Grand Committee
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Defence Reform Bill
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes) (Con)
My Lords, it is now 3.30 pm. As required, I must advise the Grand Committee that if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, which I consider unlikely, the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells ring and resume after 10 minutes.
Clause 13: Single Source Regulations Office (or “SSRO”)
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I give a Second Reading introduction to this part of the Bill to make clear the Opposition’s general position. First, I declare an interest, although not a pecuniary one or any interest that I would be required to declare, to show the position I am coming from in terms of experience. I was a non-executive director of the Defence Logistics Organisation, the Defence Procurement Executive and a founder director of DE&S, so I tend to see these matters from the rather more sympathetic viewpoint of those poor professionals who are caught in the middle of the many debates about the efficiency of this process.
I shall speak briefly on Part 2 in general. The view of the Opposition is that this is an admirable attempt at an intractable problem. I commend the creation of Part 2 and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Currie of Marylebone, on his excellent report and the MoD staff who have turned that report into legislation and regulations. I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, Philip Dunne, the Permanent Under-Secretary of State for Defence, and their adviser, Jason Petch, for their time in taking me through the Bill line by line. The Opposition’s duty in this sort of legislation, which is largely apolitical—quite honestly, I am scratching around for any political points this afternoon—is to scrutinise the legislation line by line. I assure the Committee that we have done this but mostly off the Floor of the House. Therefore, we have before us a relatively modest number of groups and we hope to finish the Committee stage this afternoon.
My general thrust this afternoon will be to look at the independence and quality of the SSRO, the whole issue of transparency in its operation and its accountability to Parliament. I will also pick up on one or two concerns that have been put to us by industry. Where industry wants assurances, we should like to be able to read them into the record to meet its concerns. It is important to note that, although this debate takes place in the Moses Room with a modest number of us present, words spoken by the Minister will be extremely important to industry.
I should also make a point about procedure. Rather lazily, we have not crafted wickedly clever amendments with which to do our probing but are using the device of a clause stand part debate. I hope to brief the Minister in more detail than I have been able to about the questions that will arise from that. I have given her some briefing but I entirely understand that on some of the questions, which came up just as I made the final run-through, line by line, she may have to write to me. In this important area, it really is better to have accurate and considered responses, rather than hastily cobbled together ones, not that I suggest that the Ministry of Defence would have hastily cobbled together answers anyway. That is quite a useful procedure but if we are not satisfied with the responses and feel that they need to be read into the record, we will use Report to achieve that objective.
I turn now to the Clause 13 stand part debate and Amendments 18G and 18H. I wish to probe the key concept of the SSRO: its independence—not in its role, with which I am comfortable, but in its working. I start with the appointment of the chairman, the rules about which are in paragraph 1(1)(a) of Schedule 4, which states simply that the chair of the SSRO shall be,
“appointed by the Secretary of State”,
and gives no further guidance as to how that chair may be appointed. I first ask the Minister to expand on how the chair will be appointed. I caution her about too much reliance on reference to the Commissioner for Public Appointments, because the commissioner very recently put out a useful press release about appointments in which he clearly stated:
“Ministerial appointments to public bodies regulated by the commissioner must be made in line with the commissioners code of practice which sets out that appointments must follow an open, fair and merit-based process, overseen by a panel. In the case of chair appointments, the panel must be chaired by an independent public appointments assessor appointed by the commissioner”.
That is so far, so good. It goes on:
“The panel’s job is to judge the suitability of candidates and to provide a list of candidates who are ‘above the line’ i.e. they have the ability to do the job. It is then for the relevant Minister to choose which of these candidates to appoint”.
I read that to stress the point that the appointment of the chair is in the discretion of the Secretary of State. It is, in that sense, a political appointment. It is entirely within his discretion.
The complementary area that I shall now explore is the relationship that the chair and the board have with the Secretary of State. I go back to paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 4, which states:
“A person may not be appointed as an executive member without the consent of the Secretary of State”.
The first point is that the executive members will need the consent of the Secretary of State. It is clear from paragraph 1 of Schedule 4 that the Secretary of State appoints not only the chair but the non-executive chair of the SSRO. Moving on, paragraph 3(2) states:
“Appointment as a member of the SSRO is for a term of … not less than three years, and … not more than six”.
Sub-paragraph (6) of the same paragraph states:
“A person who ceases to be a non-executive member is eligible for reappointment”.
Returning to the commissioner’s press release, it states clearly:
“The Public Appointments Commissioner plays no part in a decision not to re-appoint someone at the end of their term of office. That is a matter for Government”.
That makes it very clear that reappointment is a matter for the Government. Looking further at the schedule, paragraph 6 sets out:
“The SSRO may, with the approval of the Secretary of State … pay remuneration and allowances to the non-executive members, and … pay or provide for the payment of pensions, allowances and gratuities to or in respect of a person who is or has been a non-executive member of the SSRO”.
Finally, in pursuance of that point, I move to paragraph 16, on “Finance”, which says:
“The Secretary of State may make to the SSRO such payments out of money provided by Parliament as the Secretary of State considers appropriate”.
Taking all these together, let us suppose, to make it simple, that I was to be appointed—it does not pay enough but we can put that to one side. Let us look at this relationship. The Secretary of State appoints me, reappoints me, determines my remuneration, controls my budget, appoints my non-executives and then approves the appointment of my executives. It is for the Minister to convince me that this is an independent organisation. I have been there; I have been the chairman of a nationalised industry and the chief executive. I have lived under these rules and I have to tell noble Lords that independence was not one of the things I felt. I felt from time to time that I had conversations with the Secretary of State where there was a degree of influence.
I repeat my request to the noble Baroness and invite her to convince the Committee that the SSRO is truly independent. What mechanisms will be put in place to assure us, the world, industry and so on that this independence is real? Can she give us some practical indication: for instance, will the Secretary of State or MoD staff be allowed to communicate with the chairman or SSRO staff?
SSRO staff are covered in paragraph 7 of the same schedule, which says, quite bluntly:
“The SSRO may appoint employees”,
and,
“may pay its employees remuneration and allowances. Employees of the SSRO are to be appointed on such other terms and conditions as the SSRO may determine … The SSRO may pay or provide for the payment of pensions, allowances and gratuities to or in respect of any person who is or has been an employee of the SSRO”.
Finally, paragraph 17(3) says, very clearly:
“Service as a member or employee of the SSRO is not service in the civil service of the State”.
I ask the noble Baroness whether, as it appears from the schedule, the appointment is at the sole discretion of the SSRO. Will there be no interference from the state in any way, from the MoD or the Cabinet Office? Will pay be unfettered and will the SSRO be able to pay what is necessary to achieve the quality of employee necessary? In other words, will it have the sort of freedom—as far as one can see from simply reading this, the complete freedom—to appoint people on terms and conditions that are competitive with industry and, indeed, as good as, if not better than, those that will be allowed to DE&S-plus?
I move on to a straightforward question about procedure. Paragraph 10 of Schedule 4 states:
“The SSRO may determine its own procedure”.
I do not know why draftsmen do that, because it then goes on to say,
“but this is subject to sub-paragraphs (2) to (6)”,
which pretty well say that everything of importance has to be done by a committee. That is what I think it says. Can the Minister confirm that those provisions in sub-paragraph (3) cannot in fact be made by the board of the SSRO itself but will be made through a procedure of the committee as defined in, I think, sub-paragraph (2) and with the particular caveats that are in the subsequent sub-paragraphs?
Finally, I wish to raise an issue that I know we all worry about in public office: revolving door syndrome. I invite the noble Baroness to comment on the extent to which there will be limitations on where the members of the board, the executives of the SSRO, come from or go to. In particular, I am concerned about the extent to which they may be leading lights in the industry and carry their industry heart with them into the SSRO or, conversely, come out of the SSRO into plum jobs in industry. Will there be some limitations?
We have a couple of amendments in this group, which are just to enliven the debate. In the first, I wish to bring some independence to these appointments and suggest that they should be ratified by the House of Commons Defence Select Committee. In the second amendment, I suggest that the committee to which I referred earlier should have a majority of members who are not employees of the SSRO. I beg to move.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, for raising a number of questions to which I am sure my noble friend will seek to reply. They were interesting issues. I also liked the noble Lord’s comment that it was an admirable attempt at an intractable problem. Indeed, such an attempt is being made, which is really the point. Let us hope it is an issue that is cross-party and of no party, which could be seen as a good thing.
