiers of part-time judge: first, the High Court of England and Wales; secondly, the Court of Appeal of England and Wales; and, thirdly, the Supreme Court, which is part of the UK judiciary. The average age at which persons are appointed to the High Court of England and Wales is between 45 and about 60. In the Chamber tonight, we have two former High Court judges. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, were both appointed at the age of 45, which is at the youngest end of the range.

In appointing women between the ages of 45 and 50, it is extremely likely that they will have caring arrangements. I know that from my own experience as someone at the English Bar and as someone appointing judges. The difficulty for people is in making a choice as to what they put as their priority. As the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, rightly said, the current attitude is that it is “full on” if you join the High Court and there are no dilutions. The consequence of that in relation to the High Court is that a significant pool of people who would otherwise be willing to be appointed is being lost. I know that from my own experience in appointing judges.

[Lord Woolf]

Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will forgive me for making this point. I am sure that his experience was similar to mine. Where a case was made by an applicant who needed special assistance because of personal circumstances, the system that we have had has always been flexible enough to allow us to make those special arrangements and they worked satisfactorily. We should acknowledge that and I suspect that the noble and learned Lord will endorse what I have said. If I have understood him correctly, he was indicating the contrary, although I am sure that he did not mean to.

20:45

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

I accept what the noble and learned Lord says and perhaps I may say that no one was more willing than he—his successor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, was the same—to accommodate people as much as possible. So in answer to the point of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, if it was difficult for individual High Court judges to go on circuit then the Lord Chief Justice, in my experience, was always reasonable and understood the difficulties. However, there were limits. The main one was that you would not agree to have as a High Court judge somebody who wanted to have half term and school holidays off. As the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine, said, we are not talking about working Mondays and Wednesdays but about whether someone could work for a period but have the children’s school holidays off. There is currently a situation where a High Court judge gets three months off. Is it that much more different to say that school holidays could be taken off as well? That sort of flexibility would open the door to a group of people who currently would not feel able to accept appointment as a High Court judge.

The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, asked broadly why we do not do that at the lower judicial level. Absolutely not. Why should somebody who is 45 and has the quality to be a High Court judge be offered a part-time job only in a position that is essentially inferior to the one that they would otherwise merit? The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, then argued, and had some support from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Carswell, that it is very difficult if you have some part-timers to deal with cases that last for nine months. Again, with the greatest of respect to the noble and learned Baroness, who was equally a champion of diversity, there are a handful of those long cases. The idea that there would be resentment because a number of judges would be willing to do them and others would not is, in my experience, fanciful. With respect to the noble and learned Baroness, I reject that argument. I strongly support the Minister’s proposal in relation to part-time judges for the High Court Bench because it improves and increases merit. It opens and widens the pool. It has no effect whatever on merit. I am strongly in favour of it.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, said it was okay for the circuit Bench but not for the High Court Bench. Again there is no logic and no ultimate justification for that position. We should, as a Committee, endorse the proposal because it indicates that we understand the pressures on successful professional people. We should not say that the High Court Bench—unlike being a consultant doctor, a successful barrister, solicitor, or architect—is the only place where we will not be willing to allow that sort of flexible working. I am sorry that she is not in her place but the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, was right when she said that it is about flexible working. Part time, as a piece of language, may be a slightly misleading suggestion. I strongly support the proposition for the High Court Bench.

The next tier is the Court of Appeal. I have indicated that the range of ages at which people are appointed to the Court of Appeal is between 45 and 60. Although there is no pattern, one could reasonably expect to go to the Court of Appeal after between six and 12 years at the High Court so we are talking about people in their early 50s, although there are some exceptions. I am quite sure that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, were in the Court of Appeal in their late 30s, but normally early 50s is the sort of range, although there are some people who go later. Think about what your responsibilities were when you were in your early 50s in relation to looking after children. Again, I know of people in the current Court of Appeal who have adolescent children and some with children under 12. What is more, as the noble and learned Baroness and the noble and learned Lord will testify, some of them live outside London. So in addition to the problem of having caring responsibilities for children, they have to travel from far away, which puts increased pressure on them.

Should people have the option of saying that they would like to go to the Court of Appeal but would like to do it when there are school holidays or on some other part-time basis? It is said by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Carswell, that this would cause great difficulty because there are long cases in the Court of Appeal. I completely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, says. My experience with cases in the Court of Appeal is that they do not tend to last more than three days. I know from my own experience of a case that lasted two weeks in the Court of Appeal, but I imagine that that would be regarded as unusual. I cannot think of any other profession where it is said that two weeks cannot be accommodated for somebody who works flexible hours. So with the greatest of respect to the noble and learned Baroness and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Carswell, I would say that the idea that it will cause difficulties in the Court of Appeal is not right.

Finally, on the Supreme Court, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, started off by saying that there was no Supreme Court with part timers. First, there is the House of Lords, which has many part timers. The Lord Chancellor was a part timer as a Member of the House of Lords. It was also the norm for retired members to sit on the Judicial Committee the House of Lords, and indeed for retired members of the Supreme Court to sit in the Supreme Court. So the idea that the Supreme Court cannot deal with the arrangements of part timers is, with the greatest respect, wrong.

