Grand Committee
(11 years, 8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Ullswater)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.
Global Green Growth Institute (Legal Capacities) Order 2013
(11 years, 8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Northover
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Global Green Growth Institute (Legal Capacities) Order 2013.
Relevant document: 19th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
Baroness Northover
My Lords, the draft Global Green Growth Institute (Legal Capacities) Order 2013 was laid before the House on 29 January.
There has been no poverty reduction at scale without strong and sustained economic growth. The sustainability of current growth models is, however, a serious concern. Although economic growth relies on environmental resources, at the same time it drives their depletion. Green growth seeks to promote actions that simultaneously improve both growth and the environment.
The Global Green Growth Institute was established in 2010 to advance the practice and theory of green growth. It hopes to work with a critical mass of countries to explore the potential of green growth and, through demonstrating its potential, to act as a transformational catalyst for change. The institute’s focus is on helping to prepare economic development strategies in countries that have expressed interest, and then helping to ensure that there is appropriate capacity and means to implement these strategies. The UK has been a keen supporter of the Global Green Growth Institute, acting as a founding member with the Deputy Prime Minister representing the UK at the agreement of its establishment in Rio in 2012.
The International Organisations Act allows us to grant international organisations legal capacity by making an Order in Council. This will enable the institute to attain formal status in UK law and so enable it to operate effectively here. Her Majesty’s Government fully support all these changes. We firmly believe that the Global Green Growth Institute may help to create a new model of environmentally sustainable economic growth. I commend the order to the Committee.
Lord Teverson
I shall just rise to congratulate the Minister on her excellent exposition of the connection between green growth and economic growth, for the good not just of the planet but of this nation. I hope that she will spread this message well and truly throughout the land, particularly towards 11 Downing Street, and reinforce that message as much as possible. I congratulate her and I fully support the Government in their support for this very important institute and its future work. We will see how well it does over the years.
Lord Liddle
On behalf of the Opposition, I also rise to support this measure. In government we fully backed international action against climate change, of which this is a useful part. I would like to hear from the Minister what the plans are for the future of the institute. Like the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, I would also like reassurance that the Government are not falling into the hands of climate change deniers.
Baroness Northover
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Teverson for his strong support and the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, for his support. I assure both noble Lords that I will do my very best to promote green growth, which is strongly supported, as they know, by DfID and this Government. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, of that.
As to the future of the institute, we are very optimistic about its future programme, but that will be its responsibility. This order enables the institute to operate in the way that I have said in the United Kingdom, and we look forward to its further work in the future. On that basis, if the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, is content, I beg to move.
Renewables Obligation (Amendment) Order 2013
(11 years, 8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Verma
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Renewables Obligation (Amendment) Order 2013.
Relevant document: 19th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Baroness Verma)
My Lords, the renewables obligation is currently the Government’s main mechanism for supporting large-scale renewable electricity generation in the UK. Since it was introduced in 2002, the renewables obligation has succeeded in tripling the level of renewable electricity, from 2.9% of total UK generation in 2002 to 9.4% in 2011. It supports some 11.5 gigawatts of accredited capacity. As such, the renewables obligation plays a major role in helping the UK meet its renewables targets and carbon reduction goals.
The renewables obligation places an annual obligation on licensed UK electricity suppliers to source a specified proportion of the electricity that they provide to customers from eligible renewable sources. The scheme is administered by Ofgem, which issues renewables obligation certificates to electricity generators in relation to the amount of eligible renewable electricity they can generate. Generators sell their ROCs to suppliers who use them towards meeting their obligation.
The banding of support—allowing different technologies to receive different levels of subsidy—was introduced to the RO in April 2009 to drive greater and more rapid deployment of renewable electricity generation. This order will implement the outcome of the second major four-yearly review of banded renewables obligation subsidy levels, which took place between 2010 and 2012. The review attracted more than 4,000 consultation responses and substantial amounts of new evidence from a wide range of stakeholders across four separate consultation exercises, which was used to refine our original proposals. The results are set out in the government responses to the RO banding review, published on 25 July and 18 December last year. The order will set the support levels in England and Wales for the next four years from 1 April 2013 until 31 March 2017 for new developments or capacity added to existing generating stations accredited under the RO during this period.
Before I outline the key changes being introduced by the order, it is worth reflecting on the importance of the UK renewables electricity sector and how the new subsidy package will help us achieve our goals. The changes in subsidy levels in this order recognise the key role of renewables in the UK’s future. Renewable energy generation is a crucially important low-carbon technology with a central role to play in helping us reach our carbon emission reduction targets. It is also essential to our economic growth and energy security. It reduces our reliance on imported fossil fuels, and helps keep the lights on and our energy bills down. We have some of the best renewable energy resources anywhere in the world, and the Government are absolutely determined that the UK will retain its reputation as one of the best places to invest in renewables. We have also legally committed to ensuring that 15% of our energy will come from renewable sources by 2020.
The subsidy package balances growth and affordability, providing reassurance to investors and value for money for consumers. The subsidy levels introduced through the order provide certainty for developers and will ensure continuity of support as we transition towards the new contracts for difference to be introduced as part of our electricity market reforms. It will help unlock generation and network capital investments worth around £20 billion to £25 billion at today’s prices in the period 2013-17, and deliver the kind of sustainable, long-term growth and green jobs that we need to get the economy moving again. This represents a very significant part of the £110 billion that we need to attract this decade to overhaul our ageing power system.
It is not the Government’s policy to support renewables at any price. Our ultimate aim is for renewables to become competitive without the need for subsidy. The Government’s decisions on RO subsidy levels send a strong signal to industry that we expect this to happen over time. To get this moving in the right direction, we are reducing support where it can be done, while bringing on the deployment that we need from key technologies such as offshore wind, onshore wind and biomass, to achieve our aims.
The order contains a large number of changes and I do not wish to detain the Committee by going through them all. I therefore turn to the main changes that we are introducing.
We are setting the level of support for offshore wind at two renewable obligation certificates per megawatt hour in 2014-15, reducing that to 1.9 ROCs in 2015-16 and to 1.8 ROCs 2016-17. This is consistent with our consultation proposals and reflects our expectation that the costs of offshore wind will fall as mass deployment takes place and industry innovates. We are already working closely with key representatives from industry to reduce costs. The new support levels will ensure that the UK retains its position as the leading location in the world for offshore wind deployment.
Onshore wind is one of the most cost-effective forms of large-scale renewable electricity generation. The Government are committed to onshore wind as part of a diverse energy mix. We believe it is right to continue supporting onshore wind through the renewables obligation, but propose to reduce support by 10% to 0.9 ROCs per megawatt hour for new developments coming online from 1 April this year. This cut in support is in line with evidence of falling costs. We also know that the cost of onshore wind may fall faster than expected. To ensure that support continues to reflect costs, we are running a call for evidence and if we find that there is a significant change in costs, the Government will expect to review onshore wind support rates again. Any new arrangements arising from a potential review would not take effect before April 2014, and financially committed projects would be protected through grandfathering and grace periods.
We understand that some people have concerns about the pace of wind turbine developments in the British countryside and believe that communities should have a greater say over, and stake in, onshore wind developments in their area. Our planning reforms are already putting local communities in the driving seat by giving them new powers to write their own plans. However, because this is a priority, our call for evidence is also looking at what should be done to improve engagement with communities and ensure that communities that host onshore wind receive appropriate benefits. We expect to publish in May a final report on costs and, in the summer, a final report on community engagement and benefits.
Around 30% of our total renewable energy in 2020 could come from biomass heat and electricity. To ensure that we support the most cost-effective and sustainable forms of biomass, we are creating several new support bands for coal plant converting fully to biomass generation or increasing the amount of biomass they co-fire. These offer the quickest and cheapest ways to decarbonise electricity from biomass and will extend the life of existing assets, thereby helping to maintain the security of electricity supply.
Our policy on new dedicated biomass plant remains cautious because this technology is a relatively costly means of decarbonisation. Support levels are set at 1.5 ROCs from 2013-14, reducing to 1.4 ROCs in 2016-17. Last December, we announced our intention to introduce a 400 megawatt cap on the deployment of new dedicated biomass plant. We are currently working with industry to develop a process requiring developers to preregister potential projects. We will bring forward legislation later this year to introduce the registration requirements into law.
We will continue to support innovative technologies that can play a long-term role in our energy future, such as energy from wave and tidal stream and innovative processes for generating electricity from waste, such as anaerobic digestion and advanced conversion technologies. Both AD and ACTs will continue to receive two ROCs in 2013-14 and 2014-15. Support will reduce to 1.9 ROCs in 2015-16 and to 1.8 ROCs in 2016-17 in line with our aim to reduce subsidies over time.
I am sure the Committee will welcome the news that support for wave and tidal stream technologies will more than double from two ROCs to five ROCs from 1 April this year. This level of support will be available for installed capacity up to 30 megawatts at each generating station. The UK has an unrivalled abundance of marine energy and is currently the world leader in developing wave and tidal stream technologies. Increasing supporting for marine energy recognises the potential and importance of marine energy for the UK.
We are establishing two separate bands for solar PV under the RO: one band for building-mounted solar PV and the other for ground-mounted solar PV. We want to see a healthy solar industry that grows in a sustainable way and moves away from the boom and bust cycles that we have seen in the past. That is why the lower support levels for these new bands reflect the substantial fall in technology costs in recent years.
We have listened to industry about the need to differentiate support between building-mounted and ground-mounted installations, and we have introduced two bands as a result. In order to incentivise solar projects on buildings, building-mounted solar PV projects will receive higher rates than ground-mounted projects. Our proposals for solar projects on commercial buildings will encourage businesses to consider solar PV as a serious option for meeting their power needs.
Hydro-electricity makes an important contribution to our renewable energy generation. While opportunities for further large-scale developments are limited, we believe it is right to incentivise as much of the remaining cost-effective hydro-electricity potential in England and Wales as we can. For that reason, and following careful consideration of new consultation evidence, we are proposing to set support at 0.7 ROCs instead of the 0.5 ROCs that we proposed in consultation.
The RO is paid for by consumers through their energy bills. For that reason, delivering the best possible deal for consumers has been at the heart of the RO banding review. In considering the final shape of the banding package, we have focused on the need to balance cost-effectiveness with the range of objectives that the RO must deliver. This package therefore reduces the lifetime subsidy cost of the renewables obligation per megawatt hour of renewable electricity generated by 11% compared to current bands.
These proposals cost around £900 million less than implementing the consultation bands while driving higher deployment. The banding changes, therefore, will deliver more clean power at less unit cost, representing better value for money than the current RO subsidy levels. They will also reduce consumers’ energy bills by £6 next year and £5 in 2014-15 compared to the current subsidy regime, a total of £11 across the remainder of this Parliament.
The changes that I have set out today apply to the RO for England and Wales. There are separate but complementary obligations for Scotland and Northern Ireland. RO policy in Scotland and Northern Ireland is devolved, but colleagues there have advised that they intend to make changes to their obligations similar to those I have set out today. Similar orders will be laid before the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly shortly.
The European Commission is in the process of assessing the changes made by the order for the purpose of providing state aid approval. We anticipate that we will receive this approval before this instrument is made.
The measures contained in this order are good for the country and good for consumers. The renewable energy infrastructure that this package will bring forward will create a multibillion-pound boost for the UK economy, driving growth and supporting jobs across the country. This investment will have lasting benefits for our country, helping to modernise the electricity grid to keep the lights on, building resilience against spiralling fossil fuel prices and keeping carbon emissions down. Importantly for consumers, the changes we propose will deliver real reductions in energy bills across the current Parliament. I commend this order to the Committee and beg to move.
Lord Grantchester
I thank the Minister for her comprehensive explanation of the order before the Committee. She has correctly identified it as the main financial policy mechanism for encouraging large-scale renewable electricity generation to put it on a sustainable footing as part of the UK energy mix. The order updates the band support levels, introduces new power sources and increases the importance of certain fuels such as biomass. I certainly support the order. A lot of what the noble Baroness has said is eminently sensible and can agreed by noble Lords all around the Committee. It will help to deliver the UK target of 15% from renewable generation by 2020. It will help UK energy security by reducing reliance on imported fossil fuels. It will assist in the conversion to cleaner generation and it will deliver on decarbonisation targets. It will also help to secure necessary capital and supply chain investment and, not least, it will help to deliver good value for money for consumers.
That said, the Government have presided over a rather disruptive process. There have been public disagreements between Ministers in the noble Baroness’s department and challenges with the Treasury. These do not engender the certainty that is so necessary to the industry if it is to invest with confidence. Uncertainties remain over elements of biomass and solar generation which will be subject to further separate consultation and orders. It is extremely damaging to the industry’s confidence if it experiences constant downward revisions of its support and to the targets of the renewable transport fuel obligation as well as the carbon reduction targets. Can the Minister confirm that the target under the renewables directive is safe? New renewables stations will be ineligible from 1 April 2017. This amending order increases generation per annum to 79 terawatt hours a year by 2017, as explained in the Explanatory Memorandum. However, the target for 2020 is 108 terawatt hours a year. By what measures is the Minister confident that the shortfall of 29 terawatt hours per year will be generated?
One of the key points of the order before us is that from 2014 onwards, support for large-scale renewable electricity will be through a new feed-in tariff with a contract for difference scheme, as proposed under the forthcoming Energy Bill. Does the Minister agree that there is a need for a smooth and well managed transition from the renewables obligation to the contracts for difference regime? If there is any delay for whatever reason, can she confirm that the RO scheme can be extended to give investors the certainty that projects which need longer timeframes have the necessary clarity in terms of levels of support that are needed for their investment?
In its examination of this order, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee noted that the lives of some existing coal-fired generating plants, which had been expected to close due to carbon emissions reduction targets, may be extended through support to convert to cleaner biomass generation. The committee asked for clarification on how the banded support would allow this to happen. In its reply, the Minister’s department pointed to Ofgem’s Electricity Capacity Assessment 2012, which identifies a tightening of generating margins from 15% this winter to 4% in 2016. While it makes sense to utilise existing stations and convert them, perhaps I may suggest to the Minister that not only may this delay decarbonisation targets, it will delay the necessary urgent investment in fit-for-purpose energy generation. Are the Government seeking the flexibility that will allow them to rely on coal as a back-up supply to help keep the lights on? Is that the more pressing reason, and will it comply with the industrial emissions directive, which replaces the large combustion plant directive with more stringent emissions limits, that is to come into force from 1 January 2016?
Having made that point, I note that both the Committee on Climate Change’s bioenergy review and DECC’s own energy strategy conclude that coal firing with biomass offers a cost-effective way to decarbonise existing coal-fired power stations. The Explanatory Memorandum is also correct to point to energy efficiency and demand reduction as important elements in the calculation of targets that renewable generation needs to fill. However, I do not see any figures in the Explanatory Memorandum to clarify that. Previously, I have asked the noble Baroness for her assessment of the success of the Green Deal and other measures to reduce demand. Is she now able to come forward and put any figures on these measures?
There is much in this order to consider and I welcome the support increase to five ROCs for both tidal stream and wave. That should help reduce the risks of not achieving decarbonisation targets. I welcome the section on rural-proofing within the context of the Government’s overall reforms of the planning system.
The final issue of importance concerns bioenergy crops. Quite rightly, there is anxiety over land use that may be taken away from food crops, and deforestation may also result. The use of palm oil has already been excluded from supply chains. Could the Minister clarify that her department’s bioenergy strategy has now taken account of the sustainability standards recommended in the RO recognition of the environmental assurance scheme’s requirements? To sum up, I support the order and would be grateful if the Minister could give reassurances on the points that I have raised.
Lord Teverson
My Lords, I must admit that when I saw this order on the Order Paper, got a copy of it from the Printed Paper Office and opened it, I thought it was my maths O-level paper all over again. It took me back I will not say how many years to that dreaded moment. I passed in the end but it was quite a struggle. The formulae in the order as I went through it got more and more complicated: E=MC2 was rather simple by comparison. I hope the people that have to interpret this have a lot more time and mathematical and computerised power than my brain normally does.
I thank my noble friend for going through the order and particularly for highlighting something very important to the south-west and my part of the world: the wave side. Yes, DECC and the Government have put that back up to five ROCs but what is important about this, which my noble friend did not mention, is that that has put it back on a par with what they pay in Scotland. We in the south-west can now compete with our northern brothers and sisters in terms of marine energy. I very much welcome that.
One of the particularly good things about this is that we are moving into a much more professionally and better managed transition in terms of ROC values. I know that ROCs are about to disappear anyway but we are able to make measured and predicted changes in the regime to keep investor confidence, yet knowing that we will have the mechanism to, we hope, keep these numbers within what I thought was a very good settlement in terms of the levy control framework between DECC and the Treasury. That was a good outcome. I hope this approach now means that we will not have that backwards and forwards in trying to second-guess in the short term, and that we have an environment where the investor community is able to put its money where its mouth is—and where our mouth is—in getting renewable capacity, and that that actually happens.
My main question is very much the same as that of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. We have a marvellous list here of all the technologies that there are in renewables, some of them which even I forget about. Some, like co-firing bioliquids sounds definitely like something I would not want to get involved in but there are some really interesting technologies there. A number of them are biomass-related and I would also be interested to know where the Government have got to in terms of these quite complicated supply-chain issues around sustainability. It is sometimes all too easy to condemn everything and to give excuses for things not to happen, rather than to bring them forward. However, sustainability is important, and I am very interested to hear my noble friend’s comments in response to my question and to that of Lord Grantchester.
The Duke of Montrose
I would like to raise a couple of small questions. One is out of curiosity. We all understand that Scotland administers its own renewable energy regime and the quantities of ROCs that are administered. However, when it comes to providing the certificates, can the Minister tell us whether this is done centrally? Is a Scottish ROC equivalent to an English ROC, and able to be traded across the border? When we get to this horrible question of a referendum in Scotland and Mr Salmond asks whether the Scots want to be devolved, will they suddenly find themselves having to set up ROC administrations that they do not presently have? I am sure that if that is the case, it will be one of many aspects that have not been costed.
The other point comes from what the Minister said about the extent to which the Government expect to have a conversion of coal power stations to biomass. If conversion does take place to the full extent that the Government anticipate, how much of the biomass required is available from the UK and how much might have to be imported?
Lord Teverson
Before my noble colleague sits down, I would like to say something important about co-ordination between Scotland and the south: we definitely need a ROC concert.
Baroness Verma
My Lords, I was trying to recover from that helpful contribution that we have just had from my noble friend. I begin by thanking all noble Lords for their support for this order and very much welcome what they have said in recognising the great benefits that it will provide.
I was slightly disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, does not recognise that it brings greater certainty for investors, simply through what we are trying to achieve. The expected benefits initially will be £20 billion to £25 billion in 2013-17. That gives greater certainty to investors, given that they will know that they are working towards the contracts for difference in the Energy Bill.
I will answer some of the questions that the noble Lord has put down, as have my noble friends, but if I fail to answer any questions I will write to noble Lords and make sure that there is a copy in the Library. The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, asked about the Green Deal. It is on track and doing very well. However, because I was not expecting a question on the Green Deal, I do not have the specific figures here with me. If he will allow me, I will also write to him on those figures and give him an update on where we are.
The noble Lord asked whether the target is safe. I can assure the noble Lord that it is. The target is unchanged and there are no plans to change it. He also asked if I am confident that the shortfall of 29 terawatt hours will be met. Through the contracts for difference, we expect that target to be met and, through our capacity mechanisms, to have some capacity in lieu in case there is ever a shortfall. Of course, we will have greater discussions on this when the Energy Bill arrives in our House.
The noble Lord also asked if the RO would be extended to allow a smooth transition to CFDs. We have no plans to extend the RO. The EMR and the CFDs are on track and we are working very closely with industry to ensure that the transition is as smooth and secure as possible.
The noble Lord also asked if coal would continue as a back-up supply. I have just mentioned the new-capacity mechanism and this will be a matter for that mechanism, rather than the renewables obligation, but renewables, particularly biomass, will have an important role to play in keeping our old coal-powered stations open in a much more sustainable way.
Electronic Commerce Directive (Trafficking People for Exploitation) Regulations 2013
(11 years, 8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Electronic Commerce Directive (Trafficking People for Exploitation) Regulations 2013.
Relevant document: 18th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach)
My Lords, these regulations are a technical measure to implement the EU directive on electronic commerce, known as the e-commerce directive, in respect of the new Section 59A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, on trafficking people for sexual exploitation, and amended Section 4 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004, on trafficking people for labour and other exploitation. These changes to trafficking offences were made by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
The e-commerce directive supports free movement in the provision of information society services; broadly speaking, commercial activities that take place online in Europe. It covers online activities, such as selling goods and services, hosting a website or providing web or e-mail access. The trafficking offences can be committed online where the arranging or facilitating takes place over the internet. Therefore the e-commerce directive needs to be implemented in respect of the human trafficking offences.
I should mention some of the history regarding the implementation of the e-commerce directive, which was originally implemented by regulations in 2002. Those regulations applied the directive to all offences that existed at that time. For offences created after that date, as in this case arising from amendments to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, we have to implement the directive on a case-by-case basis.
I will address briefly some of the details of the regulations. Regulations 3 and 4 implement the directive’s country of origin rules. These rules broadly say that a provider of information society services must be regulated by the state in which the provider is established, not the state in which the services are received. This is provided for by Regulation 3.
Similarly, the country of origin principle means the UK must not restrict the freedom of service providers established in another European Economic Area state to provide their services in the UK unless certain conditions apply. Such providers will generally be regulated by the state in which they are based. We would expect EU member states, all of which are bound by the human trafficking directive, to pursue prosecutions under their relevant domestic trafficking offences.
Regulation 4 sets out that proceedings may not be brought against a service provider established in another European Economic Area state, unless specific public interest conditions are satisfied. The key question for these purposes will be whether a prosecution is proportionate. The CPS will take into account all relevant factors, including, first, whether a prosecution is to be brought under the domestic law of the state in which the service provider is established—if such a prosecution is to be brought, it will be difficult to show that it is proportionate to prosecute here as well; secondly, where the evidence is located; and thirdly, the nature of the offending that has taken place, for example, whether the service provider part of an organised crime gang focused on trafficking persons into the UK. Overall, the CPS will need to decide whether the conditions are met on a case-by-case basis.
Regulations 5, 6 and 7 implement the requirements of the directive in relation to intermediary service providers which carry out certain activities essential for the operation of the internet: those that act as mere conduits and those providers that cache or host information. The directive requires us to limit the liability of such intermediary service providers in specified circumstances. For example, a host is not liable if it had no knowledge, when the information was provided, that it was part of the commission of a trafficking offence. It is important that we do not unnecessarily criminalise service providers that will not always be aware of the use being made of their services.
The UK has always been a world leader in fighting human trafficking and has a strong international reputation in this field. In July 2011, the UK applied to opt in to the EU directive on human trafficking. Opting in sends a strong message that the UK is not a soft touch on this issue and supports the collaborative international work that is a vital element in dealing with such complex international organised crime. The UK already has a strong basis for such collaboration through the work the Serious Organised Crime Agency undertakes with foreign law enforcement agencies. In recent years, police forces have participated in a number of joint investigation teams, in support of the investigation and prosecution of traffickers.
The Government’s human trafficking strategy, published on 19 July 2011, identified four core themes: improving identification and care of victims; enhancing our ability to act early before harm reaches the UK; smarter action at the border; and more co-ordination of our law enforcement efforts in the UK. An update on the strategy was included in the first report of the Inter-Departmental Ministerial Group on Human Trafficking, published on Anti-Slavery Day, 18 October 2012.
At its heart, human trafficking involves the movement of individuals for the purposes of exploitation. That movement and exploitation, particularly when it has an international dimension, can involve extensive co-ordination in the planning, recruitment and transportation of victims. It is likely that criminals are using new technologies, or old technologies in more complex ways, to facilitate their communications and avoid detection. It is not known whether the use of new technologies has increased trafficking in persons, but it is believed that increased use of technologies has made trafficking activities much easier to perform.
We are commencing the amendments made by the Protection of Freedoms Act on 6 April, in line with the Government’s wider timetable for implementing the EU directive on trafficking in human beings. It is our intention that these regulations come into force at the same time. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation. These are very technical regulations. They are the kind of regulations that you wade through as the sun goes down and hope that you will follow all the information they contain. Therefore, the Minister’s explanation was helpful. Although the regulations are technical, they are extremely important. He, like noble Lords on this side of the Committee, will fully appreciate just how awful human trafficking is.
In preparing for today’s discussion, I read some accounts of people who had virtually been sold into slavery to provide cheap labour for companies or often to engage in illegal activities and prostitution. It really is horrendous. Modern technology is usually a way forward, but it is not always a force for good. In this case, it is a force for evil and enabling illegal activities, which is why these regulations are so necessary. Therefore, I welcome the regulations and am pleased that they have been brought forward today. One of the reasons why we are pleased to see them is because the Government were rather tardy in bringing forward the relevant measure as regards the previous EU directive on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims. In fact, they were going to opt out of those provisions. However, I am pleased to say that the Government subsequently changed their mind, for whatever reason, and rightly decided to opt into that directive. These regulations extend that commitment, and we are grateful for them.
However, I wish to press the Minister a little further on opting in and out. An issue that has concerned me, and which the noble Lord and I have discussed across the Floor of the House, is that the Government intend to opt out of policing and criminal justice measures. I am worried that if they do so, these regulations would no longer be valid because they would have opted out of these provisions. I entirely agree with the noble Lord about their importance and am very concerned that we may face a situation whereby the Government decide to opt out of these provisions, having already opted in—a bit of a hokey-cokey, really. I hope that we stay in.
I have specific questions in relation to these regulations and to the other anti-trafficking orders that the Government have brought forward. My understanding is that the Government are now consulting on and preparing for measures to opt out of police and criminal justice. In that case, what consideration are the Government giving to interim measures? As the Minister and I know, those who are subject to trafficking in this way are among the most vulnerable of humans, in the most vulnerable position and need protection. If we are to opt out, it is all very well looking to opt back in in six months, a year or whenever we are given permission to do so by other member states, but there would be an immediate problem that these regulations would not be valid because we had opted out. I am not clear whether, in that situation, the Government would need to revoke these regulations individually or whether there would be a general opt-out and we would automatically be opted out of all EU police and criminal justice matters. I hope the Minister is able to say something about that. I agree with him about the reasons why he has brought these regulations forward today and about why they are so important.
My only other question is on the review. What will be the timescale for it? Will it coincide with the Government’s plans to opt out of police and criminal justice or will there be a set period? Normally such regulations say that they will be reviewed within three or five years, but there is no timescale in these regulations, and I wonder whether that is connected to the Government’s intention to try to opt out of policing and criminal justice. We support the regulations and think they are right, which is why I am concerned about this opt-out hokey-cokey that the Government have announced.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, for her broad welcome for the directive and the regulations arising from it. I think we are all agreed on it. The opt-out of police and justice measures would not affect this order or the UK’s participation in the trafficking directive. It is not part and parcel of that situation. That is important to know.
I know the opt-outs are a matter that concerns the noble Baroness. The work in relation to all the opt-outs is ongoing negotiation and discussion. She knows that I and my noble friends in the Ministry of Justice will do our best to keep the House informed of the implications of anything that comes forward.
The first review of the regulations will be after five years. By that time, we will see what the implications are. We hope that we can anticipate relatively few prosecutions under these regulations because their existence is the key to making sure that e-trafficking is not used to reinforce this terrible trade.
Baroness Hamwee
Did I hear the Minister say that the first review will be after five years? Regulation 8(4) states:
“The first report … must be published before the end of the period of five years”.
Perhaps I am saying this only to register my presence, but we should be clear about that.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I am delighted to welcome my noble friend Lady Hamwee. I had written in my notes that I should welcome her contribution to the debate, and I had to excise that on the grounds that the noble Baroness had not contributed. I am pleased to say that, although my notes say “after five years”, I am sure that the review will be in accord with what is required by the regulations. Whether the report is made at five years or after five years, I hope that satisfies my noble friend that I expect the Government to be in a position to comply with the regulations. I beg to move.
Legal Deposit Libraries (Non-Print Works) Regulations 2013
(11 years, 8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Legal Deposit Libraries (Non-Print Works) Regulations 2013.
Relevant document: 18th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, legal deposit is the statutory requirement for individuals or organisations to deliver copies of their publications to designated institutions, known as legal deposit libraries. They are the British Library, the National Library of Scotland, the National Library of Wales, Cambridge University Library, the Bodleian Library, Oxford and Trinity College, Dublin. The legal deposit regime is crucial in enabling these institutions to preserve and maintain a comprehensive record of our published heritage for future generations.
Legal deposit was first introduced in this country in the 17th century and requirements changed little during the monopoly of the printed word. However, publishing has evolved considerably over the past 20 years, with the rapid rise of digital publishing and the phenomenon of the internet revolutionising how information is made available. Legal deposit arrangements now need to address the UK’s digitally published output in order to maintain a comprehensive record and to avoid the scenario described by deposit libraries and the wider research community whereby such output is lost to a “digital black hole”.
The Legal Deposit Libraries Act 2003 was one of the first pieces of legislation worldwide to regulate for the deposit of non-print material. The regulations considered by the Committee today allow the full framework of legal deposit envisaged by the 2003 Act to be put into practice, and specifically for works published in a medium other than print to be preserved on a systematic basis for the first time. Following extensive consultation with the publishing and research sectors, the Government are now in a position to introduce the landmark extension of the legal deposit regime to cover non-print works. These regulations will enable the full range of this nation’s published intellectual and cultural output to be preserved and secured for posterity.
The regulations have been designed to allow a light-touch means of archiving non-print works which balances the needs of both publishers and deposit libraries. This has involved designing, on the one hand, a manageable and efficient system for the deposit libraries to build a comprehensive archive of digital content, and on the other, a clearly governed, practical system which does not impose any disproportionate burdens on publishers, offers potential to realise savings and protects the commercial interests of publishers and rights holders.
The regulations apply to both work published online, such as content from the internet and e-books, and work published offline, such as CD-ROMs and microfilm. The requirement for depositing offline works mirrors the existing requirements for printed works, namely that publishers must deliver a copy to the British Library within one month of publication and that the other deposit libraries can also request a copy of any offline work.
Generally, works from the internet will be collected by a process of web harvesting. Web harvesting uses computer software to search the internet automatically and copy content from targeted websites. Importantly, this process imposes no burden on publishers. In addition, where a book, for example, is published as an e-book and a print edition, the regulations allow the publisher to do away with depositing the print edition, with obvious cost savings to both the publisher and deposit library. Although the collection of work from the internet will generally be cost-free for publishers, the delivery of offline material such as CD-ROMs will have a small cost.
In line with government policy to avoid any disproportionate burden on the smallest businesses, new businesses and micro-businesses in the publishing sector will be exempt until April 2014 from the parts of the regulations that have the potential to impose a cost burden. This phased implementation is important as over 80% of publishers are micro-businesses, and their inclusion within scope is therefore essential to meet the objectives of the regulations in full.
Storing digital content will cost the deposit libraries money, but they will have the benefit of a shared archive and potential savings from no longer needing to archive a proportion of printed works. Reader access to non-print works will be limited to computer terminals on premises controlled by the deposit libraries. In order to mirror the level of access to printed publications, at each deposit library only one terminal will show the same material at any one time. Where it is reasonable, in the commercial interests of publishers, to prevent reader access to material, the regulations allow deposit libraries to embargo material for a specified period.
The draft regulations were welcomed by the majority of stakeholders in last year’s public consultation. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport will provide guidance on the regulations, and the British Library and other deposit libraries are preparing a joint implementation policy explaining in more detail how the regulations will operate in practice. The Government have made a commitment to carry out a post-implementation review within five years of the regulations coming into force. The review will consider the extent to which the preservation of the UK’s non-print published output has been achieved by the implementation of the regulations.
Legal deposit arrangements remain vitally important in preserving and making available the published record of previous generations for the researchers of today and of the future. We must now ensure that the long-standing legal deposit arrangements are brought up to date for the 21st century. I commend the regulations to the Committee and I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of the background to these regulations. We welcome the proposals before the Committee and echo the thanks made to all those who have helped to craft a set of significant but workable rules to capture the output of the digital age. This is indeed a landmark development.
It is all too easy to regard material on the web as somehow inferior to printed works, but I suspect that history will increasingly demonstrate that works of enormous substance and creativity have found an audience solely through the digital medium. There is clearly a balance to be struck between the interests of our nation in preserving texts for future generations and the burden on business to make such information available. Given the significant thought that has gone into these draft regulations over the past 10 years and the positive response to the Government’s consultation, I do not intend to challenge the judgment; it feels about right.