The other interesting point made by the noble Lord was that the words spoken by the Minister will be followed by the industry. That is the point about this debate: the words that are spoken and reported in Hansard are what the industry can see and take confidence from, as well as the amendments before us. I was also grateful that the amendments are not an attempt to wreck the Bill. The noble Lord’s final comment—that they would enliven the debate—was a pleasant way of looking at this matter.
Clause 13 in Part 2 is an important technical advance that attempts to bring sanity to single-source contracts. Clearly, the clause is necessary, and the Motion to remove the clause is purely a technical effort to debate it. The issue in Amendment 18G relates to how one ratifies appointments, which it suggests should be done by a Select Committee. I ask the Minister whether, if any ratification by a Select Committee takes place, it should have to interview the applicants. That would surely be beyond what was necessary and would end up involving a comprehensive interview process, which would be too much. The point made by the noble Lord was about how much influence and power would go to the Secretary of State, rather than to some other body of people. Although the Secretary of State must be allowed to have influence, he should not be the person taking the real decision as to who is supported.
When the Minister replies, I hope that she will also deal with a question not raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe. Should the Single Source Regulations Office be the sponsoring department? Should the sponsoring department be the MoD? What about the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills? I have raised this matter with the Minister on other occasions, not only in this context. Here we have a department, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, whose raison d’être is to sell and encourage business and industry, but the brief of the Ministry of Defence is also to engage in contracts, selling and so on. Indeed, that ministry sells overseas and I often wonder why we do not look holistically at how we deal with selling this country’s products. I wonder why, in the context of this amendment, the sponsor of the SSRO should be only the Secretary of State for Defence. Why should it not also or instead be the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills?
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, has raised in a variety of ways the issue of the independence of the SSRO from government. I raised one further point on that at Second Reading. I got a reply, but I was not absolutely confident that it provided the right answer. The point I made was that the SSRO has an interest in value for money, but so has the Treasury throughout government. I asked to what extent the SSRO stands free of, or is supervised by, the Treasury. For the record, it would be helpful to have that point covered once again. If I remember correctly, I got a very full answer from the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, but I was not absolutely happy that it gave a feeling of the pure independence of the SSRO from the Treasury.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their comments at the beginning of this fourth day in Committee. In particular, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, and commend him for his preparation for the scrutiny in this Committee stage. I apologise in advance to noble Lords because some of my earlier speaking notes are quite lengthy, but they get shorter. The purpose of the length is that we need much of this on record.
Clause 13 is at the heart of the reforms to single-source procurement. It establishes the Single Source Regulations Office, a small, arm’s-length body responsible for keeping the new framework under review, monitoring adherence and providing expert determination between the MoD and single-source suppliers. It is therefore essential to the success of these reforms. Clause 13 also establishes in law the overriding aim of the SSRO to assure that good value for money is obtained in government expenditure on qualifying single-source defence contracts and that defence suppliers are paid a fair and reasonable price under those contracts.
The creation of an independent body is absolutely central to the success and longevity of the framework. I cannot say this too strongly. The purpose of this body is to be independent and transparent, thus giving confidence to both parties who need to play in this area. It was a key recommendation of the independent review conducted by the noble Lord, Lord Currie. The SSRO will replace the existing Review Board for Government Contracts, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Currie, identified, has, through no fault of its own, failed to evolve to reflect changing circumstances, largely because either party can block any change that it regards as contrary to its own interests.
Clause 13 brings into effect Schedule 4, which establishes the governance structure of the SSRO. In this we have closely followed guidance published by the Cabinet Office on executive non-departmental public bodies and have considered existing governance arrangements for similar bodies, such as Monitor. So we have not started with a blank piece of paper and, as the Committee will see, with the following key characteristics of the SSRO, the structure we have created is in common with other similar public bodies. It has a separate chair and chief executive and a board which has a majority of non-executive directors, which is aligned with best practice in the Financial Reporting Council’s UK Corporate Governance Code and Cabinet Office guidelines. Non-executive members of the SSRO should be appointed for a period of between three and six years to assure a staggered process of appointments to the key positions. There will be a process that allows the Secretary of State to remove or suspend a member from office on the grounds of failure to carry out his or her duties, incapacity, such as ill health, or misconduct, which rightly follows Cabinet Office guidance on the creation of public bodies. The SSRO will have the ability to appoint its own employees, which is consistent with Public Bodies: A Guide for Departments, produced by the Cabinet Office; and, in accordance with the Cabinet Office’s guidance on good corporate governance in executive NDPBs, the SSRO’s committee structure will be the body that makes key binding determinations, including where there is an appeal from one of the parties to a qualifying defence contract. We have listened to industry requests in this area, and have agreed that committees can contain members who are not employees or members of the SSRO.
The SSRO will also have separate responsibilities to the Secretary of State, the Auditor-General and Parliament. These, which are set out in Schedule 4, include the provision of annual accounts which are consistent with international finance reporting standards, which will be audited by the National Audit Office. These accounts will be prepared between three to six months of the end of the financial year. An annual report on its activities must be provided by the SSRO to the Secretary of State, who in turn will lay the report before Parliament.
As the sponsoring department of the SSRO, the Secretary of State will make payments to the SSRO to finance its operations. This is in common with Cabinet Office guidance on the funding of ENDPBs. There will be a framework agreement established between the MoD and the SSRO that sets its budget, in accordance with HMT’s guidelines in Managing Public Money and performance targets. The SSRO will be jointly funded by the MoD and industry, but we have agreed with industry that the MoD will pick up its costs over the first three years, as it is established and until we determine its precise annual running costs. The SSRO will be allowed to borrow money only on a temporary basis up to an overdraft limit set by the Secretary of State. There may be occasions where the SSRO has a higher number of adjudications or determinations that it is administering, where it may require additional resources to meet its objectives in a timely fashion.
We have given the SSRO the ability to pay pensions to its non-executive members. This is not because we intend to pay a pension to every non-executive member the SSRO appoints; rather, we have done this to give the Secretary of State the flexibility to recruit non-executive members from both the private and public sectors who may have existing pension arrangements. Other elements of Schedule 4 ensure that the SSRO will be a body that is subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000, allow the parliamentary commissioner to investigate the SSRO, and ensure that its staff are not civil servants.
This clause is therefore crucial to the overall establishment of the SSRO and the functioning of the new framework. The SSRO will, over time, become an independent expert in defence single-source pricing, ensuring that we do not need to wait another 45 years for this framework to be reviewed again. It is therefore crucial that this clause is retained in the Bill.
Amendments 18G and 18H revolve around a concern, primarily expressed by industry, but also by the noble Lord, about the independence and impartiality of the SSRO. I assure noble Lords that we are committed to ensuring that the SSRO will be both independent and impartial. The credibility of the new single-source framework rests upon this. For example, the SSRO can act as an independent adjudicator in the event of disputes between parties and it is the appeal body to which industry can refer if we apply a civil penalty to it. Perhaps even more significantly, it annually recommends the profit rate and recommends changes to the framework as part of the quinquennial review process. It is the guardian of the new framework and its impartiality is at the core of the dual aims under Clause 13 of ensuring a fair and reasonable price for contractors and value for money for the Government.
If the SSRO was perceived as being partial, this would create great difficulties. If the perception was that it was too biased towards the Government, shareholders could decide that the defence sector was no longer worth investing in and our suppliers could be driven to leave it. If the perception was the other way—as too biased towards our suppliers—we would seek to change the framework entirely or we would exempt our contracts from it and thus lose the protections we are establishing in this Bill. Neither of these outcomes serves either the MoD or our single-source suppliers. It is the need for independence and impartiality that has led to our desire to set up the SSRO in the first place. The current framework requires consensus to change. This has meant that for 45 years, any change that one side has felt puts them at a disadvantage has been blocked. This is the principal reason why the old system has remained frozen in time for so long. Consensus will not serve us. The alternative, a statutory framework determined entirely by the MoD, would always be resisted by industry. There would be a risk that over time the framework would become steadily more one-sided and that industry would be driven out of the sector, so this option is also not desirable. What we need is an independent body, namely the Single Source Regulations Office.
Lord Tunnicliffe
While I commend the noble Baroness on her anticipation of my speech, I wonder whether, where she has not answered my direct questions, she will write to me.