Secondly, in relation to the length of cases dealt with in the Supreme Court, my experience of cases in the House of Lords and in the Supreme Court is that they tend to be shorter even than cases in the Court of Appeal. There was one case that lasted over a week in the past few years, which was the Belmarsh appeal, but that was a very exceptional appeal. So in arrangement terms there would be no difficulty in having people in the Supreme Court who were part time.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, went on to another point. The proposal would make absolutely no difference, he said, because there is nobody whom he can envisage would be worthy of appointment who would want to be part time. First of all, we are talking about this being permissive, not compulsory. Secondly, how many people have caring responsibilities for elderly parents? I was describing earlier the fact that, when I sought to appoint one High Court judge, she told me that she could not take the appointment because she had responsibilities for her own elderly mother and the mother of her husband as well. How many people would want to be in the Supreme Court and would be capable of being there but have other responsibilities? I do not know—but I look around the world and I see part-time Supreme Court members, such as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf of Barnes, in relation to the Court of Final Appeal in Hong Kong, or Sydney Kentridge in the Supreme Court of South Africa. Have those courts benefited from those part-time members? My answer is yes.

So if we were to agree to a provision that allowed part-time or flexible working members of the Supreme Court in the United Kingdom, there would be two benefits. First, it would increase the pool of people who would be able to apply. Secondly, it would lead to a sense that we thought that flexible working was available from the top to the bottom of our judicial system. I cannot think of a better message for us to send—and it would be one that was not just a gesture but would have an effect on increasing merit. So I and these Benches enthusiastically endorse the brave and sensible proposal that the Government have made in relation to part-time working in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal and the High Court.

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, I feel like sitting down. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, was quite right; when he was Lord Chancellor and put through his constitutional reforms the Liberal Democrat Benches gave him full and consistent support. The brain power behind that support was my noble friend Lord Goodhart. I was the political organiser. As the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, will attest, the triumph of ideals must be organised, so I share the pleasure in these reforms. I also think it is right—we will have lots of discussion about this—that the reforms, good as they were and are, are capable of being tweaked and improved in the light of experience. Therefore, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lords, Lord Lloyd and Lord Falconer, for setting the parameters of the debate, as it were.

Before I go into the detail, I wish to deal with the general point raised by my noble friend Lord Goodhart. I understand where he is coming from and the need to acknowledge the importance of constitutional reform. However, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, found from his own experience, the difficulty is getting parliamentary time to tackle this. You sometimes have to accept the necessity of putting very important issues into a broader based Bill. The Government are always faced with the dilemma—this is true of all Governments—of choosing whether to put provisions together in one Bill, as is the case here, or of delaying legislation on important and necessary reforms. We have chosen the former approach but the fact that these provisions are in Clause 18 and Schedule 12 does not for a moment diminish their importance. Wherever they sit in the Bill, I would expect your Lordships’ House to discharge its usual role in carefully scrutinising the Government’s legislative proposals. If there was any doubt about that, it should have been dismissed by the thorough way in which the House has filleted these proposals for two and a half hours this evening.

I turn to the merits of our reforms to the judicial appointments process and answer the concerns raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd. His amendments would delete from the Bill the key measures to promote diversity and flexible working in the Supreme Court. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said, “flexible” is the right word, not “part time”. Of course, we must ensure that the process through which our judges are appointed is fair, open and transparent. The longer I am in this job, the more I am in awe of the quality of our senior judiciary. They are a national asset and are respected throughout the world for their quality and independence, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said. However, this does not conflict with a requirement for greater diversity in the judiciary. Diversity in the judiciary is important to enhance public confidence in the justice system. The proportion of women and members of ethnic minorities is still too low, and this is particularly the case in the higher courts.

As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, pointed out, progress in increasing diversity in the judiciary has been woeful and inadequate. We do not believe that we can rely on trickle-up. We consider that allowing flexible working in senior courts is an important reform to increase diversity, and that it will not detract from the principle of appointment on merit. I was recently asked by a very senior member of the judiciary, “Will our judiciary still be held in the same high esteem in 20 years’ time as it is today, if your reforms go through?”. I could look him in the eye and say “Yes, I believe that it will, but it will be a more diverse judiciary”.

The arguments made by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Lloyd and Lord Carswell, and by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, is that flexible working in the Supreme Court is simply not practical, and that all judges of the Supreme Court need to shoulder their fair share of the business by sitting full-time. I simply do not accept these arguments. It is a judgment call, but we have no reason to believe that it cannot work to the benefit of flexibility and diversity. Regarding the virtuoso performance by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, I can see how he earned an honest crust at that game. However, the noble and learned Lord made a good point. Flexible working will not be compulsory but will provide flexibility and, as has been pointed out by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, the merit test would still be there. It is not a dilution but a move to greater flexibility, which we believe will allow for greater diversity.

Many of the arguments we have heard from the sponsors of this amendment reflect an outdated view of the family. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, explained so eloquently, we need flexible working not just to enable a woman in her 30s or 40s to balance her career with her caring responsibilities, but to enable women in their 60s to carry out caring responsibilities for teenage children. Equally, such caring responsibilities can extend to grandchildren, a disabled partner or elderly parents. As my noble friend Lady Falkner pointed out, we are not just talking about women but about ethnic minorities, and some of this flexibility will also apply to men who find the present system too rigid.

We need to allow men and women of all ages to meet such caring responsibilities and balance them with flexible working patterns. The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, and others noted that such arguments were put forward in the past to oppose the introduction of flexible working in other professions. It has been shown in the medical profession and elsewhere that flexible working arrangements can be readily accommodated. As I have said in this House previously, if anybody asks me what is the biggest difference I have seen, having worked in the Foreign Office and Downing Street in the 1970s and come back to Whitehall now in 2010 to 2012, I would say that it is in the diversity of senior advisers. If our Civil Service can achieve such diversity, why can the law not achieve it?