I also welcome the commitment to keep the implementation under review in the way outlined by the noble Lord so that practical issues can be addressed as they arise. However, I would welcome an assurance from the Minister that the operation of the embargo provisions will be kept under review to ensure that publishers are providing substantial justification for such requests. It would also be helpful if an assurance could be given that the copyright provisions will be kept under review to ensure that access is treated on par with that to printed material.
I have some specific questions with regard to audio-visual works. First, as the Minister will know, the British Film Institute already has a substantial national archive. These regulations include the concept of preserving “incidental” audio-visual works. Does the Minister agree that the logical recipient of such works should be the BFI National Archive and, as such, the regulations could be extended to list it as a beneficiary? Secondly, does the Minister accept that the preservation of web pages that include audio-visual works is outside the current specialisms of the six legal deposit libraries, and that therefore the BFI should have a more clearly defined preservation role in the regulations? Thirdly, now that we have a detailed plan for all other non-print works, does the Minister agree that there should be an urgent plan to extend the scope of the regulations to include audio-visual works which are, after all, a major aspect of our cultural heritage and will, no doubt, continue to be so? I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, for her warm and broad welcome for these regulations. I shall respond to the outstanding points that she raised.
On copyright restrictions, the Government recognise that the scenario of restrictions on access to content following the expiry of copyright is a concern for the research community. This is an important issue, but will arise only once the copyright term of 70 years has ceased, so in practice the issue will not affect legal deposit for many years to come. It is, however, an issue that will be kept under review and will be revisited as part of the post-implementation review of the regulations.
The noble Baroness raised embargoes. The regulations specify that an embargo may be imposed for a specified period of up to three years if a rights owner demonstrates that a reader viewing the publication within that period would unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the person making the request. Requests for further embargoes may be made for the same publication provided that, as before, the case for an embargo can be demonstrated at the same time. I reassure the noble Baroness that the operation of the embargo arrangements will be scrutinised as part of the post-implementation review of the regulations to ensure that they are working as intended and that embargoes, where imposed, are fully justified.
Audio-visual works are undoubtedly an important aspect of our cultural heritage. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, asked whether the BFI National Archive is a logical recipient of audio-visual works and, as such, whether the BFI should be a beneficiary under the regulations. The BFI would not be able to receive such works as it is not possible to extend the institutions entitled to receive works under legal deposit arrangements without changing the primary legislation. Furthermore, non-print works consisting solely or predominately of film or recorded sound, or both, are excluded from legal deposit arrangements under the primary legislation. Audio-visual content within non-print works will be collected only if the accompanying text is more than merely incidental to the audio-visual element. The definition of “incidental” in this case refers to audio-visual material being a feature of the main body of work rather than its main purpose.
The noble Baroness asked if the preservation of web pages is outside the current specialisms of the deposit libraries. I can reassure her that the British Library’s UK Web Archive project, which has been operational since 2005, has allowed for the successful selective archiving of approximately 6,000 UK websites. This initiative, in collaboration with the national libraries of Scotland and Wales, the National Archives and others has allowed the British Library to make inroads into web archiving and to develop the infrastructure required to preserve efficiently and securely web pages in anticipation of the regulations that we are debating today.
The noble Baroness also asked if legal deposit arrangements should be extended to all audio-visual works. Any extension to the types of work covered under legal deposit arrangements would involve changes to primary legislation. In relation to film, the Government’s view is that a statutory scheme may not be appropriate at this stage but they are exploring with the British Film Institute other ways to secure more films. One option may be for the BFI to work with public funders of UK film to make supply to the BFI archive a condition of grants. In relation to recorded sound, the British Library’s Sound Archive has built up an impressive archive through existing voluntary arrangements. While future arrangements for the legal deposit of audio-visual works are not to be ruled out, the Government would need to look carefully at the need for further statutory intervention. It is a question of finding the most appropriate means of securing the preservation of all these different types of media, important though they undoubtedly are. I reiterate that these regulations will ensure that the nation’s intellectual record and published heritage is preserved and maintained for future generations.
The Joint Committee on Legal Deposit, the collaborative forum for the deposit libraries and publishing trade associations, has worked with great success in developing and agreeing practical policies and processes to bring about the effective implementation of the regulations. The deposit libraries are well advanced in their preparations to begin archiving digital content at the earliest opportunity. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Care Services: Elderly People
(11 years, 8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Turnberg
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to improve care in the community for elderly patients.
Lord Turnberg
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to open this debate, even though I suspect that many noble Lords might share a faint sense of déjà vu about this topic. However, the fact that care in the community keeps reappearing on our agenda suggests that, despite numerous impressive reports and repeated debates in this House, we are not yet anywhere near solving the problems.
I suspect that few here will admit to any ignorance of the facts, so I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I start by reiterating the nature of the difficulties we face. It may save others having to repeat them. First, the country has entered a prolonged period of severe economic constraint, so there is little new money available centrally. Secondly, we have no control over the demand for social care that is growing at a remarkable rate.
The population is ageing as life expectancy goes up in an inexorable straight line. The current 3 million people over the age of 65 will rise to almost 5 million in the next 20 years, while the number of over 85 year- olds will double from 1.3 million to 2.6 million. We would celebrate this extension of life were it not for the fact that the number with multiple chronic diseases will also increase by about a third, while the number of those with dementia is set to double from the current estimate of 800,000. If that is not enough to frighten you, there is the statistic that one in three people over the age of 85 will develop dementia. That is what I am told. Many of these people end up in an acute hospital, the place least suited to their needs, and the number lingering there unnecessarily is huge. Of the over 85 year-olds admitted, some 140,000 stay for more than 30 days, and the numbers are rising. A diagnosis of dementia is the primary reason for admission in some 55,000 patients a year, in the majority of whom the diagnosis had not been made before admission. Where, I wonder, were the GPs?
These patients are admitted, but too often there is nowhere else for them to go. Social services departments are sorely underfunded and about four-fifths of local authorities are now said to be restricting social care to those with needs graded as substantial or critical. There is a black hole of some £16.5 billion looming in social care funding over the next few years. The gap between the money needed to meet demands and that available is growing year by year. Here we have the nub of the problem—increasing demand from an ageing population acquiring multiple long-term illnesses and a veritable epidemic of dementia, together with social services departments stretched way beyond their capacity now and with a future in which they will be unable to deliver even the basics of care, and all against a background of severe constraints on the money available from government.
We cannot simply go on as we are and try to patch up the current system of an NHS designed for acute hospital care, essential though that may be, while the desperate need is for prevention and the long-term care of the elderly. We must start now to develop a long-term plan to meet these problems. My first question to the noble Earl is: is there any sign that the Government are thinking along the lines of long-term future planning?
At the end of the day, we must ask ourselves where the money is to come from. Of course, some measures could be taken that would help a little. The poor co-ordination between care workers in hospital and in the community has been resolved in a number of well recognised places around the country and more should be done to spread that good practice. Of course, there may be efficiency gains to be made somewhere in the system. Then there is the recent government initiative in the wake of the Dilnot report to help the elderly pay for their care. Will that ease the financial burden on local authorities? I fear not, because although it offers some help to the elderly themselves, it seems more likely to add to the problems of local authorities than to help them.
Then there are the usual calls for funds to be transferred from the supposedly cash-rich NHS to social services. I am very supportive of proposals that NHS and social service budgets should be pooled to fund care for the elderly. That makes a lot of sense and I was happy to see something along those lines in Andy Burnham’s recent speech about a future Labour health policy. We need to think, too, not only about merging budgets but also medical and nursing staff so that they can work across the boundaries between hospital and community. We also need to look critically at how we can incentivise and support GPs who are really the key players in the community. It is far from clear whether they are prepared in the CCGs for commissioning long-term care. Will the noble Earl tell us whether any attention is being focused on the role of GPs there?
What about closing hospitals or beds and transferring the savings? Data showing that up to a third of acute hospital beds are occupied by patients who should not be in hospital at all provide ammunition for those who see considerable savings from cutting bed numbers. That is not easy. If we try to go along that route, we have to look at where the costs of acute hospitals really lie. They lie largely in the staff and relatively less in the number of beds. The workload for the medical and nursing staff of acute hospitals is not determined by the number of beds, or even by the number of long-stay patients, but by the rising tide of acute emergency admissions. It is hard to escape the conclusion that we are not well off in NHS hospital services. Hardly a day goes by when we do not hear of failings in the care of the acutely ill.
If wards or even whole hospitals were to close, that acute workload would not diminish. Indeed, the more rapid throughput of patients through a smaller number of hospital beds would increase the intensity of the work. I am not saying that there would not be any savings made on, for example, heating and lighting bills and perhaps on administration, but the savings to be made, especially on doctors and nurses, would be rather less than one might hope. That may account for the intriguing piece of research evidence from Julien Forder, who published a paper in the Journal of Health Economics in 2009 in which he showed that for every pound spent on community services it was possible to save only a third of a pound on hospital services. Caring for someone in the community is not a cheap option.
Meanwhile the NHS itself is under remarkable cost-saving pressures as it seeks to answer the Nicholson challenge. Hospitals are barely coping in many instances, and the prospect of diverting even more funds is likely to be impossible to bear. I am not suggesting that rationalisation of services into a smaller number of specialised centres is not a good thing—it clearly is—but closing acute hospitals to save money simply to transfer it into the community does not bear too close examination. In any case, there are the calculations suggesting that there will be a shortfall in NHS funding of some £30 billion per annum by 2020 on current trends, so the question remains: where will the funds for social services come from? It is difficult to see much coming from simply integrating NHS and social service budgets, desirable though that may be. Simply pooling two inadequate sources of money does not sound like an answer to me. We have to face the idea that the Government of the day, whoever they are, will have to give a higher priority to care in the community than they have currently been able to do. It is a political decision, and we must think more broadly than simply within the box of the Department of Health.
Are there are any discussions going on between government departments— housing, transport and so on—on plans for future care in the community? How much priority are Governments as a whole willing to give to this compared, for example, with a high-speed train or nuclear submarine, desirable though some may think they are? Do they have a higher priority? These are decisions that only a Government have to face. I do not envy them for that, but in a democracy such as ours I do not believe it is entirely wishful thinking to feel that a clear majority of the population would strongly favour a diversion of resources to areas that they think are of high priority, and I can think of few higher priorities than the way we care for our elderly.
Baroness Jolly
My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, for bringing this important issue to the attention of this Committee. He has adequately covered areas of the economy, so I shall leave that. Care in the community is a critical component of our current health system and an even more critical component of our future health system, and we must ensure continued support for those who require and provide this vital service.
Today I wish to touch on a few distinct aspects of this issue. First, I want to highlight the growing demand for care in the community for the elderly population. As we are all certainly aware, the elderly population are particularly vulnerable to conditions that require long-term care which, if left untreated, can lead to a revolving door of hospital care for the elderly, which is both unhealthy and costly. Building on this, I want to draw attention to the ways in which the newly established clinical commissioning groups can work to improve the quality of care in the community as well as to encourage the use of this type of care. Finally, I will pose three questions to the Minister that reflect my concerns and hopes for the future of care in the community for elderly individuals.
Older people already represent the largest cohort of patients in the NHS, accounting for 60% of hospital admissions. Hospital days are dangerous for elderly people and expensive. Patients are susceptible to infections in the ward and often fail to eat properly while staying in the hospital. Moreover, these stays can encourage a loss of independence, which leads to added problems on discharge. Home healthcare is proven to deliver better outcomes for patients. There is evidence that it can lead to lower costs and reduce admissions to hospital. Home-based models of care have proven to be effective for patients with multiple diagnoses and comorbidities with a high risk of hospitalisation. According to Department of Health statistics, during September and October 2011 some 128,517 hospital bed days were lost as the result of the delayed discharge of people who could have been cared for in the community had the right support had been available.
In order to provide care in the community that is of the same quality as a hospital environment, CCGs must ensure collaboration between acute care, community care and social care. This was clearly called for in the Health and Social Care Act 2012, and we expect CCGs and local authorities to be actively pursuing this practice. It is particularly important for elderly patients as long-term conditions associated with old age are particularly complex to treat and often involve several different types of health and social care intervention. These services are provided over months and years by a range of organisations in the public, private and voluntary sectors, and it is hard to split them into single episodes. Pathway design is a critical and urgent task for CCGs to engage in.
In order to delay acute care for our elderly citizens, we must also refocus our energy on prevention. Joint strategic needs assessments must emphasise the value of preventive care for the elderly, including simple things: measures to decrease falls, improve nutrition to prevent diabetes and encourage community-based programmes such as Dementia Friends. Here the involvement of the voluntary sector can often be critical.
Part of the prevention agenda is about combating loneliness. Isolation is associated with poor physical and mental health in older people, both conditions that undermine the health we seek to provide our citizens. Local providers work together to address this issue and must not fall short in this critical area of care, because it is care. Social isolation affects about 1 million older people and has a severe impact on people’s quality of life in old age. Mentoring projects, befriending schemes and computer classes form part of a solution built to engage an elderly population in their community.
The patient must be at the centre of every health and care system we create. The location and community in which we choose to spend our later years deeply affects our quality of life. By supporting people to remain in their homes for as long as they wish, we provide an invaluable service to those patients we serve. In light of these remarks, I ask the Minister to confirm the following three expectations that relate to CCGs. CCGs will be expected to work alongside local authorities on integrated care pathways for the older population in the community, which might or might not involve shared budgets. CCGs will be expected to enhance preventive services in the community to reduce unnecessary hospitalisations. They will also be expected to embrace a campaign against isolation in the community, working with local authorities, especially among the elderly who wish to stay in their homes.
Baroness Emerton
My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, for raising this debate. I declare an interest as in the register, and add that I live in a retirement village, I am elderly and I live in a rural area where the boundaries have a postcode lottery as far as health and social care are concerned.
The Health and Social Care Act will be enacted in one month. There is a mandate from the Secretary of State to the Commissioning Board and guidance from the Commissioning Board to the CCGs. We have the theory and we must now enter the practice. The demand now and in the future, as has already been mentioned, will increase among the growing number of the elderly in the population, and we need to ensure that their health is maintained, disease prevention addressed and high-quality, safe, acceptable care given when required, with the emphasis on independent living in the community and, where necessary, adequate support given to allow this to happen. For example, prevention of admission to hospital teams can supply the necessary support to the elderly living alone to remain in their home surroundings, where they will benefit more than they would from an admission to hospital that would be more costly and open to possible cross-infection, leading to a longer recovery period. This is a cost-effective and care-effective way forward.
My first question to the Minister regards integration of organisational services and professional boundaries. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that the theory of the Act, mandate and guidance is being followed, with required training for all concerned? The reason for this question is that currently in many places there is a chaotic situation where, through the lack of training and understanding, care pathways are disrupted and there is evidence that services are not running smoothly and the safety of the patients is in question.
Currently the ambulance services are on red alert due to winter pressures and there are reports of ambulances that are unable to unload patients causing a backlog, with patients being cared for either in the ambulance or in a cold, draughty corridor for long periods before A&E takes over because of the four-hour wait deadline. Those ambulances therefore are not free to take any calls or discharges home. About 10 days ago at 10 pm, there were eight ambulances stuck for over an hour at our local hospital. Last night at 9.30 pm, I checked the local situation. There were four ambulances outside the hospital. One had been waiting for one hour and 15 minutes, one for 36 minutes, one for 20 minutes and the other for 10 minutes, with the crew looking after the patients. It appears that sometimes, to alleviate the logjam, one crew will care for two patients—two ambulance loads—in order to free up an ambulance. It would seem that there are insufficient staff to relieve the ambulance crews and, if they do, it starts the four-hour waiting time clock. The circumstances that I mention involved a majority of elderly patients. Can the Minister assure noble Lords that the Government will take steps to ensure that every opportunity is taken to improve the integration of services in health and social care?
Innovation and research is my next area of concern. The care of the elderly has lacked funding for research into physical and mental conditions, and this situation needs to be rectified as a priority. However, there have been examples of excellent innovations being developed through specific studies undertaken by healthcare professionals as part of scholarships or fellowships. Two come to mind; one involved a nursing scholar who, on an international study, was able to learn about the early detection and diagnosis of melanomas and, on return to this country, has followed this up with a training programme for GPs. The second example was someone who, on her return from the USA, aimed to reduce the mortality rates by introducing specific care bundles. Medical and nursing staff became engaged on her return, with excellent results and, in many places, there is a marked reduction in mortality rates as a result. Can the Minister assure us that there will be an equitable amount of funding for multiprofessional research and innovation specially allocated to physical and mental health, including social care for the elderly?
No Act, mandate or guidance will be effective unless there is inspirational leadership. In my experience, such leadership is not learnt by attending a course for senior managers; it has to be bespoke and fitted to the person’s potential and ability to set the values necessary for high-quality, safe and cost-effective delivery of care. I am president of the Florence Nightingale Foundation and we are able to fund 19 leadership scholars each year. They go through a bespoke leadership programme, funded mostly by the Burdett Trust for Nursing, as well as by contributions from other smaller charities. This has resulted in scholars being promoted and successfully leading services. I ask the Minister if this matter could be explored further with the NHS Leadership Academy and Health Education England to examine bespoke approaches to specific services, especially, and as a priority, to those concerned with the care of the elderly.
Lord Warner
My Lords we are all grateful to my noble friend for securing this debate and for his usual masterly introduction and analysis. Whatever our views on the right size for the total health and social care budget, it will always have a cash limit and, in the long period of fiscal austerity we face, that limit will be very constrained. That makes it imperative that we get our expenditure priorities right, especially in relation to the NHS. Our failure to do this is damaging care of the elderly at a time when we are all living longer and, on present demographic evidence, will continue to do so. The number of over 85s will double to 3 million by 2030, with increasing numbers suffering from dementia, as my noble friend has mentioned.
I will confine myself to three strategic points. First, we may be living longer but we are not living healthier lives when compared with many other affluent countries. We are 12th out of 19 such countries, according to a recent study by the Institute for Heath Metrics and Evaluation in Seattle. We can expect in this country 68.6 years of healthy life from birth before disease and disability take their toll. This compares with 70.9 years for Spain, which is top of the pops. Better healthcare is unlikely to change our position much, but a higher priority for expenditure on public health and prevention services is more likely to do so.
Secondly, the balance of what we spend on the NHS and social care is fundamentally wrong for our demographic and disease profile. Under successive Governments we have overfavoured the NHS and have neglected adult social care. There is, however, an opportunity to change this with the proposed Care and Support Bill, now undergoing pre-legislative scrutiny. Here I declare my interest as a member of the Joint Select Committee that will report shortly. That Bill has received a wide measure of support, publicly and politically, especially for its provision for an overarching principle of securing well-being for the recipients of care and support services.
We will no doubt debate the committee’s findings another day. All I want to do here is register the widespread concern that exists that the Bill’s reforms, including the Dilnot changes, will not be adequately funded because of the existing shortfall in funding that has developed over the years. I do not blame this Government particularly for that. In my view, that shortfall now stands at about 10% of the adult social care annual budget, or approaching £1.5 billion, and I suggest it is growing despite the Government’s partial efforts to close the gap. We must not pass a reforming Bill without appropriate funding to implement those much needed changes.
Thirdly, and finally, we need to re-engineer and rebalance our healthcare services and associated expenditure away from our preoccupation as a country with 24/7 services delivered through acute hospitals to more community-based services integrated with social care. Here I may diverge a little from the approach of my noble friend. The core business of the NHS is care with an acute treatment adjunct, not the other way round as it has been for 60 years. We cannot carry on with this pretence that it is in the best interests of patients to have so many clinically and financially unstable and unsustainable district general hospitals claiming to provide a wide range of 24/7 acute services. Do not believe me: listen to what specialist clinicians are saying, particularly the current president of the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges. Sir Terence Stephenson said last July:
“I don’t think it is possible in quite a small country ... to have 200 to 300 24/7 acute centres offering every single discipline … we need to move to a smaller number of bigger centres giving treatment that’s either hi-tech, risky and rare”.
I do not have time to develop this theme today but will return to it in one of our NHS debates next week. Suffice it to say that we need to start educating the public on the need, in their interests, to consolidate these acute services on fewer hospital sites and to create a 10-year development programme and funding for integrated 24/7 community-based services embracing primary community health services—including mental health services—and adult social care. I recognise that none of this will be easy for elected politicians but this direction of travel is inevitable if we are truly interested in preserving our NHS and meeting the needs of our growing elderly population in a sustainable way. I hope the Minister will feel able to reflect seriously on this kind of reorientation as the Department of Health prepares for the next public expenditure review.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno
My Lords, I also appreciate the opportunity to take part in this debate. Other noble Lords have much more expertise than I have, but I put my finger very gently into the water because this is something I experience. I am a Methodist minister and all my life I have been involved in the care of older people. I look now in my daily newspaper at the births, marriages and deaths, and whereas some years ago the majority of people died in their 60s and 70s, now we have them at 80, 90 or touching 100. This has changed the whole atmosphere and situation that we need to come to terms with.
In rural areas particularly these needs are very acute. A village community will support a person in that village. That person will feel part of that community. Some have lived there all their lives. They know the village and the people around them. Then suddenly everything has changed. I can think of a mixture of places where there were once shops. One village at the end of the war had 29 shops but has no shops now. If you do not have a car, you cannot get away to get your shopping. You cannot get to the post office now, but in any case the way pensions are paid has changed. The bakery has gone. We used to enjoy the bakery and friends of mine ran it. We had five chapels in the area and now four of them have closed and the village church is struggling. The choirs and bands that we used to have belong to yesterday. I did not think that I would ever support the case for keeping pubs open—Methodist ministers do not do that usually—but every week 16 pubs close. They, like the chapel or the church, were a vital part of the community where people could meet, but that is no longer the case. The doctor’s twice-weekly surgery is no more. Two banks used to come on a Friday morning. The banks do not come any more. In many cases, the small neighbouring hospital is already closed and in other places there is great anxiety because the hospital is under threat of closure. In Wales health is devolved, and I wonder whether we could not somehow relocate some of the specialist services that do not need as big a back-up as others, such as rheumatology or dialysis, so that those services would be the core that would justify the existence of that hospital which could then be involved in wider care in that community. I know the arguments for big hospitals. They are great arguments, but families have to travel.
In rural areas, bus services have been decimated. Your friends are elderly and cannot travel very far. We have these problems. In North Wales, we have problems with hospital closures. I ask that people think about whether we can do something in order to have beds available near the community from which that person comes. My mother-in-law kept the local bus service going. She lived in a village four miles from where I live. I used to offer her a lift home when she was 88. She would say, “I’m not having a lift with you. I’m the only passenger on the bus, so I’ve got to keep going on it”, but when she went, the service went as well.
Every part of the community is weakened by the change in lifestyle and so on, especially for older people. There must be intervention to improve the quality of life, the well-being, of the individual. The person needs to feel safe and comfortable in his or her local village. When you retire—I have experienced this, as have some other noble Lords in the Committee—what information do you get? You get information about pensions, but do you get an information pack about the services available in the local community and about how you will get help if you are in urgent need? Some of our organisations do this, but those who retire should be given not only financial information but community information about bus services and so on, if there are any, and volunteer organisations. I must not overstep the mark here all the time, but the best thing we have in Wales and the rest of the UK is the free bus service for elderly people. It has kept routes going. We have services that we must support, but there are ways, not always financial, in which we can help our older people.
Baroness Greengross
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, for so vividly portraying the crisis that is preventing us celebrating, as we should be able to do, the aging of our population. We can all expect to live to a great age. The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, has described very movingly that life is not always so good. Certainly it is not so good with the number of people who need appropriate care. We have an opportunity to get things right now, and we must do.
I was the lead commissioner for the EHRC inquiry into the needs for care and support of people living in their own homes. We found that half the people in this country were satisfied, but that means a huge number were not getting an adequate service, most of them elderly women. We are just about to celebrate International Women’s Day. It is appalling that they are not getting the sort of care and support that they need. We should be able to do something about their isolation, loneliness and the bad situation that they face, particularly with the impending—if it is not already with us—crisis of dementia.
As chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Dementia, I am aware of this issue every day as this group has the highest attendance of MPs and Peers of any all-party group. People are recognising that this is a huge issue and we have to get it right. I would like us to look at how we can prevent things going as wrong as they have done up to now and get this right, with the help of the draft Care and Support Bill that will come to us shortly. We need to look more broadly at alternative ways of meeting the needs of a huge number of people in our population. I hope that the Government will do this. One way of meeting these needs is to look at the Scandinavian model of hospital hotels, which brings in another sector to help provide appropriate care. This happens almost automatically in Scandinavia. I hope that the Minister will agree to look further at that model. I have a group studying ways of implementing it.
We must also prevent people going into unsuitable hospital care, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, clearly pointed out. We should not do anything to stop people with acute needs going into acute hospitals but it would be far better to transform some of them into local hospitals which deal more effectively with people suffering from one form or another of dementia and other chronic conditions. No MP would ever agree to a hospital closure but they might agree to the transformation of a hospital into one more suited to meet the needs of many patients today. Those patients are badly cared for in hospitals that are unsuited to their needs. It is also very unsuitable for patients with other conditions to be on the same ward as patients suffering from some form of dementia, which is usually the case. The latter ought to be able to stay in the community, but to make this work we need more collaborative working and integration between health and social care. The draft Care and Support Bill will facilitate this to some extent but other measures are also necessary.
We have to hope that local authorities will use the flexibility they have—they do have some—to allocate their money in a different way. However, health, social care and housing need to be integrated under the law, where possible, to enable more co-operation to take place. One way of doing this is to provide more preventive care. Local authorities must realise that they can save the NHS a lot of money if they keep people who have multiple needs, but not acute ones, out of acute hospitals. There has to be co-operation in this regard and local authorities must use any flexibility they have. There is not enough money but there is some money which they could use in this respect. Integration is terribly important.
Another important aspect of the draft Bill is that for the first time self-funders will be included as users of services. A fact that is not publicised is that very often when those self-funders have to go into a care home they pay over the odds. The local authority has negotiated a very low rate per patient but the self-funders are charged more than their care costs. We may approve of that “Peter and Paul” situation but it is not publicised and we should not have that sort of secret “tax” in this country. That has to be looked at by the Government who should make clear what is and is not appropriate as regards cross-subsidies. I hope that the Minister will look at that.
In summary, will the Minister look at the savings that can be made to acute NHS budgets through the provision of adequate care? Will he also look at the Scandinavian model and make sure that staff at all levels are trained in human rights, which the EHRC inquiry insisted on, and will he look at cross-subsidies?
Baroness Pitkeathley
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Turnberg. When I knew I was going to be able to speak in this debate, I went back to a book I wrote in 1988 and there I found a quotation from Kathleen Jones in 1972. This is what she says about community care:
“To the politician, ‘community care’ is a useful piece of rhetoric; to the sociologist, it is a stick to beat institutional care with; to the civil servant, it is a cheap alternative to institutional care which can be passed to the local authority for action—or inaction; to the visionary, it is a dream of a new society in which people really do care; to social services departments, it is a nightmare of heightened public expectation and inadequate resources to meet them. We are only just beginning to find out what it means to the old”,
and “the chronic sick”. When I read that, I was so depressed that I thought, “Have we moved on at all since 1972?”.
What has changed hugely, as many noble Lords have reminded us, is the numbers. There are many more people now in need of community care, but we can agree that the key thing needed for the care of the so-called rising tide is a sufficient supply of good quality community care focused on the needs of the user and their carers. I hope the Minister will agree that this is the most urgent problem facing our society today. It is bigger than education, defence or, above all, the acute sector of the NHS, although sometimes one feels like a traitor for saying that.
The Francis report on Mid Staffs may be a very worthy document, but I submit that it has done us no favours by focusing our attention on the care of elderly people in hospital. Just sort it out, goes the view: appoint a hospital supremo and all will be well. As we all know, that is nonsense. Hospital care provides a tiny proportion of the need, and the real problem so far as older people are concerned is that far too many of them languish in hugely expensive hospital beds, as we have heard, simply because not enough care in the community is available. As one of the witnesses to the Joint Committee on which several of our colleagues have been serving said, community care is always the poor sister of the NHS. The social care system is in crisis, as we have heard, and we shall never solve it, perhaps, unless we learn to rebalance spending and attention between NHS care and social care.
Social care is very good value if we do it right. Am I hopeful? Do I still feel as depressed as I did when I read that quote from Kathleen Jones? I think some progress has been made. The Government have made a step—perhaps a small one—towards accepting the proposals of the Dilnot commission. The Care and Support Bill will come to us during the course of this year, we hope, which gives not only new rights for users and carers but new responsibilities to local authorities to give information, advice and advocacy when assessments are being done. The committee called more than 60 witnesses, and every one of them raised the issue of resources.
When it comes to community care, we always hear that we cannot afford it, but as Andrew Dilnot has powerfully said, it is not a question of cannot afford it but of will not afford it. The noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, has given us some ideas about how we could find the money, and I remind the Committee, as I have done before, that when we accepted the proposals of the Beveridge committee, we were absolutely skint as a nation. We were in the middle of the Second World War and had no money and no prospect of getting any, but we still accepted that visionary report. I maintain that we can do it again. I also maintain that getting care in the community right could be a vote winner because it is no longer about poor services for poor people. It touches everybody. I am sure that everybody in this Room has experienced trying to find community care for themselves or their relatives—or they will within the course of the next year or so. I believe it is something that affects everyone, and therefore it is a very attractive idea for political parties to embrace as we approach a general election. I am sure many of us will be looking at what is said in manifestos about that.
Finally, care in the community, however we improve it, largely means care by the community, and community largely means your family, so I must point out, as I do at every opportunity, that the contribution of unpaid carers is £119 billion. It makes sound economic as well as moral good sense to support them as the main providers of care in the community.
Baroness Wheeler
My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lord Turnberg for securing this debate, for his expert and thorough introduction, for setting the context, reminding us of the extent and scale of the issues across health and social care and getting the facts and figures over and done with so that the rest of us do not need to repeat them.
Your Lordships’ House spends a lot of time focusing on care and support for older people. We know that the old way of care pathways that address single health conditions does not meet the realities of an ageing population living with multiple conditions, and we know that prevention and the timely escalation of care of people in the community—in their homes, assisted supported housing or residential care—helps to prevent people going into hospital and to centre care on preserving the best quality of life. Our future strategy must view this issue in the wider context of what Age UK recently described as an, “extraordinary revolution in longevity”, which we all of course welcome and celebrate, both personally and for people generally.
Last week’s Guardian and today’s Independent trail the imminent report of the Lords Public Services and Demographic Change Committee, which will help to provide us with the evidence base for the strategic overview that we currently lack, including on pensions, pensioner poverty, health and social care, housing, income and age issues, social isolation and keeping in jobs older people who want to work. This will be an important report, and I hope that once it is published, the Government will schedule it for full debate.
Noble Lords have also referred to the Care and Support Bill and the pre-scrutiny Select Committee report that is due shortly. I have been following closely the evidence sessions and pay tribute to the expert and thorough work of the committee, four of whose members are here today, and to the individuals and organisations giving evidence. The debate on the detail is for another time, but I was particularly struck by the contributions from housing associations and voluntary sector providers stressing the importance of sharpening up the interface in the Bill between primary care, general practice, social care and housing. There are clearly pockets of excellent practice of NHS, local authority and voluntary sector co-operation and integrated working in the provision of specialist housing and housing support, for example, housing associations providing personal support in sheltered housing, thereby avoiding the need for residential care. I hope that the committee’s recommendations will help to take this agenda forward in an urgent and coherent way and that the Bill generally will provide the framework for enabling many issues that noble Lords have highlighted which would genuinely facilitate the delivery of more effective community and primary care.
This is such a frustratingly short debate that it is impossible to cover much at all, but it has provided us with the opportunity to focus on the need for a longer-term strategy on primary and community care. Noble Lords are, as usual, to be congratulated on providing a thorough debate and including the “big picture” issues of Dilnot implementation, future social care funding and the current crisis resulting from huge cuts in local authority budgets that make meeting existing and future demands impossible. We are, of course, also in the midst of the soul-searching and determination to do things better that come in the aftermath of the Francis report on the situation where frail, vulnerable older people received the worse care possible, as was referred to by my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley. I echo her concern that while the serious issues of failure of hospital care raised by Francis need to be addressed, we do not want the NHS to turn its full focus on to NHS hospital care and turn away from the need for primary care to step up to the plate if there is to be a dramatic shift to care in the community.
However, it is important to acknowledge the emphasis that Francis places on the importance of primary care and GPs. He points to the vital continuing relationship that GPs have with patients and the need for GPs to undertake a monitoring role on behalf of patients who receive acute hospital and other specialist services. As he puts it:
“They have a role as an independent, professionally qualified check on the quality of service, in particular in relation to assessment of outcomes. They need to have internal systems enabling them to be aware of patterns of concern ... They have a responsibility to all their patients to keep themselves informed of the standard of service available at various providers”.