Baroness Jolly
My Lords, I am sorry that I have not answered specific questions. I should have flagged up as many as possible as I was going through my brief. However, I am happy to write to the noble Lord.
Lord Tunnicliffe
Lord Tunnicliffe
My Lords, I am sorry that I did not make a closing speech because the idea of HMT having performance targets and a bonus culture does not fill me with enthusiasm. I may write to the Minister on that.
In moving Amendment 18J I shall speak also to Amendment 18K and to oppose that Clause 25 should stand part of the Bill. The issue here is essentially one of transparency. The offending subsection in Clause 14 is subsection (7), which states:
“The Secretary of State may direct that a particular contract to which subsection (3) applies is not a qualifying defence contract even though the contract otherwise meets the requirements of subsection (2)”.
One loves legislation that contains such clauses because they mean something like, “Never mind the whole of this document because the Secretary of State can decide it does not apply”, which roughly speaking is what this says. Amendments 18J and 18K recognise that there will be circumstances in which, frankly, this whole part of the Bill is excluded by the Secretary of State. It invites the Secretary of State to bring full details to Parliament and explain why the decision has been made. I should like the Minister to set out the circumstances in which subsection (7) would be used. I have asked the question privately and was given a general answer saying, “It is about the peculiarities of government-to-government contracts”. It seems to me that my amendments are entirely reasonable in those circumstances. It is entirely reasonable where there is some other assurance process, such as, “The Americans are going to do it for us” or that there is a treaty with the French which lays out the provisions to do this. That would be when this clause is used.
The Grand Committee is a small group today and we are discussing a very dry subject, but it is one that concerns the moving about of hundreds of millions and, indeed, billions of pounds. If a chunk of money of that order is moving about, Parliament should know under what circumstances it is being moved about, why the SSRO is not involved, and what assurances the public purse can be given by the Government as to what is being done. I expect that in her response the noble Baroness will talk about government-to-government contracts and I look forward to her touching on the detail of that.
The other area that came to light only when I delved into this with more care is the fascinating area of critical industrial capability. I am not sure whether that is the favourite way of referring to the concept these days, but I am sure that my meaning will emerge. Critical industrial capability is a concept whereby the taxpayer shovels out an awful lot of money to various contractors, a substantial part of which goes to BAE Systems, in order to keep workers on the books who are not doing work so that they are available to do work later. I am not even saying that that is wrong. I can see precisely why it makes sense. A more holistic view of the problem might be to schedule one’s procurement in a smoother way so that they are working continuously, but, conceptually, I can see why the former concept is necessary. However, it is important to realise just how substantial this is. We had a recent Statement on aircraft carriers. I read what the Minister said but the BAE Systems press release is in some ways even more interesting in that it is quite revealing. It states:
“BAE Systems has reached agreement in principle with HM Government on measures to enable the implementation of a restructuring of its UK naval ships business”.
The perception of BAE Systems is that this is about the naval ships business. The press release goes on to say:
“In 2009, BAE Systems entered into a Terms of Business Agreement (ToBA) with the Ministry of Defence that provided an overarching framework for significant naval shipbuilding efficiency improvements in exchange for commitments to fund rationalisation and sustainment of capability in the sector. The agreements announced today, together with an anticipated contract for the design and manufacture of the Type 26 Global Combat Ships programme, will progressively replace that ToBA”.
This is about maintaining capability. A couple of paragraphs later, it states:
“Under the new Target Cost contract the industrial participants’ fee will move to a 50:50 risk share arrangement”—
it is talking about carriers—
“providing greater cost performance incentives. The maximum risk to the industrial participants will continue to be limited to the loss of their profit opportunity”.
This clearly—at least in my view—is not compatible with Part 2 of the Bill. Apparently, Part 2 allows risk-sharing only under Clause 16, as far as I can see, and that in no part talks about limiting the loss to the profit component. It implies that the loss would go down the middle and deeper into it.
The press release refers also to the three offshore patrol vessels. Noble Lords may recall that the Secretary of State’s speech made it clear that these were pretty cheap because, frankly, they were being paid for by the industrial capability budget. The press release goes on:
“Following detailed discussions about how best to sustain the long-term capability to deliver complex warships, BAE Systems has agreed with the UK Ministry of Defence that Glasgow would be the most effective location for the manufacture of the future Type 26 ships”.
We should remember that the press release is written for shareholders, not the public, so it re-emphasises:
“The cost of the restructuring will be borne by the Ministry of Defence”.
It seems to me that these sorts of contracts do not come within the proposed framework that Part 2 talks about. In order for such a contract to be completed or negotiated in the future, Clause 14(7) would have to be invoked. Essentially, I am asking whether I am right in those presumptions. I am very happy to be written to because I accept that I have raised rather a new point. If that subsection is to be invoked, and if this capability and that sort of contract is to be involved, costing hundreds of millions of pounds, and probably the odd billion, it seems to me that the public and government should know about it in a rather more open way. Our amendments would require this to happen: the public should know and Parliament should know.
On Clause 25, essentially I am asking the Minister whether I am right that this is the only reference in the Bill to the issue that I have been talking about. Clause 25 seems to stand out as not being cross-referenced anywhere else in the Bill. It suddenly pops up on the subject of overheads and forward planning. I assume that this relates to the reporting structures. I should have said at the beginning that the reporting structures in the Bill are in many ways the essence of it, and the fact that I have no amendments on them is an acknowledgement that I commend the reporting structures and what they do. However, regarding Clause 25, I ask whether this relates to this concept of critical industrial capability and, if it does, in what circumstances Clause 25(8) would apply. Those of us who are required to study legislation always look for this paragraph:
“The Secretary of State may direct that a particular contract is not to be taken into account in determining whether the ongoing contract condition is met in relation to a financial year”.
In other words, if it gets very difficult, the Secretary of State can determine that it shall not be taken account of.
I hope that the Minister will be able to help with these questions and I am content that she may need to write to me. I beg to move.
Baroness Jolly
My Lords, I will consider Amendments 18J and 18K together and then move to the clause stand part debate.
These amendments relate to the Secretary of State’s power to exempt contracts from the new framework, provided for by Clause 14(7). Amendment 18J has no impact in its own right other than to add scope for a limitation to the Secretary of State’s exemption power. That limitation is provided by Amendment 18K. Subsection (7) gives the Secretary of State the power to exempt individual contracts that would otherwise be subject to the new regime. While it is not possible to foresee all future circumstances, this power is considered necessary for a number of reasons.
Before considering the limitation introduced by Amendment 18K, it might be helpful to noble Lords if I outline and give examples of the key circumstances in which we expect this power to be used. The first circumstance is where there is no market failure. The framework addresses the situation where a contract price is not subject to the competitive pressures of the market. If those pressures are evident in the contract price, the framework is not required. An example is the purchase of additional items that are readily available in the civil market, such as computers. To ensure compatibility with our existing infrastructure, we might want to use a particular manufacturer, so the procurement would be a single-source procurement. However, the item might have a price that has been established in a competitive market. In such cases, there would be no requirement for standardised reporting and open book rights to ensure value for money, because it would be self-evident from the marketplace. Applying the framework in such a case would not represent value for money, as the additional costs of making the contract a regulated contract would not be outweighed by the benefits of transparency.
Lord Tunnicliffe
I take it that that was an offer to write to me with the one-and-a-half-page response.
Baroness Jolly
I am more than happy to read it to the noble Lord. Would that help?
Lord Tunnicliffe
It might help, because the noble Baroness will probably have to put it into the record anyway, on Report.
Baroness Jolly
The framework provides for a range of reports to be specified in the single-source contract regulations upon both specific contract costs and upon supplier costs that relate to wider capabilities and capacity. It is estimated that around a third of the costs of single-source contracts relates to so-called overheads. These account for some £2 billion a year of expenditure under single-source contracts. These costs do not relate to any one individual contract but, it is said, represent the costs of providing particular industrial capabilities and capacity. Not all of the costs of this capacity will be reflected in the costs recovered through single-source contracts. Some may be recovered through MoD contracts won competitively, or through non-MoD customers. However, in some sectors where single-source activity is particularly concentrated, these costs may represent the majority, if not all, of the costs of capacity.
The new framework has six reports relating specifically to these costs. These include reports on the estimated costs that are used to price contracts, the assumptions that underpin those estimates and the actual costs that are subsequently incurred. The requirement for suppliers to keep relevant records in relation to costs and the MoD right to examine those records also apply equally to these overhead costs, as they do to any other allowable costs. In addition to these transparency rights, the pricing principles set out in relation to allowable costs also apply to these overhead costs. Such costs must be appropriate in nature and reasonable in value.