That is not to say that there will not be challenges in implementing this, and practical issues to work through in, for example, the listing of cases. However, we agree with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, that these issues are not insurmountable. As he has indicated, most cases in the Supreme Court require hearings of only two or three days. As has been discussed, flexible working can take many forms, such as working during term times, or for nine or 10 months of the year, as the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, highlighted. Can I again pay tribute to her committee, which has not simply produced a report, but has kept on the case in terms of chivvying me and the Lord Chancellor in these areas? Moreover, if we are allowing flexible working in the lower courts, including the High Court and the Court of Appeal, the absence of flexible working in the Supreme Court could potentially deny an outstanding Court of Appeal judge the ability to consider applying for the Supreme Court.

I hope that the debate has, in a way, answered the concerns of my noble friend Lord Goodhart. These are important issues that are not to be taken lightly. I do not think that the House has taken them lightly but the case against the Government’s proposals has not been made—in fact, quite the contrary. The balance of the debate has been on our side.

[Lord Woolf]

Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I should mention the position of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Carswell. He did not want to absent himself from the later parts of the debate, but he had to return to Northern Ireland and has sent his apologies. I said that I would convey them to the House.

[Lord McNally]

Hansard will note that, with the full understanding of the Committee.

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

My Lords, I will be brief because I do not intend to divide the Committee. I am grateful to the Minister for his reply.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, was quite right to refer to the Lord Chief Justice’s evidence to her Constitution Committee. However, the point he was surely making was that there is already a great deal of flexibility in the High Court. That point was also made by the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, during my speech. Indeed, it was made very recently by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf. For example, if a judge is unable to go on circuit for family reasons or any other reason, he or she will of course stay in London and other arrangements will be made. That is already happening in the High Court. I say “he or she” because flexibility applies to both sexes; it applies to men as it applies to women. The thought seems to have been that somehow flexibility will help only women. That is not the case; it helps men also.

The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, also made a strong point on the importance of flexibility—as did the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger. The truth is that we are all in favour of greater flexibility, just as we are all in favour of greater diversity. However, greater flexibility does not require the appointment of part-time judges. That is what this debate is not about. It is about whether part-time judges should be appointed not in order to give greater flexibility but to solve the never-ending problem of diversity—how to get more women into the higher courts. When the Minister said in his reply that flexibility and diversity for men and women were all one thing, he missed the whole point of this part of the Bill, which is intended to increase the number of women in the higher courts. All that I can say is that it will do no such thing.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine]

I greatly appreciate the noble and learned Lord giving way. I again ask him to clarify whether he accepts that diversity encompasses more than just gender. It encompasses several strands, including disability, sexual orientation, ethnic minorities and so on. The Bill nowhere states that it is intended only to increase the number of women. It speaks in terms of diversity.

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

I could not agree more; of course we are not talking about women but about, above all in this context, black and ethnic minority judges, as I made clear when moving the amendment. As the noble Baroness made clear, we are also talking about other forms of minority, including people with disabilities, for example. However, the whole thrust of this part of the Bill is intended, as one can see from the history, to get more women, as well as ethnic minority judges, into the High Court.

I will not say any more about those who have supported the amendment, except to emphasise the extremely effective point that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Carswell, made regarding the collegiality of the Supreme Court. I certainly had a sense of that when I was in the Supreme Court, and I also felt it throughout my time in the Court of Appeal, although one obviously does not have that sense as a High Court judge. We were all members of one court. I do not think anyone can tell what the effect of the appointment of part-time judges will be on that essential concept of collegiality in both those courts.

I should mention the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf. He was unable to imagine a woman who would be willing to accept part-time appointment to the House of Lords but not full-time appointment. The question comes back to this: if that is the case, the purpose of this part of the Bill is not to cure the problem of diversity. Instead, the purpose is to send out what the noble and learned Lord called a signal; a gesture. I am opposed to gesture legislation, which is what this amounts to. It will not make any difference in practice. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

[Earl Attlee]

If the noble and learned Lord wants to speak to another amendment in this group, I would advise him not to withdraw his amendment. Otherwise the Lord Speaker will inevitably have to go on to further amendments in accordance with the Marshalled List.

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

I am very grateful to the noble Earl. I will defer begging leave to withdraw the amendment until I have moved the other amendment.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord can speak to his other amendment if he wants. He cannot move it, but he can speak to it now.

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

My Lords, the second amendment in my name and the names of the noble and learned Lords, Lord Carswell and Lord Woolf, is concerned only with diversity. It affects the judiciary at all levels. The amendment would leave out line 27 of Clause 18 and Part 2 of Schedule 12.

The Government accept that judicial appointments must be solely on merit. However, the Government argue that there might be cases where two candidates were of exactly equal merit, like two candidates getting the same marks in an examination, in which case the woman or the black man should be preferred. At least, that is the idea. “Solely on merit” is thus to be given a special meaning.

How is it going to work? Let us suppose there is a vacancy in the Supreme Court. The candidates will almost certainly come from the Court of Appeal. Let us suppose that there are two candidates from the Court of Appeal. Their abilities will be well known to the selection commission. The Bill provides that the selection commission shall consist of an odd number of members, not less than five. Is it conceivable, I ask, that all five members would find the two potential candidates of exactly equal merit? The answer is no. I suppose it is just possible that two members of the selection commission might favour one candidate, and two might favour the other, and the fifth member of the commission might be unable to make up his mind one way or the other, but this seems so unlikely in practice that it should not be the subject of legislation.