Most importantly, Francis stresses that GPs need,
“to take this continuing partnership with their patients seriously if they are to be successful commissioners of services”,
and,
“exploit … this new role in ensuring their patients get safe and effective care”.
That is one of the key questions for today’s debate. Are the Government confident that CCGs can meet the challenges of providing primary and community care? How is their focus to be shifted from hospitals to supporting community care? I look forward to the Minister’s response to the many questions asked by noble Lords.
On commissioning, I am getting to be a bit of a broken record on highlighting the need for effective commissioning of the community services that mainly benefit older people, such as chiropody, falls prevention, continence care and audiology. These are vital services that help to maintain well-being and independence, both in the community and in residential care. Yet, as Age UK has repeatedly pointed out, they are currently significantly undercommissioned and there are huge problems and variations in standards and availability of services.
I suspect that my recent experience locally when I took my disabled partner for his chiropody appointment and learned that Virgin Care would be taking over the previously supplied NHS services and would be dealing with problems only, not routine care such as clipping toenails, is rapidly becoming standard practice. The Department of Health’s guidance underlines the importance of foot care and the difference it makes to the lives of older people leading to reduced pain, increased mobility and a reduced risk of falls. Continence care support is also vital. If you talk to carers, it is such a major issue and can often tip them over the edge so that they stop caring. Of course there is also the impact it has on the person who is cared for. What action are the Government taking to ensure effective commissioning of chiropody, continence care and other key services such as audiology? Will GP commissioning seek to increase the number of district nurses who are under enormous pressure at the moment but who are so vital to community care support for people with long-term health conditions? Will it be able to reverse the current alarming decline in the number of specialist nurses, such as diabetic and epilepsy nurses, who play such a vital role in helping patients self-manage their condition in the home?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)
My Lords, to do justice to a subject as vast and crucially important as this one is impossible to achieve during the course of an hour’s debate. However, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, for introducing this question so succinctly and capably. I will address as many issues as I can in the time available but I undertake to write to those noble Lords whose questions I do not manage to cover.
We know from listening to care users, their carers and voluntary organisations how care and support needs to change, and how the system has yet to adapt properly to meet the new demands and expectations of modern Britain. I was very struck, as I always am, by the clarion call sounded by the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, on that theme. As the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, highlighted, the system will face further demands with an aging population at a time when we face financial constraints.
Last year’s care and support White Paper is an important step in changing that. It will sustain and promote what works and challenge and change what does not. It will promote well-being and independence instead of waiting for people to reach a crisis point. The White Paper, together with the draft Care and Support Bill, will shape the care sector for years to come. The noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, was right to say that this is an opportunity. This is the most comprehensive reform of social care legislation in over 60 years.
We must all welcome the fact that we are living longer but, as the noble Lord, Lord Warner, reminded us, managing the fiscal consequences of this will be a key challenge of the coming years. However, we must recognise that for the foreseeable future government funding will be constrained and we must plan on that basis. We want to get the engine working as efficiently and effectively as possible so that the fuel that we put in gets us to where we need to be.
Effective reform of public services is central to our response if we are to meet the needs of an aging population and ensure long-term sustainability. We have put in place an ambitious programme of reform across a wide range of government policy areas including pensions, health, social care, housing and employment. The Government are providing an extra £7.7 billion over the spending review period to protect access and support vulnerable people.
We know that care and support needs to adapt to respond to changes in demand and expectation. These challenges create an opportunity for local authorities to innovate and explore new ways of working, better meet the needs of their local populations and optimise the use of available resources. Many local authorities are already innovating and we are committed to supporting them to deliver further service improvements and to helping other authorities learn from what works. We want local authorities to maximise the use of reablement services that help older people recover from acute episodes and reinvest money from high-cost residential and nursing home care into other services. We also want local authorities to embrace the potential of new technology because we know that at least 3 million people with long-term conditions and social care needs could benefit from the use of telehealth and telecare services.
One of the biggest changes that the White Paper sets out is moving from the reactive service that we have at the moment to a proactive service that helps people stay healthy and independent in the first place—change that better meets and manages future demand and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, and my noble friend Lady Jolly emphasised, prevents people needing to go into acute hospitals and supports them to regain independence after they leave. As people live longer, the advantages of that approach, focused on preventing or postponing care needs, are both immense and glaringly obvious. That approach is part of our mission to improve the health of the nation as a whole. That is why we have built an approach that will enable local authorities and GPs to innovate and devise local solutions to tackle not just the symptoms but the wider determinants of health. On my noble friend Lady Jolly’s three questions, the answer in all cases is yes.
To support this, we will include in the Bill a duty on local authorities to take steps to prevent delay and reduce needs for care and support in their area. The noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, mentioned the pooling of budgets between the health service and social care. All too often the discussion on integrated care is focused around the integration of structures, funding streams or processes rather than the perspective of patients and service users. This has led to excessive focus on the means to achieve integrated care rather than the end of a better experience for patients and service users. We want to encourage and support local experimentation to allow local areas to provide integrated care at scale and pace. We are working with the sector to support local initiatives and identify what needs to happen to drive this at a national level. We want to learn what works well, how to overcome barriers and promote best practice. For example, Torbay commissioned and provided care for local areas as a single organisation and has shown comparatively lower levels of emergency admissions, shorter hospital stays and minimal delayed transfers of care.
The noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, talked about the role of GPs in caring for elderly people. The quality outcomes framework, which is part of the contract with GPs, provides incentives that reward practices for how well they care for patients, including for long-term conditions that often affect elderly patients. The Government have proposed changes to the GP contract, and a stakeholder consultation has recently finished. Under these proposals, and in addition to the QOF indicators, we would invite GPs to participate in a new directed enhanced service that would further encourage GP practices to co-ordinate and manage the care of frail older people and other high-risk patients predicted to be at risk of unscheduled hospital admission.
The noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, also spoke about out-of-hours care. Earlier this year, the NHS Commissioning Board announced that it is to review the model of urgent and emergency services in England including out-of-hours care.
The noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, focused on the social care workforce, its skills and the need to promote leadership. The care and support White Paper recommends increasing capacity, enhancing capability and developing leadership in the social care workforce. The department is working with partners to attract more people to, and increase apprenticeships in, social care, as well as raising standards and improving leadership. Working with the National Skills Academy for Social Care to publish the leadership qualities framework for adult social care is another important aspect of our programme. That framework sets out the attitudes and behaviours needed for high-quality leadership at all levels which, as the noble Baroness rightly said, is rather different from passing an exam. There is no single, definitive model of integrated care and support, as I am sure the noble Baroness will accept. Some localities are further advanced than others. We are developing the concept of pioneers to support rapid dissemination and uptake of lessons learnt, and are keen to maintain momentum and accelerate the adoption of new models of co-ordinated care and support across the country. Our ambition is for person-centred co-ordinated care and support to become the norm over the coming years.
Returning to the draft Care and Support Bill, it will introduce important powers and duties that will further integrated working, including a duty of co-operation, integration and ensuring that people have clearer entitlements. We are also committed to developing a measurement of people’s experience of integrated care to be included in future outcomes frameworks. This has been included as a placeholder in the NHS and Social Care Outcomes Framework 2013-14.
As I have said, we want to encourage local experimentation to allow local areas to provide integrated care tailored to people’s needs and preferences. We are working hard with partner organisations, including the NHS Commissioning Board, Monitor, the Local Government Association and the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services, to support those local initiatives and to identify what still needs to happen to drive this at a national level. This work will in turn be informed by the outcomes of the four community budget sites.
The noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, asked me some specific questions about self-funders. I undertake to look into the issues that she has raised. I certainly will study the Scandinavian model and I undertake to write to her about that.
I finish by reaffirming the Government’s aspiration to make this country one of the best places to grow old in, where older people get excellent treatment, care and support when they need it. Our biggest priority must be to transform what we offer to meet the challenge of an ageing population. If we fail to address this, our health and care system will not be sustainable for older people, or indeed for any of us. We must develop and promote a culture of compassion across the health and social care landscape, where quality of care is considered as important as quality of treatment and where every person can be confident that they will be treated with compassion, dignity and respect by skilled staff who are on top of their game and have time to care.
House of Lords
Taxation: Income Tax
(11 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Greaves
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what measures they will take to ensure that wage-earners who are below the income tax threshold will benefit from any future increases in the personal allowance.
Lord Newby
My Lords, since 2010 the Government have announced successive increases in the personal allowance totalling £2,965. Taken together, these changes will ensure that more than 2.2 million low-income individuals will be removed from income tax altogether. The Government are also taking other measures that will benefit those who are below the income tax threshold, including the introduction of universal credit, support on childcare and the pupil premium.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, some 4,300,000 employees already earn too little to benefit from the increase in the personal allowance this year—which I fully support—and this will rise to nearly 5 million workers in 2013-14, about 17% of the labour force, of which two-thirds will be women. How can it be right or fair that a policy trumpeted as helping low-paid workers does nothing for the lowest-paid 5 million? Will the Government look seriously at new ways to end this unfair situation?
Lord Newby
My Lords, some of those 5 million were paying income tax until we took them out of income tax, so they have benefited significantly from the changes that we made. The vast bulk of those 5 million are people in work who are not working full time, so one of the key things that we have to try to ensure is that more people are working full time. One of the better statistics on the labour market—which had a good year in many respects last year—is that 32,000 people who were working part time and who wanted to work full time got full-time jobs in the last quarter of last year.
Lord Morris of Handsworth
My Lords, interesting as it is to be debating the tax and benefits system, is not the real answer here the rapid and vigorous promotion of the living wage? That will do more for the poor than the tax and benefits system as outlined by the Minister.
Lord Newby
My Lords, the living wage is one component in supporting the poor, and the Government have made it clear that they encourage people to use it. However, for many people who are poor the key thing is to get into work and, having got into work, to work the number of hours that are compatible with the family circumstances in which they find themselves. Particularly via the universal credit, we are taking steps to make sure that work always pays and that people are indeed encouraged to take up the maximum number of hours that are appropriate for them.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, while congratulating the Government on raising the threshold at which people pay income tax—an ideal which was first put forward by my noble friend Lord Saatchi—perhaps I may just ask whether they have any plans to raise the threshold at which people pay national insurance. Many of the people to whom the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, referred are still paying national insurance at very high rates, and national insurance is a tax. Would we not be wise to merge national insurance and income tax so that people realise just how much is being taken out of their pay packets?
Lord Newby
My Lords, the Government do not have any plans to raise the threshold for national insurance simply because—as noble Lords will be aware—to do so would be extremely expensive. The Government looked at merging national insurance and income tax but have decided that they will not take that consideration any further forward for the course of this Parliament.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe
My Lords, is it not true that the 5 million people who may have benefited from the changes have in fact had to pay extra VAT since this Government came to power? They are all paying 2.5% extra in VAT. Could we not look for a reduction in the VAT rate, which in turn would then be a great stimulus to the economy?
Lord Newby
My Lords, the Government do not think that a reduction in the VAT rate makes any sense at this point. A 1% reduction in the VAT rate costs about £12 billion. If we were to reduce the VAT rate, we would have to find that £12 billion from somewhere else—so we do not propose to reduce it.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
Is any thought being given to rates of pay for the self-employed? We have heard about the living wage, which is great, and even the basic wage is something, but I meet so many people in caring jobs who are earning less than £2 an hour. How can they live on that? The employer, who is usually employing them directly, has no obligation whatever to pay any more than that. These people are often a bit intimidated but they continue to work for that sort of miserable amount because they really care about the person.
Lord Newby
My Lords, as the noble Baroness knows, we have minimum wage legislation. That is the route to ensuring that people are paid a decent minimum wage.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
My Lords, will the Minister admit that some of the people to whom I think the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, was referring are classified as self-employed and therefore are not protected under the national minimum wage legislation? Will he write to me with details of the reductions in benefit that will occur for those who earn too little to benefit from the subject matter in the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and who will therefore be losing money twice?
Lord Newby
I am always happy to write to the noble Baroness. On the first point she raised, if one is self-employed, the only person you can look to to pay your salary is yourself. If you earn money yourself, you are able to pay yourself well. If you have a contract with somebody as a self-employed person, you should be looking to be paid at least the minimum wage under that contract. However, many self-employed people do consultancy work of various sorts for a fixed price or produce goods and the extent to which they earn an income depends on the extent to which they are able to sell what they produce.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, the noble Lord’s Answer to his noble friend Lord Greaves was pathetically thin against a background where, as he must surely appreciate, unfairness is perpetrated very heavily against the low-paid and the poor, for whom the Government have scant regard, having of course withdrawn significant numbers of benefits from them. When will the Government address the fact that the economy is so lacking in demand that we are in the worst depression for 80 years? Ministers are not matching up to the challenge presented.
Lord Newby
My Lords, for most people the most important factor in the economy is whether they have a job. Last year, an additional half a million people got a job and it was a major step forward in their personal circumstances. The labour market has performed well, and it continues to perform well, and all forward indicators in recent surveys suggest that, across all sectors, even more people are likely to be employed in the near future.
Health: Cardiology
(11 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Storey
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what measures they are taking to detect and prevent sudden cardiac death.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)
My Lords, as the Cardiovascular Disease Outcomes Strategy published yesterday made clear, the national clinical director for heart disease will continue to work with all relevant stakeholders to develop and spread good practice in this area. Alongside this, the UK National Screening Committee is reviewing the case for screening for sudden cardiac death, and will begin a public consultation on this soon.
Lord Storey
I thank my noble friend the Minister for that Answer. He will no doubt be aware that hundreds of young people die as a result of fatal premature cardiac conditions each year. He may also have heard of the Oliver King Foundation, established in memory of a 12 year-old Liverpool boy who sadly died of sudden death syndrome at his school in 2011. Does the Minister not agree that despite many ambulance trusts having some form of community resuscitation department, it should be policy to install automated external defibrillators in all public buildings? Furthermore, will the Minister agree to meet with the foundation and others to discuss the feasibility of a national screening programme to identify those at risk and prevent further loss of life, particularly among young people?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I pay tribute to the Oliver King Foundation for its work, as indeed I do to Cardiac Risk in the Young, which for many years has been campaigning very tellingly and successfully in this area. I think that my initial Answer should have satisfied my noble friend on the screening question, because that is now being reviewed by the screening committee. Regarding defibrillators, we have to look at the need to improve survival rates in the most effective way. I understand that the majority of these deaths—possibly as many as 80%—occur in the home. While we agree that the wider availability of defibrillators could save additional lives, CPR skills—cardiopulmonary resuscitation—should save more lives. To that end, the outcomes strategy says that my department will work with the Resuscitation Council, the British Heart Foundation and others to increase the number of people who are trained in CPR.
Lord Turnberg
My Lords, will the noble Earl encourage all schools to incorporate training in CPR for all schoolchildren? A skill learnt there will carry on through the rest of a child’s life.
Earl Howe
My Lords, the noble Lord makes a very good point. Again, as the CVD outcomes strategy sets out, basic life-support skills could be more widely taught as part of volunteering programmes; for example, in schools and the workplace. I am aware that bystander CPR doubles survival rates yet is attempted in only 20% to 30% of cases. There is scope for all emergency service personnel to be trained in CPR, and for basic life-support skills to be taught more widely.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
Are departmental advisers working with the new chief coroner, whose appointment has been widely welcomed, to ensure that there are minimum standards at post-mortem, so that when a young person has had a sudden cardiac death the risk to other family members can be appropriately identified? It is important that specimens from the heart of a deceased young person are not lost because the post-mortem has not been done to a high enough standard.
Earl Howe
The noble Baroness makes a very important point. My department supported the formation of the UK Cardiac Pathology Network in 2006 to provide local coroners with an expert cardiac pathology service and to promote best pathological practice in sudden death cases. A national database on sudden arrhythmic death was launched in November 2008, allowing pathologists to record information on cases referred to them. In the longer term this could be very helpful in building a deeper understanding of the problem.
Lord Colwyn
My Lords, during 2011, 56 deaths were caused by fire in London. Legislation requires all public buildings to have fire extinguishers. In that same period in London, there were 9,657 out-of-hospital cardiac arrests. Why is there no similar legislation for public-access defibrillators?
Earl Howe
My Lords, as a general point, ambulance trusts are by far the best placed to understand the requirements of their local populations in terms of defibrillator distribution. However, I understand that the British Heart Foundation is looking into the need for more defibrillators in the community, so we will await that work with great interest.
Lord Glentoran
My Lords, can my noble friend tell us what effect in percentage terms obesity is having, particularly on the young? I read that a considerable percentage of deaths and heart problems are due to obesity. What programmes do we have running to reduce the level of obesity in the United Kingdom?
Earl Howe
My Lords, a variety of programmes is running, including Change4Life and the national screening programme. However, as my noble friend will be aware, the kind of sudden cardiac death mentioned in the Question is rather different from cardiovascular disease, which afflicts people in later life. We are talking in the Question about unexplained, very sudden cardiac death in the young, which we believe has little to do with lifestyles and much more to do with genetic susceptibility.
Lord Patel
My Lords, will the Minister explain a little bit more about the proposed public consultation on screening? The evidence for the screening of families where a cardiac death has occurred, particularly in a young person—which is linked to a gene—is conclusive, so what is the public consultation about?
Earl Howe
The public consultation is reviewing the policy position on screening for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, but the noble Lord is absolutely right that better identification of families who are at high risk of inherited cardiac conditions is vital. That is stressed in the cardiovascular strategy.
EU: Salaries
(11 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Flight
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many people are employed by the European Union institutions; and what assessment they have made of how many of those individuals pay either no tax or reduced tax rates on their remuneration.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, the European Union institutions all together employ approximately 55,000 people. EU staff are exempt from national income tax, a similar situation to that found in other international bodies. As in other international bodies, the EU deducts a proportion of salary as a form of extranational taxation, proceeds from which are returned to the EU budget. This is applied progressively, rising from an initial 8% to a 45% marginal rate for the highest-paid. In addition, there is now a special or solidarity levy, which last month was increased from a top rate of 5.5% to 6%; most officials pay an average of 2%. I should declare an interest. My wife was for five years the director of the Robert Schuman Centre in Florence, whose staff regulations were those of the European institutions. We have examined her payslips and established that an average of 28% of her gross salary was deducted in community tax each month.
Lord Flight
My Lords, would it not be more sensible for civil servants working for the EU to be taxed on the same basis as civil servants working, for example, for the Foreign Office; namely, for them to pay the rates of income tax applicable to the country where they are otherwise normally resident?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, we are now into the whole question about residency, non-residency and international organisations. It has been a common rule for international organisations that you do not pay national taxes but are given a degree of exemption. If we were to reclassify the European Union as not an international organisation but as rather like going to work in Manchester or Leeds, different processes would apply. As a former international banker, the noble Lord will be well aware of the many complexities of international taxation, expatriate allowances and the like.
Lord Tomlinson
Is the Minister as surprised as I am by the low number of European Union institution employees? How does that figure—I think he said 55,000—compare with a large-scale local authority in the United Kingdom?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, the figures I have are that Paris employs 50,000 people and Birmingham employs 60,000 people, so it is a relatively modest number. I am sure the noble Lord will admit that the inefficiencies of the Commission—in particular, the rather inadequate personnel policies, the relatively generous allowances and an expatriate allowance which, unlike the NATO expatriate allowance, does not phase out after a number of years and is rather more generous—are things that we should be looking at, particularly when all national budgets within the European Union are being squeezed.
Lord Dobbs
Will my noble friend help a confused man who has trouble with numbers? We have one European Union which has two parliaments, three presidents and dozens of employees who earn more than our Prime Minister. I understand that the second parliament in Strasbourg, over the course of the parliamentary cycle, costs our taxpayers €1.5 billion. Do any of those statistics make any sense to him?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, there are a number of built-in inefficiencies in every international organisation to which we belong. It is not two parliaments, it is two parliament buildings. The British Government and British Members of the European Parliament have campaigned for several years for a single seat for the European Parliament. If I were to go into the enormous costs of the UN having a base in Geneva as well as New York, we would note that the EU is not the only international organisation that suffers from these inefficiencies.
Lord Anderson of Swansea
My Lords, lest the Question be viewed as in any way anti-European Union, which I am sure is not the noble Lord’s intention, will the Minister confirm that the tax regime he mentioned not only applies to the United Nations but also to a number of other organisations based within the European Union, such as the OSCE and NATO in Brussels? It is general and in no way a feature of the European Union.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
I have already said that this applies to a large range of other European and global organisations, of which there are a great number. That does not mean, however, that Her Majesty’s Government and their allies in like-minded Governments in the EU are not entirely correct to say that we should be squeezing more efficiency out of the EU institutions and that the Commission has grown rather complacent over the years.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, what is the average annual cost to the taxpayer of Members of your Lordships’ House and what is the average annual cost to the taxpayer of Members of the European Parliament, including all the latter’s special perks and allowances?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, it may surprise the noble Lord, but I do not have the exact figures to hand. Of course, any international parliament costs a great deal more because of the travel, dual residence and so on that are involved. Members of this House who also attend the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe or the NATO Assembly also cost rather more than the rest of us.
Lord Howell of Guildford
Does my noble friend have any figures on the European External Action Service? Has he noticed recent criticism that it is not performing very effectively? Does he have any measure of cost versus performance for that body?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I do not have that. The European External Action Service is still very much in its early stages. It is now performing rather better than when it was originally established. Multinational operations take longer to get going than others—I am looking at various people here who have served in the European Commission—and have a level of built-in efficiency.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Is the Minister aware that the European Union Committee on which I have the honour to serve is about to produce a report on the European External Action Service? I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Howell, will read it with the greatest of interest?
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I wish to place on record, and ask the noble Lord to accept, that although we on this side of the House are very pro-European, we, like the Government, seek reform of the institutions, including all the salary levels, and so on.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
I thank the noble Baroness for that expression of consensus. She will know from her time working for EU institutions that the staff regulations and staff unions in Brussels have a certain element of the 1960s about them which requires a little modernisation.
Syria
(11 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Falkner of Margravine
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of the recent Friends of Syria conference in Rome, what assessment they have made of the political situation in Syria.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, the Foreign Secretary has stated that there must be a political solution to the conflict, which has already claimed more than 70,000 lives. The longer the conflict continues, the more radicalised and sectarian it will become, with an increasing risk of regional overspill. There is no sign that the Assad regime intends to enter into a genuine political process. We must, therefore, increase pressure on Assad and his regime to push them to the negotiating table.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the increase in pressure proposed today in the Foreign Secretary’s Statement may be too little, too late? Does he further agree that the West’s interests are now profoundly engaged, as a failed state in Syria will result in an expansion of international terrorism, increase the dangers from WMD, endanger the supply of energy and destabilise Jordan, Lebanon, Israel, Iraq and even Turkey? Therefore, will Her Majesty’s Government now work with the United States and France to arm the non-jihadi opposition forces, recognising that the use of force will be the only way to bring the Assad Government to the negotiating table or to bring about an eventual forced peace, should Assad not be available to bring about peace?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, we are balancing a number of extremely difficult choices all the way through. We are attempting to force the regime to negotiate. We do not have all the permanent members of the UN on our side. The Russians continue to support and, reportedly, to supply the Assad regime. The Iranians are of course supplying the Assad regime. We have taken what we regard as a carefully calibrated decision to upgrade the amount of support, including non-lethal armour, to the Opposition, but we are all conscious that once you start supplying high-end weapons to a civil war, you never quite know where they will end up, as the French discovered in Mali.
Lord Wright of Richmond
My Lords, I hope that I may be permitted to ask a few of the many questions which I would have tried to ask if the Foreign Secretary’s Statement had been repeated in this House today. First, does the Minister accept that even the supply of non-lethal assistance to the so-called Opposition represents a dangerous escalation of our involvement in what is now, and has been for a long time, effectively a Sunni-Shia war? What reason do the Government have for thinking that the Opposition, which HMG have now recognised as the legitimate Government of Syria, would be any more accountable or democratic than the present regime in Damascus?
Secondly, can the Minister confirm that we still support Ambassador Brahimi’s mission? Does he agree that, instead of rubbishing President Assad’s recent interview in the Sunday Times, we should encourage Ambassador Brahimi to follow up President Assad’s offer of unconditional negotiations with such parts of the Opposition as have also expressed their readiness to negotiate?
Finally, I welcome the decision of the United States Government and HMG to withhold lethal military assistance from the Opposition. Are we similarly encouraging our friends in the Gulf to do likewise?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, there were a large number of questions there. I say simply that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary is meeting Lakhdar Brahimi this afternoon. He is also meeting the Russian Deputy Foreign Minister. The Foreign Secretary and other Foreign Office Ministers are extremely actively engaged. It is not yet a Sunni-Shia conflict. We are all conscious of the danger that it will deteriorate into a Sunni-Shia conflict. Working with the Opposition, we are doing our best to encourage them to represent all the different communities within Syria. Our aim is to bring a negotiated end to the conflict and to prevent it from deteriorating further.
Baroness Uddin
My Lords, what assessment have the Minister and his department made of the impact of the Saudi Government’s leadership in regional discussions with regard to the ongoing disaster and destruction in Syria, where 1 million people are fleeing persecution and violence according to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, we are working with the Saudis, the Qataris and a number of other states in the Middle East. We are very conscious that Lebanon and Jordan are particularly affected by the Syrian conflict. In Lebanon, the number of refugees is equivalent to 10% of its population. If we imagine the impact on British society of the arrival of 6 million refugees, that is what Lebanon is currently going through. We are very conscious of the potential for this conflict to spill over Syria’s borders.
Lord Eden of Winton
My Lords, will my noble friend return to one part of the question asked of him by the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond? Can he give any assurance at all that if President Assad is removed, his replacement will not be more repressive?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, by its nature when a very localised civil war is under way, it is very difficult for any of us to control what the outcome will be. The only assurance that I, or any other international actor, can give is that Her Majesty’s Government are working with our allies and partners in the Middle East and attempting to persuade the Russian and Chinese Governments to work towards the achievement of a negotiated solution that would see a more inclusive Government replace the Assad regime.
Lord Hylton
My Lords, have the Government studied the recent proposal for transitional justice in Syria, put forward by the Syrian Support Group? If implemented, would it not have the effect of separating ordinary, innocent Alawis from the regime?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, there are a great many efforts under way to protect the Alawi minority, the Christian minority and the smaller number of Druze within Syria from what could easily deteriorate into a sectional jihad. We are all very worried about that possibility. A great deal of work is under way, quite a lot of it funded by DfID, to advise the Opposition about negotiated transition, rebuilding local communities and providing the basic services that people need to start the process of reconciliation.
Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2013
(11 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
That the draft order laid before the House on 22 January be approved.
Relevant documents: 17th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, 27th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, considered in Grand Committee on 26 February.
Health and Social Care Act 2012 (Consequential Amendments) Order 2013
(11 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations (Amendment) Order 2013
(11 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Attlee
That the draft order laid before the House on 19 December 2012 be approved.
Relevant document: 15th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 27 February.
Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2013
(11 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
That the draft order laid before the House on 28 January be approved.
Relevant documents: 15th and 18th Reports from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 28 February.
Antarctic Bill
Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill
17:00 - Division on Amendment 80A - Ayes: 225 / Noes: 223 - Amendment 80A agreed.
18:23 - Division on Amendment 81A - Ayes: 211 / Noes: 206 - Amendment 81A agreed.
20:24 - Division on Amendment 83A - Ayes: 163 / Noes: 192 - Amendment 83A disagreed.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Anelay of St Johns)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, is very courteously taking a very short respite to give colleagues the opportunity to leave the Chamber, which I know they are trying to do quietly. Perhaps quickly might also be a watchword.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, Amendment 80A stands also in the names of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. I shall speak to Amendment 80B, which also stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. I should also make it clear that we strongly support Amendment 81 and look forward to hearing from my noble friend Lady Turner and the other distinguished noble and noble and learned Lords who have put their names to that amendment.
Amendment 80A is an attempt to defeat the fundamental purpose of Clause 62; effectively, it is an alternative to removing that clause. Clause 62 seeks to remove civil liability from breaches of duty imposed by health and safety regulations, and our amendment would reinstate that right of action. I acknowledge here that it would require same consequential tidying at Third Reading.
We should be under no illusions about the serious consequences which will flow from Clause 62, should it be allowed to remain unamended. It will remove the existing right of an employee to rely on a breach of health and safety legislation in any claims for personal injury, so unless any exceptions are to be applied it will be possible to claim compensation for breaches of health and safety regulations only if it can be proved that the duty holder has been negligent. We are aware of just one exception. As the Explanatory Notes to the Bill state:
“This means that in future, for all relevant claims, duty-holders will only have to defend themselves against negligence”.
The Government have sought cover for their clause by citing the report of Professor Löfstedt, Reclaiming Health and Safety for All. A small section of that report focused on strict liability, where the professor recommended that there should be a review of such provisions and that they be either qualified with “reasonably practicable” or amended to prevent civil liability attaching to such provisions. In the event, of course, the Government have not undertaken a review and are going much further than the professor in seeking to remove civil liability from all breaches of health and safety regulations. The Government have focused on strict liability as being unfair because an employer could be found liable to pay damages to an employee, despite having taken all reasonable steps to protect them.
However, that does not give fair recognition to the fact that strict liability applies in very limited circumstances and where injured employees would otherwise face a near impossible evidential burden. Overwhelmingly, the duties are qualified by the phrase, “so far as is reasonably practicable”. Examples of strict liability would include injury caused by defective equipment where the employer controls the selection, purchase, installation and maintenance of equipment, where investigation can be very difficult and with the employer holding all the cards.
The commentary in the Government’s own impact assessment is that the number of compensation cases which rely on a breach of strict liability statutory duties will be small and despite their position, the Government have declined to undertake the review that Professor Löfstedt recommended to potentially restrict the number of situations in which strict liability is relevant. They now argue that it would be too complex a task and would anyway have largely been done when consideration of the transposition of EU directives was considered. Rather than doing the work, they use the issue as an excuse to change the liability regime across the board, potentially to the disadvantage of tens of thousands of employees each year, who will find access to justice more difficult and expensive. For some, it will be denied altogether.
Lord Wigley
I support Amendments 80A and 80B tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, to which I have added my name, as I have to Amendment 81 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner. Each of these amendments seeks to overhaul the provisions contained in Clause 62, as we have heard, which threatens to turn the clock back to Victorian times for injured workers’ rights to compensation.
The clause has rightly been criticised in earlier stages of the Bill, and was only introduced on Report in another place. By amending the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, the clause will place the burden of proof on to the injured employee who in future will have to provide evidence that his or her injury has resulted from their employer’s negligence.
As the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers has made clear in its appeals to the Government, the clause, if passed, would be highly advantageous to negligent employers, who of course control the workplace and equipment, and are more familiar with the workings of the business. Moreover, it is completely unfair to put this extra burden on an employee who is injured, particularly in cases where the employee would have been rendered unconscious and hence possibly unable to remember details of the incident.
As I understand it, the clause would also impact on families of employees who have been killed in an accident, who would obviously be at a disadvantage in gathering evidence against the employer. If I have wrongly interpreted that, perhaps the Minister could correct me but, if I am right, how on earth can the Government justify that position?
Amendment 81 would delete the clause in its entirety, which would obviously be the most favoured option for those of us opposed to these provisions. Amendment 80A would negate the clause to all extents and purposes and so, if Amendment 81 is not passed, I urge noble Lords to support Amendment 80A. Finally, Amendment 80B would require the Government to conduct a review, before the provisions of the clause can come into effect, of all duties imposed by a statutory instrument containing health and safety regulations and to determine whether they should be actionable.
Clause 62 brings in sweeping and unnecessary changes to health and safety duties at work. The Government must surely pause before introducing such provisions, to ensure that any employer who breaks the law pays the correct penalty.
Baroness Turner of Camden
My Lords, Amendment 81 stands in my name. At Second Reading and in Committee, I opposed this clause. The Government have introduced some amendments to the original, but they do not alter the Bill substantially. It would still alter the Heath and Safety at Work Act in a way that is not to the advantage of an injured worker. Section 47(2) of the Act says:
“Breach of a duty imposed by health and safety regulations shall, so far as it causes damage, be actionable except in so far as the regulations provide otherwise”.
In practice, I am advised by the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, to which reference has already been made, that this means that if a worker is injured and can prove than an employer has breached a statutory duty, he is entitled to claim compensation. This is the basis upon which many workplace injury cases are usually brought.