The transparency provided by these reports, the access to records supporting them and the requirement to follow the pricing principles will further enhance the ability of the MoD to act as an intelligent customer when considering the cost of the capacity it requires. The single-source contract regulations will also provide for a further report that specifically considers the industrial capacity provided by our key suppliers. This report will supply senior individuals in the department with consistent information across suppliers when considering capacity requirements, contributing to the alignment between requirement and the industrial capacity we have to pay for. I hope that the noble Lord will now consider withdrawing his amendment.
Lord Tunnicliffe
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that response. We have used different terms but I think she has gone half way to meeting my concerns over what I have called the critical industrial capability. I did not of course put down a clause stand part debate in order to not have a clause, but to understand it better.
However, one area still concerns me. The sort of deals that I described from the BAE Systems press release are very large, and I have great difficulty in seeing how you would fit them, in future, into Part 2, which is full of pricing mechanisms, profit share and so on. It is quite detailed and there is a framework. I am happy for the Minister to write to me rather than give me an answer now, but one of the questions is whether she envisages that such deals will be fitted into Part 2 or whether it will be necessary to use Clause 14(7) or some other exception—as the Minister has pointed out, there are other exceptions in that clause. Does the Minister envisage there needing to be an exception for those sort of deals or is it envisaged that future deals of this nature will be somehow compatible with Part 2 in ways that, at the moment, I am incapable of understanding? I would be very grateful for a response to that detailed question, although I would not encourage her to give me one now. With that, I am content to withdraw Amendment 18J.
Lord Tunnicliffe
“(3) Single source contract regulations may provide that, if the achievement of a fair and reasonable contract profit rate for a qualifying defence contract at the time of pricing was frustrated because the information supplied or made accessible by one party to the other at the time of pricing, and on which that contract profit rate was based in whole or in part, was materially inaccurate or incomplete, the SSRO—”
Lord Tunnicliffe
My Lords, in moving Amendment 18L, I will also speak to Amendments 18M and 18N. I find myself in the unusual position of a public sector socialist politician putting forward some amendments nakedly proposed by industry. However, it seemed that the questions being posed deserved a response and a discussion. I hope the Committee will forgive me proposing these amendments as a bunch of probing amendments for the Minister to respond to.
The industry argues that Clause 18(3) creates uncertainty as to the contract price. It enables the contract price to be challenged at any time after it has been agreed if the party considers that adjustments under steps 2, 3 or 6 of Clause 17(2) were not appropriate. When approving or signing a contract, a board of directors will require certainty of income against which it can assess its cost estimates and associated risks. It contends that the sense of uncertainty over price may have unintended consequences for shareholder value, group decisions on where to invest, and the perception in the wider marketplace that the UK remains a good place to invest in and do business. It believes that the parties should have a limited time period in which to challenge the adjustments made in steps 2, 3 or 6 to reduce uncertainty, and that a period of six months from the date of price agreement is more reasonable.
The industry also argues that the grounds for a challenge need to be included in the Bill. There needs to be a material basis for the challenge such as that the adjustment has caused harm or disadvantage to one party. An error or an omission that has caused harm or disadvantage, and if corrected would give rise to a material adjustment, would be a more reasonable basis. Without materiality or a de minimis threshold, challenges could be made for trivial amounts. I beg to move.
Baroness Jolly
My Lords, we are considering in this group of amendments three related changes to the power under Clause 18 for a referral to be made to the SSRO for a determination to adjust the price of a contract. On a minor drafting point, the proposed amendments address only the SSRO’s adjustment of the profit element of the price and, indeed, to only three of the six steps that set contract profit rate. However, I shall assume in my response that the intent of the amendments is also to limit the ability of the SSRO to adjust the cost element of the price as outlined in Clause 20 rather than the profit element alone.
The contention behind these amendments is, I believe, that this price determination introduces an unacceptable degree of uncertainty to the price of a contract, and so they seek to restrict the scope of the determination in three ways: by restricting the grounds on which a referral may be made, as set out in Amendment 18L; by restricting the period in which a referral may be made, as set out in Amendment 18M; and finally by restricting the determination that the SSRO may make. We do not consider that any of these restrictions are necessary or desirable, and placing such restrictions on the determination will significantly weaken compliance with the pricing rules of the new framework. I think it will be helpful if I outline the purpose and scope of the SSRO’s price determinations before we consider the individual amendments.
The new single-source framework is essentially a deal between suppliers and the Government. Suppliers get a fair and reasonable price and we get the protections we need to ensure value for money. This is a good deal for both parties. We have a duty to ensure taxpayer value for money and an efficient and thriving defence sector that gets a fair price, which is good for defence as a whole. It means that our Armed Forces get the equipment and support they need and the wider economy benefits from an efficient defence sector that can drive innovation and exports. Determining a fair price is thus a key component of Part 2, and Clauses 15 to 21 set out how this is to be done. They set out, for example, that the price must be determined on the basis of allowable costs—costs that are reasonable, appropriate and relate to the contract. They also set out that on top of these costs, the supplier is entitled to a fair and reasonable profit rate. Following these pricing rules will result in a price that is fair and reasonable. The rules on profit ensure that suppliers are adequately compensated for their expertise, and the rules on costs ensure that taxpayers do not pay more than they should. There would be no point in having these rules if they were not enforceable. Indeed, it would undermine the deal that is central to the framework.
This is the situation we have at the moment. Even though the current Review Board for Government Contracts annually recommends a profit rate, there is no obligation to use it, and it is being used less and less on our larger contracts. It may be asked why we need price enforcement provisions at all. Why would anyone sign a contract with a price that is not fair and reasonable? The answer stems from the market failures inherent in single-source procurement. This form of procurement is used when there is no alternative supplier. It means that we cannot walk away from the supplier without also walking away from the essential military capability that that supplier provides. This is not a strong negotiating position, as our suppliers are only too aware. In addition, we are sometimes under time pressures, so that any delay to signing the contract puts lives at risk. This compounds the problem, and partly explains why we may not always get the best deal.
Another reason why we might sign a contract with a price that is not fair and reasonable stems from the fact that in single-source procurement there is only one supplier pricing the work. The knowledge that there is no one who can put forward a cheaper, more competitive price puts a supplier in a highly unusual and privileged position. Instead of a healthy market incentive to price keenly, our single-source suppliers are under a direct financial incentive to do just the opposite, and the current framework encourages this. This is not to say that our suppliers always, or even routinely, do this. However, it cannot be denied that an environment where suppliers are rewarded for inflating their price is hardly conducive to getting value for money.
The MoD, of course, has a duty to challenge a supplier’s price estimates. As a brief aside, I will note that this price challenge has not been a level playing field historically. Suppliers’ commercial staff, for whom financial incentives are paramount, typically outnumber our commercial staff, and they employ specialist consultants to help them—which, under the current system, they can often charge back to us. Returning to the market failures of single-source procurement, a substantial difficulty in challenging suppliers’ costs is that they always know more about them than we do. Clearly we need to see their cost assumptions before we agree a price. This is what we should get under the current system, although it is not legally binding. Under the current system we can also challenge their price up to two years after the contract has ended, if we can prove that they did not show their assumptions to us.
This brings me to Amendment 18L. This seeks to introduce a single and specific ground for a price referral to the SSRO—namely, that the SSRO can amend the price only if the initial pricing assumptions were not shown to the MoD. However, seeing suppliers’ price assumptions is not sufficient. Suppliers are in a strong position and can present a convincing case—for example, by showing that their costs forecasts are aligned to historic expectations even if these represent poor value. It requires specialist knowledge and experience to challenge this. It is not enough for a supplier to show us their assumptions, and to put all of the duty on to the MoD to check that each and every one is reasonable, as with the current approach. This encourages a supplier to add extras to their price and hope that the MoD does not find them all. This is an appalling pricing incentive, far removed from a healthy market, and we must address it if we want to get value for money. Again, I do not say that this always happens but I am sure that it is not conducive to getting value for money.
We want suppliers to be encouraged to use good quality pricing assumptions in the first place; assumptions that are fit for purpose. If the cost is worth hundreds of millions of pounds, then they should do a certain amount of due diligence to support this estimate. If they do not, they should be at risk of a future price change when it transpires that outturn costs bear little resemblance to the original estimates. Equally, and just as importantly, I accept that the MoD has a duty to check these estimates. If we fail in our duty, any SSRO-determined price change will take this into account.