I am not alone in taking the view that I do. The noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger—who is still in her place, I hope—the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, and the Lord Chief Justice, all doubted whether candidates for the Supreme Court would ever be exactly equal. So did Christopher Stevens, the chairman of the Judicial Appointments Commission.

The idea that the Equality Act might be used where there are two candidates of exactly equal merit comes from a recommendation of the advisory panel in its 2010 report. As the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, will recall, it was recommendation 21. In a progress report of May 2011, the Judicial Appointments Commission said that it had always been able to distinguish between the relevant merits of different candidates, and that it did not anticipate that the Equality Act would ever be relevant in practice. Therefore I suggest that the idea should have been dropped then and there; it was nothing but an idea.

The members of the Judicial Appointments Commission operate in the real world. Part 2 of Schedule 12, which is based on the idea that one can have exactly equal candidates for these posts, is a good example of the sort of make-believe world in which Governments so often seem to exist.

That leaves only one argument. It is said that even though Part 2 of Schedule 12 would be useless in practice, it would send out a strong signal that diversity is of importance. This was the view of the Constitution Committee, stated in paragraph 101. It was also touched on by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, at Second Reading.

I do not believe that legislation should be used for the purpose of sending out signals. Moreover, in this context the signal is surely rather demeaning. We would be saying to highly intelligent women lawyers, “You may not have been the best but be of good cheer, you were first equal”. If I were the first black judge to be appointed to the Supreme Court, I would want to know whether or not I had been the best candidate, as I would under the existing law. Under the new law, I would not know. If I was only equal first, surely I would want to know who the other candidate was—and no doubt the other candidate would want to know who I was. Moreover, if I were a black judge, what would happen if the other candidate were a woman? How would the equality principle apply in those circumstances? I have formed the view that the Equality Act is of no assistance in this context. Of course it is of great importance in many other fields, but in appointments to the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal it is of no assistance at all: indeed, it could do nothing but harm in the manner that I suggested. I beg to move.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord made a slight mistake. He did not beg to move; we can just carry on debating the amendments in this group.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine]

My Lords, I will comment briefly on this point. In his closing remarks the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, asked an interesting question that is posed frequently: where there is a tie-break, as I would refer to it, what should be done if there are two candidates of supposedly equal merit, one of whom is a woman and the other, for example, is from an ethic minority? I note that the report of the Constitution Committee gives a lot of assistance in how we should define merit but makes the point that, certainly in large-scale selection processes, there could conceivably be candidates who end up in a tie-break: in other words, who are assessed to be of equal merit.

It would be quite straightforward to apply the test in those circumstances. You would look to see which group is more underrepresented than the other group and, in the case where there are two from underrepresented groups, appoint the one that was not to be found there. That would be fairly straightforward. With more senior appointments, it is entirely conceivable that it would be much clearer. We have heard that there is one female and no ethnic minority member of the current Supreme Court. In that case, it would be fairly straightforward, if the candidates were tied and came out equally in an assessment, you would go for the ethnic minority candidate. Although you would want to increase the gender diversity, on such an occasion, you would need to increase the diversity overall.

I also make the point to the noble and learned Lord that blatantly nobody is seeking to have the senior judiciary reflect the people they serve, because the people they serve on the whole are there, particularly in criminal cases, because they have done wrong. Nobody is suggesting that. However, the Constitution Committee’s report makes clear, as do a lot of other reports, that in senior positions in life it is terribly important for an inclusive society to have people who are representative of different strands of society as a whole. I rest my case there.

[Baroness Jay of Paddington]

My Lords, I will just make one rather straightforward point. I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, said in relation to the previous amendment that he felt that this was simply gesture politics and somehow the phrase that we used in our report, which the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, has now repeated, about sending out “a strong signal” by adopting this part of the Equality Act was simply inappropriate in legislative terms. I only say that the experience that we heard, particularly from abroad, about the way in which change had been brought about in judicial systems in other countries—I would cite particularly Canada—was that it came from very strong leadership from the top. That may be either in practical terms or, quite importantly, in terms of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, if I may say so, refers to, in a slightly deprecating way, as gestures but which I regard as importantly symbolic of a change of attitude at the top. In these terms, that means both ministerial and judicial and therefore conveys what I hope would be a change that would percolate down through the system.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

My Lords, I am in favour of the amendments proposed in paragraph 9 in part 2 of Schedule 12 and am therefore opposed to the amendment that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, advances.

I speak from my experience of being engaged in judicial appointments as Lord Chancellor, which is not the same as that of the noble and learned Lord, that there is always somebody who is the best candidate. My experience of judicial appointments is that you are very often comparing people who came with completely different experiences and particular specialities, who are both aiming to fill the same position. You could have a solicitor who was very experienced in dealing with general litigation, widely admired for his wisdom and sense, and a criminal barrister widely admired for her advocacy skills. The idea that one was better than the other and that one should approach judicial appointments on the basis that one was trying to grade the candidates for an Oxford First as 1, 2, 3 and 4 was not remotely my experience.

I am always suspicious of people who advance arguments along the lines of, “I live in the real world”. The real world involves making comparisons between people where it is essentially not possible, in any meaningful way, to grade them as 1, 2, 3 or 4. You will find that there are people applying for jobs who are of equal merit. That is the position, whether you are dealing with an appointment for one position or with a wider appointment, for example encouraging people to fill 15 posts as circuit judges—

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

Would the noble and learned Lord explain why his experience as Lord Chancellor is so very different from the experience of the Judicial Appointments Commission, which has said quite clearly that it has never found people to be of equal merit and does not anticipate that this clause will help in the future?