The law is clear and well understood. It is the basis on which health and safety legislation has been drafted and passed by Parliament. This is the provision which the Government seek to alter. Without this provision, the injured person would be obliged to rely on the law of negligence, which would be much more difficult. Take the case where a worker has been fatally injured after working with faulty equipment. At present, the family need only prove that there had been breaches of statutory regulation in order to claim compensation. Under the provisions of the Bill, the family would have to go much further and prove that the employer knew that the equipment was faulty and did nothing about it. That would be much more difficult than proving that regulations in place to protect the worker had been breached.
According to the Government’s own figures, the provisions in this clause will affect 70,000 cases in England, Wales and Scotland. That is quite a number of injured workers. There are many industries—construction is one—which are inherently dangerous. I urge noble Lords to look at London: it has masses of construction sites, full of scaffolding and workers working on them. The workers who regularly endanger their safety on these sites deserve proper protection. If the Government are really concerned about safety, they should strengthen the HSE instead of cutting resources and thus cutting HSE inspections, which are so necessary to maintain health and safety at work.
This clause, if enacted, will encourage employers to abnegate their responsibilities and rogue employers will get away with it. What about insurance? Employers are expected to have employers’ liability cover. It is fairly clear that insurance premiums will increase as a result of this legislation. Do the Government really believe some of the assertions in the trade press that we are becoming a compensation culture with many unjustified claims? I do not think so.
I once worked in the claims department of a large insurance company. Injured workers then had quite a tough time sometimes getting adequate compensation for their injuries. I thought at the time that they needed representation in order to get justice. Unions, of course, provide a skilled service for their members in such situations; my own union has a good and important legal department. However, not everyone is in a union. Even now, workers individually sometimes have difficulty in securing compensation. With this clause enacted in legislation, it will be much worse: the burden of health and safety will be transferred from the shoulders of well resourced employers to vulnerable workers, which is unjust and unfair. It takes the law on workplace safety back to Victorian times, beyond the landmark 1898 law, under which it became possible to claim compensation where employers had breached their statutory duty.
I oppose this clause; it is unfair and unjust and in the end will cost the taxpayer much more in support for injured workers unable to achieve compensation. I am opposing it because I want to send a message to the Government that they should not attempt to interfere with established procedures which have served people well and are respected. They should not attempt to do this, and therefore I oppose the clause completely.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, I suggest to the Minister that there is a lifeline to the Government in this group of amendments, particularly Amendment 80B in the names of the noble Lords, Lord McKenzie and Lord Wigley. It requires the Secretary of State to set up an independent panel to carry out a review of what will become Section 62. I agree with all that has been said so far in this debate; in particular, I think the Government would be very wise to accede to the proposal for the independent panel because there can be few provisions in our whole legislation that are more complex than Clause 62 and the multitudinous amendments that it makes to Section 57 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act.
I also draw to the Minister’s attention—if it needs drawing, and I am pretty sure it does not—that the litigation that could flow from Clause 62 as it stands could be formidable, not least in terms of European law. The impact of the law of the European Union in this area of life is very considerable indeed. Professor Löfstedt, in his 2011 review, reported that there were more than 200 health and safety regulations in this country that were affected by EU law. As we all know, where there is a clash, EU law will prevail over domestic law.
The impact on employees of this change in the law could be different from the one that the Government are currently arguing on. It is perfectly certain that if you take away absolute liability for breach of statutory duties and leave it with the common law of negligence, you are, as night follows day, encouraging irresponsible employers—and there are a few, I am afraid—to take risks that will redound to the disadvantage of their employees.
As has already been said this afternoon, suing in this area of law can be extraordinarily difficult. I should have first declared my interest as a solicitor. My firm, Bates Wells and Braithwaite, does a considerable amount of this type of work, as I also have in my professional life. It can be formidably difficult for an injured employee to secure redress from an obdurate employer who is willing to string out the whole business, force the employee into court, and also force him or her into the hands of the no-win no-fee system, which itself has many drawbacks.
I sincerely hope, therefore that the Government will listen to what is being said this afternoon and will take a prudent and practical course that will not hold back this legislation for long, because Amendment 80B sets a time limit for the report of the panel. I hope they will also address to some extent the failing of the Professor Löfstedt review to engage in the sort of consultation that I believe in the view of any Member of this House should have been undertaken prior to the publication of the outcome of that review. I hope, for all those reasons and many others which I hope we will hear, the Government will take the proper course.
Lord Hardie
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendments 80A and 81. I was unable to speak at the proceedings in Grand Committee because I had not by then resumed my place in this House following my retirement from the Bench.
If this clause remains part of the Bill, there is a serious risk of injustice for some people who will be deprived a remedy: the right of damages arising from a breach of their employer’s obligations towards them. The Minister himself recognised that in Grand Committee on 14 January, col. GC 176. However, the Minister suggested that there would only be a small number of cases. First, therefore, can the Minister tell the House what was meant by a small number of cases? Was the estimate of numbers based upon an analysis of cases which proceeded to proof, or did it include cases that were settled without litigation altogether? Whatever the number, it is impossible to understate the serious consequences for individuals and their families already alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton.
If this clause remains part of the Bill, those who have suffered catastrophic injury, or the widows and families of employees who have been killed, will now have to depend upon state benefits for their maintenance. That was what the Minister said in the passage to which I referred. The financial burden will be transferred to widows, children, disabled people, and to the state, and it will be transferred to all of these people from insurance companies which will be the principal beneficiaries of this clause. Does the Minister consider that this is fair, or is it even compatible with Government policy to reduce the number of people who are dependent on state benefits?
Other noble Lords have referred to this right of action, which has existed since the 19th century. I do not wish to point out the error of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, by saying that it dates back to the case of Groves v Lord Wimborne in 1898. That case in the Court of Appeal certainly did decide that there was such a right. However, the law goes much further back. In Scotland and England there were cases before that dealing not with factories, which Groves v Lord Wimborne did, but with coal mines. There was a case in Scotland in 1871 of Edgar v Law and Brand at the Inner House of the Court of Session—which is the equivalent of the Court of Appeal—which decided that the widow of a collier who had been killed because the mine owner breached the regulations had a right of action, just as the court in England decided 20 or so years later. In 1912, the Judicial Committee of this House ratified these decisions—in terms to Groves v Lord Wimborne—but emphasised that they were correctly decided. In doing so, Lord Kinnear observed that when a duty of protection is imposed on employers for the benefit of particular persons, there arises, at common law, a correlative right of action in those persons who may be injured by the contravention.
Clause 62 removes that common law right. We should not sanction such a radical change in our law unless there has been detailed consultation about the consequences of the change and there are overwhelming reasons justifying it. As the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, said, there was no consultation about this change and I will return to the reasons in a few minutes.
In the context of claims for damages arising from breach of statutory provisions, some people refer to strict liability and there is a risk of misunderstanding the scope of civil liability. Where regulations impose an unqualified obligation on employers, there is clearly an automatic criminal liability, so there could be a prosecution. However, that is not the case in civil actions. Mere breach of the regulation does not give rise to a right of action: one has to establish that the breach caused the damage. There is, therefore, a double issue: the question of the breach and also the fundamental question of causation. Unless one can bring home liability based on causation there is no right of action.
I will illustrate that point by reference to the Ionising Radiation Regulations 1999. Regulation 8 contains special provisions for pregnant women who have notified their employer of their pregnancy. In such cases, the employer must ensure that the equivalent dose of radiation to the foetus is unlikely to exceed one milliSievert for the remainder of the pregnancy. If a foetus were exposed to more than one milliSievert after the date of notification, the employer could certainly be prosecuted but there would be no civil liability unless the employee established a number of facts. First, she would have to prove that she is part of the class that is protected and that she notified the employer. Secondly, she would have to prove that after the notification she was exposed to more than one milliSievert. Thirdly, she would have to prove that the baby was injured. Fourthly, she would need to prove that the injury was caused by the overexposure. The question of causation is likely to be the most difficult challenge, as it is in most cases. The injury to the child might not manifest itself for some considerable time.
Having regard to the significant margin of safety which undoubtedly will exist in the regulations, there would be possible other causes for the child having the condition that it has. However, if the evidence is such that the court is convinced that it was overexposure as opposed to anything else which caused the damage to the child, the mother would be able to recover damages for the child. If this clause is enacted, that right of action by the mother will be removed.
It seems to me that the correct balance has been struck where there are certain standards that the employee has to achieve before he or she can have a right of action. The right balance has been struck and has been reflected in about 150 years of our common law. In considering the question of balancing the rights, passing reference has been made to a further issue: namely, the additional factor that many if not most of these regulations are not absolute but qualified by the phrase,
“so far as is reasonably practicable”.
Those regulations give the employer an additional defence that he can come in and show that what happened occurred in circumstances in which he had done everything that was reasonably practicable and that, therefore, he is not liable under the regulations.
The current system of civil liability balances the interests of the employer and the employee, and the correct balance has been struck. Clause 62 disturbs that balance. It deprives people of existing rights under current regulations. It is not possible to comprehend the nature and extent to which the current regulations protect the employee. The employee will no longer be entitled to a right of action. That could be identified only if the current regulations were examined and if the Government decided to exclude rights of action, which they can under Section 47(2) in certain cases. Of course, if the present clause remains, the Government would have to look at the regulations, if they are going to be fair and just about this, and decide which of them should include a right of action. As I understand it, that is not to be done.
I do not intend to repeat the overwhelming reasons that have been mentioned by noble Lords. However, in the context of justification, I will mention the briefing by the British Chambers of Commerce that the right of action deters entrepreneurialism and growth. That explanation or reason does not bear scrutiny. If that were truly the case, how can we explain the involvement of entrepreneurs over the past 150 years who have made a significant contribution to economic growth?
Another matter that has not been mentioned hitherto is a comment made by the noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie, in Committee. He said:
“This measure is not about reducing the number of claims. It is about establishing the principle that an employer who has done nothing wrong should have the opportunity to defend themselves on the basis of having taken all reasonable precautions”.—[Official Report, 14/1/13; col. GC 176.]
That can relate only to regulations where there is an unqualified duty. As I said earlier, most of the regulations contain such a qualification and afford the employer the opportunity to defend himself on the basis that he took all reasonable precautions. So this reason can be no justification for excluding a right of action in all those regulations where there is such a qualification. If this clause remains in the Bill, will the Minister give an undertaking to introduce at Third Reading an amendment to include a right of action in respect of all regulations where employers are given the opportunity to defend themselves, as desired by him? There is no sound basis for removing from citizens rights that they currently enjoy or for altering the proper balance to which I have referred.
Lord Browne of Ladyton
My Lords, it is a privilege and a pleasure to follow the contribution of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, to your Lordships’ debate on these provisions this afternoon. He has done a great service to your Lordships’ House by his considered and detailed contribution. Watching the body language of Members of your Lordships’ House, I have the impression that he has alerted many noble Lords to consequences of this provision of which they were unaware, and that he has, perhaps, concentrated minds in a way that may be helpful both to noble Lords in their consideration and to the Government in determining the correct course of action.
I agree with all the arguments in favour of this group of amendments, and I wish to be associated with them all, but I will make a few additional points to reinforce some points that have already been made. As my noble friend Lord McKenzie of Luton said, the justification for Clause 62 is that there is a perception among some employers that a compensation culture exposes them to a risk of unjustified damages claims by employees, and—this is where the briefing that the noble and learned Lord referred to comes in—that this perception prevents employers from taking on new workers and is a barrier to growth. However, no such compensation culture exists. The Government’s own statistical evidence shows that claims arising from workplace accidents are going down. The Health and Safety Executive’s impact assessment of these provisions suggests that this is the case, too, as do the figures published by the Government’s Compensation Recovery Unit.
In Grand Committee, I asked the Minister to point me to the evidence that existed—even the evidence of a perception—and argued at the same time that legislating in response to a perception, which was in fact a misperception, was a poor basis for making law. The Minister was gracious enough at our meeting to confess that, try as they might, neither he nor his officials could find evidence even of the perception—although, to be fair to the Minister, he said in effect, “We know it is there but we cannot find it”.
This is supposed to be a deregulatory measure. Therefore, the test of whether it is a proper policy is whether it will result in any deregulation. Frankly, the evidence in relation to that suggests otherwise, too. It will not remove the complexity of the challenges faced by employers, particularly if they are concerned about possible civil claims by employees. Indeed, it will add to that uncertainty by making the law less clear than it is presently. In particular, the issue of whether these reforms will leave the law incompatible with the European body of law that it has to be compatible with, will inevitably lead to complicated legal argument. I can hear the smacking of lawyers’ lips in anticipation of the cases that will come from this provision if it is enacted in its present form.
We on these Benches provided the Government with a detailed senior counsel’s opinion which set out just how complex the arguments will be. With respect to the noble Viscount, his reply to our correspondence, which was a short paragraph, suggested that his officials had not thought about the consequences that the senior counsel argued were inevitable. Perhaps they have now had the opportunity to do so and, in summing up this short debate, the noble Viscount will be able to give us a better and more considered answer than the one with which his officials provided him in response to the detailed arguments set out in the senior counsel’s opinion.
The Government’s plan is to require all those who wish to claim in the civil courts for compensation arising from workplace accidents to claim by way of a common-law negligence case. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, for setting out at least some of the potential complexity of such a claim. The component elements of a common-law negligence case will inevitably mean that cases will be prolonged. The health and safety regulations that the Government seek to skirt around will not become irrelevant to such claims, as the Government intend. They will add to their complexity because persons claiming will rely on them to show what a careful employer would have done—what was reasonable and feasible. So we have added an unnecessary layer of complexity to a set of claims that now proceed by way of reference only to the statutory regulations.
Neither will this reduce insurance premiums for employers. It will shift burdens but it will not reduce insurance premiums. Presently, the employers’ liability compulsory insurance regime is well settled and it works. It was in spasm in about 2004, but it has settled down again and it works. The law compels all employers to have insurance. Employers pool the risk of being employers through the employers’ liability compulsory insurance process. Everyone has to have insurance by law and the premiums are shared fairly and in a proportionate fashion across all employers.
Employers’ liability compulsory insurance represents a small percentage of the overall general insurance market and traditionally it is a loss leader for the industry, which does not make any money out of it. In fact, there is a suggestion that claims outstrip premiums. But that has been the case for a long time, and it has been absorbed into the general insurance market. If anyone believes that the consequence of a change in the law—even if it does shift the burden from the insurance market to the public sector—will result in reduced premiums, frankly, they are living in cloud-cuckoo-land. The premiums do not cover the payments.
Finally, the justification has been put forward that it will reduce necessary record keeping and paperwork. The noble Viscount defeated that argument himself in Grand Committee. In summing up the debate on this issue he reassured my noble friend Lord McKenzie of Luton that employers would still have to keep the same records because the requirement of record keeping was related to obligations that are enforced by criminal law and nothing at all to do with civil liability. So record keeping will not go down.
The Government's measures go beyond what Professor Löfstedt recommended, and he has said so. They set the clock back 150 years in terms of health and safety, which is an area of public policy of which we in the United Kingdom are rightly proud. They have the flimsiest of justifications and even then the Government themselves cannot find any evidence even of the perception —perhaps because the perceived facts do not exist. Apart from all that, they do not even meet the Government’s own limited objective of being deregulatory. The Government should take them away and think again.
The Earl of Erroll
My Lords, I rise to put the opposite opinion. I live in the world of small and medium-sized businesses. The SMEs and the micros employ half the workforce out there. As one of them, I feel it is totally unfair that, even if you took all the precautions you could, if something happened that you could not foresee and could not know about, you are held to be guilty. This is wrong in natural justice. The fact is that you can then be put out of business. I hate to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, but they are not all well funded.
We talk about big businesses, big organisations and corporations, government, and things like that. They may be well funded, but a lot of small businesses out there are struggling and on a knife-edge. It only takes one of those things with the Health and Safety Executive cracking down and you have had it. I invite noble Lords to look at some of the cases—I will send you pointers to the websites that will detail them—where the Health and Safety Executive, for instance, gloats over how much it has managed to get out of someone at a tribunal. I know that is not the exact case here, but the perception is out there, I am afraid, and it does restrict people. My wife, who is a small employer, is very careful about taking on extra people because of these sorts of regulations.
Regulations also start to conflict because of their complexity. You may well find that you cannot comply with them all. If you are then held to be in breach of one of them, which you did not and could not know about because you could not know that the employer was breaching it without your knowledge and against your instructions, you are still going to be held liable, because it is an absolute offence. I think that is wrong. We should remember that it is not just big businesses out there. We will be bankrupting some small businesses and putting other people out of work—and when we put them out of work, there will be other unintended consequences and damage to other families.
Lord Pannick
My Lords, I added my name to Amendment 81 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, which would leave out Clause 62. I did so because liability under Section 47 of the Health and Safety at Work Act operates fairly, effectively and efficiently and its amendment will cause substantial practical problems.
Your Lordships have heard comprehensive arguments on these subjects, so I will be brief. Section 47 works well because the claimant needs to prove a breach of health and safety legislation. The claimant needs to prove causation—that there has been a breach which has caused serious injury or death. In those circumstances, the law has long recognised, without controversy, that the victim should be compensated without also needing to prove facts and matters relevant to negligence, which are the responsibility of the employer. That is the answer to the noble Earl, Lord Erroll; the matters are within the knowledge of the employer. They are rarely matters within the knowledge of the employee.
To require employees to prove negligence—that is, a failure by the employer to take reasonable care—will inevitably result in very substantial delay in obtaining compensation for those who have been injured or killed by reason of the employer’s failure to comply with health and safety regulations. It will require the considerable expense and uncertainty of litigation for both employer and employee—these are expensive matters for both of them—at a time when legal aid is being reduced.
Clause 62 is unnecessary, unfair and—judging by the deafening silence from the Government Benches this afternoon—unsupported by any marked enthusiasm whatever. I hope your Lordships will support its removal.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood
My Lords, I, too, support these amendments. For a number of years before the passing of the 1974 Act, I enjoyed a reasonably successful practice at the Bar, often instructed on behalf of employers’ insurers defending negligence claims by injured workmen. Mostly these claims were settled, quite often for substantially less than their true value, because of course the insurers, for whom I acted, were altogether better able than the claimants were to risk losing them. A number of these claims were lost —I defeated them—because the claimants were not quite able to assemble all the evidence necessary to prove actual negligence.
The 1974 legislation, which Clause 62 is designed to overturn, introduced a sea change in the approach to damages claims for workplace injuries. No longer was it necessary to prove that the employers knew, or should reasonably have recognised, that their machinery, equipment, systems of work or workplaces were actually dangerous, it was sufficient to show that regulations designed to secure the workforce’s safety had been breached and that, in consequence, the employee had suffered often appalling injury. Thereafter most claims were settled early, at their true value and with very little in the way of litigation costs. Of course, we at the Bar suffered for this change, because our personal injury practices were greatly damaged, but almost everybody else benefited. Injured workmen obviously did but so too did the Exchequer, because benefits for their injuries thereafter were paid by the insurers out of the premium moneys they had received instead of the cost being put on the state. Safety conditions in the workplace were hugely improved. There is nothing like strict liability, or its civil equivalent, to induce employers to take proactive steps to ensure that the risks and dangers are reduced to a minimum. Employers’ insurers therefore, since 1974, have had altogether fewer claims to meet and have certainly incurred far fewer legal costs in meeting them.
Nothing I have yet read from earlier debates, or heard, has suggested to me that any clear advantage is to be gained by this proposed change in the law. Which precisely, one asks, are the supposed undeserving claims that in future it is intended shall fail when presently they succeed? I confess I did not find the answer to that in the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, the substance of which seemed to be directed rather to unfair dismissal claims than to claims for injured workmen, essentially against insurers, in respect of whom employers are bound to take action.
The Earl of Erroll
As a quick correction, it was nothing to do with unfair dismissal, it was about the health and safety issues which come up the whole time in certain industries, particularly agriculture and things like that. That is what I was thinking about mostly.
Lord Razzall
My Lords, if there is one lesson that your Lordships and the Government might draw from this debate, it is that it is a mistake to introduce a major change in the law so late in the process of a Bill going through the House of Commons. The noble Viscount’s department had a very good record of not changing the law without extensive consultation. It is quite clear from the debate today that even one or two noble and learned Lords did not quite understand what it is being proposed in the way that I understand it. That all would come out if there was appropriate consultation on the clause.
The Government’s intention is to try to find a balance between what the noble Earl said about protecting employers from unfair strict liability claims and protecting the rights of the sort of claimants that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is referring to. The Löfstedt report made various recommendations and, had we had proper consultation, that would have come out. The Government say that they are implementing what Löfstedt recommended but some would say “Up to a point, Lord Copper”. He did of course say that the strict liability issue needed to be looked at, but with a lot of reservations as well as to how strict liability could be amended. That would have come out in proper consultation. However, we are where we are. As I understand it, the Government wish to remove strict liability to protect the sort of company referred to by the noble Earl. They say that the complainant or the injured workman can rely on the law of negligence to protect them. There is of course criminal liability, and in extreme cases somebody’s offending will be prosecuted, but they are relying on the law of negligence.
I ask noble Lords to imagine the sort of scenario where these two principles would come up each against other. There could be a contractor who has employed a subcontractor to put up scaffolding and the subcontractor does so in a rather dodgy way. Somebody falls off the scaffolding and is seriously injured. Under the current law, the contractor will probably be strictly liable for that accident. The subcontractor, who is a man of straw, has disappeared, and therefore if the contractor is not liable then who is liable, and what compensation is there for the individual? That seems to me in essence to sum up the dilemma produced by this clause.
I do not think that our job here on these Benches—certainly not when we are in coalition—is to defeat the Government; it is to win the argument. I hope that when the noble Viscount sums up he will try to find a way to meet what I think are genuine concerns from all sides of the House about whether this provision can be modified to deal with the problem I have referred to.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
My Lords, this has been an extensive and interesting debate. I think it would be helpful to set out the reasons the Government seek to make this change. The recent report by my noble friend Lord Young of Graffham, Common Sense, Common Safety, and Professor Löfstedt’s independent review, Reclaiming Health and Safety for All, confirm that the perception of a compensation culture generates a fear of being sued. This, together with the confusion created by myths about health and safety, drives businesses to overimplement the law in an effort to protect themselves.
My noble friend Lord Phillips and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, asked about consultation—or rather the lack of consultation. In preparing his report, my noble friend Lord Young consulted 132 wide-ranging organisations representing relevant professionals, including personal injury lawyers, businesses and associated organisations. He also spoke to more than 100 individuals, including health and safety professionals, Members of Parliament, councillors and leading academics in the field of law.
The problem lies not with the legislation but with the way it is interpreted and applied. Illustrating this, in response to Professor Löfstedt’s review, the Engineering Employers’ Federation said:
“The current compensation system is serving the needs of neither employees nor employers and is the source of many of the media stories and public concern about excessive health and safety. It is slow, expensive and places far too much emphasis on record keeping rather than practical action to control risk.”
I am very grateful for the anecdotal evidence raised today by the noble Earl, Lord Errol, in this respect.
The noble Lord, Lord Browne, raised the issue of record-keeping. I believe he stated that record-keeping will not change, and still does what the law requires, so I think that he was asking what the problem is. I reiterate that there is clear evidence that business overimplements, going well beyond what the law actually requires.
Overimplementation does not lead, therefore, to better protection of employees. It means that employers are spending significant time and effort on activities which are not necessary or far in excess of legal requirements, resulting in significant additional unnecessary costs. Concern about the consequences of “getting it wrong” and confusion about what the law actually requires discourage businesses from exploring new opportunities to expand and diversify and consequently from taking on new employees, a point that I made in Grand Committee.
The Federation of Small Businesses stated in its response to Professor Löfstedt:
“A wider problem for small businesses is that many do not feel confident that they are compliant owing to confusion about what is absolutely necessary, and so feel the need to gold-plate the law to protect them”.
Examples of such gold-plating, according to a recent Better Regulation Executive survey, include a hairdresser unnecessarily paying £1,000 a year for portable electrical appliance testing, a micro-business paying £3,800 for a specialist health and safety consultant to do its basic risk assessment, and an electrical contractor paying £1,000 a month to a health and safety adviser. The impact therefore falls disproportionately on smaller businesses, often run by owner-managers who have less time and resources. This impact is significant for growth because such micro-businesses with fewer than 10 employees account for 96% of UK businesses and around 7 million jobs.
Some noble Lords have suggested that we should not introduce legislation merely to tackle a perception—a matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Browne—but, as I have explained, the perception causes real problems which we believe require positive action. Clause 62 is one of a range of government reforms to tackle this perception of a compensation culture and to restore a common-sense approach to health and safety.
Amending the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act so that it will be possible to bring claims only for negligence is designed to ensure that responsible employers who have taken all reasonable steps to protect their employees will not be held liable to pay compensation for an accident that they could not reasonably have done anything about. Claims are a burden on employers not just because of the financial costs but due to the time and resources required to deal with them and, importantly, their negative impact on the wider reputation of a business.
This measure will not lower standards. Let me be clear: every death and serious injury at work is a tragedy for the individual, their family and friends. Happily, our record in the UK is a good one. In the 10 years from 2000 to 2010, the rate of fatal injuries fell by 38% and major injuries by an estimated 22%, and our overall performance is better than that of many other European countries. However, there is no room for complacency and we are committed to continuing to improve health and safety standards.
The Government do not accept the argument that this measure sends the wrong signal about the importance of complying with health and safety legislation; in fact, quite the opposite. This is about giving employers the reassurance to focus their attention on the things that have a real practical effect on controlling risks. In Grand Committee and again today, concerns have been expressed that this change represents a backward step by placing the burden of proof on employees and will make cases more difficult and costly to prove—the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, emphasised her views on this.
To be clear, the fact that someone has been injured at work does not and should not mean they are automatically entitled to compensation. Many health and safety duties require the injured employee to show fault on the part of their employer. Currently, claimants do not recover compensation in about 30% of claims. The cases that will be most significantly affected by this change are those which would have previously relied on an absolute or strict statutory duty, a point raised by some noble Lords today. In claims for negligence, the claimant will have to show that the employer failed to take reasonable steps to avoid reasonably foreseeable risks to their health and safety, which led to the injury.
However, unlike in the days before the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act, there is now a codified framework for health and safety at work and a great deal of evidence and guidance in the public domain about hazards in the workplace. Employers are expected to take account of this in carrying out their risk assessments, and this body of information will form an important part of the evidence in this aspect of a claim. This means that injured employees are in a very different and much better position to obtain information about their employer’s actions than they were when the right to sue for breach of statutory duty was first established in the 19th century. I hope that this answers the question raised by my noble friend Lord Phillips in this respect.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, both raised the important point of whether the provision covers fatal and serious injury. The Health and Safety Executive will continue to investigate fatal and serious injuries. The existing statutory requirements will still be relevant as evidence in claims for negligence to help determine whether the employer’s approach was reasonable. The Health and Safety Executive will also continue to take a range of enforcement action in accordance with its enforcement policy statement, including serving notices of contravention and prosecution against employers who seriously breach the requirements of the criminal law.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, the Minister twice said that where companies had done nothing wrong, they could still be caught and made liable under the absolute liabilities of health and safety legislation. Surely, if it is indeed the case that the legislation is so drafted that a company that had done nothing wrong is liable, the answer is to introduce a qualification to that legislation, along the lines mentioned by, among others, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, so that the situation does not recur. Would that not be a better way of proceeding, as Professor Löfstedt suggests and as the panel would enable, than to take a step into the deep unknown, with consequences that many of us fear?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I thank my noble friend for that point, which is simply noted. It does not change the views that I have expressed about where we are with the clause, but it was valuable to hear what he had to say.
Lord Hardie
Before the noble Viscount sits down, may I clarify what is being offered? I hope that I have not misunderstood him, but he seemed to suggest that noble Lords would go through all the regulations and identify which ones should include a right of action, then come to the Government and persuade them? Is that what is envisaged, or will the Government undertake the review of existing regulations to decide which should include the right of action?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
All I am saying at this stage is that we are open to ideas so we can hear where further exclusions, above and beyond pregnant workers, might appear.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I am bound to say that I found the Minister’s response profoundly disappointing. It was his noble friend Lord Razzall who said that it was a mistake to introduce laws without extensive consultation and who urged the Minister to find a balance. Indeed, the same point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. Yet I do not see any balance in the Minister’s response.
With this power to make exceptions, the Minister is asking us to do the job of the Government. Frankly, that is not the way round that it should be. The Minister always goes back to focusing on strict liability and extrapolates what is perceived to be the issue around that to all other circumstances where people might be injured at work, then causes there to be a restriction on their ability to get justice.
There seems to be an incredible disconnect between an analysis of the health and safety system and the extent to which there is overcompliance with it, with the solution being to restrict the right of people to claim justice when they are injured at work. For a long time there has been a problem of overcompliance, and now there is undercompliance with the health and safety system as well. That is why, as I know, the HSE is engaged in improving guidance, not helped by the Government having restricted proactive inspections so that inspectors can no longer go out and visit as many premises as they did in the past. There is a huge disconnect there, which does not seem to have any justification.
We have had a very impressive array of contributions to this debate today, from very experienced legal minds, all of whom, with the exception of the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, argued in one direction. I would say to the noble Earl, who mentioned agriculture, that this industry is proportionately the most dangerous in the country. There are more fatalities in agriculture than in any other industry. It is absolutely right that there should be a concentration of health and safety regulations in those circumstances.
The Earl of Erroll
I am not arguing that one should not have health and safety regulations and that one should not do one’s best. However, it is just wrong when someone has done everything they can but something is done behind their back that they have no knowledge of or power over and they are made liable and possibly locked up. I object to the strict liability part.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
The noble Earl, like the Minister, has effectively conflated issues around strict liability with the overwhelming number of regulations where it is “so far as reasonably practical” that applies. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, went through this in some detail. My noble friend Lady Turner was very clear that this clause had to go in its entirety, and on the basis of what we have heard today that is absolutely the right way forward. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, said that this clause was turning back the clock to Victorian times, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, corrected me to say that it is not just a century that it goes back, but further than that. It has been a settled position and the Government seek to unsettle it, all because of perceptions.
We know that the data show that there is not a compensation culture. There has not been an increase in the number of claims for compensation. The Government’s own statistics show that, and their own impact assessment shows that there are a small number of cases that proceed via the strict liability route, as opposed to the generality that go down an alternative route. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, asked, “Which are the undeserving claims at the moment? Which sort of claims proceed at present that will be restricted by the Government’s change, and why is that?” We heard no answer from the Government.
The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said that the change in the process to prove negligence would be expensive and bring uncertainty and delays to the process—a point reiterated by my noble friend Lord Browne. We heard a very powerful treatise from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, about why it would be wrong to disturb the current positions, and I entirely agree with that.
Basing these things on perception seems a very flimsy structure on which to make such a fundamental change to the law. We have a number of propositions before us. I believe that the first and the third amendments in the group have the same effect, which is to delete the clause, and I certainly wish to test the opinion of the House on that proposition.
“Letting agents etc.
(1) Section 1 of the Estate Agents Act 1979 (estate agency work) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) for the words “to which this Act applies” substitute “and in subsection (1A) below to which this Act applies.
(1A) This Act also applies, subject to subsections (2) to (4) below, to—
(a) things done by any person in the course of a business (including a business in which he is employed) pursuant to instructions received from another person (in this section referred to as “the client”) who wishes to let or have the letting of an interest in land managed (for example, the collection of rents on his behalf)—(i) for the purpose of, or with a view to, effecting the introduction to the client of a third person who wishes to let an interest in land; or(ii) after such introduction has been effected in the course of that business, for the purpose of securing the letting of the interest in land; or(iii) for the purpose of, or with a view to, managing the letting of the interest in land on behalf of the client; or(iv) for the purpose of, or with a view to, block management of interests in land; and(b) management activities undertaken by any person in the course of a business (including a business in which he is employed) in connection with land or interests in land.””
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, this simple amendment in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, would make letting and block managing agents have to belong to a redress scheme. Estate agents must belong to a redress—that is, an ombudsman—scheme. That is good for users, having an independent arbitrator to sort out disputes. Also, if an estate agent repeatedly cheats consumers, or does so particularly badly, it can then be banned by the OFT. However, letting agents, which handle client money and have slightly younger, poorer and less confident users, are completely unregulated. This means that an estate agent banned by the OFT can reopen the next day as a letting agent. Neither the landlord nor a tenant can take a complaint about a letting agent to an ombudsman, unless that particular agent chooses to join.
There are 4.5 million people who rent privately, two-thirds through letting agents. Given that tenants move quite often, they resort to letting agents with some frequency. Half of them stay in their property for less than two years, as opposed to 6% of owner-occupiers. There are, I fear, a lot of bad—indeed, some very dubious —letting agents. Just today, we have had a major ASA ruling against a letting agent who was breaking the ASA code by not disclosing compulsory charges.