The SSRO price referrals, in the way that they are currently drafted, will replace the current misaligned pricing incentives with incentives that act as a proxy for the missing competitive pressures. We have chosen to give the SSRO, in its role as an independent expert of single-source procurement, the function of acting as an independent adjudicator in the event that these pricing rules are not followed. One alternative might have been the courts. However, the technical and specialist nature of single-source procurement means that this route might be more complicated and time consuming for both parties, and probably much more expensive.
So the SSRO, under Clauses 18 and 20, can make a determination that the price of the single-source contract must be adjusted. It will make this assessment if it considers, for example, that a contractor’s assumptions were misleading or not fit for purpose at the time of pricing; in other words, that they were not fair and reasonable.
The SSRO will not penalise either party for getting an assumption wrong—no one can be expected to know the future—but if it considers that a party provided misleading assumptions or withheld crucial information known to that party at the time, such as, for a supplier, known efficiency measures, then the SSRO can adjust the price. If the SSRO considers that the MoD should have asked more questions, it will also take this into account in its determination. Industry has raised concerns that this adds uncertainty into single-source procurement. My challenge back is that it is an uncertainty that can easily be mitigated. If you follow the pricing rules and keep an audit trail of your assumptions, then any uncertainty will be minimal.
Amendment 18L would reduce the grounds for referral to the SSRO. A referral could be made only if inaccurate or incomplete information had been provided by either party to the contract. If information was provided but was misleading or not fit for purpose, this amendment would prevent the SSRO reviewing and, potentially, adjusting the price of a contract. Similarly, if the adjustments had been determined without regard to the statutory guidance or there was an error of calculation, there would also be no ability to refer the matter. This amendment puts all the duty back on to the MoD to ensure that all the details of a price are fair and reasonable; all the supplier has to do is show its assumptions to us. It takes away from the supplier the duty to do its own due diligence and ensure its estimates are reasonable. This amendment is not an equitable arrangement, particularly given that suppliers have greater knowledge about their costs, and it frustrates our intent to put a proxy for market pressures back on to our single-source suppliers. I therefore urge the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment 18L.
Having provided a great deal of background for the first amendment, I will be brief with the next two amendments in this group. Amendment 18M seeks to restrict the ability of either party to a contract to make a referral to the SSRO for a determination. This amendment would limit the period in which such a referral could be made to the first six months after the price of a contract has been determined. As I discussed earlier, there are a number of reasons why an SSRO price determination might be appropriate: whether information was withheld from one party at the time of pricing, whether due regard was given to statutory guidance, whether the detailed calculations were performed correctly, or any other reason why the pricing assumptions may not have been fit for purpose. In all these scenarios, information will continue to emerge throughout the course of the contract. For example, the supply chain employed may be significantly different from that assumed at the time of pricing, and this may be a prompt to investigate whether information was appropriately shared or whether the pricing assumptions were fit for purpose. If a contract is for the design, manufacture and initial in-service support of equipment, this kind of information may not become apparent until several years into the contract. To restrict the period for this determination to six months is to restrict the ability to consider information that later comes to light, conduct investigations and assess whether an adjustment might be appropriate. We consider this an artificial and unnecessary restriction upon the SSRO’s aim of ensuring that the contract price is fair and reasonable and that good value for money is obtained. As before, any uncertainty can easily be mitigated by a contractor following the pricing rules and keeping an audit trail of its assumptions.
We however recognise that it is appropriate clearly to specify the periods in which opinions and determinations, including this determination under Clause 18, may be made. It was for this reason that we introduced in the House of Commons what is now Clause 41. This provides that the single-source contract regulations may specify time periods for all referrals to the SSRO, and the draft regulations do just that. The draft regulations are the subject of the ongoing consultation with industry, so we do not consider it necessary to single this one referral out to specify a period in the Bill rather than in the regulations.
Lord Tunnicliffe
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response, which I will study with great care. I am sure that those outside the House will study it with even greater care. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Tunnicliffe
“(1) The Secretary of State shall by regulations, for each financial year, provide a determination of—”
Lord Tunnicliffe
My Lords, in moving Amendment 18P I will speak to the rest of the amendments in this group. The points I want to make are simple, but I look forward to the reply I shall receive to these simple ideas.
The group essentially refers to Clauses 19 and 20. Clause 19 addresses the issue of the contract profit rate and, essentially, the amendments would require that the rates must be set by regulation each year. Amendments 23A and 23E turn this into an affirmative-procedure process.
More interesting is Clause 20, “Allowable costs”. As the report of the noble Lord, Lord Currie, points out, we have over the years had a lot of debate, effort and negotiation into the contract profit rate which, typically, is 10%—pedantically, it is 9%—of the total price; and too little, one might argue with the benefit of hindsight, into the issue of allowable costs, which represent 90% to 91% of the total price. Therefore, Clause 20 properly addresses this issue.
Subsection (1) states:
“The SSRO must issue guidance about determining whether costs are allowable costs under qualifying defence contracts”.
Subsection (2) attempts to define allowable costs. It is important to emphasise that these are the big bucks. This is where the big money is in the contract. This is 90% or more of the total price. The guidance we get from the primary legislation is that they must be appropriate, attributable to the contract and reasonable in the circumstances. Much as I praise this part of the Bill—and I do as it is a really good attempt to address this extremely difficult issue—I cannot but be amused by these three descriptors of one of the most important elements. I remember that when I was privileged to be in the noble Baroness’s position, whenever an official used the word “appropriate” in my response, it meant we did not have an argument, so I dismiss subsection (2)(a) as pretty well irrelevant. I do not have a lot of time for paragraph (b) either, because if it is not “attributable to the contract”, who would in all conscience try to argue that it should be there? We are left with “reasonable”. Much as I applaud the concept of being reasonable, it is not a very full description. Therefore, inevitably, and quite properly—I am not unhappy about this—it will have to be left to the SSRO to develop guidance about it. However, surely this is so important that it should not be merely guidance but should be in regulations. Regulations of this importance should be exposed to public gaze and debate and should be accountable to Parliament through the affirmative procedure. I beg to move.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill
My Lords, I, too, am worried about these words. I shall not repeat what the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, has said. It is really a question about what are allowable costs. As anybody in business knows, allowable costs can be described in so many ways. For instance, Starbucks does not pay any tax in this country because it charges its royalties from overseas against its costs in this country. Would that on a contract for a submarine be allowable costs? If the contractor is producing, let us say, one submarine, can it therefore charge all of its chairman’s, managing director’s and executive board’s salaries against the cost of that one submarine? If it is also producing a group of battleships or carriers, those executive costs, for example, would be spread over all the costs of all those items of equipment.
In her previous reply, the Minister spoke about an audit trail. The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, used the word “reasonable” and all the other adjectives. A contractor who wished to drive a coach and horses through this could do so by manipulating what could be administrative costs. It is very easy to say that if the mythical submarine requires a widget, that widget is applicable to that submarine. You can see that, but when you are dealing with, let us say, the premises for the submarine, if it is one submarine, is the contractor allowed to charge the whole of the premises costs against the cost of that submarine? If it was also building an aircraft carrier, it could charge some of that premises costs against it. I invite the Minister to come back, perhaps on Report, with some better reassurance about how allowable costs will be allocated and particularly about how to spread large costs if only one item of equipment is produced by that contractor.
Lord Roper
My Lords, I, too, was surprised to read these words. I had looked in the draft regulations to see whether there is anything within them which would help us. There is not. There is a reference to allowable costs in paragraphs 13 to 15, but that merely refers us back to Clause 20. It does not develop the concept of allowable costs, as I believe the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, rightly suggested it should. I wonder whether the Minister will be able to tell me that this could be looked at in the final version of the draft regulations.
Baroness Jolly
My Lords, Amendment 18P would have the effect of directing the Secretary of State for Defence to provide Parliament annually with a determination of the contract profit rate and, specifically, the process that is to be used to determine the profit rate. Before considering the amendment, it will be worth while outlining the existing process that the Bill provides for.