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

I do not know who the noble and learned Lord is referring to. If he is referring to Mr Christopher Stephens, I have had no conversations with him. All I can do is set out my own experience in relation to this.

[Baroness Prashar]

My Lords, perhaps I may help the Committee, having been the inaugural chairman of the Judicial Appointments Commission. My experience is the one that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, has described. Let us take two candidates about whom we can say that, although no two people are equal, there is merit. People are assessed against the criteria that have been set out. There may be two candidates who could equally do the job. You then have to assess them against the criteria, and that is where choice and judgment comes in. It is how that choice and judgment is exercised which makes the decision. People may be of equal merit, but they may not necessarily be equal in the sense that has been described.

The noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, was right to say that this became easier when vacancy notices were sent out and we had to appoint a number of judges to the circuit Bench or the district Bench. There were some candidates who were clearly grade A and presented no difficulty, and there were others who were below the line. However, there was a lot of discussion about the people who were in the middle, and they were always assessed against the criteria. I sat on a number of appointments to the senior judiciary, and there were robust debates about merit. What this proposal does is focus the mind by saying that one of the considerations that has to be taken into account is this: what else would the candidate bring to the post? The description given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, is absolutely accurate.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, for explaining that our experiences are the same. One can test this simply by looking around the Chamber. If one had to make a choice between the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, I think that everyone would agree that they bring totally different characteristics to a particular job. Would we be able to say that one is better than the other? No, in my view they are of equal merit. This is a serious point.

If we assume that the argument is right, the question is then: is it open to the person appointing a judge—because this does not apply just to the Supreme Court, but from the top of the judicial system to the bottom—to say, for example, “We have one woman and 25 men in this job and we have before us people of equal merit. It might be sensible to increase the group with one more woman”? Apart from the judiciary, I cannot think of any other organisation in the world that would consider that to be a bad approach. It also involves moving on from an artificial approach that people have to be graded as number one and number two. I support the approach taken in the Bill and I do not support the approach of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd.

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, again I am extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, for his contribution. I will not labour the point, but there is a difference of opinion. Most of the contributors to the debate do not believe that merit is something that can be pinpointed with laser-beam accuracy. That is not the real world, as both the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, have so vividly illustrated. I must also say that we must be very careful to ensure that collegiality does not morph into “chaps like us”.

21:30

The Government believe that merit can be more holistic than the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, suggests, and I take the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, exactly—this is not about gesture politics, this is about leadership, and I am very proud that the present Lord Chancellor is giving that leadership. I should also say, since the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, called in aid the Judicial Appointments Commission, that the commission chairman, Christopher Stephens, said on 11 May:

“The JAC welcomes the Government's proposals. These include many very positive changes … We also welcome the introduction of a specific provision to clarify that where two persons are of equal merit, the JAC can select the more diverse candidate”.

So I do not accept that there is support there for this view. It is, as I say, much too narrow a view of what we are trying to do and I hope, just as I am often asked to listen to what the House has said on this matter and think again, that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, will listen to the voices around the Committee and think again, because I think that he is on the wrong track on this. I am sure that after careful consideration, when we get back to Report, he will be an enthusiastic supporter of the Government.

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

Of course, having listened to the noble Lord, I am bound to think again and I shall. At this point all I will do is agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, that this question does not arise at the lower levels at all. At the lower levels there will usually be a large number of vacancies and a large number of applications, so there will be no question at all of putting candidates into any sort of order. However, it clearly does arise where one has one or two candidates from the Court of Appeal applying for the Supreme Court, or one or two candidates from the High Court applying for the Court of Appeal. At that level I say that there has never been any difficulty in choosing between them, so once again, this is a provision which will not help in practice.

To those who say the opposite, I shall read how the recommendation of this advisory panel was dealt with—it all comes from that recommendation. When that recommendation was considered, again, in 2011, the answer was as follows:

“The JAC will always select on merit and has to date been able to distinguish between the relevant merits of different candidates based on a careful assessment of an applicant’s entire profile and background”.

Certainly, background is taken into account as the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, would stress.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

My understanding is that the Judicial Appointments Commission does not appoint to the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. I understand that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, is saying that there is no problem with this provision in relation to the appointments that it does make—so he appears to be disagreeing with Mr Stephens—and in relation to the area where he is disagreeing, that is not a matter for the Judicial Appointments Commission. So I am not quite clear what point he is making.

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

The point is whether it arises in practice that it is impossible for whoever is making the appointment to choose between two equal candidates. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, says he often had that difficulty. If that is a real difficulty, it is very surprising that the Judicial Appointments Commission, which has made innumerable appointments, has never found that difficulty in practice, and it says that it does not anticipate, therefore, that the provisions of the Equality Act will ever be relevant in practice, either at its level or at any other level.

[Baroness Prashar]

Let me explain this by giving an analogy. When you make senior appointments, let us say to the High Court, you make a selection. It is like knowing that you want fruit: do you want apples, pears or whatever? That is the point at which you make a judgment. What the noble and learned Lord read from basically explains that you judge the candidate against those criteria. You will take all those considerations into account before making that selection. The distinction is that you will never get two equal candidates. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said, let us say that the noble Baronesses, Lady Jay and Lady Neuberger, applied. It would be a question of equal merit but against the background of what was needed you would go for one particular noble Baroness because she would match the merit criteria. I think that the confusion is that they are not absolutely equal but they are of equal merit.