Lord Sharkey
My Lords, when we discussed this issue in Committee the Government gave four reasons for rejecting the proposal made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter. These reasons were as follows. First, bringing letting agents under regulation would increase costs for consumers and reduce the choice and availability of accommodation on offer to tenants. Secondly, letting agents are already subject to consumer protection legislation. Thirdly, consumers who are charged unreasonable fees can seek help from trading standards officers. Fourthly, around half of all agents belong to a voluntary scheme that sets standards and offers redress. None of these reasons stands up well to any kind of examination. The fact that half of all agents belong to a voluntary scheme is not a reason for failing to address the fact that half do not.
The fact that consumers who are charged unreasonable fees can seek help from trading standards officers is one of those facts that are true in theory but of no help in practice. Even if consumers knew about this recourse—and I am sure that they do not—it is well known that trading standards officers are overstretched and underresourced. This is an illusory comfort to ripped-off or abused consumers. That letting agents are already subject to consumer protection is another true, but comfortless, fact that relies, again, on action by trading standards officers—action that is unlikely to bring significant relief, if any at all.
However, the first reason the Minister gave in Committee for rejecting the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, is the one on which the Government seemed then to rely most, and which at first glance appeared to have some merit—that is, that the amendment before us again would increase costs to consumers and reduce the choice and availability of accommodation on offer to tenants. This argument was challenged by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and the Minister subsequently wrote to the noble Lord to set out the evidence—or, rather, grounds—for this argument.
These grounds amounted to an estimate, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, has already mentioned, of an additional annual cost to a letting agent of around £800. It is very hard to see that an additional cost of £800 would drive any letting agent out of business. The Government have produced no evidence of their assertion that it might do so. Even if it did—which is not only unproven but unlikely to be provable—it does not follow that rental properties would be taken off the market or that costs would be passed directly on to the tenant. The Government have produced no evidence to show that letting agents who are members of the voluntary scheme charge more than those who are not. In many cases, the reverse is likely to be the case.
Even if all the Government’s assertions in this area were true and evidenced, their position would amount to saying that they were content to have serious abuses in the marketplace because the abusers could not afford to pay to become non-abusers. This is not an attractive or coherent proposition and it is especially unattractive when one considers the analysis of cost benefit produced by RICS, among others, which gave evidence of a beneficial financial outcome for implementing the proposals. All in all, and exactly as in Committee, it is hard to understand why on earth the Government have opposed this measure. It stops significant abuse, it is easy to do, it has almost universal industry support and it has long-term financial benefits.
I strongly support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and very much hope that the Government will be able to give it the sympathetic consideration it deserves.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, on her determination to pursue these important changes and am delighted to have added my name to the amendment.
The proposals provide for basic consumer protection measures for the lettings market, already governing estate agents. These days, many property businesses operate both as estate agents and letting agents. The divide between the two is, in many ways, artificial. We have, at present, the ludicrous situation whereby a member of the public who walks through the door of such a business wishing to buy a house will have access to accountability if they suffer poor practice. However, if they rent a house from the same business they will not. There is access to independent redress and client money protection for those buying a house but not for those renting one. This is quite illogical and is untenable at a time when more and more young families with children are renting privately, most of them through a letting agent. We cannot have letting agents leaving boilers unfixed, properties in a state of disrepair or running off with people’s money and facing no repercussions. When people do not get the service they pay for there should be consequences for the businesses involved. That is a simple consumer right. This is not an issue of party politics but of basic common sense, which is why this amendment enjoys cross-party support, as was clear in Grand Committee.
Letting agents themselves are asking Government for the measures that this amendment provides for. They know that much of the estimated 40% of the market that operates outside existing voluntary registration schemes is damaging the reputation of the entire profession. A survey by Shelter showed that only 20% of renters trust their letting agent, with 84% disagreeing that letting agents work in the interests of their tenants. It is vital for everybody—tenants, letting agents and landlords alike—that standards are raised. I have yet to hear a convincing argument against these proposals. The Government have claimed that requiring letting agents to meet certain professional standards will push up costs. However, research by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors shows that this is not true. While there is a one-off cost, that figure is quickly recouped and there is a net benefit to the economy from these changes of £21 million over 10 years.
Lord Borrie
The noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, has indicated that at the present time there is an increasing desire, among young people particularly, to rent rather than buy. When I say “desire”, it is of course a desire that is impelled upon them because of the difficulty of getting mortgages and actually purchasing a house. Whatever the reason, they are having to rent rather than buy.
As so many noble Lords said in Grand Committee, which, unfortunately, I was unable to attend, there is a very strong argument that letting agents and management agents employed by landlords to look after their property should be covered by the Estate Agents Act 1979 and by an ombudsman scheme, as estate agents have been for some time. In Grand Committee, my Front Bench spokesman, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, made a powerful speech, as she has today, in favour of extending the power of the Office of Fair Trading to ban estate agents for misconduct to those who engage in the letting and the management of property and to make available an ombudsman scheme for complaints. In Grand Committee she put forward a number of very strong arguments—for example, the size of the market, running to a couple of million letting and management agents. On the number of complaints, she quoted from the Property Ombudsman, for whose council I had the honour to serve as chairman a few years ago. It has shown how the number of complaints has increased. All of the speakers so far in this debate today have mentioned that almost all British Property Federation bodies connected with this field are in favour of the scheme being proposed in this amendment.
The ombudsman scheme is very familiar to us now in all sorts of private industries, as it was already in public concerns—for example, the Parliamentary Ombudsman, which in 1967 started the ball rolling in this country, and the Local Government Ombudsman. I found very puzzling the response of the noble Viscount the Minister in Grand Committee when he said that there would be a reduction in choice if the amendment were carried. When government departments were made subject to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, individual departments were not given the choice as to whether they should be subject to the Parliamentary Ombudsman; they are all subject to it. As new departments and, indeed, quasi-departments, if I may put it that way, have come into being, they, too, have been particularly mentioned as being subject to the Parliamentary Commissioner or Parliamentary Ombudsman.
I thought that the Minister’s answers, as I understood them, were quite inadequate. They seemed to bring in the subject of competition. I am all in favour of competition, and part of this Bill is concerned with improving competition. Competition and choice are very important. Nevertheless, where does the benefit to the consumer come to choose between estate agents, estate management or letting agents, or whatever, which belong to an ombudsman scheme and those which do not? If there is a choice, surely no sensible consumer would wish to go to somebody who does not belong. It seems to me that a mandatory scheme is most desirable in this field.
Finally, I mention in passing the banning of estate agents when they engage in misconduct. This dates, as we all know, from the Estate Agents Act 1979. The Office of Fair Trading has probably not used it as much as it might to deal with bad estate agents. In my day at the Office of Fair Trading we tended to ban only estate agents who were in prison. In other words, they were imprisoned for fraudulent activities and we received evidence that they were coming out of prison shortly. We decided that they must not come out and engage in estate agency so we would ban them. There are not that many estate agents who have been banned who were not at the time in jail.
It is a pity if the Office of Fair Trading has, whether under my guidance or later, not been a little bolder, but it needs adequate evidence of course. Whatever it is, surely letting and management agents should be subject to the same rules.
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Amendment 82 is in this group. I apologise to the House for not being able to raise these matters in Committee due to my engagements in other proceedings.
I want to make it clear that I am not criticising in any way the actions of any particular property auction company in the United Kingdom. I also want to make it clear that my amendment is not lobby-driven: it is based on my own experience at property auctions.
Whereas most people’s measure of confidence in the national economy is based on news reports, share prices, unemployment and growth statistics, surveys of business confidence and a number of general indicators, my personal approach has been to measure confidence in what happens in the property market and, in particular, in property auctions. For almost every year over the past 20 years, I have watched the movement in regional property prices in London auction rooms, which I have attended—never as a vendor, never as a purchaser, but only as an observer. In my view, regional price movements excluding London are a real-world barometer of confidence in the economy.
However, there is one particular practice in the management of bidding processes that concerns me. I know that it causes a lot of upset among inexperienced bidders and particularly for young people buying their first home. Catalogues invariably show a guide price against the property description and lot number. I have a catalogue in my hand that shows the lot number of a property in Birmingham and the guide price.
As Barnard Marcus, a reputable company, says in its catalogue:
“The Guide Prices listed must not be relied upon by prospective purchasers as a valuation or assessment of value of the properties. They are intended to provide purchasers with an indication of the region at which the reserve may be set at the time of going to press”—
with the catalogue.
“Guide prices may be subject to variation … Prospective purchasers should be aware that eventual sale prices may be above or below guide levels dependent on the competition”.
That is the background against which people often judge whether they intend to attend an public auction.
Noble Lords should remember that I said,
“the eventual sale price may be above or below guide levels dependent on the competition”.
With that in mind, bidders often take time off work and travel great distances to attend property auctions. But what happens when they arrive and bid often comes as a shock. They presume, as per the quote that I read out from the Barnard Marcus catalogue, that the guide is an indication of the reserve. That is often not the case. The reserve is often substantially higher. The bidders are unaware that the guide is no guide at all as the reserve is not known to the bidder. As Countrywide Property Auctions states in its catalogue under the heading “Reserve Price”:
“Each property will be sold subject to a reserve price. This is a confidential figure agreed between the Auctioneer and the seller prior to auction and is a figure below which the Auctioneer cannot sell the property”.
In other words, the reserve price is unknown to the bidder.
What the bidder is witnessing is effectively a trade misdescription. The guide is no guide at all. Bidders are being attracted to property auctions on the basis of a guide that may or may not be exceeded dependent on bids received—the competition referred to in the Barnard Marcus quote. But the property is being sold on the basis of a reserve price known only to the auctioneer and unknown to the bidder.
Let us take an example. Property A has a guide price of £100,000. Bids received are £95,000, £100,000, £105,000, £110,000 and £115,000. The bidding stops at £115,000, £15,000 above the guide, at which point the auctioneer abruptly intervenes with the statement: “I am sorry but the property is withdrawn under instructions from the vendor because the reserve has not been met”. That reserve is £15,000 above the guide price.
Baroness Brinton
My Lords, I spoke on this in Grand Committee and I do not want to repeat either the points I made then or the many comments that have been made by noble Lords this afternoon. I want to make two or three additional points.
I have noticed in my home town of Watford a proliferation of letting agents, a constant change in their brand and marketing or moving address. Certainly, for the tenant, there is no clarity in the difference between an estate agent and a letting agent. The Government have argued that accepting this amendment complicates the landscape in this area. I think the exact opposite is true. I have two examples of tenants suffering problems with letting agents and one of landlords.
A typical prospective tenant might be a single mum who has found her way back into work. I happen to have a friend who was in this situation last year. The letting agency decided that it was going to demand of all single mothers with children, regardless of whether they had work and were able to show they had continuous employment, four months’ rent and, in addition, a guarantee from a male whose work they also wanted guaranteed. These are most extraordinary conditions.
One of the major problems is that many people who are desperately seeking rented accommodation would not know where to go. If you are struggling to find accommodation in your home town, to be able to go to Citizens Advice means that in reality you will lose the property. Certainly, in the south-east, lower cost rented property is at an absolute premium. This sort of behaviour, when there is no ombudsman and no code of conduct, is very difficult to police. I only know about this because of a personal contact.
More familiar to your Lordships’ House will be the example of students in a university town trying to find accommodation. If they have been lucky enough to have a year in halls, they often end up trying to find accommodation elsewhere. One of my children’s universities used to say: “Please find your accommodation through the university accommodation syndicate. If you go outside, we cannot guarantee that you will not be ripped off by letting agents. In particular, many letting agents have a reputation for finding every reason under the sun not to return your deposit”. The fact that you have to warn students of this before they have even entered into a contract tells me that there is something wrong with the letting agency business.
Many landlords pay extra money for their agent to manage the day-to-day business, perhaps if they are away. I have had, again, anecdotal evidence from two landlords who have been away from their town—which is why they pay the extra percentage charge—and discovered the letting agent ringing them to ask them to clean the house between lets and to arrange for the plumber to call and all the other things that they had thought were included in the extra percentage charge that they were paying. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, referred to the Liberal Democrat paper that was passed by conference, Decent Homes for All, and my honourable friend Annette Brooke MP has also been fighting with EDMs and other comments in another place on this important issue. My party certainly believes that we need to regulate the letting area.
I will add one final point. The coalition agreement, rightly, seeks to reduce red tape. Not accepting this amendment allows the continuation of a red tape for a consumer and a tenant, simply because, at the moment, a tenant has to understand the difference between being with an estate agent and a letting agent and to understand that if they are with an unlicensed letting agent, instead of going to the ombudsman and taking redress through the code of practice, they may have to go Citizens Advice, a small claims court or trading standards. My 19 year-old son in his first foray at university would not have known where to start with that. If we can do what his university rightly tries to do in guiding the students and say, “You need to be assured that the people you are dealing with actually follow a code of conduct and there is an ombudsman to whom you can turn”, then we would have a much simpler system, which is free of red tape.
I am very grateful to the Minister for the meetings that have been held over the past few days and hope that we will be able to hear some progress when he informs the House of any further consideration.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, will forgive me if I do not follow him in his very interesting description of what may happen in auctions, but I look forward to hearing the reply from my noble friend on the Front Bench.
Coming back to the amendment that was moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, I will just raise one or two points. Members of my family have been both lessors and tenants in the present market and, apart from one case, have on the whole had good experiences. I was approached by the Association of Residential Letting Agents, ARLA, and have been quite impressed by what it has told me. Its primary function, as it puts it, is to professionalise the profession and to make sure that it has high standards and that those who enter the profession understand what the standards should be. It operates a voluntary scheme of registration and its anxiety is that a number of letting agents do not register for whatever reason, one of which may be that they do not want to comply with the standards.
Can my noble friend refer to one particular point when he replies? The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, reminded us that, in opposition, my honourable friend Mark Prisk moved very similar amendments to legislation before the House produced by the then Government. In the debate in Grand Committee on 16 January—I apologise, again, that I was not able to be there—after referring to the speech that I have read from my noble friend Lord Deben, who gave the clear impression that he supported the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, my noble friend Lord Younger said:
“I note and respect the intervention of my noble friend Lord Deben in this respect as well. I know that the Housing Minister is aware of these concerns but I will raise them with him for further consideration. It is clear from the speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, that he—Mark Prisk, my honourable friend in another place—is aware of the issues that she has mentioned”.—[Official Report, 16/1/13; col. GC 250]
At this stage, all I need to ask is whether my noble friend Lord Younger approached Mark Prisk and what his response was. What was his reaction when reminded that he had in fact moved a very similar amendment himself when in opposition?
One is tempted to say, “Let us return this clause, with this amendment, to another place so that my honourable friend Mark Prisk may have an opportunity to say why he has changed his mind”. I am not sure that that would necessarily be the right thing to do but I will be impressed and influenced by the answer that my noble friend on the Front Bench gives me to this point. I find it difficult to accept that you can hold one very clear opinion in opposition and then find yourself responsible in the same field and hold a completely different one. It is often, as my noble friend Lord Deben said quite firmly in Committee, because it is a departmental attitude, which in this case may stem from the Treasury. As a former Treasury Minister, all I can say is that I understand that does in fact happen from time to time. However, whatever the reason, it does not seem to be a very satisfactory position and I look forward to hearing my noble friend on the Front Bench explain it.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
I will start at the back and deal first with Amendment 82, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. You might think that auctions are bad here but you should see them in Australia. I bought my flat at auction out there and what they do is start the auction and when they reach a certain point they stop and say, “We’ll have a break”. In the break, they get hold of the vendor and say, “Why don’t you come down on your reserve?”, and get hold of the purchaser and say, “Why don’t you go up on what you are going to buy?”. They might do that two or three times within the auction. Fortunately I had someone helping me, who made clear to the auctioneer that if they went on and broke more than once, we were out. We got the property and I have had it a very long time.
There are good and bad things about auction. I accept the point the noble Lord made about deceiving people about how cheaply they are going to get something, but of course it is unpredictable and properties sometimes really do not sell, while in other cases they do. At least with an auction all the documentation about the property is provided in advance of the auction so people are not kept in the dark the way they are with lettings and by managers. People launch into a property they are going to rent, or buy leasehold, and they find that there are all sorts of hidden clauses that no one ever drew their attention to and that no real documentation is available. It is quite different; each system might have its faults but they are different faults and it is hard to know whether you will ever get them right.
However, I have a certain sympathy with the point the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, made. If you have gone a long way it is very difficult—you have gone to the trouble, you think the place is going to be within your range but it is not. It is really very hard to resolve that one. Do people wake up to the fact that it is just a selling technique, which happens all the time, or are people genuinely taken in by these deliberate ploys? It is complicated but he has got a very interesting point that requires further investigation.
I strongly support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter. Talking about letting agents, I was quite stunned to see on television people letting these sheds in some parts of London. They had no windows or anything in them; a family of 10 living there and sometimes no running water or electric light. It was just unbelievable. The people who were renting them produced leaflets from the agent who was offering them to let. When the BBC—I think it was the BBC although it could have been another broadcaster—went to say to these people, “How could you be letting this when it has no planning permission and does not conform with any health standards of any sort?”, the answer was, “Oh, no, we were never letting it”. Yet they had proof in front of them of the printed leaflet about it being available to let from that particular agent. That is the absolute bottom of the scale but between that and the really desirable letting agent, there are all sorts of gradients.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
My Lords, Amendment 82, spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, concerns sales of property through auctions. I shall turn to that shortly. Amendment 81A and the next group of amendments are aimed at two different types of activity. One is the letting and management of privately rented homes. The other is the management of residential leasehold properties. It is important to make that distinction because, while some agents engage in both these activities, they are different activities, with different clients, contractual relationships and issues. However, a number of the amendments we are debating cover both sectors, so I shall make some remarks about each sector in turn before turning to the amendments.
The Government are aware of the important and growing role played by private renting and residential leasehold. This is true particularly in London and the south-east, where the pressures of growth in housing demand and the challenges of increasing supply are intense. There are now around 3.8 million privately rented and 3 million leasehold properties across England, with the majority of the latter being flats. Obviously, not everyone living in those millions of properties is happy with their property in every respect, whether because of the costs they face in buying or renting it and then living in it, its condition or the quality of its management. Many of them are content, of course, and find that on balance private renting or leasehold meets their needs.
We have heard a number of contributions today, and previously in Grand Committee, describing unsatisfactory practices by letting agents in the private rented sector. This was highlighted today, notably by the noble Baronesses, Lady Howe and Lady Hayter, among others. Indeed, this sector has had a substantial amount of attention recently in the other place, in the media and in recent reports from Which? magazine, the Office of Fair Trading, the Property Ombudsman and others. The Government have been listening carefully to the views expressed on this subject, and recognise that there are issues. I am pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, acknowledged this and highlighted it today.
While there are many agents who perform a good and honest service for their clients and serve an important role in the private rental market, there are too many agents who are not acting responsibly. My honourable friend in the other place, Mark Prisk, said in a debate in Westminster Hall last week that the Government consider many of the problems to be a consequence of years of undersupply in the housing market. The imbalance between supply and demand has put rents, the quality of accommodation and standards of service under pressure in some areas of the country. That has had consequences for the way lettings agents, as well as landlords, operate.
Expanding the supply of rented homes is therefore at the heart of the Government’s strategy. We want a bigger and better private rented sector. That is why we established a debt guarantee scheme of up to £10 billion to encourage institutional investment and, alongside that, a £200 million Build to Rent fund. Boosting supply is not just about financial support, however. It also means avoiding excessive regulation that can deter investment and stifle supply. Excessive regulation, however well intentioned, can result in precisely the outcomes we want to avoid. That is why we did not proceed with the proposals of the previous Government, such as a national register of landlords and the full statutory regulation of letting agents.
Nonetheless, there is a role for regulation in preserving standards. We have heard a number of people express the view that the lettings market is totally unregulated. That is not in fact the case. There is a substantial body of consumer protection legislation that covers letting agents. The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 protect tenants from letting agents who mislead or engage in aggressive business practices. Similarly, the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 protect tenants from unfair conditions, such as unfair restrictions on the ways in which they can use a property. We know that trading standards bodies use these powers to prosecute lettings agents. Some very substantial fines, and indeed prison sentences, have been handed down to agents who engage in serious misdemeanours, such as misrepresenting their membership of professional bodies, or indeed misappropriating clients’ money.
However, my honourable friend in the other place, Mark Prisk, acknowledged that there is a problem with enforcement, and that action is needed on the less serious cases as well as the most serious ones. He stated his determination in Westminster Hall only last week to encourage national trading standards bodies to ensure that they tackle these issues across the marketplace. I am pleased to reassure my noble friend Lord Jenkin that recently my honourable friend indeed stated his case very clearly. I strongly support making better use of existing regulations before we create new ones.
The noble Baroness, Lady Howe, raised the question of bad letting agents harming the reputation of good ones, which is an extremely fair point. That is why we are clear in government guidance to landlords and tenants that they should ask which bodies letting agents belong to. The more that landlords and tenants ask these questions, the more pressure there will be on all letting agents to join such schemes.
The Office of Fair Trading has just produced its report on the lettings sector. It makes some suggestions for regulatory changes, but it makes other, non-regulatory proposals, too. The Government will study the report carefully, alongside the evidence to the Communities and Local Government Select Committee’s inquiry on the private rented sector. Evidence and recommendations are being presented by bodies with extensive expertise. We owe it to them to study the committee’s recommendations carefully.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, referred to the fact that the OFT called for redress and enforcement. The OFT report on lettings agents recommends that the Government should consider whether it would be beneficial to require agents to sign up to a code of practice or to join a redress scheme. The Government will consider the OFT’s recommendations carefully, but we need to see the recommendation to consider mandatory redress alongside other elements of the OFT’s recommendations, some of which relate to making better use of existing laws and non-regulatory mechanisms.
Turning to residential leasehold, I believe that we have to be realistic and to recognise that living in a property where more than one party has significant financial and other interests, and where common parts of a property need to be maintained, is bound on occasion to lead to concerns and disputes. Although complaints procedures and a range of mediation and ombudsman services are already available—and, where those options fail, a number of legal options that can be pursued—we recognise that not all leaseholders are happy. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, asked why there is no client money protection in residential leasehold, but I reassure her—as she may know—that statutory protection already exists for leasehold service charges, which the law deems to be held in trust.
Our postbags, and those of Members of the other place, sometimes contain letters from leaseholders whose freeholder—or, more often, whose freeholder’s managing agent—is not providing the service they deserve or expect, or is sending increasingly unaffordable bills. We also hear from elderly and sometimes vulnerable people whose freeholder, or their agent, is failing to follow good practice and, in some cases, may even be breaking the law. Where relationships over the management of people’s homes break down and become adversarial, it can lead to real worry and distress and can in some cases, as we know, culminate in cases before tribunals and the courts.
The Government are aware of concerns among some leaseholders about a range of issues such as management standards and consultation, but remain unconvinced of the case for increasing government regulation at this time. Rather than create new leasehold regulation, the Government want, in the main, to see existing rights and protections on the statute book used to best effect. We therefore welcome current moves towards greater self-regulation by professionals in the sector and are interested in ideas for giving these more support and encouragement. The Government are aware that there are failings and even abuses in some parts of both sectors and will continue to address them. We have carefully considered the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and her arguments for regulating letting and management in the private rented and leasehold sectors, and I can assure her that the Government take her concerns very seriously.
The amendment would amend the Estate Agents Act 1979, extending the definition of “estate agency work” to include those involved in letting and managing agency work. This is intended, as we understand it, to give the Office of Fair Trading powers to prevent letting and management agents conducting business and to require agents to have in place redress schemes, client money protection and to meet the other requirements of the Act. While we acknowledge that there are issues that need addressing, we do not believe that the answer is to regulate letting and managing agents in the way that the noble Baroness proposes. The regulatory burden could be substantial, adding to costs borne by landlords and, in turn, tenants.
In his report for the Property Ombudsman, Professor Michael Ball set out a range of costs that this would entail. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and my noble friend Lord Sharkey both brought up the issue of the cost of compliance with a mandatory scheme, and both stated that there would a debit of only some £800. Indeed, there are costs to bear in mind, including of extra staffing and other administrative work, to ensure that the business is run according to the relevant codes of practice. Our own figures suggest that these are on top of costs of perhaps £170 per office per year for redress, £300 for client money protection and £300 or more for professional indemnity insurance.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
Before my noble friend goes on to discuss auctions, will he give some indication of how long it will take for the Government to study the substantial report to which he referred, and how long he thinks it will take for the DCLG Select Committee at the other end to produce its report? I understand both his arguments—there is a substantial report from the OFT and there is also that Select Committee report—but we really do not want to have to wait for ever.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
My noble friend makes a very good point. I can reassure him that the Select Committee report is due out very soon. It is likely to be in May; it may even be as early as April. That is not a guarantee, but I hope that it gives a helpful indication as to what the timing might be.
None the less, I recognise that the issue of a lack of redress is a serious one, and I know that my honourable friend in the other place, the Housing Minister Mark Prisk, considers this a serious issue, too, and is giving it the most serious consideration. We will reflect very carefully on this and other recent debates, and I am sure that the Housing Minister will keep in touch with Peers who have spoken today.
I shall turn as fast as I can to Amendment 82. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, for having brought this issue to my attention and to that of the House. I have considered carefully the amendment and the arguments for introducing it. The Government are of course concerned to hear that buyers may be experiencing difficulties when trying to purchase a property at auction, especially if it involves first-time buyers. I am pleased to say that there is already legislation in place designed to address just this sort of unfair practice. Therefore, new legislation will not change the position regarding consumer protection in such matters. I will explain why.
Under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, auctioneers, like traders in all sectors of the economy, are required in their dealings with consumers to treat them fairly and not mislead them. Under the CPRs, there are also a number of business practices that are considered unfair in all circumstances and are prohibited. When marketing a property, it is prohibited to use bait tactics such as luring bidders to auctions using pricing techniques, which the noble Lord raised as an example. OFT guidance on the CPRs published last September, of which the industry should be fully aware, gives the specific example of guide prices not being distorted to attract potential buyers.
Where traders treat consumers unfairly, they may face criminal or civil enforcement action. Enforcement of the CPRs is by the OFT and local authority trading standards services. We are, of course, in the process of better equipping trading standards to take greater responsibility for consumer law enforcement, and will be transferring central government funding for national leadership and co-ordination of enforcement activity from the OFT to the National Trading Standards Board. In addition, the new Competition and Markets Authority will have consumer enforcement powers to address business practices that distort competition or impact on consumer choice in otherwise competitive markets.
Furthermore, I understand that the industry encourages fair practice in this area and offers guidance and training. For example, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors provides best practice guidance for auctioneers selling real estate. Such guidance addresses price guides and states that these guides must not be misleading, advising that a price guide that is clearly below the figure that the seller will accept is misleading. As best practice it also says that auctioneers should clearly indicate in the catalogue that price guides may be subject to amendment during the period leading up to the day and time of the auction sale.
In the light of the consumer protection legislation already in place, and as we have not seen any evidence on which a change of legislation could be justified, we do not feel the necessity to change legislation in this area. The noble Lord may wish to write to the OFT, providing evidence of the experiences and findings in this matter that are causing him concern. I hope that he is reassured by my answer and that he will therefore not press his amendment. I note that this is a new issue that was not raised in Committee and I acknowledge his apology. However, I believe that he raised some interesting points that we will keep in our sights. I also ask the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, this amendment simply asks that letting agents should have to sign up to a redress scheme. We have checked it with the lawyers, and it does not apply to development land or anything else. If that was the case, and if the noble Lord had said he that accepted the need for redress, that it was just the wording that needed changing and that it was coming back at Third Reading, I would be happy to withdraw. Sadly, that is not what the Government have said.
The unfair trading regulations do not work. You cannot go to trading standards; it does not give redress. The Government have given no answers other than self-regulation or, “Wait for another committee”. Consumers want this; Mark Prisk wanted this in 2007; Lib Dem policy is in favour; landlords and tenants want it; the OFT wants it; and so does the industry, despite the costs. I thank noble Lords who have all spoken in support—there has been nothing but support from all around this House. I believe that, in addition to that list, the House will support the amendment. I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.
“Leasehold Valuation Tribunals: costs
At the end of paragraph 10 (costs) of Schedule 12 to the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 (leasehold valuation tribunals: procedure) insert—“(5) A tenant of residential property shall not be required to pay costs incurred by a landlord or any other party with an interest in that property in connection with proceedings before a leasehold valuation tribunal except when their lease specifically permits such costs to be included as a legitimate management charge.””
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
My Lords, I shall speak to the group of amendments in my name, so that we do not have to keep coming back on different items. I have been asked to put them all together. I will start with Amendment 81F because that is the most important of them all. That has come about because of the court decision recently in the Phillips and Goddard v Francis case that any amount of work to be done per flat worth more than £250 in a year would require consultation. If, for example, it was a block of 10 flats and you had spent £2,500, after that, for everything, even if it was for £1, £10, or whatever, you would have to implement a consultation process.
In their answers tonight, the Government have told us that the one thing that they want to avoid is lots more paper, cost, expense and consultation. That is exactly what the amendment is designed to achieve. The Public Bill Office has now gone online and worked out that the sum of £250 should in today’s prices be £330, so that is why there is a difference in the figures. We have gone through it carefully, and we think that certain things are particularly important or desperate, such as fire provisions, safety provisions and—one of which I have had personal experience—when the front door of a block of flats is damaged. What would happen if you had to wait for about two months to get consent for you to put on a new front door lock, although it was so urgent?
We do not wish to change the law at all. We wish to clarify the law as it is to make clear that the £250 is not an annual figure but a per item or per effective work figure. That amendment is straightforward and the Government should certainly consider it. I have heard them tonight and 50 million other times say that they want to reduce costs, difficulties and expenses. This is the opportunity to do it. Otherwise, every tenant will be burdened with so many consultation documents that they will get to a point where they barely look at the really important, serious one because they say, “Oh, that’s another one from the agent and it is all out of my pocket”. Amendment 81F is really simple.
Amendment 81B concerns leasehold valuation tribunal costs. I tabled the amendment because when I asked about the cost of leasehold valuation tribunals, which, at the moment, are limited to £500 for any applicant, I found that the practice, which is quite wrong, has arisen where the landlord, head lessee, or whoever is at the next stage above the leaseholder, is bringing in more and more expensive legal brains against the ordinary applicant. The worst thing about that is that, win or lose, the amount paid for that extremely major legal defence is charged back to the residents in the leasehold flats as a management expense. That was never the way that leasehold valuation was envisaged. In 1996, I was very involved when we passed the legislation. Those things were specifically against what we wanted. We wanted it to be approachable for anyone at £500. I received a letter from the noble Lord, Lord McNally, from which I understand that later in the year it will be swallowed up into a major tribunals review and the figure of £500 will probably rise. However, that is different from where the unlimited cost is being charged back to the leaseholders. That is the reason for that amendment.
Amendment 81C concerns a redress scheme. As we pretty well won the redress scheme with the previous amendment, which has just been passed, I do not think it is so important any more. However, when we had a round-table meeting at the department of all the interested people, they all said, from the most extravagant people down to the most careful, that the one thing that could save time, trouble, expense and simplify life for everyone would be a redress scheme. Therefore, no matter what happens with the previous amendment, I am hoping that at Third Reading the Government might bring forward some wording on a simple redress scheme.
That takes me on to Amendment 81D and protection schemes for service charge money. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, mentioned that university students had a problem regarding their deposits and so on for the premises they were letting. I pay full tribute to the Labour Government who as a response to that introduced protection for tenancy deposits. Tenancy deposits are well-protected now. No longer can an avaricious landlord grab every penny of your deposit money. Even if you are just an ordinary individual, letting property without an agent or anything like that, you have to place the deposit in a secure government scheme, which is very good and desirable. However, why is the same amount of protection not given to people who pay service charges, which are probably very much larger amounts?
Amendment 81E concerns the redress scheme. If I am satisfied with how the previous amendment, which has just been passed, is interpreted, I will not bring it back at Third Reading. However, if I find there is something that really could be clearer or better, I might bring it back. I beg to move.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, not surprisingly we support these amendments. I have been working with ARMA on trying to get some of this done. There will be a voluntary scheme, but only the good ones will join. The advantage of these amendments is that they will make sure that everyone, not only the good, will have to meet those standards.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Gardner for the thought and effort that she has put into the preparation of the five amendments we are now considering. Her ideas and broad experience of the housing sector are an invaluable resource to this House. Her amendments, like those of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, address the private rented and residential leasehold sectors. I will not repeat what I have already said about those areas.