Under Clause 17, the contract profit rate is to be determined through six steps. Three of those steps will be determined with reference to rates that are to be calculated annually: step 1, the baseline profit rate; step 4, the SSRO funding adjustment; and step 6, the adjustment for capital employed by the contractor. Two of these steps are not new; steps 1 and 6 have their equivalents under the existing regime. The rates to be used in determining these three steps must themselves be determined annually as they will reflect the most recent accounts of companies and the SSRO in relation to the SSRO funding adjustment.
The process for determining these rates is provided for by Clause 19 and has several stages. First, the Secretary of State will issue statutory guidance containing the principles that should be used in determining the rates. Secondly, the SSRO must recommend rates, having regard to the Secretary of State’s guidance, by 31 January each year. Thirdly, upon receiving the SSRO’s recommendations, the Secretary of State must then determine and publish in the London Gazette no later than 15 March each year the rates to be used. In publishing the rates to be used, the Secretary of State must also publish the reasons for any differences from the SSRO’s recommendations.
I appreciate that at first sight this may appear to be an unnecessarily complicated process, but it has been carefully considered to fulfil a number of requirements: first, for the Secretary of State to be able to set out clear guidance on the principles that should be used in determining the rates; secondly, and crucially, for the SSRO as the independent and impartial body to be free to recommend rates in accordance with its statutory aim to set a framework that delivers a fair and reasonable price. While the SSRO must have regard to the principles established by the Secretary of State, it should also be free to consider any other matters that it considers relevant to the setting of the rates. It must be able to recommend the rates that it considers will provide a fair and reasonable return to contractors and value for money to the Government, even if that means not following the principles set out by the Secretary of State.
The amendment would require that the powers conferred by Clause 19 should be contained in regulations made by statutory instrument and therefore be subject to the same level of parliamentary scrutiny as the other regulations. While I appreciate that Parliament should exercise an appropriate level of oversight in these matters, I do not think that this proposal is proper in this instance. First, I note that this would form a potentially unhelpful precedent across government, since, as far as I am aware, none of the other regulatory bodies—such as for the railways or water—are subject to this degree of parliamentary scrutiny, even though they deal with issues of great national significance. Secondly, the Secretary of State for Defence is already subject to parliamentary oversight for his powers over the defence budget and is therefore accountable to Parliament for how he discharges these powers. The amendment would add an unhelpful degree of additional and overlapping scrutiny for this specific area of his responsibility.
In addition, this is clearly a very technical and complex issue and there is a risk that making this area subject to parliamentary debate would lead to the politicisation of profit rates which ought to be set through impartial and expert judgment. There would be scope for Parliament to be subjected to lobbying by the various interest groups, a factor that could result in pressure to set the rates either too high or too low.
Lord Tunnicliffe
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I congratulate the Minister on her spirited defence. Unfortunately, it failed. Our concern about the processes is real, and our overwhelming concern is the billions of pounds that are tied up in allowable costs. As we will go on to discuss, the various forms of contract are an important chunk of the real profits of the company. At the end of the day, this is a negotiating game. It is a matter of how much you can legitimately build into your allowable costs, with a profit rate on top of that. Allowable costs are at the centre of what defence contracts cost and what the taxpayer must pay. I do not feel that the Minister, despite her spirited defence, has addressed our concerns—not only my concerns, but those of other Members of the Committee—on allowable costs. I fear that we will be tempted to return to this on Report. As I believe this to be an apolitical issue, I encourage the Minister to ponder today’s debate and to see what she can add to it. We would all enjoy receiving a letter from her that would provide nuance to the Government’s position and I encourage her to do that. It is a matter of real concern to the Committee. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Tunnicliffe
My Lords, I will speak to Clause 21 and to Amendment 23C. I must emphasise that our opposition to Clause 21 standing part of the Bill is not directed at the essence of the clause; it is to explore the clause. However, I fear that we must explore it fairly widely.
The concept in this clause, of a final price adjustment, comes out of the report by the noble Lord, Lord Currie. It addresses the key issue of profit that arises from the outturn. In my view, it is conceptually very sound. It is utterly meaningless without the regulations so I thank the officials and the Minister for sharing the regulations with me. After considerable effort, I think that I understood the early part of the regulations, particularly in relation to Clause 21(2), and they seem very sensible. They have a clawback of excessive profit of up to 75% and they support the supplier in a position of excessive loss at 50%, on the simplistic assumption that the profit rate is 10% of the allowable costs. There is quite a broad band, between 96% and 110%, where all variation falls to the supplier’s bottom line, which is a very strong incentive for the supplier to become more efficient and make more profit. I am not against suppliers increasing profit if that is achieved through efficiency. I am entirely in favour of it in this new open book, multi-reporting regime whereby the MoD can share in that experience through the reporting regime, understand it and help future suppliers understand how they can deliver at lower costs and more efficiently. It is a good regime.
Essentially, Amendment 23C simply argues that the regulations referred to in Clause 21(2) should be approved by Parliament using the affirmative procedure. Having recovered from the effort of understanding subsection (2), I gave up the ghost intellectually at that point and stopped reading the Bill. However, since then, I have started to read it again and I find Clause 21 a little difficult to understand, so I have a series of genuine questions for the Minister.
Clause 21(3) states:
“Provision made under subsection (2) must include provision for the amount of any adjustment to be determined … by agreement between the Secretary of State, or an authorised person, and the primary contractor”.
Does that mean that the regulations set out in subsection (2) may or may not be obeyed? In other words, can the Secretary of State agree to disregard the regulations under subsection (2), in which case it seems that the process of developing and publishing the regulations was valueless; or does it simply mean that the parties agree that the figures are right and so on? Is it a clause which simply invites the parties to agree, and if they do not agree the matter can be referred to the SSRO?
Given the precision of the regulations as I read them—I recognise that many thousands of man hours have gone into crafting them—I had some difficulty in understanding Clause 21(4), which states:
“Provision under this section may be expressed so as to apply … to particular kinds of qualifying defence contracts”.
What would be the differences and how would they apply? I genuinely have trouble envisaging what the different sorts of contracts may be like.
I assume that Clause 21(4)(b) is a simple de minimis provision—namely, that there should be a value below which you do not quibble because it is simply not worth doing so. I was fairly comfortable that it was a de minimis provision until I read Clause 21(5)(a) and (b), at which point I gave up the ghost because I could not understand what subsections (5)(a) and (5)(b) meant if subsection (4)(b) is a simple de minimis provision because subsections (5)(a) and (5)(b) seem to be super de minimis provisions. My general view of Clause 21 is that it is great in so far as I understand it, but I have to confess that I do not fully understand it and I seek enlightenment.
Baroness Jolly
My Lords, this is a crucial element of the Bill because it protects the taxpayer against contractors earning excessive profits while also protecting industry from excessive losses.
The basis of the Bill is that contractors should get a fair return on single-source work, and even better returns if they can drive cost efficiencies which deliver long-term benefits to the MoD. However, they should not be entitled to super-profits just because, despite best intentions and efforts, both parties happened to get the pricing wrong. Likewise, in the same circumstances, suppliers should not be expected to suffer losses. This clause offers protection to both parties. The clause enables a final price adjustment on completion of a contract if the actual costs of the contract turn out to be markedly different from those agreed at the time of pricing. The mechanism will be applied to all qualifying defence contracts priced at the outset on the basis of a firm or fixed price.
At Second Reading in the House of Commons, statements were made to the effect that provisions such as this are undesirable because an agreed contract price should be an agreed contract price and that clauses like this remove pricing certainty and dampen supplier incentivisation. There is some truth in the observation, but I believe the clause strikes a good and proper balance between incentivising suppliers and protecting the public purse in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Currie, recommended it should. It should also be noted that on a number of occasions in the past when suppliers incurred very substantial losses, such as on the Nimrod programme, they have come back to us for more money. Since we need the capability they provide, it is not in our interest to let a supplier go bankrupt by holding it rigidly to its contract price.
I must also tell the Committee that this clause does not introduce a new idea into single-source contracting. Provisions for a final price adjustment have been in place since 1968 under the existing Yellow Book arrangements, and a mechanism very like Clause 21 has been in place since 2004. It is in many of our single-source contracts and has already been successfully used to recover excess profits from our suppliers on some contracts. However, because the existing mechanism is contractual and needs to be negotiated, sometimes suppliers refuse to agree to its terms. This happened on a recent large maritime maintenance contract where commercial officers had to give it up in exchange for another provision we desired. That is why we want to legislate to provide this protection. If Clause 21 falls, a significant protection for both parties falls with it.