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

I regret to say that the difficulty of that is that when one talks about equal merit one is in danger of infringing the very first requirement that all appointments must be made solely on merit and the view that has been expressed over and over again that that is not a threshold. That view was rejected by the Constitution Commission, which said that it is wrong to regard merit as a threshold, which the noble Baroness appears to have done—and perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, too. It is not a threshold. You have to get the best person.

[Baroness Neuberger]

Can I make clear what the advisory panel said on this matter? We were quite clear that the principle of selection on individual merit remains. The point that we were trying to make is that that depends on how you define merit. Your definition of merit may not be identical with mine or with that of the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar. We have a way of dealing with merit. The Judicial Appointments Commission has merit criteria against which we measure. Those criteria have recently been changed in relation to some of the things that may help in these diversity questions. We said that where people were of equal merit and you could not distinguish to say that one was better than another, you could then use the tipping point. Some people have liked that and some have not. Since we now have the availability of that in legislation, all six of us—without being able to put a sheet of paper between us—agreed that that was the right way to go.

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

I am still replying to the debate and the debate is still going on but it is quite apparent that I will not persuade the noble Baronesses. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

Do not withdraw it. There is more in the group.

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

From you? I am sorry.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

I am very grateful to my noble and learned friend for not withdrawing his amendment because it allows me to deal with the final set: Amendments 123A, 124A and 126A. I congratulate the Minister on the complicated group that he put together. None of us objected to it so we all are to blame for this particular procedural mess.

I think that this is the last thing we will deal with tonight. These amendments very respectfully question the wisdom of the Bill in replacing the Lord Chancellor with the Lord Chief Justice in relation to the appointment of a number of specified appointments. As noble Lords will recall, in relation to a number of specified judicial appointments, including circuit judges and recorders, the Judicial Appointments Commission makes recommendations to the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chancellor can ask the Judicial Appointments Commission either to think again or to reject a particular appointment. If the Judicial Appointments Commission then comes back with another appointment, the Lord Chancellor is broadly obliged to accept it. We put together this type of arrangement because those of us involved in the Constitutional Reform Act 2005—I have in mind in particular the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and the noble and learned Lords, Lord Lloyd of Berwick and Lord Woolf—all believed that it was extremely important that the Executive remained involved in the appointment of important and significant judicial appointments.

What is in effect being legislated for now is that the Lord Chancellor—the Executive—should remain involved—put aside the question of the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court, the Lord Chief Justice and heads of division—only in the High Court. I suggest to the Minister that that is a big mistake. The reason that the Lord Chancellor was given the residual power is that he is able, as an external force to the Judicial Appointments Commission and to judges, to say, “Think again”. The areas where the Lord Chancellor could say “think again” in a way that the Lord Chief Justice—the chief judge—might not be as willing to do might be, for example, in relation to diversity issues or to criteria adopted by the Judicial Appointments Commission.

I suspect that the main thinking behind this is that the Lord Chancellor is fed up with looking at lots of names of people to be appointed circuit judges. If that is the reason, it is a discreditable, bad reason for making the Lord Chief Justice, who does not have the resources that the Lord Chancellor has, look at them, and it removes the Lord Chancellor—the Executive—from the important position of appointing judges.

I ask the Minister to think again. This is an important issue. It reduces the stake of the Executive in the appointment of circuit judges, who are the major criminal judges in this country, and recorders, the major stepping stone from being a part-time judge to being a full-time judge. Those are the two most important appointments. To suggest that the Lord Chief Justice makes them adds nothing to the process. The pressures on the office now are huge. In my respectful submission, it is a big mistake to do that.

I have dealt with paragraph 27 about judges. Paragraphs 28 and 40, with which my other two amendments deal, are about replacing the Lord Chief Justice with the Senior President of Tribunals, who is basically a Court of Appeal judge. The Government are replacing the Lord Chancellor with a senior Court of Appeal judge in the context of senior appointments to the Tribunals Service. The Tribunals Service now covers a huge range of administrative matters and its judges are just as important in relation to involving the state as those other judicial appointments. I hope that the Minister thinks about removing the Executive from these roles and placing the burden on people who cannot carry it for administrative reasons. If one is serious about the Executive having an influence on criteria and diversity, this is the way it would be achieved. I invite the Minister to think about that.

21:45

[Lord Woolf]

Will the Minister bear in mind that it is very important that there is someone who can speak on behalf of the judiciary in Parliament? One of the changes that took place in consequence of the Constitutional Reform Act was that the right of the Lord Chief Justice, which had existed hitherto, to speak to Parliament on behalf of the judiciary on matters that affected the administration of justice went and we have this business of putting in a statement. That illustrates that the Lord Chancellor will be the spokesman who has to take parliamentary responsibility for the appointment of all judges. We know that sometimes it is very tempting for a Minister or even a very senior Minister to refer to unelected judges. It causes the judiciary grave offence that that should be said because judges may not be elected but they are appointed in accordance with the process laid down by Parliament and by Members of Parliament who, certainly in the other place, are elected. That responsibility means that Parliament is a place where in regard to these matters somebody has to be answerable. We do not want to see the Lord Chancellor no longer having responsibility for these appointments.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine]

I have agreed with almost every word that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, has said this afternoon but I am now surprised at his explanation for why he wishes to move these amendments with respect to what I think he implied was an abrogation of responsibility by the Lord Chancellor for the judiciary. I wonder whether he is familiar with those parts of the Constitution Committee’s report.