I have carefully considered my noble friend’s Amendment 81B on the ability of freeholders to recover their legal costs from leaseholders and I take her concerns very seriously. This amendment aims to limit the circumstances in which costs of proceedings incurred by a landlord or other party with an interest in the property at a leasehold valuation tribunal could be charged back to leaseholders. I should point out that where a freeholder is able to recover costs in connection with proceedings from the leaseholders, this is contractual matter between them and will be set out in the lease. I am aware that leaseholders are increasingly concerned about the recovery of such costs as administration charges where the lease permits this and I understand that my honourable friend Mark Prisk is thinking about this issue. I am concerned that my noble friend’s amendment would not achieve her goals and would not in fact provide any greater protection for leaseholders than already exists.
I know that my noble friend, as she said, recently took part in a high-level round-table discussion on residential leasehold issues. I understand that a number of practical ideas for improving awareness of leaseholders’ rights emerged from that event and that the Department for Communities and Local Government is committed to working with the Ministry of Justice and others to take those ideas forward. The issue of recovery of legal costs as an administration charge, rather than a service charge, requires detailed consideration. For this reason, I believe that the current Bill is not the best place to consider this complex issue.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
My Lords, I listened to the explanations from the Minister, some of which are quite unsatisfactory. For example, he says that what people are really concerned about is the level of service charges and that we want to keep those down, and so on. We all understand that. But he then rejects Amendment 81F, which is so important and would clarify exactly what you can and cannot do in a block with or without permission and would tremendously reduce the paperwork and red tape, with its terrible waste of time and money, on the ground that it is perhaps too cheap and saves too much. I do not know on what ground he is rejecting it but I do not accept that it is fair to reject it.
The Minister says that they will look into it over the coming months, but the coming months are too long. Even this Bill is going to take quite some time before it goes through. The thought of having extra “coming months” on top of that is just too much, so I do not really accept his arguments. As I said, if the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, covers a redress scheme that is mandatory for everyone, and if they would have to belong whether they are managing agents or whoever, then I am satisfied with that. I would not then want to pursue it further myself because if we have put a good scheme through, that might be the thing to run with and it would not need amplification.
If, on the other hand, after studying the noble Baroness’s amendment, to see what it means and whether there are any loopholes in it, I think there is still a need for clarification on redress I would want to come back on that. In no way could I say that I have forgotten this matter. I warn the Minister to expect me to return at Third Reading, by which time I hope we will be a bit clearer on exactly what is good and bad in what we have decided tonight. Fortunately, there is the opportunity to return at Third Reading. I reserve my right to do that because nothing has been said today that really satisfies me completely on those amendments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Abolition of Agricultural Wages Board and related English bodies
(1) The Agricultural Wages Board for England and Wales is abolished.
(2) Every agricultural wages committee for an area in England is abolished.
(3) Every agricultural dwelling-house advisory committee for an area in England is abolished.
(4) Schedule (Abolition of Agricultural Wages Board and related English bodies: consequential provision) (abolition of Agricultural Wages Board and related English bodies: consequential provision) has effect.”
Viscount Younger of Leckie
My Lords, these amendments will simplify employment legislation for around 40,000 farm businesses in England and Wales. They will ensure the same levels of employment protection for agricultural workers as for workers in all other sectors of the economy. They will also abolish 31 public bodies whose functions are now used infrequently or have simply fallen into disuse. This is an important reform, which will contribute to the Government’s key objective of encouraging economic growth as well as the programme of reducing the number of public bodies. We brought these provisions forward in Grand Committee but they were not accepted. We believe that the case for them is very strong and therefore we have reintroduced them.
The agricultural wages committees were set up in their current form nearly 65 years ago, just after the Second World War, although their origins go back even further. The Agricultural Wages Board is now the only remaining sector wage council; the 26 others were abolished 20 years ago, in 1993. Agricultural workers represent 0.5% of the total workforce. There is no reason why they should be treated differently from the other 99.5% of workers, who are all protected by the national minimum wage and other statutory employment provisions.
Agriculture today is very different from 65 years ago. It is a now a global, international business. Farmers compete against not just each other but farmers overseas to sell both here and in international markets. Technological developments and increased mechanisation mean that workers need to be highly skilled and qualified to operate complex machinery, and to be able to keep up to date with modern animal husbandry methods. The industry is also becoming increasingly diverse, particularly as businesses move away from mixed farming to specialise in specific sectors. Around a quarter of farms now also operate non-agricultural businesses; for example, a farm shop or bed and breakfast. This means that many farm businesses have to employ workers under both the agricultural minimum wage and the national minimum wage regimes. They therefore have to comply with two sets of employment legislation, which is an unnecessary cost to farm businesses in both time and resources.
Even within what are traditionally regarded as agricultural activities, there are grey areas where a farm business has to determine whether employees are employed in agriculture and entitled to the agricultural wages order terms and conditions as opposed to general employment terms. For example, livestock and poultry rearing would normally be considered agricultural activities and covered by the agricultural wages order, but this is not necessarily the case for on-farm slaughtering operations. Similarly, where there is a farm packing business, packing of produce grown on the farm would normally be covered by the agricultural wages order, whereas packing of bought-in produce is not.
The abolition of the agricultural minimum wage will remove the need for farm businesses to operate two employment regimes and end the confusion of whether activities fall within the national minimum wage regime or the agricultural minimum wage regime. It is widely accepted that the legislation which underpins the Agricultural Wages Board is outdated and hampers the ability of the industry to offer more modern, flexible employment packages. For example, it effectively dissuades employers from offering the payment of annual salaries, which is disadvantageous for workers as it hinders long-term financial planning—and thereby better security for farm workers and their families.
The abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board and the agricultural minimum wage regime will allow farmers to agree terms and conditions that take account of the requirements of the farming sector and suit the particular circumstances of both employers and workers. It will make it easier for employers to offer opportunities for workers to work the same number of weekly hours, but over a compressed period. This could be beneficial for businesses, who may want to provide for longer shifts, and for workers with family and domestic responsibilities.
Abolition will enable farm businesses to compete for workers on a level playing field with other local employers. It should encourage longer-term and more permanent employment of farm workers, which will boost growth and have wider benefits. For the avoidance of doubt, research suggests that there will continue to be considerable demand for farm workers in the years ahead, which will mean that employers will need to offer competitive pay rates to attract new workers. A majority of workers already receive terms and conditions above the agricultural minimum wage rates, and as contracts are already in place their wages should not be affected if the board were abolished.
The underlying market conditions suggest that there will be a sustained demand for agricultural workers. The 2011 survey from the UK Commission for Employment and Skills indicates a shortage of workers with relevant skills within the agricultural sector, and that this shortage is higher than comparable shortages in other areas of the economy. The agricultural workforce is also ageing: 55% of the sector’s workforce is aged over 45, which again is higher than in other sectors of the economy. These factors mean that we can expect demand for both workers and skills in the sector to increase over the next 10 years and beyond, which means that market drivers will ensure that wages remain competitive. Farm businesses will be wise and prudent to provide career and development opportunities to encourage workers into agriculture and offer attractive terms and conditions to retain them.
It is also important to remember that agricultural workers who have contractual rights reflecting the terms of the agricultural wages order at the time of the board’s abolition will retain those rights until either their employment contract is varied by agreement or their employment comes to an end. New workers coming into the industry or workers who negotiate a new contract will have the same level of employment protection as workers in all other sectors of the economy. Furthermore, agricultural workers who are supplied by a labour provider and who may be at the lower end of the wage scale will continue to have the added protection of the gangmaster licensing legislation.
Turning to the 15 agricultural wages committees in England, most of their functions have now lapsed in practice or have been replaced by wider legislation. Their only remaining active function is to appoint members of the 16 agricultural dwelling house advisory committees in England—or, as they are more generally called, ADHACs.
Lord Whitty
“(1) Every agricultural wages committee for an area in England is abolished.
(2) Every agricultural dwelling-house advisory committee for an area in England is abolished and the services formerly provided by such a committee shall instead be provided by the Agricultural Wages Board for England and Wales.
(3) Without prejudice to section 3 of the Agricultural Wages Act 1948, any minimum rate of pay contained, or to be contained, in an Order of the Agricultural Wages Board may, where the Agricultural Wages Board considers it convenient to do so, be fixed by reference to any periods during the currency of employment.”
Lord Whitty
My Lords, my name is on this, as are the names of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford and the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington. I regret to inform the House that the noble Baroness has suffered a fall and will not be with us tonight. I understand that there was no government Whip close to the incident so I am sure that we can pass unanimously our best wishes to the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, and wish her a speedy return.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, what the Minister failed to mention is that the Government’s own best estimate, in the only document that they have produced on the effect of abolishing the Agricultural Wages Board, will be a direct cut of £240 million from the income of rural workers.
Our amendments would do some of the things that the Government are after: they would abolish the 31 bodies; they would allow for simplification and modernisation to the wages order; but, crucially, Amendment 83A keeps the legal underpinning of the terms and conditions of those who work in our agricultural sectors.
That figure of £240 million comes directly from Defra’s impact assessment, and it is its best estimate—there is a range, but that is its best estimate. The House is in some difficulty here because it should have more information. We are in a slightly bizarre procedural position because on the face of it the Government had the right to abolish the Agricultural Wages Board under the Public Bodies Bill. But, of course, under that Bill, after long and rather testy debate in this House, there are some very detailed procedures for implementing that abolition. They require much greater information, much clearer arguments, much better figures and much more effective consultation than the Government have coming forward. The Government are trying to cut corners by inserting their amendment into a piece of legislation that had already passed all stages in the House of Commons and which was not accepted in Committee in this House.
There may be good reasons why the Government are trying to change tack. One is that they have problems with the Welsh Government—this is England and Wales legislation. The Welsh Government, like their counterparts in Scotland and Northern Ireland, want to maintain statutory minimum standards in the agriculture sector. Of course, it is also convenient for the Government that they have not been required to come forward with that kind of information. They have not presented us with any alternatives; they have simply come forward with a proposition for abolition. The House would be entitled to say to the Government that we are not prepared to consider this government amendment until the equivalent of Section 11 of the Public Bodies Act is before the House. Clearly, the Government are not prepared to go down that road.
I will say a few words about the nature of the agricultural workforce. Of course, the Minister is right that it has changed since 1917 and 1948, but we are left with an agricultural work structure of a lot of relatively small businesses that employ one, two, three, perhaps six, permanent staff and parts of a sector that employ large numbers of casual workers on a seasonal basis. There is no other sector in the whole of the economy that is like that. There is no other sector, therefore, that requires the kind of legal protection that until very recently all parties in the industry and all parties in the House recognised was important.
Moreover, the Government’s analogy is quite wrong. The Agricultural Wages Board specifies a whole wages structure and a whole career structure for workers in the agricultural sector. It does not simply specify a minimum wage, like the national minimum wage; nor is it the same as most of the old wages councils, which simply specified a basic rate rather than the whole range of conditions required within the agricultural sector, which will be difficult to achieve without some legal underpinning by normal methods of collective bargaining either nationally or by agreements between individual farmers and their own workforce—something that would often be very difficult for both sides to accomplish.
The Minister claims that this is a great removal of burdens on small farm businesses, but the operation of the board has in many cases been of great benefit to small farmers. In the consultation—such as it was; it was only four weeks’ consultation, whereas most people are required to go through three months, and it was only one week in Wales—a significant number of small famers said they wished to retain the Agricultural Wages Board because that meant that once a year they knew what they were going to pay their staff and they did not have to go into embarrassing and lengthy detailed negotiations with their own two or three employees. Therefore, the burden of administration on the farmers is actually less under the Agricultural Wages Board than it will be if the Minister gets his way and it is abolished. In the evidence, there are a large number of small famers saying precisely that, ranging from the West Country to Yorkshire to Norfolk.
The impact assessment also says that the effect on farmers’ incomes will be a significant improvement. In fact, it has that down as the reciprocal of the cut in the agricultural workers’ wages. But the reality is that a lot of those famers will never see that money, or will only see it temporarily. The wage cut for workers will almost certainly end up being of benefit to the supermarkets. It is very interesting that in the consultation nearly 40% of the replies are from the horticultural sector, which employs the mass amount of casual, unskilled labour and which deals directly with the supermarkets. Even more tellingly, the strongest supporters in the rest of the food chain are the Fresh Produce Consortium, whose dominant members happen to be Tesco, Morrisons, Asda and Marks & Spencer.
The reality is that once the supermarket buyers hear that the Agricultural Wages Board and the minimum rates have been abolished, they will go back to their farmers and suppliers and say, “We want a cut in the prices that we are giving you”. The reality is that whatever burdens the Minister claims will be removed from small employers, many of whom do not accept that, the money will not come out of the pockets of farm workers and into the pockets of the farmers, it will go out of the rural community entirely and into the pockets of the supermarkets.
This is a very dangerous move and one that we certainly could not support. There is little in what the Minister said tonight with which I can agree. There is little in what his supporters in Committee, who were in the minority, brought to bear. They said, “In my area, on my own estate, on my own farm, people I know pay a lot more than the minimum wage”. Of course they do. It is a wages structure. A lot of employers pay more than the minimum. But once you abolish the floor, the whole wages structure starts coming down. The impact assessment which the advisers of the department of the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, Defra, and BIS had before them makes it quite clear that the best estimate is that this will be nearly £250 million out of the pockets of relatively low-paid agricultural workers. It is a disgrace, frankly, that the Government are proposing this. It is a disgrace, in some ways, that the NFU has changed what has historically been its position in support of the board to pressing for its abolition and, in so doing, does not represent the views of many small farmers.
Our amendment would allow simplification and modernisation. It would allow the abolition of the 31 quangos to which the Minister has referred, which would give Defra a few brownie points on the Cabinet Office’s scorecard of the quango cull. The abolition of the wages board, however, is a different matter. It will bring distress to rural communities, a cut in income to rural workers and will do nothing for the farmers and the agricultural sector of this country. I beg to move our amendment to the Government’s amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for his clear and eloquent statement on why it is essential not to abolish the Agricultural Wages Board, and why it is therefore vital that as a House we support this amendment of the Government’s amendment.
It is noteworthy that the wages councils were established by Winston Churchill in 1909, and he spoke of the need for them in these words:
“It is a serious national evil that any class of His Majesty's subjects should receive less than a living wage in return for their utmost exertions … where you have what we call sweated trades, you have no organisation, no parity of bargaining, the good employer is undercut by the bad, and the bad employer is undercut by the worst; the worker, whose whole livelihood depends upon the industry, is undersold by the worker who only takes the trade up as a second string … where those conditions prevail you have not a condition of progress, but a condition of progressive degeneration”.—[Official Report, Commons, 28/4/1909; col. 388.]
That may not be quite the language that we would use today. It is language from 100 years ago, but they are still salient points. Indeed, these underlying principles and thinking have led to a minimum wage and then a living wage.
When other wages councils were abolished in the 1980s, the Government chose to keep the Agricultural Wages Board on the grounds that the industry required some central oversight to prevent wages being driven down unacceptably. In order to consolidate and build upon the progress achieved in terms and conditions during the past 30 years, we need to retain and further develop, and update, the Agricultural Wages Board, not abolish it.
The NFU has criticised the cost and provision of the AWB claiming that it is a,
“bureaucratic irrelevance since the advent of the Minimum Wage”,
and pointing out that the gap between the national minimum wage and the basic agricultural wages order minimum is only tuppence. However, the AWO also, of course, lists six different grades, to which we have heard reference made, with levels to be paid according to responsibilities, qualifications and the nature of the work in question: a salary structure.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I was pleased to add my name to this amendment. I congratulate the two previous speakers who said quite a lot of what I might have said, and I will try not to repeat what they said. I agree with practically every word that both speakers said and I think we should be aware that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, is probably the greatest expert on these matters in your Lordships’ House. There are obviously others on different sides who have similar expertise.
This takes me back to the debates on the Public Bodies Bill some two years ago when I moved an amendment in Committee to remove the Agricultural Wages Board from the purview of that Bill. Noble Lords will be surprised to learn that I made a long speech on 1 December 2010, which is reported in Hansard, beginning in column 1513. I read it again just now and nothing seems to have changed, so I thought I would read it all out again. Then I looked around the House and saw at least half a dozen people whom I remember being present in that debate; it would be unfair to them to subject them to it again, although it might have done everybody else some good.
At the time, efforts were being made within what I might call coalition circles, led by my honourable friend Andrew George, who was co-chair, along with me, of the Liberal Democrat Defra committee at the time. We were trying to save the AWB, or at least find an alternative system which would preserve some of its best features. We thought we were going to achieve some success, but we failed; I very much regret that. One reason may have been that the Defra Ministers at that time did not include any Liberal Democrats, but I do not know.
When the then Secretary of State Caroline Spelman announced that she wanted to abolish the Agricultural Workers Board, there had been no consultation whatever. There has now been a consultation, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Whitty said, it was for a mere four weeks. That breached the standard of 12 weeks which is supposed to prevail for such consultations. It was obviously part and parcel of the effort to shunt this clause into the end of this Bill, pretty well at the end of the parliamentary process. It has resulted in my appearance for the first time in this Bill at the end of the process.
Why are the Government doing this? The Government’s consultation and their report on it are thorough and very interesting. It is absolutely clear, as the right reverend Prelate said, that the people and organisations in favour of it include, in particular, the horticultural sector, with its very large number of seasonal workers. There are some very good horticultural firms, but there are also some where the conditions for the workers leave a lot to be desired. They are different from most other farms in this country. Those in favour of abolition also include the big farms, which are often prosperous, the supermarkets and the food processors. They are the people who want this and we have to ask ourselves why.
Then there are the people who do not support it, which is clear from the consultation. There are some quite harrowing comments from small and medium-sized farmers who believe that, far from it removing the regulatory burdens from farm business, as the Minister argued when he opened this debate, it will increase their administrative burdens. These are small businesses that rely very much on the help and support they get by having a firm structure and framework for employing their staff. If they have to do it all themselves, it is going to be much more difficult for them.
Two years ago, my honourable friend Mark Williams spoke in the Public Bill Committee in the House of Commons and quoted what I had said here; it is all a bit circular, but there is a good reason for this. He said:
“As we have heard, it is not totally acceptable to rest behind the national minimum wage legislation, because other concerns about terms and conditions need to be addressed. Lord Greaves said in that debate:
‘Will there be a new national system set up? Will there be a bargaining system set up within the industry—an unofficial system…outside the purview of statutes and government, in which employers and representatives of agricultural workers negotiate? Or to what extent will it be left to individual farmers to negotiate with their own workers or just impose’—
the word “impose” is critical—
‘terms and conditions and wages…above the national minimum wage?’—[Official Report, House of Lords, 1 December 2010; Vol. 722, c. 1515.]
I am still looking for the elusive clarity on that matter, particularly about the issues that the hon. Lady mentioned on terms and conditions, people under 16 and so on”.—[Official Report, Commons, Public Bodies Bill Committee, 8/9/2011; col. 54.]
As far as I can see, that remains the position. The NFU has answered this to a degree by saying that it would provide support, assistance, advice and help to its members, but first, not all small and medium farmers are members of the NFU by any means. That is a problem.
Secondly, the NFU, which sounds like a trade union, is in fact the employers’ organisation in this context. It simply cannot give the sort of balanced and unbiased regulation that the AWB now provides. The AWB has an equal number of representatives from the NFU and from Unite, as well as five independent members on top. It provides a place in which negotiation can take place, but it also has to take an overall balanced view, which we would lose. The questions that Mark Williams put have not been answered; it will be interesting to hear how the Government think it will work.
Lord Cavendish of Furness
My Lords, I read carefully the recent debate on this subject in Grand Committee, and I am sorry that I was not there. I declare an interest in that I have beneficial interests in a landed estate based mainly in south Cumbria. The estate’s activities include farming, forestry, leisure, minerals and housebuilding. As a family business we farm modestly on our own account, but the majority of the land is tenanted.
It is not my intention to pretend that the Agricultural Wages Board and its satellite committees represent one of the great evils of our time, but the Government deserve support on this issue, and I am happy to give them mine. I will resist repeating the arguments that the Minister made beyond saying that all of them carry weight. I am not sure that there is much disagreement; some want abolition while others want reform, but all seem to be fairly clear that we need to change.
Stirred by the apparent passions that came through in the Official Report on Grand Committee, I have been to some lengths to canvass opinion in my native Cumbria and a little bit in Lancashire, and have also sought to inform myself better of the facts. On the basis of my findings it is very hard to find any justification whatever for the continued existence of this body. The AWB may not be a great evil but the very best that can be said of it is that it is an obsolete irrelevance and symbolic of the way small businesses continue to be fettered in a way that disadvantages business and inhibits growth.
My canvass extended to farmers on small, medium and large farms, to those who had diversified and those who had not, to tenants and to owner occupiers. Much to my surprise, unlike my noble friend Lord Greaves, I had to go quite far down my list before I found anyone who had even heard of the AWB. It simply did not appear on their radar. One of the local NFU representatives said that he had never had any call to understand the workings of the board, adding wryly that he expected that the sort of committee I was talking about would indeed be a very nice thing to belong to.
I drew a complete blank when it came to finding any evidence to support the claim that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, appeared to make in Grand Committee, that the handful of workers on smaller farms would be exposed to exploitation in the event of abolition. Not one person I spoke to could bring themselves to say that the board was a force for good. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, went on to say:
“The abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board is a direct attack on the living standards of 150,000 rural workers”.—[Official Report, 16/1/13; col. GC 258.]
Let us have a look at that claim. In the decade to 2011 the consumer prices index rose by 28% and the retail prices index by 38%. Over the same period, the national minimum wage—almost identically mirrored by the lowest grade of AWB—rose by 64%.
Alternatively, we could approach this from a different angle. The Institute for Public Policy Research confirmed that just 12.3% of agricultural workers earn below two-thirds of median hourly pay. By comparison, hotels and restaurants are nearly 70% below; the wholesale and retail sectors are over 40% below; the situation is much the same in administration; and the arts are about 37% below. The figures for education and health, where the state is predominantly the paymaster, are 18.3% and 14.6% respectively below two-thirds of median hourly pay. Even those workers are paid less than workers in the agricultural sector. I understand that 90% of farm workers are paid at or above grade 2 on the board scale.
Surely the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and others, understand that all but a tiny minority of employers these days have long since grasped the fact that bad pay always produces bad results. Can he not see that this is especially true in this sector, which has become so much more specialist in recent years? Will he accept that there is now far more legal protection for those who are vulnerable to exploitation?
Low pay among agricultural workers is manifestly a myth, but more important for today’s debate is the demonstrable absurdity of the notion that the AWB is the appropriate vehicle to address rural poverty. I should perhaps stress that I mind very much about rural poverty—it exists and is worthy of debate. However, it is simply not related to the issue under discussion. If, as I have heard suggested, the objection to abolition is to do with terms and conditions of work, I can only say that I found a dearth of convincing arguments that this sector alone should be picked out for special treatment.
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said that administration costs would be lower. I do not agree. In this House there is no dearth of people prepared to talk about wages but rather fewer pay them. I speak from experience in this matter. When the Labour Government was introducing the national minimum wage in June 1998, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said:
“As I have indicated, the Government do not believe that a multitude of regional, sectoral or other minimum wages is the right approach. It is neither sensible nor justifiable intellectually”.—[Official Report, 11/6/98; col. 1240.]
I do not understand what has changed to invalidate that sensible opinion then held by the party opposite. There is something unattractively patronising about these discriminatory attitudes. They come close to suggesting that people involved with the farmyard must be so primitive as to need their hand held by agencies of the state.
In his opening remarks, the Minister most pertinently pointed out that farmers compete globally these days, not just one with another. It is possible to imagine a future world without the common agricultural policy. It is possible to envisage a future where farmers are vastly more exposed to the marketplace and with many fewer subsidies. Subsidies, after all, are not just handouts by the taxpayer; they disguise all kinds of market distortions on the one hand and, on the other, fund environmental initiatives prescribed by Parliament or the European Union. Nor is it entirely fanciful that, as the right reverend Prelate said, the day might come when we have to take the question of fuel security seriously. These considerations are not necessarily matters to be dreaded; rather they are challenges to be faced. Whatever the future, we must be prepared for change.
As I have said before in your Lordships’ House, SMEs stand ready to lead growth in our economy if only they are allowed to. It is time agriculture was unshackled and allowed to prosper as it is capable of doing. It is time we were treated as a well established, modern industry. Above all, it is time we were treated like everybody else. Our farmers have a huge amount to offer. The abolition of the AWB is a welcome and long overdue measure and the Government must be congratulated on introducing it. It deserves support in your Lordships’ House.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle
My Lords, I fully support the Government’s desire to abolish the Agricultural Wages Board. I declare an interest as a tenant farmer in Northumberland. I started my business in 1971, employed two young people who had left school, and built up the business until I employed six. Though I no longer employ staff, I have done so for most of my professional life. As a contrast, I also chair the Leckford estate for Waitrose, where we employ 170 staff. My key interest in this debate, however, is as chair of the Better Regulation Executive—and this is an important deregulation measure. I consider myself to be firmly embedded in the agricultural community. I know lots of farmers and I know no farmer who rewards their staff at Agricultural Wages Board rates. The NFU has 70% farmer membership and most of those who are not members do not employ staff.
The Agricultural Wages Board is a relic of the past. In 2002, in a report for which I was responsible, commissioned by the previous Administration, I recommended that its future be reconsidered. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and I had interesting conversations about the wages board at the time. No other industrial sector has a wages board. We do not have one in construction or in transport: why in agriculture? The perception seems to be of a sector stuck in a Lark Rise to Candleford era where employees are exploited by unscrupulous employers who resemble the mill owners of the 19th century. Nothing could be further from the truth. The agricultural sector is now a highly professional industry. Today’s employees have to be skilled to cope with the technological changes that are taking place at an unparalleled rate. The cab of a modern tractor is now like the cockpit of an aircraft.
The Duke of Montrose
My Lords, I was most grateful to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, has been telling us. A particular difficulty for the House has been the shortened consultation period, which left a number of questions not fully answered in our minds.
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and agricultural workers who came to brief us this morning are obviously very worried at the Government’s assessment of a loss of £259 million. The noble Lord, Lord Curry, has given us some indication as to how that was achieved. Can the Minister tell us whether that figure includes savings or reductions in monies other than purely wages, where the figure was derived from and on whom is it likely to impact? The agricultural representatives took it that overtime rates will be totally abolished. The question of working hours is well defined, for all workers, by the EU working time directive, so everyone knows how many hours are required in any employment in excess of this figure. Under what guidance or legislation will the rates of payment for these hours be determined?
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said that the floor was being removed. As the right reverend Prelate said, that is not quite the picture. The floor is not being removed. At the present rate, it is very slightly diminished by 2p. One of the other factors that the representatives are keen to emphasise is that currently there is a graded system in the rates of remuneration. However, the grades currently in place are built on a system of certified qualifications and experience. Is it not possible for the agricultural workers’ union to produce its own guide to a graded wage structure, which would give its members an indication of what the level should be when they are entering into a new contract? These things could be done by responsible people in their own way and would not necessarily require the retention of the wages board.
Lord Cameron of Dillington
My Lords, first, I declare an interest as a farmer. We have all received much evidence, both for and against, on this amendment. It seemed right to consider all the evidence and facts afresh, including my own knowledge of the industry, and to re-examine the case for and against abolition.
I think everyone acknowledges that agriculture is very different from 60 to 65 years ago when the current Agricultural Wages Board was introduced. I know that some of the work can still be very tedious and repetitive, such as riddling potatoes for hour after hour or even driving up and down a field all day, albeit in an air-conditioned or heated cab, either with or without sat-nav assisted steering. Of course, now no weights are lifted because instead of bags coming in at 1 hundredweight or even 2 hundredweight as they used to, they come in weights of 1 tonne. So you automatically jump into the forklift truck, do things much quicker and save yourself from exposure to the weather.
I admit that some of the work with livestock can be pretty full-time. You are always on call, particularly at certain times of the year, such as during lambing or calving and, even more importantly, when quietly walking up and down your dairy buildings at night to check which cows might be on heat in order to maintain or to avoid your calving index slipping. I also know that work with livestock can sometimes take place in fairly fresh and rugged conditions, both wet and cold. It has always seemed to me that shepherds and dairymen really should be flock or herd managers and paid an annual salary with bonuses paid on targets achieved. As I understand it, that is not specifically allowed under the current rules of the AWB—or at least it does not count.
On our farm, including in our dairy, we do not pay much attention to that or to any Agricultural Wages Board rates. We pay much more than the AWB rate. We would not keep staff very long if we did not. As I have said before, why would one pay a minimum wage to people responsible for operating machinery costing up to £500,000 or more, and whose skill at operating it can sometimes be the difference between profit and loss on the farm?
However, the Agricultural Wages Board is—everyone has mentioned this and I have admitted it before—a very convenient benchmark to use in the annual wage adjustments. On our farm, all wages across the farm go up by the 2%, 3% or whatever the AWB rate is. In addition, we usually round it up. Incidentally, in the consultation evidence I received from Unite, I noted that by far the most common reason—again, it has been repeated in the debate today—from farmers for opposing the abolition was the helpful benchmarking service that the AWB provides. However, as I have also said previously, this is a service quite easily replaced, and indeed promised, by the NFU and others on a non-statutory basis. Therefore, I am afraid that I have to discount all that evidence. I do not think that it is relevant to the debate.
The question really is: why should we get rid of the safety net? If most farmers pay no attention to it, does it really matter whether we have it or not? After all, it is only a small cost to the taxpayer in the general scheme of things. It is the last of many wages boards and councils, and therefore has a historic role, if nothing else—the last vestige of post-war socialism. I admit that I have only limited knowledge of the horticultural industry, where it is claimed that the national minimum wage—a full 2p per hour less—would apply if the AWB was not there. Furthermore, the rightly generous overtime rates of the AWB would no longer apply in that industry, which I believe is a valid point. But perhaps that is a fault of the national minimum wage rules rather than a plus point for the AWB.
I paused in my thought processes here. What harm is the AWB doing? After all, agriculture is no longer a poorly paid industry, so it must be being successful. The hourly average pay in agriculture is higher than in hotels, restaurants, shops and even local authority administration. Why dispense with all that gain? I like to think that I care about farming families, both employers and employees. I have spent most of my life trying to promote wider businesses and jobs in the countryside outside farming, because agriculture represents less than 4% of rural employment. Therefore, one of the reasons for my passionate promotion of the wider economy is that many farming families, both employers and employees, depend on having a non-agricultural wage earner in their family to maintain their lifestyle or, if they are the employers, their presence on the land.
I asked myself whether it is helpful to overall employment in agriculture that there should be a state-controlled wage structure over and above the minimum wage which the other 96% of the rural workforce does not enjoy. I asked myself whether the rest of the rural economy was ruined by the abolition of the other 100 or so wage councils. Or is it spoilt now by having a free market in wages, subject of course to the national minimum wage?
Are lorry drivers disadvantaged by not having a lorry drivers’ wages board? I take that as a good equivalent because they, too, spend long hours in cabs, driving up and down—not fields but roads. I thought that they were not disadvantaged. The rural economy is flourishing better than ever before, including lorry drivers. As an aside, obviously any reform of the CAP should put more money into Pillar 2 and less into Pillar 1 but that is not the subject we are debating today.
My next question to myself was whether UK agriculture can adapt and grow better, including providing more overall employment up and down the whole food chain, with or without its own centrally controlled, state-run wage order. All my experience over the past 50 years suggests that state interference in an industry is not very helpful to any of the participants in that industry, apart from the need for a national minimum wage structure and having a strong Health and Safety Executive, in which agriculture is not its finest field.
While I understand the safety net argument, I fear that the AWB is at best somewhat of an irrelevance in this day and age, and at worst is preventing new practices of salaries and well targeted bonuses that could reignite our farming industry as a career path for those who love the countryside and the healthy working life associated with it. I do not always support the Government but on this issue I fear that I must.
Baroness Byford
My Lords, in Committee we had a long discussion about whether the Agricultural Wages Board should be continued. Although the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, implied that a majority was in favour of retaining it, that is not quite a true reflection of those of us who took part.
Tonight, we have had the extra bonus of looking at Amendment 83A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. It is within that context that I want to pose one or two questions. Amendment 83A proposes that,
“every agricultural wages committee … in England is abolished”.
However, it adds the requirement that “the services formerly provided” should be transferred to,
“the Agricultural Wages Board for England and Wales”.
I hope that the noble Lord will explain to the House what is involved and what he expects the board to do. Perhaps he might also tell us what caused so many of those committees to cease to function. Were they no longer needed or were they being dealt with in a different way? His amendment requires detailed examination.
Subsection (3) of Amendment 83A proposes that,
“any minimum rate of pay contained, or to be contained, in an Order of the Agricultural Wages Board may”—
I repeat, “may”—
“where the Agricultural Wages Board considers it convenient to do so, be fixed by reference to any periods during the currency of employment”.