Clause 21 also states that any adjustments to the final price will be determined by the Secretary of State and the contractor. However, if an agreement cannot be reached on whether an adjustment is required or on the amount of that adjustment, the clause enables either of the parties to refer the matter to the SSRO for a binding determination. The clause will be used for particular types of contracts—firm and fixed-price contracts, which account for 60% of our single-source contracts—and the SSCRs will set out the minimum value for applying these provisions.
Finally, the clause gives the Secretary of State a power, on a case-by-case basis, to exempt a QDC from any final price adjustment as long as the value of that QDC is within the range to be specified in the SSCRs, which is expected to be between £5 million and £50 million. When deciding whether to make such an exemption, the Secretary of State must have regard to any matters which will be specified in the regulations. The clause is an important element in protecting both parties in defence contracts: the Government against suppliers’ excessive profits and industry from substantial losses, which ultimately would not be in the MoD’s interest. It is therefore crucial that it remains in the Bill.
Amendment 23C is part of a group of amendments which relate to the regulations that are to be made by statutory instrument under Part 2 and the parliamentary procedure by which those regulations will be made. We have previously discussed this in relation to Clauses 19 and 20 and Amendments 23A, 23C and 23D. Amendment 23C would provide for regulations under Clause 21 to be subject to the affirmative procedure. These regulations are for the final price adjustment and are currently subject to the negative procedure. The final price adjustment is expected to apply to around half of qualifying defence contracts—those which are firm or fixed price—and will have effect only when the costs incurred under these contracts are significantly different from those estimated at the time of pricing. The mechanism provided for by the draft regulations under Clause 21 is a relaxation of an existing mechanism that has been in place since 2004 and follows one of the recommendations by the noble Lord, Lord Currie. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee did not recommend that regulations under Clause 21 need be subject to the affirmative procedure and we, too, do not consider that these regulations warrant it. I urge the noble Lord not to move Amendment 23C.
Clause 21(4)(a) applies only to a particular kind of contract. The final price adjustment applies to all firm and fixed-price contracts, but with “pain and gain share” contracts, where the MoD and industry agree sharing provisions such as 50:50, it would not be appropriate to have two sharing mechanisms running simultaneously. Clause 21(4)(a) allows us to exclude “pain and gain share” contracts from the final price adjustment. The noble Lord queried the effect of Clause 21(4)(b). It is only to provide for a de minimis level. I am advised that the effect of Clause 21(5)(a) and 21(5)(b) is complex, and I will write on that.
Lord Tunnicliffe
Lord Tunnicliffe
My Lords, Amendments 18R, 18S and 18T are prompted by industry, which seeks to argue that there should be a mutuality in obligation and a test of materiality. The industry argues that there should be a mutual obligation on the primary contractor and the Secretary of State to notify the other of events, circumstances and information that are likely to have an effect on, or relevance to, a contract. The MoD will have information that is likely to have an effect in relation to a qualifying defence contract, whether that affects its price or performance. The MoD should have a duty to disclose relevant information to the contractor, which must be reflected in the Bill. I understand that this duty was confirmed by the Government in Committee in the House of Commons but I would value further affirmation.
As a result of the broad scope of events and circumstances that are likely to have an effect on, or relevance to, a contract covered by Clause 26(1), it is realistic that the contractor or the Secretary of State should be required to notify only when they believe there is a likely effect or relevance. Without this restriction, the obligation to notify is extremely broad. Further, it is argued that it is not necessary to refer to the effect on costs per se; the important aspect is whether there is an effect on price, such that Clause 26(3)(a) is unnecessary. I beg to move.
Baroness Jolly
My Lords, one of the flaws in the current Yellow Book framework is that it provides little transparency once on contract. A key objective of the new framework is that the MoD should be able to monitor the health of single-source contracts on an ongoing basis, receiving timely information so that it can take fast and effective action. This is very important. There have been too many examples in the past when the MoD has discovered cost or time overruns on single-source contracts far too late for remedial action to be taken. Receiving information throughout the course of a contract will give the MoD the opportunity to work with contractors to take early action to avoid or minimise the impact of issues as they arise. This clause is one of several that provide this transparency.
A supplier will always know more than the MoD about the issues affecting its their delivery of a particular contract. Some of our suppliers share information on an open basis, alerting us as issues arise so that decisions can be taken on a joint understanding of the best information available at the time, but not all of our suppliers do this.
The standardised reports that will be required under Clause 24 will provide periodic snapshots of contract performance. However, for contracts below £50 million in value, a report may be received annually or still less frequently, and even for our largest contracts a standardised report is only required quarterly. These periods are appropriate for standardised reporting, but three months can be a long time in managing a contract, especially complex contracts worth many millions, or billions, of pounds.
Clause 26 therefore supplements the regular contract reporting, placing a duty on contractors to let the MoD know, in a timely fashion, of matters material to the contract. Putting the onus on the contractor in this way means that the new framework can be “lighter touch” than it would otherwise be if the only means by which alarm bells could be sounded on a project was through periodic reporting and the MoD’s monitoring powers.
Amendment 18R would make the Secretary of State subject to the same duty, providing notifications to the contractor. Clause 26 will place a duty upon a contractor to notify the Secretary of State when the contractor becomes aware of the occurrence, or likely occurrence, of “events”, “circumstances”, or “information” that are likely to have a material effect on a qualifying defence contract. Applying this same duty would require the Secretary of State to notify the contractor of events, circumstances or information that are likely to have a material effect on the contractor’s costs—the subject of Amendment 18T—the contract price, or the contractor’s performance.
Let me first be clear that this does not concern changes to our contractual requirements. If the requirements of the MoD change, and this affects an existing contract, then we require a contract amendment to reflect those new requirements. This should be quite separate to the delivery of requirements already contracted for; if we wish to amend the contracted requirement, we will tell the contractor and begin the commercial process of amending the contract, and this is not a matter that requires legislation. The contractor is not forced to make the amendment, and they will charge us for any additional costs that might arise, or amend performance requirements if this is relevant. Until we seek a contract amendment, a contractor should be concerned with managing the existing contract.
For contracts which we are not in the process of amending, this duty would require the Secretary of State to assess the impact of events, circumstances and information across the department upon each contractor’s contracts. This is quite different from the duty placed upon a contractor when they are managing a contract in the normal course of business. It would require the Secretary of State to assess what might, or might not, affect a contractor’s cost or performance, to look beyond the contract and assess whether a contractor’s activities are likely to be affected. This duty would be impossible for any Government to discharge.
We agree that when a contract is being priced, the duty to share information should be reciprocal. Both parties should share their assumptions to ensure that the price agreed for the contract is both fair and reasonable and value for money. However, once a contract has been entered into, it is the contractor who must manage the delivery of the contract, and who is responsible for the performance of its business and costs. It is not the responsibility of the Government to second guess what is likely to have an impact upon how a contractor achieves their contracted requirements. We do not accept that Clause 26 represents an equal duty when placed upon the Secretary of State compared to a contractor. It would be inappropriate to place this duty on the Government and impossible for a Government to fulfil.
Amendment 18S is the second in this group, and it seeks to qualify the duty to notify by adding the requirement that, for each of the three elements under subsection (1), the contractor believes in the existence of the effect or relevance. Each element requiring notification under subsection (1) is expressed as,
“likely to have a material effect”,
or,
“likely to be materially relevant”.
This means that a contractor need only notify the Secretary of State if two tests are met: first, that an effect or relevance is likely; and, secondly, that an effect or relevance is material. If a contractor considers that an effect or relevance is not likely or not material, then no notification is required.
The effect of this amendment would be to add a third test: that an effect must be likely, material, and believed to exist. We do not think that an effect could be considered both likely and material and yet at the same time not be believed to exist. To put it another way, if it were not believed to exist, how could it also be considered likely to have a material effect? Without embarking on a debate on the nature of belief, it is not clear what this third test adds.
Where there is a disagreement between a contractor and the Secretary of State over whether a contractor should have provided a notification under this duty, the Secretary of State may issue a compliance or penalty notice. Ultimately, it will be for the SSRO to determine whether a notification should have been provided and, in doing so, it will consider the two conditions of “likely” and “material”. We consider that the two conditions already required for there to be a duty to notify are sufficient and that the third test of belief proposed by this amendment is unnecessary.