For other noble Lords who might not be, I will take just a minute or two to point those parts out. Looking at this part and pages 14 and 15, the Constitution Committee in taking its evidence found:

“This argument was supported by the previous Lord Chancellor, Jack Straw MP, who described his role in relation to the lower tiers of the judiciary as ‘ridiculous’. The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, also stressed that the Lord Chancellor ‘has no input at all to make other than to be there to look as if he is making an input ... It simply suggests there is political involvement when we have tried to get rid of it’”.

The committee goes on to make the point at paragraph 32 that,

“The Lord Chief Justice has day to day responsibility for the judiciary of England and Wales: he knows what is required of judicial office at all levels. He is therefore better placed than the Lord Chancellor to make an informed assessment of whether a nominee put forward by the JAC should be appointed. Transferring the Lord Chancellor’s power to request reconsideration or reject nominations to the Lord Chief Justice would strengthen the appointments system”.

In conclusion, the committee finds that,

“there is indeed a need for the legal framework for appointments to reflect both the extent to which the Executive should be involved in individual appointments and the reality of that involvement”.

The committee makes one point which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, made, that,

“The Government should consider whether the Lord Chief Justice will need additional support in order to take on this role”.

I think that point is well made.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

The noble Baroness asked me whether I was aware of that. I most certainly was. With the greatest respect to the chair of the committee, my noble friend Lady Jay of Paddington, it was wrong. It is such a misunderstanding of the importance of the role of the Executive. I admire the judges more than anyone but I do not want the judges to be completely in control of the process of appointment. It is a siren song to say “let the Lord Chief Justice do it”. He is a splendid person but what a mistake it would be to remove the Executive and say “hold on a minute, I am not sure that is right”. Yes, I was aware and, my goodness me, she was led astray in what she said.

[Lord Deben]

My Lords, it always surprises people that non-lawyers such as me sit through long periods of Bills such as this one. It is mainly because some of us think that no profession should be left to make its own decisions about its own set-up. Therefore, I hope the Committee will allow me to say just two things.

First, I entirely agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. It is necessary for the protection of judges that someone should make an interjection of this sort. Secondly, the noble and learned Lord who argued against the question of equal merit ought to learn a lesson from the rest of his life. I know perfectly well what I have to do when I choose people to work for me in my businesses. I often get a large number of people of similar merit. Then I get it down to people of equal merit. What do I say to myself? I say, “I can’t run a business in which I have too many women and too few men. I can’t run a business in which I have no gays. I can’t run a business if I don’t have some kind of different ethnic minority representation when I could”. It is a very simple thing and I am a bit tired, if I may say so, of the legal profession talking as though it was a unique operation—as though it somehow has nothing to do with how the rest of us work.

That is why I sit through these debates from time to time—to say occasionally, “For goodness’ sake, realise that you are in a world that operates in a particular way. When you talk about representation, it is about being sensible of and sensitive to the way the world works”. I found the previous discussion bewildering. It is manifestly true that you often find people who are of equal but different merit. The issue then is about what mix works, given that you have 25 other people of equal but different merit. How do you fit that person in? Anybody who has chosen people for a team or run anything finds that to be true. I cannot understand why judges are supposed to be different or, in particular, why they become more different the more senior they become. I find that extremely odd.

Therefore, I ask the Committee to learn a lesson from those of us who are not lawyers. The nature of our legal system is accepted partly because people feel that, in general, the way in which it operates has some parallels with how everything else operates. If it operates in a totally different way, frankly, we have got it wrong. Let us try, in those areas where parallels are obvious, to make the system parallel. Where it is not parallel, we should be able to defend why it is unique. In neither of the cases that we have talked about in this curious group of amendments is it possible to claim uniqueness. In both cases, it is better to do what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, suggested, and to disagree with the well argued but fallacious point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss]

My Lords, I do not dare to follow what the noble Lord has just said. I want to make a slightly different point, which is to agree very much with the noble and learned Lords, Lord Falconer and Lord Woolf. There needs to be somebody in Parliament who speaks for the judges. That is probably the most important point that is being made and the major reason why the Lord Chief Justice should not have the final say.

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, we should first thank the noble Lord, Lord Deben, for what in the film industry is called a cameo performance. It was none the worse for that. I am under strict instruction from the Box not to say anything rude about the judges, so I can take pleasure at one remove.

This is an interesting little debate. At this time of night, I am sure that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, will not press his amendment. However, I will take this back to the Lord Chancellor. If a former Lord Chancellor gives the kind of powerful warning that the noble and learned Lord has given this evening and is supported by people of experience, the least I can do is say, “They don’t think this is such a good idea”.

I would, however, say two things. Working with the present Lord Chancellor, I am absolutely convinced of his belief in the separation of powers. He is convinced of it, as am I and as is the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, and he is very careful to try to ensure it.

The other thing I know from direct experience is that the Lord Chancellor is extremely robust in defending the independence of the judiciary and has reminded colleagues at the highest levels of government about the limits of criticising the judiciary. On those counts, we can be secure. The Lord Chancellor also retains overall responsibilities to answer to Parliament, which should not be underestimated. As the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, pointed out from the report of the Constitution Committee, the evidence was that there is no real input from the Lord Chancellor on this tranche of appointments. Jack Straw said that and, in the robust language of the present Lord Chancellor, appearance and reality diverged where names were going past him that he did not know and he was supposed to give approval for. It was a paper exercise that he felt uncomfortable with. He felt that it was more sensible to give this responsibility to the Lord Chief Justice. I take the point, again made by the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, about whether there are resource implications. Knowing the Lord Chief Justice, I suspect that he will call that in aid.