Therefore my question to the noble Lord is: will he please tell us what “convenient” means, or how it is defined, or how it would work? It seems a very unusual way for an amendment to be expressed.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
My Lords, this has been an interesting and lively debate. I am very grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions.
I turn to some of the points raised by noble Lords during this debate. First, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, raised the issue of the impact assessment, and the noble Lord, Lord Curry, referred to this as well. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, pointed out that the Government’s best estimate is a cost to the rural workers of £236 million over the next decade. Abolishing the Agricultural Wages Board would bring agriculture into line with all other sectors in the economy. Allowing farmers to compete fairly in the labour market and allowing agricultural wages to follow market levels will enhance the competitiveness of the sector and may increase employment. This would in turn encourage long-term prosperity in rural areas.
The impact assessment itself gives a range of impacts and makes it clear that there is considerable uncertainty, with a potential £238 million impact for workers being at the upper end of the range. The impact assessment also makes clear that there may be, in fact, no reduction in wages or worker benefits. I would like to give a little more information than was asked for in terms of how we arrived at these figures. I stress that the figures are the upper estimate, based on empirical research comparing wages in fisheries and the agricultural sector over an 11-year period up to 2010. The figures are based on two particular issues. First they are based on existing workers. With the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board, one assumes that existing workers on contracts would not receive a pay rise over 10 years. Therefore there would be a definition of wage slippage, allowing for inflation. Secondly, it allows for new workers who may be taken on at the national minimum wage rate, not the old agricultural wages rate, if the Agricultural Wages Board was abolished. So it assumes the very worst scenario, with no increase at all on what there was before, and it assumes, in effect, that farmers would be sitting on their hands. I would argue that this would be highly unrealistic.
As I mentioned earlier, the reality on wages will depend on demand, and evidence shows that demand is increasing. Farmers will want to be more flexible and will be able to be more flexible with the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
What impact has the Minister’s department assessed there will be as a result of supermarkets forcing down costs on farmers, and what will be the impact of that on wages?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I am glad that the noble Lord has brought up this point because I was about to move on to the issue of supermarkets which was raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford and, indeed, by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. From our perspective, we do not have any evidence at all that supermarkets—some names were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty—would put pressure on farm workers’ wages.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
If I may be allowed to finish, prices paid to producers are determined by international markets, not just supermarkets. Supermarkets now recognise that they have their reputations to protect. Since February 2010, all contracts between major food retailers and their direct grocery suppliers must comply with the groceries supply code of practice, the aim of which is to ensure that those who directly supply the large grocery retailers do not have unexpected costs or risks transferred on to them. I finish by saying that the horticultural sector similarly operates in international markets, with imports representing nearly 40% of fresh vegetables and over 90% of fresh fruit sold in the UK.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford also raised the issue of workers who worked in the farming sector who were below the school leaving age, if I understood him correctly. He argued that they would be disadvantaged by the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board. I would like to reassure him that the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 does not apply to children below compulsory school leaving age. Therefore, following the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board, no minimum rate would be set for young workers in agriculture in this age group. However, this would leave them in a similar position to children who work in other sectors such as shops, hotels and hairdressing salons. They will continue to be protected by general employment law and by health and safety legislation. Children of school age should be in full-time education and it is not the Government’s policy to encourage them to seek work.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford, in quoting Winston Churchill's words “sweated workers”, raised the question of protection. There is now a raft of protections for all workers under general employment legislation including the national minimum wage, working time regulations, the Employment Rights Act, equal pay and equality legislation and legislation for fixed-term employees, part-time employees and agency workers. If the Agricultural Wages Board were abolished, agricultural workers would enjoy the same protection as workers in all other sectors of the economy. That emphasises how far we have come since 65 years ago. It is interesting that there is quite a long list there.
To conclude on the issues that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford raised, he made the point that there should be a defined living wage. I support that and in fact the Government support the concept of a living wage and encourage employers to take it up where possible. But the decision on what wages to set is one for employers and workers.
My noble friend Lord Greaves raised the issue of the consultation and much discussion was had in Grand Committee on that. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, also raised this matter concerning Wales. I believe that I wrote quite a long letter to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and copied it to a number of other noble Lords to address this matter.
The policy of the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board and related committees was first announced in July 2010 so stakeholder and interested parties have had plenty of time to consider the matter. During this time, key stakeholders also had the opportunity to make their views known to Defra during meetings of the Agricultural Wages Board and agricultural wages committees. The department felt that a four-week consultation period was proportionate and realistic given the length of time that the policy had already been in the public domain.
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, raised the issue—which, again, I believe was raised in Grand Committee—over the lack of use of the Public Bodies Act. To address this directly, the Public Bodies Act was only one method by which the Agricultural Wages Board could have been abolished. The Government are perfectly free to bring forward primary legislation to abolish the board.
The removal of the board will provide simplification and greater flexibility and allow the agricultural sector to compete on a level playing field with all other sectors of the economy, encouraging employment and competitiveness which will benefit all those in the industry. The noble Lord’s amendments would retain the Agricultural Wages Board and the separate employment regime for agriculture. This would continue the dual regulatory burden for farm businesses. The proposal that the board should be able to fix minimum pay rates by reference to any periods of the employment is intended, we presume, to make it easier for the board to provide for annual salaries. We are not convinced that the amendment would serve its purpose.
The provisions on the enforcement of the agricultural minimum wage are derived from the National Minimum Wage Act, which dissuades farm businesses from offering annual salaries. Moreover, the introduction of salaries would not be enough in itself to bring employment in agriculture into the 21st century. If the amendment were accepted, the opportunity for the agricultural industry to move forward and modernise would be lost. Instead, agriculture would be stuck in the past with an antiquated system of statutory wage fixing and prescriptive regulation of employment practices.
The Duke of Montrose
My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend could also answer the point that I raised earlier. Does he know of any form, format or regulation that will deal with the question of what payment rates should be for work over and above the minimum hourly rate?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I thank my noble friend the Duke of Montrose for that question. It is best that I get back to him in writing after the debate.
While I welcome that the amendment acknowledges the need to abolish the 15 agricultural wages committees and 16 agricultural dwelling house advisory committees in England, we do not consider that there is a need to retain any of the functions. The amendment tabled by the noble Lord provides the Agricultural Wages Board itself to take over the functions of the ADHACs in England. The Government are committed to growing the rural economy. A key part of that would be to ensure a dynamic and prosperous future for the agriculture industry.
We are already taking forward the recommendations of the Farming Regulation Task Force which will remove a range of unnecessary regulatory burdens from farm businesses. We are improving access to superfast broadband and the mobile network coverage in rural areas, which will make it easier for farm and rural businesses to operate. We have provided almost £57 million to the Welsh Government to ensure that broadband access is available to homes and businesses including the hardest to reach areas in Wales.
Some £100 million is being invested from the Rural Development Programme for England, which will help small rural businesses to improve their skills, facilities and competitiveness. We have also introduced a pilot of rural growth networks to share lessons learnt to stimulate sustainable economic rural growth.
This whole package of measures, together with the ending of a separate agricultural minimum wage, will support the agriculture industry in having a successful and competitive future, which will benefit all those who work in agriculture and the rural economy.
The abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board is supported by industry bodies, including the National Farmers’ Union, the Country Land and Business Association, the Tenant Farmers Association and the Association of Labour Providers. It is supported by independent professional advisers, such as the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers and the Agricultural Law Association. In view of the above, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment and I commend the government amendments to the House.
Lord Greaves
On the question of dairy prices, is the Minister aware that for many dairy farmers, many of whom have been forced out of business, the farm gate price which has been forced on them by the market power of supermarkets and milk processors has been around or even below the cost of producing the milk? The supermarkets and milk processors have been able to use their market power to force down prices. The fact that there may be cheap milk imports means that the supermarkets can do that. But it is the supermarkets themselves who are responsible.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I thank my noble friend for his comment. I understand that the code adjudicator is called in in this particular case. But I owe my noble friend a full answer to his question and I will follow up after this debate.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, I thank the Minister and everyone who has participated in the debate, particularly those who supported my amendments. Those who objected to my amendments, including the Minister, seem to have two points—that we have to get rid of archaic bureaucracy and that this will not have any effect because wages will be paid well above the rate and that farmers as employers will not notice the disappearance of the Agricultural Wages Board.
As for bureaucracy, most of us are on the same page. We are happy to see the abolition of the 31 bodies. Our amendments would allow significant modernisation and simplification of the procedures and substance of the Agricultural Wages Board. To answer the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, that is why that form of phrasing is there—to move to annual salaries and so forth.
Indeed, when I was Minister, as the noble Lord, Lord Curry, will recall, I tried to get a lot of modernisation through on the Agricultural Wages Board but to retain essentially the legal underpinning which is needed in this unique industry for an isolated, sometimes exploited workforce. We have had a benign picture of the way that farming operates, but actually we know that in large parts of farming and probably most obviously within horticulture, there is still some serious exploitation of workers in all their terms and conditions including their minimum wage. The Government have not answered my points regarding amendment and reform of the Agricultural Wages Board rather than abolition.
On the point about wages, we are facing a serious dilemma. By abandoning the Public Bodies Act route, the Government have not presented to the House detailed information. The impact assessment to which we have all referred is an authoritative document. It says that the Government’s best estimate—not the most extreme case, not the worst case, not the lowest case, and not the highest case either—is that in aggregate £240 million will be taken out of the pockets of current and future workers within the agricultural sector. That is the view and best estimate, not of the Minister’s department, but of the department of the noble Lord, Lord de Mauley, of what is going to happen. Obviously, there is a range of probabilities, but the Government’s best estimate is that this measure will lead to a reduction in wages in the agricultural sector by £250 million. That is the bare fact of this.
No doubt, in many of the enterprises of the noble Lords, Lord Cavendish, Lord Cameron and Lord Curry—I am sorry to fall out with him, but at least we are both being consistent on this issue—there will be better pay and little impact. But all the Government’s statisticians, agronomists and economists are looking at the total situation and saying, “The net effect of all this in aggregate across the whole of the agricultural and horticultural sector will be a loss of wages of that order”. That is their best estimate and that is at odds with the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, and the circle of farmers in which he moves. Although clearly they are in the same geographical area, they are a different lot from those among whom the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, moves. But, even if he is right for all those farmers, the Government’s view is that is not the total effect on the sector. Either the Government’s impact assessment is utterly wrong, or the anecdotal evidence from those who are close to land-owning interests in this House is not accurate.
Lord Cavendish of Furness
My Lords, I gave statistics showing that the way farm workers were paid was overwhelmingly higher. Those are the statistics that matter. I am not in a position to defend an impact assessment with its huge range, which seems to me entirely meaningless, but I gave the statistics that are irrefutable.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, nobody is disputing that, at present, after years of operation of the Agricultural Wages Board and the economics of the industry, a lot of agricultural workers are paid above the minimum rate and above rates in some other industries. To that extent, I agree with him. My point is that the Government have refused to do what the House asked them to do under the Public Bodies Bill and present us with a full explanatory memorandum with arguments for the abolition and arguments against any other alternatives. They have tried to cut corners on this, but their own experts tell them that the net effect of this will be a substantial cut in rural workers’ incomes.
If the House votes for the Government’s amendment and defeats my amendment to that amendment, that is what they are voting for tonight and they had better recognise it. That is the message they will be sending out to rural areas. I am looking perhaps particularly to people on the Liberal Democrat Benches who were not committed by their manifesto to this abolition, as the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said. I do believe that the Government have got this wrong. We could have had a more coherent debate had we gone down the route of the Public Bodies Bill and the Government had produced their range of statistics and we could have had a sensible argument. Instead, we have a minimalist consultation, minimalist information and the Government sticking to an ideological position, supported by some elements of the farming industry but by no means all, and prepared to try and push through something which has an impact on the incomes of a lot of rural workers and their families. My amendment would allow a better way forward, a modernising way forward, and a reduction of bureaucracy, but it would retain the central protection that those agricultural workers have had and which they deserve to retain.
Baroness Byford
My Lords. I will be very brief. Three times the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has referred to the rural workforce. This is nothing to do with the rural workforce; it is to do with the Agricultural Wages Board and he is misleading colleagues if he keeps using that phrase.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, the right reverend Prelate said two things. First, the agriculture workforce is a smaller proportion of the rural workforce than it used to be, but also the Agricultural Wages Board is taken, either in its substance or in the rate of increase, to a lot of other rural workers, so it does affect a wider range than those who are legally entitled to Agricultural Wages Board rates. It is not the whole of the rural workforce, but it is nevertheless taking £250 million out of the rural economy, ostensibly giving it to the farmers, but actually giving it to the supermarkets. If that is what the House wishes to vote for tonight, they had better be clear that that is what they are doing.
Arrangement of Business
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, I appreciate that many noble Lords wish to leave the Chamber after that event. The right reverend Prelate is ready to begin his Question for Short Debate and this has taken two minutes out of his time. We might find at the end of this that the usual channels will arrange for an extra two minutes so that he does not lose a precious second of his Question for Short Debate.
Crime: Sexual Violence
(11 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of Wakefield
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to address the level of sexual violence in conflict and post-conflict situations.
The Lord Bishop of Wakefield
My Lords, when Robert Runcie, then the Archbishop of Canterbury, gave the Falklands service—which rather surprisingly became controversial—he quoted Pope John Paul II. He noted the Pope’s speech in Coventry in his 1982 visit to this country, in which he said:
“War should belong to the tragic past, to history. It should find no place on humanity’s agenda for the future”.
The Archbishop himself noted:
“War is a sign of human failure, and everything we say and do in this service must be in that context”.
That last comment came, of course, from someone who had not only driven his tank up the Normandy beaches and rescued another person from a burning tank, but who had also entered the newly liberated death camp at Belsen as an Allied military observer.
Sadly and wretchedly, war remains a part of the tragic present, and today’s debate takes us to the very heart of contemporary conflict. Sexual violence in conflict stretches back into history, well before the 20th century. That conflict-strewn century saw such abuses of our common humanity multiply terrifyingly. In the Bosnian conflict, in our own continent of Europe, somewhere between 20,000 and 50,000 women were raped. In a continent that traces the history of its civilisation back to antiquity, and indeed in a continent ravaged by two world wars in that century, these figures can scarcely be taken in.
More terrifyingly still, in the Rwandan genocide between 300,000 and 400,000 women were raped in a period of only 100 days. These figures alone give us cause enthusiastically and energetically to support and develop the Government’s initiative, led personally by the Foreign Secretary: the preventing sexual violence initiative. I am sure that the Minister will elaborate further on that initiative, and on the prospects for achieving a resolute consensus on this matter at the G8 Foreign Ministers meeting next month, so I shall focus in the minutes available to me on further background.
The 2012 Human Security Report Project challenged this dominant narrative on a number of fronts. It pressed home some important points and argued that such violence is exceptional and confined to certain conflicts. Sometimes the claims are not based on evidence. The omission of male victims from the mainstream narrative is also crucial. Indeed, some of the data were missing. These exaggerations and weaknesses can too easily play down the significance of sexual violence in wider society. However, the figures quoted earlier from specific conflicts are sufficient to indicate the alarming abuse of humanity implied.
Sadly, we are seeing such terrifying abuse committed in Syria today. I would welcome some comment from the Minister on how we might properly document such abuse, so that future legal redress and prosecution will be possible. In Syria, for reasons we all know, the western nations appear powerless to halt the appalling atrocities being committed by both sides in the conflict. What, then, are the crucial questions? First, this is obviously more than a moral issue. However morality is defined—by human rights, by a categorical imperative, by natural law, by respect for persons—sexual violence is an extreme denial of moral purpose and integrity, even in the extraordinary and tragic conditions of war and armed conflict.
Secondly, there is the issue of impunity. The facts of war do not somehow remove culpability and the normal patterns of human responsibility. Rape and sexual violence are inhumane and immoral in every circumstance, but fear has too often driven out a proper challenge and response to these tragic and inhumane abuses. In places such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which I know well, this is the precise situation. In the case of that republic, Her Majesty’s Government should be encouraged to push the donor community to enforce all aid-funded reforms: in the army and justice sectors, in infrastructure, in basic services provision and elsewhere. By pressing this home, there is that much more chance of putting an end to the conflict in general, and also to respond to the lack of protection and the fragile situation of women. In the DRC, many agencies, including the churches, have been muzzled by fear and terror of retribution, not only individually but within entire communities. This is true, and it is one of the reasons why it has been difficult even for churches to act together without somehow endangering some members of their sister churches.
Universally, genocide is certain to collapse courage and invade human integrity. This breeding ground of fear has led to a coalition among the Christian churches under the title We Will Speak Out. The catalyst for this, the Tearfund report, Silent No More, particularly documented the churches’ responses in the Great Lakes region of Africa. The churches are determined to set their faces against the muzzling of those caught up in such conflict. It would be good to hear from the Minister how the bottom-up, community-based efforts of churches and other faith-based organisations might best feed into the Government’s own initiative.
As was hinted at by the Human Security Report Project, there is a correlation between the incidence of sexual violence in armed conflict and its incidence in wider society. The frightening fact is that the collapsed barriers in conflict spin out into a wider world. To remove proper ethical norms in these extreme conditions cuts at the very roots of a common morality. It is often seen as unfashionable to link the study of history with moral purpose. Disconnect the two, however, and we shall repeat, or even deepen, moral dis-ease. Her Majesty’s Government’s preventing sexual violence initiative is rooted in a belief in moral purpose. It is one crucial step among others towards restoring the integrity of the human community.
I am coming close to my conclusion and I hope that the usual channels will be impressed that I may not even take up the whole of the time that I was offered. However, I beg noble Lords to accept that we dare not ignore this initiative, which has the active support of this Bench. Out of the tragedy of war and armed conflict, we have an imperative to encourage our humanity to flourish and be fulfilled.
Baroness Eaton
My Lords, I give my thanks to the right reverend Prelate for bringing this debate to your Lordships’ Chamber this evening and for presenting to us the sobering issues of war in so many parts of the world. It is heartening to recognise, as the right reverend Prelate mentioned, the seriousness with which Her Majesty’s Government have approached the problem of sexual violence in conflict areas and to note the attention being paid to it through the Foreign Secretary’s initiative on preventing sexual violence. The initiative aims to address the culture of impunity, to replace it with one of deterrence and to change the balance of shame away from the survivors to the perpetrators of these crimes.
Two minutes is a very short time, so I shall concentrate on an area of concern in post-conflict areas. Rape as a weapon of war is unacceptable. Equally abhorrent is the practice that has become almost the norm in some post-conflict countries, where young men seek to rape women as a form of male sexual initiation.
The root causes of sexual and gender-based violence lie in society’s attitudes towards and practices of gender discrimination, which place women in a subordinate position in relation to men. The lack of social and economic value attached to women and women’s work, along with accepted gender roles, perpetuate and reinforce the assumption that men have decision-making power and control over women. Through acts of sexual and gender violence, the perpetrators seek to maintain power and control over others. In post-conflict areas, there is an urgent need for campaigns that rethink gender awareness, that inform everyone that rape is a crime and an unacceptable practice, and that focus on respect for women.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale
I, too, thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Wakefield for securing this debate and for his excellent, comprehensive introduction. I am certain that, even in the two minutes that each of us has been allocated, we could collectively ensure that our voice is heard on this vital topic ahead of International Women’s Day.
In Rwanda in 1994, as has already been mentioned with a different statistic, at least one woman was raped every two minutes while the genocide was taking place. As was said, potentially as many as half a million women were raped in that small country that year. From the Balkans to the Congo, from Haiti to Syria, rape is used all too often as a weapon of war. Extreme sexual violence, committed regularly in many countries against children not just under the age of 16 but under the age of 10, is designed to terrorise and subjugate women, their families and their communities. Mass rape has been used in far too many situations as a strategy for ethnic cleansing of the population.
I have seen too often the tortured memories and the present-day fear in the eyes of women and children from the Congolese jungle to wonderful city of Sarajevo. That is, frankly, a vision of hell and we must be clear in our resolve never to tolerate or accept it. I have also seen visions of hope. I have seen women in Nepal organise for their legal rights in a way that is starting to put the horrors of the past behind them. I have seen young girls in Liberia—young mums, the victims of rape—with the support of Save the Children rebuild their lives and give their children the potential of a better future.
We need not only to prosecute the guilty; we need to support the victims. We need also to ensure that we do something to bring about lasting change. In the 2015 review of the millennium development goals we must ensure we deliver the capacity-building that will ensure safety and security for citizens in individual fragile states, and also ensure that women have the legal, political and economic empowerment that can deliver that lasting change. If we do that we will make a real difference.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, if I were raped I believe I could count on the support of my family, my friends and my community, including the men—provided that I could bring myself to talk of something that to some is literally unspeakable. I would not become an outlaw from my own society. However, in many cultures the victims of sexual violence are outlaws. It is a terrible, vicious spiral when violence is a systematic response to opposition to a regime. The victims and the children born of rape are stigmatised. The health, social and economic impacts are obvious.
I say with huge humility from the comfort of my own background that a major part of the work facing a world seeking to help is to change attitudes to sexual violence—where it is regarded as normal and not to be questioned—and the response to it. Those affected need support and treatment, not ostracism. I know that training and facilitating work by local people is a focus of the PSVI. It must be because it is best led by members of the communities involved, particularly men and boys and especially religious leaders.
There are immediate and long-term needs. The immediate need is the provision of safe, protected areas for women and children who are refugees to protect them from continued violence when they have fled their own country. In the long term victims need help to give evidence of what has happened. Prosecutions need evidence; evidence needs witnesses; witnesses who are traumatised victims need treatment, both to rebuild their own lives and to be able to give evidence to prosecutors and the courts. The burden of acting as a witness must not be overlooked.
The issue has moral, political and practical dimensions so, as others are saying, let us work with everyone who can contribute and especially those who from their own lives have a deep understanding of the cultural dimensions.
Baroness O'Loan
My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate for bringing this debate today. I have worked with women in conflict in many countries and I want to share some of the things that they say donor countries could do to help.
The UK Government in their engagement with the UN could contribute by seeking to place the issue of sexual-based violence on the agenda at peace negotiations. There can be no amnesty in law for rape and violent crimes in times of war. However, very little has been done not just to bring offenders to book but even to articulate that rape is a crime and action will be taken against those responsible. These issues rarely form part of peace negotiations and that is because the offenders are the people at the table and they have no interest in bringing the issue to the table. If supporting Governments, such as the UK, could make it clear that aid and assistance will only follow if women have a place at the negotiating table and if the peace agreement contains a clear statement about sexual violence and its consequences, this would provide a context for beginning to address the problem. The UK could also use its influence to promote compliance with the requirement that peacekeepers deal with their own perpetrators of sexual violence and most particularly that they deal with, and provide for, the UN babies—those born out of the conflict.
Another contribution that the UK is very well placed to make would be in the context of criminal investigation. Any complaint that a rape victim makes has to be in the context of local and national law. Women often have to accept that they have no access through criminal law courts and their only redress is through local laws. The Government could, in their aid packages, prioritise a functioning police and judiciary. Women in these countries express the fact that they need to be able to work closely with the social guardians to disseminate messages about GBV. They say that when church and state and any UN and EU peacekeeping units work together with the women to say these things, it works.
Women want recognition of the level and extent of that violence. They want databases established to demonstrate that. That will make self-evident the need to address the issue. They need to be able to report. They need a functioning police service. They need aid which will support the development of policing, with an emphasis on the need to provide for women. They need, above all, more than a desk and a computer in a sexual violence unit. They need cameras to photograph injuries. They need properly equipped medical services. They need medication. They need the capacity to carry out investigations. Most of all, they need a methodology through which forensic science facilities can be made available to produce, for example, DNA testing of semen left in women after rape. Properly retrieved and handled, that evidence can be conclusive. It may negate the need for investigation.
We have highly developed forensic science facilities. I am not suggesting the creation of labs across the world, but it should be possible to develop a system by which evidence could be sent to a forensic science lab for analysis and reporting. That might provide a breakthrough. Women would see that there might be some point in reporting; it would encourage and affirm them. Of all the issues that I have discussed with women in the third world, this is the one that they most want.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I know that we are very tight on time, but perhaps people will remember that when the clock shows two minutes, you have had your two minutes. Most people are taking a good two and a half minutes or more. Please can noble Lords keep their remarks brief.
Lord Sheikh
My Lords, rape and other forms of sexual violence have been used as weapons against women in conflicts all over the world. The militias in eastern Congo are violating women as a means of exerting control, humiliation and submission. The abuses in the region are said to account for the majority of the work carried out by international aid organisations. The level of brutality is alarming and leaves victims with physical and psychological wounds. There is a stigma attached to rape which results in many victims being ostracised from mainstream society. The majority of victims are therefore reluctant to report their abuse for fear of rejection by their communities.
Some of the most brutal sexual violence occurred in Srebrenica, which was the worst atrocity on European soil since the end of the Second World War. It is a sorry state of affairs that so far only 30 people have been convicted for the 50,000 rapes committed during the Bosnian war.
There are also reports of rape being used as a weapon in Syria. In this regard, I would like to say that the Prophet Muhammad—peace be upon him—instructed his followers not to lay hands on women, children and elderly people in any form of warfare.
Ending sexual violence is central to conflict prevention and peace-building worldwide. It is important that the perpetrators of these heinous crimes are brought to justice. I am pleased that the Government have formed a UK team of 73 experts devoted to combating and preventing sexual violence in armed conflict. The experts will be able to be deployed overseas to gather evidence and testimony that can be used to support investigations and prosecutions.
I wholeheartedly support the plans to deploy UK experts to Libya, Bosnia, South Sudan and eastern Congo. I also support the Government’s decision to provide £1 million in funding to the office of the UN Secretary-General’s Special Representative on Sexual Violence in Conflict. The Government deserve praise for ensuring that victims of these abhorrent crimes will be given access to the support and justice that they deserve.
Lord Parekh
My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Wakefield for securing and introducing the debate.
Sexual violence tends to occur in conflict situations far more than in others. That is so for three reasons. First, the perpetrators of sexual violence think that they have a right to the bodies of their victims, either because they have subdued them in war or because they have spared their lives. Secondly, there is a culture of immunity. They believe that they will be able to get away with this. Thirdly, there is a collective ethos that supports and encourages such behaviour, because of either a breakdown in law and order or a climate of hatred.
If these three are the conditions that facilitate sexual violence, the answer has to lie in addressing them. In the one and a half minutes left to me, I suggest that there are half a dozen things that we might think about, and I am simply going to list them.
First, it is very important that we must change the intellectual climate of the armed forces. They should not think that subduing somebody gives you a right to that person’s body.
Secondly, there should be successful prosecution. In order for that to happen, there must be a team of experts who will gather evidence and make sure that the prosecution succeeds.
Thirdly, as a result of conflict there are peace agreements in which perpetrators of this sort of violence are generally exempted from punishment or given amnesty. That should not happen.
Fourthly, the West must set an example. In all the cases we have talked about it is always the other part of the world that engages in sexual violence. We forget the fact that the American forces in Iraq behaved no better and that, sadly, some of our own have not proved exactly worthy of the highest standards that this country sets them. It is important that the West should set a good example.
Fifthly, the churches should play a very important role. It is not entirely a matter for the state. The churches have either been silent, as in Rwanda, or partisan.
Finally, there must be a way of introducing some kind of early-warning system. Sexual violence does not break through the surface just like that; there is a build-up to it, and if it can be caught early enough it can be stopped.
Lord Alderdice
My Lords, I suppose it is a tragic inevitability that shooting, bombing, injuring and killing people violently is part of war, and there is often debate about which incidents of bombing, shooting or violence are within the moral or legal framework. However, there is no dispute that sexual violence in the context of war is outside all moral and legal limits. I believe that those who in engage in this kind of behaviour know perfectly well that they are outside what is morally acceptable—unless they have so dehumanised those whom they are abusing that they have largely lost their own humanity. We should be clear about this: there are no contexts in which this is acceptable, either to the overwhelming majority of victims who are women, or as we are increasingly seeing in Syria, the minority who are men, often young men.
That is why I am proud that our own Government have seized on this issue as one of the most important for the G8 and for our foreign policy. Can my noble friend assure me that, as the Foreign Secretary and colleagues move to try to engage in negotiations about a new international protocol on this issue, these crimes will be taken to the International Criminal Court if such a protocol is accepted? Can my noble friend also assure me that we shall see not just a legal change but, as my noble friend Lady Hamwee has said, a cultural change, which will ensure that those who engage in sexual violence can never be regarded as national heroes, but always as cowardly and brutal people who damage their own humanity as they damage that of their victims?
Baroness Coussins
My Lords, I want to draw attention to sexual violence in Colombia and to ask the Government if they will reconsider their decision not to include Colombia as a designated priority country under their excellent PSVI programme.
The Colombian Constitutional Court itself has said that sexual violence is,
“a habitual, extensive, systematic and invisible practice in the context of the Colombian armed conflict”.
The UN special representative noted only last May that all armed groups there—the guerrillas, the security forces and the paramilitaries—use sexual violence as a strategy of war and terror, with near total impunity.
I believe there is a great deal that the UK could do to help the situation in Colombia, and that the excellent work being carried out by our embassy in Bogota would be all the more effective if backed up by further dedicated resources and the authority of priority country designation.
First, there is the issue of impunity and effective amnesty for crimes of sexual violence. Colombia has recently begun peace dialogues with the FARC guerrilla group, but if these talks are to conform with UN Resolutions 1325 and 1820, this amnesty must be reversed, Colombian women themselves must be represented, and the issue of sexual violence must be on the negotiating table from day one. Colombia has not even drawn up an action plan on implementing Resolution 1325.
Secondly, there is the issue of the attacks on, threats to and killing of women human rights defenders and even their children. This has increased markedly in the past few years. Finally, there is a lack of effective security and psychosocial support for survivors, who are often the ones feeling shame and guilt. This is exacerbated by cultural issues in indigenous communities. We know that Afro-Colombian women are particularly exposed to constant physical assaults and violence. Will the Minister therefore undertake to review the status of Colombia within the PSVI, in particular the resources available to support women’s organisations, which are documenting and prosecuting cases of conflict-related sexual violence while supporting survivors?
Baroness Tonge
My Lords, I congratulate the right reverend Prelate on securing this debate. I wish to raise three practical points. First, the Foreign Secretary has stated that rape and sexual violence are used as a deliberate weapon of war. That said, will he take the lead at the G8 in calling for rape and sexual violence in conflict to be classified as a war crime?
Secondly, we had reassurances during the debate tabled by the Lord, Lord Lester, two weeks ago that after rape during conflict, women are entitled to have a safe abortion, if they want it, under international humanitarian law. Can we therefore have this specifically included in DfID’s paper on safe and unsafe abortion, so that it is quite clear? It is unthinkable that women who have been raped should be forced to continue their pregnancy, should they not want to.
Finally, NGOs often pool funds for specific projects and I have been totally unable to establish whether the USA’s ban on funds for abortion is affecting our projects in this field. NGOs that I have approached—and there are many—are unable to give me any figures at all so how can we be sure that our money, channelled through DfID, is being used for safe abortion? Please can the Minister give us some more information?
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
My Lords, I offer my thanks, briefly but sincerely, to the right reverend Prelate for having given us the chance to debate this important matter. I need to draw the House’s attention to my involvement with the charity Freedom from Torture, which offers solace, comfort and rehabilitation to refugees in the UK who have been tortured overseas. All too often, I am afraid, that torture involves rape.
In the rest of my remarks, I want to focus on an aspect of this terrible topic that has not been raised before: that is to say the rape of men, young boys and adults. It is an equally ugly but less reported crime and one where perpetrators are rarely, if ever, brought to justice. Male rape does not fit easily into the narrative. As my noble friend Lady Eaton said, men are supposed to be strong and dominant, not vulnerable and weak. Further, male rape, which will inevitably involve anal penetration, gives rise to particularly horrific injuries. In countries where homosexuality is culturally frowned upon or remains a criminal activity, such injuries are even more likely to remain unreported and untreated.
The right reverend Prelate referred to the Democratic Republic of Congo. The American Medical Association, which surveyed that country, said that 30% of the women had been raped but that 22% of the men had been raped as well. It is not just in Africa that these stories remain unheard. One of the few academics to have looked into the issue in any detail is Lara Stemple of the University of California’s Health and Human Rights Law Project. Her study, Male Rape and Human Rights, notes incidents of male sexual violence as a weapon of war or political aggression in countries as diverse as Chile, Greece, Croatia, Iran, Kuwait, the former Soviet Union and the former Yugoslavia.
Finally, as we inch towards the exit door in Afghanistan we are in danger of leaving behind an endemic male-rape culture. As the BBC reported recently, every police base has at least one “chai boy”, who usually looks between 13 and 15 years old. Police commanders often see it as their right to abduct a local boy from his family and keep him as a servant and sex slave. Is this what we went to Afghanistan to preserve?
Lord Judd
My Lords, I express my appreciation for this debate and for the right reverend Prelate for having introduced it. It goes way beyond this House. I am a trustee of Saferworld, I also work very closely with bodies such as Amnesty International and UNA and many others of course who have accumulated vast amounts of evidence about the sickening brutality of the way rape is now used, as has been argued in this debate, as a weapon of war. All the people working day after day on these issues are really grateful for the right reverend Prelate’s pressure on this matter.
Impunity has been mentioned and the United Nations Development Programme for Multi-Partner Trust Fund Office gives one example. It is just one of a great number. In the years between 2005 and 2007, 14,200 rape cases occurred in South Kivu in the Congo. What is really disturbing is that only 2% of the perpetrators were ever brought to justice. The Foreign Secretary has put on record his conviction that effective response to sexual violence needs to be built into every aspect of conflict prevention and peaceuilding. Could we perhaps be told what progress is being made on that?
Access to justice in tackling sexual and gender-based violence in conflict necessitates improving security and justice systems. What progress is being made on that? Physical protection, medical protection, including emergency reproductive health services, particularly taking HIV and AIDS into account, psychosexual support and legal assistance are all essential. Are we making progress on these? Also essential is building sustained capacity of women’s organisations coupled with support and protection for the women involved because the risk to them and the threats to them can be acute. What are we doing in a co-ordinated way to meet all these points? Are we really using our knowledge and concern to influence effectively the remaining stages of our engagement in Afghanistan?
Lord Hussain
My Lords, I too thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Wakefield for securing this debate. I would like to draw your Lordships’ attention to the sexual violence used by occupying Indian forces in Kashmir. Out of many cases, I would like to mention one incident of the night of 23-24 February 1991 when the Fourth Rajputana Rifles troopers entered the village of Kunan Poshpora in north Kashmir. This incident was reported widely by Indian media, by the UK newspaper the Independent on 19 March and the New York Times on 7 April 1991. Amnesty International has also quoted this incident. In its judgment, the Jammu and Kashmir State Human Rights Commission concluded:
“Analyzing the statements of all the witnesses/victims it transpires that at about 10 to 11 pm in the night, security personnel cordoned the village. The men folk of the village were ordered to come out and were confined in a Kothar”—
store houses. It continued:
“Then small groups of security forces made their forced entry into the houses. They had consumed liquor and then gagged the mouths of the victims and committed forced gang rape against their will and consent. The personnel from the security forces had actually turned into beasts and had lost their sense of reasoning as even minor girls of 8 years were also raped. The indecent incident continued approximately till 3/4 AM. Almost all the women folk of the village suffered some atrocities during the whole night”.
It is sad to see that no prosecution has taken place so far—not one. I ask the Minister whether the Foreign Secretary will raise this issue with his counterpart in his next meeting to bring those responsible to justice.
Lord Collins of Highbury
My Lords, I, too, thank the right reverend Prelate for initiating this debate. I, too, welcome the Government’s preventing sexual violence initiative and the Foreign Secretary’s plans to use the UK’s leadership of the G8 to raise awareness and seek concrete commitments to help combat the widespread prevalence of sexual violence in conflict.
However, not only must we be tough on the crime we have to be tough on its causes. We must tackle the underlying problems of lack of empowerment, education and inclusion. I heard Justine Greening on “Woman’s Hour” this morning and could not have agreed more with her sentiments. Challenging attitudes and beliefs around gender-based violence is critical alongside the implementation of effective legislation. But I would have liked to have heard more about how we translate those positive sentiments into action. I therefore ask the Minister how much funding the UK Government are willing to commit to PSVI. How much are we asking the other G8 countries to commit? How can we ensure that this issue is prioritised among the G8 Foreign Ministers at the G8 meeting, and that the momentum continues after April to translate the commitments into co-ordinated and effective action?
Finally, I ask the Minister whether the PSVI and G8 messaging and funding include increasing support to survivors and broader protection systems, as well as efforts to tackle the root causes of sexual violence in conflict, including addressing gender and age discrimination and creating livelihood opportunities.
Baroness Northover
My Lords, I, too, thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Wakefield for securing this extremely important and timely debate. In this week of International Women’s Day, I am glad that we have this focus tonight and that so many noble Lords chose to contribute, albeit briefly.
The statistics on violence against women and girls are shocking. Globally, one in three women is beaten or sexually abused in her lifetime. In conflict and post-conflict situations, sexual violence can be even more widespread, as the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, pointed out. As the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and others have said, women and girls are the poorest and most marginal in society, with the least power. In conflicts, they are the most vulnerable. As the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, and others have pointed out, we also see rape being used as a weapon against the woman, her family, her community and her society. However, as the right reverend Prelate says, and my noble friend Lord Hodgson emphasised, we also see sexual violence against men and boys used to degrade and destroy. We see that now in Syria. The noble Lord, Lord Sheikh, rightly emphasised the stigma of rape.
How do we break the silence on this and change behaviours? Unless we do, we undermine the likelihood of peaceful resolutions. We know that sexual violence causes huge physical and psychological trauma. My noble friend Lady Hamwee referred to that. But it also exacerbates ethnic, sectarian and other divisions, further entrenches conflict and undermines efforts to restore peace and stability. It reduces progress towards the millennium development goals and represents one of the most serious forms of human rights violation or abuse. For all these reasons, tackling violence against women and girls is central to the Government’s work overseas. We agree with the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, that women and girls must continue to be at the heart of whatever replaces the MDGs.
This year, 2013, is a hugely important year for this agenda. We are working hard with other Governments to ensure that this year’s UN Commission on the Status of Women, whose focus is on violence against women and girls, is a success and agrees a set of robust global standards to protect women and girls from discrimination and violence. My honourable friend Lynne Featherstone is leading the UK delegation. We also want to see women and girls at the heart of the new millennium development goal framework to be published later this year. Their inclusion is critical to achieving our goal of ending extreme poverty.
This year will also see greater government action to address the use of sexual violence in conflict as we further develop and implement the Foreign Secretary’s preventing sexual violence initiative, to which noble Lords have referred. In our own lifetimes, millions of women, men, and children have endured this horror, including in the Democratic Republic of Congo, to which noble Lords have referred, in South Sudan, in Colombia, as the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, said, in Bosnia and in Syria. The truth today, as the right reverend Prelate pointed out, is that the perpetrators of these appalling, life-shattering crimes more often than not go unpunished.
We believe that more must be done to combat the use of sexual violence in conflict. We want the international community to address the culture of impunity that has been allowed to develop for these crimes and to increase the number of perpetrators brought to justice, both internationally and nationally. As other noble Lords have mentioned, the Foreign Secretary has placed this issue at the top of the G8 agenda for 2013. We want G8 Foreign Ministers at their April meeting to speak out against those who use sexual violence in conflict and to declare that rape and serious sexual violence amount to grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions. This is a very significant step in the development of international humanitarian law. Declaring that serious sexual violence and rape amount to grave breaches sends the message that these crimes are to be treated in the same way as the most serious category of war crimes. I can therefore reassure my noble friends Lady Tonge and Lord Alderdice that these crimes will become the most serious category of war crime in international law. I can also assure my noble friend Lord Alderdice that they can be taken to the International Criminal Court. Consultation with prosecutors at the ICC has clearly identified that a lack of clarity over investigations and collection of evidence led to the low number of prosecutions in the ICC and other international tribunals. The protocol will directly address this.
We are also proposing a set of practical G8 commitments that, taken together, will promote justice and accountability and provide greater support to victims. I hope that my noble friend Lady Hamwee, the noble Lords, Lord Parekh and Lord Judd, and others will welcome them. These commitments are, first, to improve investigations and the documentation of sexual violence in conflict, including through endorsing a new international protocol; secondly, to provide greater support and assistance to survivors, including child survivors, of sexual violence, so that they can rebuild their lives and attain justice for what they have endured; thirdly, as the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, emphasised, to ensure that the response to sexual and gender-based violence is fully integrated into wider peace and security efforts; and fourthly, to improve international co-ordination, including through the UN, because a co-operative approach to addressing sexual violence will have a much greater long-term impact.
To underpin these international efforts, the Government have established a new specialist UK team of experts, to which the noble Lord, Lord Sheikh, referred, who can be deployed to conflict areas to help local authorities and organisations address sexual violence. This team has already been deployed to the Syrian border to help train local health professionals. In answer to the right reverend Prelate, we aim to work with, and support, those who can document these abuses in that area. We also plan to deploy the team to at least five other countries this year. It will go to Libya, to support survivors of sexual violence committed during the revolution; to South Sudan, to work alongside the UN and the Government to strengthen local justice; to eastern DRC, to help doctors and lawyers to investigate crimes against the hundreds of women and girls who are raped each month; to Bosnia-Herzegovina, to help courts and prosecutors address the backlog of war crimes cases; and to Mali, to provide human rights training to the Malian armed forces on preventing and responding to sexual violence. As the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, emphasised, in order to address these issues, we need first the law to protect and then we need to work with those who can help to ensure the implementation of those laws: the police, the judges, civil society and the media.
Our plans for the initiative have been developed in consultation with UN agencies, other international bodies, NGOs, and—I can also reassure the right reverend Prelate—representatives from faith groups. These groups have a particular role, not least because of their ability to reach out across communities. We want to continue to work closely with them as we challenge the myths and stigma associated with victims of sexual violence.
There were a number of questions. My noble friend Lady Tonge asked about the proposals we brought forward earlier this year in terms of international humanitarian law. In conflict situations, even if it is contrary to national law, abortion care can be offered where its denial would amount to torture or cruel treatment. We need now to focus very much on bringing our international partners with us on this. We are very forward-looking on this, as we have been in the area of safe abortion as well, and it is extremely important that we take others with us. However, if the noble Baroness has any evidence that UK aid is not being used appropriately and is not reaching women, will she please let us have those details?
The noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, asked about Columbia. PSVI is working in partnership with the UN special representative’s office and its team is leading on these issues in Columbia. We support that. I will be very happy to provide further details for the noble Baroness.
My noble friend Lord Hussain spoke about the abuse of human rights in Kashmir. I hear what he has to say in this regard, and we welcome the invitation by the Indian Government to the UN special rapporteur, who is to look in detail at those allegations. We are not willing to put up with abuse of human rights, wherever it happens in the world.
The noble Lord, Lord Collins, asked about funding. I will be very happy to spell this out further in writing. The G8 commitments are essentially very practical, but groundbreaking. By working with our international partners we have moved this forward in a very significant way, and we now need to take our international partners with us so that we can ensure that this is as effective as it needs to be. It needs to be done right across the international spectrum.
Tackling the impunity of those responsible for sexual violence is essential for any conflict or post-conflict society seeking to come to terms with past abuses. It is also essential to prevent their recurrence. This is an absolutely key year as we seek to take this forward. This is the year to ensure that we make the difference for those who are at risk of this horrific form of abuse.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, as several of the final speeches were shorter than time allowed for, and as one speaker withdrew at the last minute, we have now come rather short of our time limit. I thank everyone for their indulgence at the unpleasant roles that Whips have to play, and I suggest that the House should now adjourn until 9.36 pm.
Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill
“Abolition of Agricultural Wages Board and related English bodies: consequential provision1 In section 28 of the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976 (duty of housing authority upon receiving application that agricultural worker be re-housed etc), in subsection (3), for “The authority” substitute “If the dwelling-house is in Wales, the authority”.
2 The repeals and revocations in the following table have effect.
Reference | Extent of repeal or revocation |
|---|---|
Agricultural Wages Act 1948 (c. 47) | Section 1. |
In section 2— (a) in subsection (1)— (a) the words “England and”, and (b) paragraph (a), and (b) subsection (4). | |
Sections 3 to 4. | |
Sections 6 to 16. | |
In section 17— (a) in subsection (1), the definition of “the national minimum wage”, and (b) subsection (1A). | |
Sections 17A to 19. | |
Schedules 1, 2 and 4. | |
The Agricultural Wages Committee Regulations 1949 (S.I. 1949/1885) | Regulation 3(2)(a) and the word “and” after it. |
Regulation 16. | |
Public Records Act 1958 (c. 51) | In the table at the end of paragraph 3 of Schedule 1, the words “Agricultural Wages Board.” |
Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 (c. 13) | In Schedule 2, the words “Agricultural Wages Board for England and Wales.” |
Agriculture Act 1967 (c. 22) | Section 67. |
Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968 (c. 34) | Section 46. |
Agricultural Wages Committees (Wages Structure) Regulations 1971 (S.I. 1971/844) | The whole instrument. |
Agricultural Wages Committees (Areas) Order 1974 (S.I. 1974/515) | In article 3(1), the words— (a) “Subject to the provisions of this order”, and (b) “an agricultural wages committee for each county in England and”. |
Article 3(2). | |
Article 4. | |
The Schedule. | |
Social Security (Consequential Provisions) Act 1975 (c. 18) | In Schedule 2, paragraph 32. |
House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 (c. 24) | In Part 3 of Schedule 1, the words “Member appointed by a Minister of the Crown of the Agricultural Wages Board for England and Wales.” |
Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975 (c. 25) | In Part 3 of Schedule 1, the words “of the Agricultural Wages Board for England and Wales or”. |
Social Security Pensions Act 1975 (c. 60) | In Schedule 4, paragraph 10. |
Employment Protection Act 1975 (c. 71) | Section 97(1) and (2). |
Schedule 9. | |
In Schedule 17, paragraph 12. | |
Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 (c. 55) | In section 4(1)(c), the words from “(including” to the end. |
Agricultural Wages Committees (New Combinations of Counties) Order 1981 (S.I. 1981/179) | The whole order. |
Agricultural Wages Committee (Cleveland, Durham, Northumberland and Tyne and Wear) Order 1989 (S.I. 1989/1173) | The whole order. |
Social Security (Consequential Provisions) Act 1992 (c. 6) | In Schedule 2, paragraph 4. |
Agricultural Wages Committees (Areas) (England) Order 1995 (S.I. 1995/3186) | The whole order. |
Employment Rights Act 1996 (c. 18) | In section 35— (a) in subsection (2), paragraph (a) and the word “or” at the end of that paragraph, and (b) in subsection (3), paragraph (b) and the “and” before that paragraph. |
National Minimum Wage Act 1998 (c. 39) | In section 16(6)— (a) in the definition of “the agricultural wages legislation”, paragraph (a), and (b) in the definition of “relevant authority”, paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). |
In section 16A(5)— (a) in the definition of “enforcement officer”, paragraph (b), and (b) in the definition of “the relevant legislation”, paragraph (b). | |
Section 46(4)(a). | |
In section 47— (a) subsection (1)(a), (b) subsection (2)(a) and (d), (c) subsection (4)(a), (d) in subsection (4)(b), the words “(similar provision for Scotland)”, and (e) subsection (6)(a). | |
In section 55(1), in the definition of “regulations”, the words “by the Secretary of State and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food acting jointly or”. | |
Part 1 of Schedule 2. | |
National Minimum Wage Regulations 1998 (S.I. 1999/584) | Regulation 38(5)(a). |
Freedom of Information Act 2000 (c. 36) | In Part 6 of Schedule 1, the words “An Agricultural Wages Board for England and Wales”. |
Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44) | In Schedule 25, paragraph 28. |
Employment Relations Act 2004 (c. 24) | Section 47. |
In Schedule 1, paragraph 1. | |
Public Contracts Regulations 2006 (S.I. 2006/5) | In Schedule 1, in the entry relating to the Agricultural Wages Board and agricultural wages committees, the words “Board and”. |
Employment Act 2008 (c. 24) | Section 8(6). |
Section 9(6). | |
Public Contracts (Scotland) Regulations 2012 (S.S.I. 2012/88) | In Schedule 1, in the entry relating to the Agricultural Wages Board and agricultural wages committees, the words “Board and”.” |
Lord Clement-Jones
“Annual report on copyright licensing
(1) The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 is amended as follows.
(2) In Part VII (miscellaneous and general), after section 301 insert—
“301A Annual report on copyright licensing
The Secretary of State shall present to Parliament an annual report from the Intellectual Property Office which shall include a review of the state of copyright licensing in the United Kingdom, of cross border co-ordination with other jurisdictions and of progress on protecting metadata.”.”
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, since we are starting Part 6, which I suppose is a form of light relief from earlier parts of the Bill, I want to thank the Minister. All those participating in Part 6 will have noticed that the Minister has been a prolific correspondent. In case full details are not provided on all the amendments we have put forward, those outside the House should know that letters were passed on 25 February to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, on the orphan works aspects of Clause 69 and on Clause 67; to myself on 11 February, and on 4 March on Clause 68; and, most recently, on 5 March there was a letter on extended collective licensing. I thank the Minister for the clarification that a lot of that has produced.
Lord Howarth of Newport
Like other noble Lords, I much appreciate what the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has just said. However, should we not also thank the Minister for his willingness to meet with noble Lords on a number of occasions? It has been extremely helpful to enable us to understand the Government’s thinking and for him to be able to understand some of ours.
Lord Clement-Jones
I very much welcome what the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, said. I quite agree. It is refreshing to be able to have that communication. It is not always a game of ping-pong or tennis. One can resolve some of these issues as we go along. In particular, this probing amendment is designed to elicit further information from the Minister. I thought we had a very good assurance from him that the IPO would publish an annual report which would be laid before Parliament, and that this could include a progress report on work towards a digital hub for licensing purposes.
When the Government’s response to the informal consultation on the role of the Intellectual Property Office came out very recently, it was very good to see that precisely that is enshrined in the document. Essentially, the Government are confirming that they will do that and that it will take place, particularly in terms of progress on licensing.
I would like to push the boat out a little further. In Committee we had a very useful discussion about metadata, its treatment and its protection. It is, of course, an issue of great importance to many creators, and we discussed that informally as well when we met the Minister. Work is ongoing in a working group, but as yet there is no indication of what its work might produce, technologically or legally. This new amendment is really designed to get a further assurance from the Minister that there will be regular progress reports on this aspect and that the proposals for action by the working group will be acted on. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, I added my name to this amendment. Of course I support entirely what the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said, but it gives me an opportunity to intervene and to say how much I appreciate what my noble friend on the Front Bench has been able to do in the light of the Committee debates and of the several meetings that he has been kind enough to hold. Indeed, there are now amendments on the Order Paper in his name, which I think will be extremely welcome.
Noble Lords will remember that, when we started debating the copyright clauses in Grand Committee, I moved a new clause to set up what was in effect intended to be a champion for IP. I was gratified by the support I had from all parts of the Committee for that new clause. I have not retabled it for the very good reason that I think my noble friend Lord Younger has gone a long way to prove that he will be an effective champion of IP. He made it clear in his reply to the debate that he was, in fact, in charge of IP at his department, and he has been as good as his word in the amendments that he has tabled.
I can assure him that the correspondence that I have had since the end of Committee, and in particular since the government amendments were tabled, has entirely changed in tone. Those who were very deeply concerned beforehand at what the Bill appeared to portend for the future of copyright property rights seem to have been greatly reassured. For that reason I have not retabled the amendment asking for a champion because I think my noble friend has gone a long way to satisfying me that he will do his best to perform that function.
Moreover, my noble friend’s speeches and letters, to which my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones referred, have made it very much clearer than it was before what the Bill is intended to do and what the Government’s policy on this issue is. I like to think that there has been not only a change in tone but a change in substance, and recognition that IP is indeed a hugely important economic factor in this country’s economy, involving many billions of pounds and many hundreds of thousands —indeed, millions—of people whose livelihoods depend on it. If the Government have really hoisted that one on board, that can only be a credit to the debates that we had in this House and, above all, to my noble friend.
Baroness Buscombe
My Lords, I add my support to my noble friends who have already spoken and congratulate the Minister on all that he has done to engage with us and our concerns in relation to this part of the Bill.
When I have spoken on this Bill previously, I have said that it has much to commend it, and I am still of that view—very much so. Close scrutiny through Grand Committee has given the Government the opportunity to improve the Bill further and indeed in many cases they have. I am particularly interested in Clauses 67 to 69, which have a direct impact on the cultural fabric of and economic opportunity for the UK. In particular, the creative industries have shown incredible concern about the manner in which these proposals were formed and the perception that there is a will within Government and the Intellectual Property Office to unpick the intellectual property framework that underpins many creators and rights holders, in favour of US technology companies and others who want to use more copyright content for free. Of course, the Minister has gone a long way to seek to allay those fears.
However, commercial companies and organisations in our creative industries quite rightly expect a financial return from investing in creating original content and then archiving and preserving it for others to pay a licence. They lead the way in it and in many sectors such as audiovisual there is healthy competition, sensible pricing and industry-driven innovation to adapt to the digital age. Therefore, it is wholly wrong, in our view, for legislation to reduce these commercial incentives in favour of the radical and in many cases I believe ill-advised recommendations from Professor Hargreaves that inform the copyright measures in this Bill.
One of the reasons for putting my name to this particular amendment is that we have to think about competition not just in terms of cross-border and close to home but further afield. For example—I may refer to this later when we are looking in more detail at extended collective licensing—China has just announced that it would implement ECL in its copyright law. It is said that the details will be in regulations yet to be published. The UK Government will not be in a position to demand appropriate safeguards for licensing of UK copyrights by ECL in China if we ourselves do not have them in our own legislation as the Nordic countries do. Nor will UK rights holders or their representative bodies be in a strong position to safeguard UK rights abused by ECLs in foreign countries if the UK’s own statute lacks the necessary safeguards.
I support this amendment. A regular update so that we know about progress in terms of the Intellectual Property Office is really important. I feel that the Minister is on our wavelength and understands our issues, and we would be grateful for some positive comments from him with regard to this amendment.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, I, too, welcome the Minister’s commitment that an annual report should be published by the Intellectual Property Office. It may not reach the top of the bestseller lists, but it is right in principle that the public should have the opportunity to be informed about what the current issues are and what developments in policy are or may be. That is very proper. Of course, Parliament in particular should have that information. I hope that we would find the opportunity to debate the annual report each year that it comes out.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Clement Jones, and his co-signatories on the terms in which they have they expressed this amendment and the particular examples that they have given of the kind of material that should be covered in the annual report. The report would need to review the state of copyright licensing in the United Kingdom. I hope that in fulfilling that requirement it would provide a discussion about how the Intellectual Property Office seeks to balance its absolutely right and necessary defence of the interests of intellectual property holders with wider interests that the public may have in the early and extensive benefit that can be received from the dissemination of this new information, knowledge and material. That is important.
I am also pleased that the expectation would be that the annual report should review cross-border co-ordination between our own jurisdiction and jurisdictions in other countries. For example, we would certainly want to know how the Intellectual Property Office and BIS are looking to mesh the complementary policies that we develop in this country with the policies that are being developed in the European Union and other countries that may be ahead of us in some respects.
For example, we know that the European Union orphan works directive is very limited and strictly curtailed in what it would allow. Only cultural sector bodies and educational establishments, not companies, could benefit from its provisions. Public/private partnerships, for example, would be prevented. That represents what is at the moment too limited and cautious an approach on the part of the European Union.
Mass digitisation projects are only going to be able to be carried out by our great cultural institutions in partnership with the private sector, and that ought to be contemplated as policy-making develops both in this country and in Brussels. The attempt to continue to draw absolute distinctions between commercial and non-commercial purposes will prove to be too restrictive of the ability of great institutions that are publicly funded in this country, such as libraries, universities and museums, which ought to be able to work freely in partnership with the private sector but which may be constrained by legislation as it has so far appeared to develop.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, also mentioned the question of metadata. That is highlighted in the amendment. It is excellent that, at last, we have a working group looking at the problems that arise with metadata and digital photography. The working group is trying to find out why this stripping happens, why creators do not get paid and, above all, what solutions might be found, presumably by way of new technology but perhaps in other ways, to ensure that intellectual property is not stolen from photographers. The fact that it is already illegal to strip metadata under Section 107 sadly does not prevent it happening. There is a legitimate and very important issue there and I hope that progress on that will be covered in the report, as the noble Lord said.
I also hope that the report will inform us as to how the Intellectual Property Office seeks to gather views and reconcile different interests and points of view. I have very much sympathy with it in the very difficult and sensitive task that it has to carry out.
Let me give an instance. I saw in the British Journal of Photography recently a story headed:
“News agencies go on the offensive, call for judicial review of copyright changes”.
I was surprised to learn that:
“The world’s largest news agencies have delivered a Letter Before Claim to the UK’s business secretary Vince Cable in what is described as the first step in the process of initiating a Judicial Review - a formal legal challenge to governmental planned legislation”.
The article goes on to suggest that the Government are proceeding quite improperly. It challenges the Government’s plans to introduce their proposed changes through what they were pleased to call “Henry VIII clauses”—secondary legislation which is not subject to the full scrutiny of Parliament.
That is not very complimentary to your Lordships. We are engaged in quite serious and intensive scrutiny of this legislation. We certainly will be when we have the regulations in due course. What was completely bizarre was then to read a quotation in the name of Mr Paul Ellis of the Stop43 organisation:
“The technology, academic and cultural heritage sectors want to be able to use other people’s copyright property without having to ask or pay for it, and view copyright law as an obstacle. Under their intense propaganda and lobbying onslaught several governments have fallen for this line and are trying to introduce laws that weaken copyright, such as the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill now going through Parliament”.
He then goes on to denounce,
“these lobbying-driven legislative attempts to confiscate our property”.
It seems a bit of a case of the pot calling the kettle black. The serious point is that the IPO is very vigorously lobbied from a multiplicity of sources and by a multiplicity of powerful commercial interests; the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, referred to some of them. It has always to be the duty of the IPO, the Government and us in Parliament to ensure that workable policies are arrived at that represent an appropriate balance between the range of competing, relevant and, indeed, legitimate interests that are all intensely concerned about what we do.
I hope that the annual report will include some account of how the IPO weathers these storms and what its philosophy is in terms of receiving and listening to representations and establishing working groups which allow people to have the opportunity to contribute their thinking and remind policy-makers of their legitimate interests but, at the same time, do not cause the policy to be unduly tipped and biased in favour of those who shout loudest. That would always be wrong. I have every confidence that that will not be allowed to happen. However, it may be helpful to those who have this arduous and difficult responsibility of developing the technical details of policy in the copyright field that we have a better understanding of what it is that they have to cope with. I support this amendment.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, I will make a few brief remarks in closing this short debate. First, I associate myself with the warm expressions of thanks and support to the Minister not only for his very assiduous work in responding to the questions and queries that were raised at earlier stages of the Bill but for the meetings that he has had. I am not quite sure how he has managed to keep going—he is looking a bit shell-shocked, although that may not just have been today. We are all very grateful to him for what he has done. Indeed, it has brought a different sensibility to the whole way in which we have been able to engage with this and I am very grateful for that. I am sorry that the choir has lost his very nice tuneful voice as a result, but I hope he will get back into it after this intensive work is over.
Having said that, has the mood really changed? We have just heard that there are still quite big guns out there, and the reference from my noble friend Lord Howarth to the judicial review—I have benefited from the courtesy of being shown a copy of the 36-page document that went in—certainly suggests that there are still some people with axes to grind out there and serious points, too, which need to be considered and reflected. Although we are making progress and, I think, beginning to arrive at a common position on a number of issues raised in this part of the Bill, there are still some hurdles ahead which we have got to think about. For instance, I got two letters and several e-mails today from people again expressing concern about what is happening here. They are not sighted and perhaps not up to speed with what is going on but they certainly feel very strongly about it.
As other noble Lords have said, there are other things going on here. We are doing a lot of the work in this Bill but, in parallel, the outcome of the Hargreaves report and the various pieces of secondary legislation that will be going through, which radically change the way in which we deal with copyright and performance rights, need to be accommodated and brought alongside some of the movements that are here. A lot of what we have been saying in the discussions and debates on this Bill has been contingent on a satisfactory outcome for those things, and I do not want to prejudge where we are going to get to on parody, exceptions for educational use and desirable things like copying for archives. These are all important parts of the ecology that this Bill touches on but does not completely encapsulate. We must therefore be careful not to overcall what we are achieving here.
A third example on that list would perhaps be the one raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, which is that we are not alone here; lots of other people are working on their copyright registrations and legislation and moving forward. That will always affect how we do things. We will not make the progress that we want to make in terms of this industry, and the work that goes into this type of activity in the UK will be for nothing, if we are outsmarted and outgunned by those who either have a much more advanced concept of copyright and licensing or none at all. These are important points.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
My Lords, first, I appreciate the warm comments that have been made by my noble friends Lord Clement-Jones, Lord Jenkin, and Lady Buscombe, and also by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth. I agree that it is highly desirable from the Government’s perspective to understand and resolve issues outside the Chamber. I very much hope that will continue; I am sure it will. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for the collegiate approach that he takes to these issues. It is much appreciated on this side.
I want to focus, as other noble Lords have done, on the report—or perhaps I should say the response to the informal consultation, a copy of which I have here —which I have read with interest. It is refreshing to read that views were in general very positive on having a report. I noted that the Motion Picture Association thought that the report should be developed in full and open dialogue with the copyright sector. That is all in the right spirit. Certainly, the Government believe that the proposed annual report will increase the transparency of IPO activities and they welcome the support from the respondents. Again, that should be a very good thing to highlight given some of the comments that have been made today.
The noble Lord, Lord Howarth, asked about issues that might be covered within the report. I confirm that I will want to look very carefully at all his points to see what we can say about them in the report, so I thank him for his input on that.
The noble Lord spoke also about the judicial review. I am afraid that all I can say at the moment from the Government perspective is that we have received a pre-action letter concerning copyright measures in the Bill to which we have responded. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to comment further at this time.
The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, stated that he did not want to prejudge the debate on copyright exceptions. As I hope he will be aware, I am keen that Parliament should have the necessary time for debate on the statutory instruments—I think that I made that clear in Grand Committee.
Lord Howarth of Newport
The Minister very kindly answered a Written Question on whether an individual impact assessment would accompany each of the regulations introducing new exceptions. While I normally follow the noble Viscount with ease and find his presentations pellucid, I did not find the answer to his question without ambiguity. While I recognise that the impacts of some of the regulations may overlap, I think that it is extremely important that, when Parliament is considering this very important secondary legislation, we should have in each and every case the best impact assessment that the Government are able to provide. Will he assure us that that will be the case?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I thank the noble Lord for that point. I shall look again at what I said and what we produced. If we can improve on it, we most certainly will. I shall get back to the noble Lord on that point.
The Government are keenly aware of and sensitive to the concerns of creators in relation to metadata. They believe that an industry-led approach is most likely to identify the key issues and the most effective solutions. They warmly welcome the establishment of a metadata working group which brings together key players from across the industry, including the Association of Photographers, Stop43, the BBC, the British Association of Picture Libraries and Agencies, Getty Images and News Corporation. We will consider carefully any recommendations aimed at government and, if they are proportionate and effective, will certainly support them. I also commit to keeping Parliament informed on progress.
The Intellectual Property Office will also be working with the Technology Strategy Board to consider other options to tackle the issues around the misuse of digital images as well as search and stripping of metadata. I hope that in the light of what I have said in my brief comments my noble friend can withdraw his amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the very useful assurances coming at the end of his speech that he will consider all the metadata working group recommendations and keep Parliament informed, and that the Technology Strategy Group will be involved in this as well.
Generally, we are breaking into fresh territory with the concept of an annual report. We seem gradually to be moving language forward more positively about the creative industries and the value of intellectual property. The language of the exceptions document before Christmas moved it on a notch; this response document moves it on a notch, in particular to meet what I thought were extremely useful comments on the part of the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, not only on what an annual report should contain but on impact assessments.
This report is quite positive about the improved evidence base that the IPO is going to adopt. A lot of people, particularly some of those mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, would say amen to that. Some of the impact assessments have not been up to scratch and this has created quite a lot of concern and, indeed, anger from some sectors when they see that the benefits are not clearly there but the costs to them are. It is an extremely positive move.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, that there are a number of further issues we really must get to grips with as we move along on Report. Of course, any Minister is as good as his last set of assurances. I am sure we will put that to the test as we go along. I am grateful to the Minister for his responses. I am very grateful to noble Lords, in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, for his comments. I entirely agree with him about the Minister in the assumption of his role. It has been a very positive step. We have some way to go still, particularly in terms of the photographers mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and also the news agency industry mentioned by my noble friend Lady Buscombe.
I hope that by the time we come to the end of Part 6 on Report, sweetness and light will reign and we will all feel that assurances of the right kind have been given. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.