What the Bill provides is that for many judicial offices below the High Court, the Lord Chancellor’s powers in relation to selection decisions and appointments are transferred to the Lord Chief Justice, for courts in England and Wales, and to the Senior President of Tribunals for appointments to the First-tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal. Where the appointment is made by Her Majesty the Queen, the recommendation for appointment will still come from the Lord Chancellor, but he will merely transmit the decision taken by the Lord Chief Justice or the Senior President of Tribunals upon the selection of a person for office following a selection process carried out by the Judicial Appointments Commission. The Lord Chief Justice and Senior President will be constrained in the same way as the Lord Chancellor currently is, in that they will receive one name from the Judicial Appointments Commission and either have to accept the selection, reject it or ask the commission to reconsider its selection.

These amendments would undo that transfer of such responsibilities from the Lord Chancellor to the Lord Chief Justice and Senior President of Tribunals. While we consider that it is important for the Lord Chancellor to retain accountability and ownership of the judicial appointments process as a whole, and a direct role in appointments at a senior level, we do not consider that there is a need for the Executive to be involved in each individual appointment below the High Court. It is not practical for him to have knowledge of judicial officeholders at a more junior level and his role in the appointments process, at this level, becomes a rubber stamp. We therefore consider it appropriate that for many judicial offices below the level of the High Court, selection decisions and appointments are made by the senior judiciary, but that the Lord Chancellor retains accountability for the appointment system as a whole. This measure also received the support of the Constitution Committee in its report on judicial appointments. However, I will draw to the attention of the Lord Chancellor the fact that a former Lord Chancellor has spoken so strongly on the issue, and we will ponder what has been said in this debate tonight.

22:00

[Lord Woolf]

In taking that message to the Lord Chancellor, will the Minister also convey the message that, with great respect to the Lord Chief Justice, the Lord Chief Justice does not know all the people who will be appointed? He will know possibly a few more than the Lord Chancellor, but I suggest that just as the Lord Chancellor would have to rely on advice, so would the Lord Chief Justice.

[Lord McNally]

Certainly, I will make sure that the Lord Chancellor reads today’s Hansard. The point is that it is advice that comes from the process of the Judicial Appointments Commission. Just as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, wants the Executive still involved, I am not so convinced and, even more importantly, nor is the Lord Chancellor. As I have said, we both take a view about the separation of powers of which this could and should be a useful symbol: the Lord Chancellor of the day would not be holding on to a rubber-stamping exercise, he would be leaving it with the Lord Chief Justice of the day. This has been an interesting mini-debate, which I will raise with the Lord Chancellor for further consideration.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

I am grateful to the Minister for saying that he will raise this matter. Perhaps I may say that the Minister’s arguments were much better before he moved on to his written notes, which were of poor quality. On the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, as regards the Lord Chief Justice knowing the candidates to be Admiralty Registrar better than the Lord Chancellor, I agree that that is an unlikely assertion. The implication of what the Minister said was that, unlike the circuit Bench, the deputy registrars and the Masters, the Lord Chancellor would be aware of all the candidates who would be going up for High Court appointments.

Speaking for myself, when I came from the Bar to being the Lord Chancellor, I was not aware of all the candidates. I would imagine that as regards the current Lord Chancellor—who I greatly admire and I believe utterly, with no doubts at all, to be a defender of the independence of the judiciary—90% of the people, if not more, who are being considered for the High Court Bench are equally unknown to him in relation to the circuit Bench. The judicial appointments system is not supposed to be on the basis that the Lord Chancellor knows the people and therefore has some input, but on the basis of him looking at the way in which the system works.

I found the friendly Minister saying, “I will give this a thought”, more attractive than the unsatisfactory nature of what was said in defence of the argument. Let me give the Minister two pauses for thought. First, if as Lord Chancellor you had not appointed one woman circuit judge for a year, you might want to ask about that in a way that the Lord Chief Justice would not be in a position to do. Secondly, let us suppose that the Judicial Appointments Commission said that in relation to circuit judge and recorder appointments it is going to award those appointments only to those people who have a 2:1 from Oxford or Cambridge. The Lord Chancellor can do something about that in the way in which the Lord Chief Justice cannot because the Lord Chancellor has a role in judicial appointments. Those two points are in aid of and additional to the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, which I had not made but which is just as important; namely, that when there is a question mark about what a circuit judge has done, which there is very frequently, there needs to be someone in Parliament who has had some responsibility for appointing that judge and can say that the appointment was made in a sensible way. The idea of shuffling that off to the Lord Chief Justice is a mistake which will weaken the judiciary in our constitutional arrangements, without in any way improving the separation of powers. I hope that we will think about this issue again.

[Lord McNally]

I think that that is called extra time. So as to make it clear, I and I alone take responsibility for anything that I say from this Box. Just to give the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, some idea of how deep the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice go, having sat in on a number of meetings, I now have a full knowledge of the working of the Midlands Circuit 1970. I will take those points back.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

I cannot resist the temptation to ask how many people who were on the Midland Circuit in 1970 are now being appointed judges. Their age, if they were on the circuit then, would now be 68.

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 115.

Amendment 115 withdrawn.

Clause 18 agreed.

Schedule 12 : Judicial appointments

Amendment 116 not moved.

House resumed.

House adjourned at 10.06 pm.