Moving on to Amendment 18T, Clause 26 provides for three matters that are the subject of the duty to notify; these are listed in subsection (3). They are the costs under the contract, the total price payable under the contract, and the contractor’s performance of material obligations under the contract. This amendment seeks to remove the first of these matters—the costs of the contractor under the contract. The effect of this amendment requires some explanation as there is some overlap between the first two matters—the cost and the price payable under the contract. For cost-plus and target-cost contracts, the costs incurred under the contract will directly affect the price payable under the contract, so there is a limited difference between the two matters for these contracts, which represent just under half of the single-source landscape. The rest are firm or fixed-price contracts under which the contractor’s costs may vary while the price payable may not. So it is firm and fixed-price contracts that would primarily be affected by this amendment.
The reason that we wish to be notified in relation to both costs and price under the contract is the same as the overall requirement for Clause 26—to ensure that the MoD receives timely warning of matters affecting contracts. If the costs of a firm or fixed-price contract are likely to materially change, this is still important management information for the MoD. It may indicate a significant risk to the project or signal future performance issues. Just because it may not affect the price payable does not mean that this is not important information. For example, a contractor could manage a contract for a year in between standardised reports being provided to the MoD. In that year, a significant risk could be recognised and material costs could be incurred in trying to manage the risk in the expectation that performance under the contract will not be affected. However, despite the additional costs incurred, it finally becomes apparent that performance is likely to be affected after all, at which point a notification would be required.
It is a characteristic of single-source procurement that there is only one supplier that can provide the capability we require. If the contract fails we lose the capability we need. This has led suppliers in the past to seek price increases even though we have agreed a fixed price. Where the cost increases are very large, this puts the MoD in a difficult position. Seeking to keep to the fixed price can lead a supplier into great financial difficulty, putting not only that contract but others with that supplier at risk. If the supplier fails, then we lose the capability we need. This is a real risk that has arisen in the past, and thus we need the same transparency over the costs of fixed-price contracts as we do for other contract types. We do not see a benefit to applying a different notification requirement to firm and fixed-price contracts, so that for these contracts notification is only required once performance is likely to be affected, while for other contracts notification would be required at the point that costs, and therefore price, are likely to be affected. This is not the early warning that this provision is intended to provide.
For all these reasons, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Tunnicliffe
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response, which I will read with great care in Hansard. Others outside the House will read it with even more care. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Jolly
Baroness Jolly
This group of amendments relates to the regulations that are to be made by statutory instrument under Part 2 and the consultation and parliamentary procedures by which those regulations may be made. There are seven amendments in this group, and I will deal with the government amendments first.
The Bill currently provides for two separate sets of regulations to be made by statutory instrument. The first is the single-source contract regulations—SSCRs—which are introduced under Clause 14(1). The SSCRs would contain all the regulations with the exception of those made under the second set of regulations, the penalty regulations, which are introduced under Clause 33. The penalty regulations would provide maximum penalty amounts under the civil penalty compliance regime provided for in Part 2. Drafts of both these statutory instruments were placed in the House of Lords Library on 22 January 2014.
The Bill provides for different parliamentary processes for these two sets of regulations, with the SSCRs to be made by the negative procedure under Clause 42(4) and the penalty regulations to be made by the affirmative procedure under Clause 33(7). I have previously discussed the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s report on the Bill. The recommendations that the SSCRs should be subject to a first-time affirmative procedure and that the regulations made under Clause 14 should always be made by the affirmative procedure have been accepted, and the government amendments in this group make the necessary changes to the Bill.
In order to make the recommended changes to the parliamentary process, it was considered that simplifications could be made in order to allow all the regulations under Part 2 to be made in one statutory instrument rather than the two currently provided for, being the SSCRs and the penalty regulations. Amendment 19 therefore provides for provision about maximum penalties to be made under the SSCRs rather than in separate regulations. Amendments 20 to 22 make some simplifying amendments to accommodate the fact that there is now just one set of regulations, not two, and Amendment 23 provides for the new parliamentary process by which the unified SSCRs may be made. I will now address each of these amendments in turn.
Amendment 19 is a simplifying amendment. It removes the current provision for the maximum penalty amounts to be made via a separate statutory instrument—the penalty regulations—and instead provides for this to be done in the SSCRs as with all other provisions for regulations under Part 2. There is no change to the scope of provision that will be made under Part 2 as a result of this amendment, but using a single statutory instrument for all regulations under Part 2 allows for simpler provision for the parliamentary process to be used for that one statutory instrument.
Amendment 20 follows on from Amendment 19. Clause 33(6) currently provides for the penalty regulations, as a separate statutory instrument from the SSCRs, to vary the maximum penalty amounts for two purposes: first, for “different purposes” and, secondly, specifically by reference to the value of contracts. As a result of Amendment 19, the maximum penalty values will now be included in the SSCRs, while Clause 42(2) already provides for the SSCRs to make different provision for different purposes, which is a standard provision for regulations. Therefore the part of the current subsection (6) providing for different provision for different purposes is no longer required. This amendment replaces the current subsection (6) to provide only that different provision for the maximum penalty amounts may be made by reference to the value of contracts.
Amendment 21 deletes Clause 33(7), which dealt with the parliamentary process for the penalty regulations. It is no longer required because the provisions for maximum penalty amounts will now be in the SSCRs rather than in a separate statutory instrument. So this will now be covered by the parliamentary process for the SSCRs under Amendment 23.
Amendment 22 simplifies Clause 39, which provides for the review of Part 2 and the regulations made under it by the SSRO and the Secretary of State. As there will now be only one statutory instrument, the SSCRs, Clause 39(1) can be simplified to refer only to the review of the SSCRs, rather than the more general “regulations under this Part”.
The first four amendments of the group that I have now outlined make simplifying provisions in order to make all regulations under Part 2 via one statutory instrument, the SSCRs. Amendment 23 addresses two of the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee relating to the parliamentary process under which the SSCRs should be made.
To begin with, it removes the current Clause 42(4), which provides that the SSCRs should be subject to the negative procedure, and replaces it by a provision reflecting those recommendations on the parliamentary process for the SSCRs: first, that they should be affirmative the first time that they are made; secondly, that any changes to the regulations related to Clause 14 should always be affirmative, as this governs which contracts will be subject to Part 2 and thus sets the scope of Part 2; and thirdly, that the affirmative procedure will also apply for any changes to regulations made under Clause 33, which relates to maximum penalty amounts and was previously to be contained in the penalty regulations. These were always to be subject to the affirmative procedure, so there is no change to the procedure as a result of this amendment. Finally, the SSCRs will follow the negative procedure for all cases other than those just outlined.
Lord Roper
My Lords, I welcome the Government’s amendments to these various clauses. They are a very full response to the report of our Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of last December, which was responded to by the noble Lord, Lord Astor, in his letter to the committee published earlier this year. It seems that in these amendments the Government have taken fully the points that were made by the report. We are very well served by that committee, which ensures that there is the technical scrutiny to ensure that parliamentary control is maintained when there are questions of delegated powers. I feel that the Government have responded fully to the proposals of the committee. I am not sure whether it has yet had a chance to respond to the letter of the noble Lord, Lord Astor, or if there are any further points that we may need to come back to on Report, but I understand that it is generally satisfied with these amendments.
Lord Tunnicliffe
My Lords, at this point I have no objection to the government amendments, but that may be partly because I do not understand them. I shall find them easier to read when the Bill is reprinted for the Report stage but, as I say, I have no comment or objection at the moment.
I may be about to contradict myself when speaking to Amendments 22A and 23B. Amendment 22A is prompted by the industry, which has argued that the regulations arising as a result of the review should be made and updated in an open and transparent manner. It argues that an industry-wide consultation should be undertaken, the Secretary of State should have regard to that consultation and the regulations should be laid before Parliament. Amendment 23B argues essentially that the penalties regulations should be passed by the affirmative procedure on every occasion. These are penalties which could have dramatic effects.
I think that this is the last time I will speak, so I should like to congratulate the Minister on her marathon performance. I recall from when I occupied her place that it can seem a bit futile, but I know that what she has read into the record will be held to be of great value by both parliamentarians and those outside. I thank her and her officials for their efforts, and I look forward to reading with great care the products of our discussions. I also look forward to her letters.
Baroness Jolly
I thank the noble Lord for his comments and I am sure that I will get my pen out and start writing as soon as I have consulted with the gentlemen sitting behind me. On a slightly more serious note, I am sure that we will have meetings with the Bill team and people from the MoD.
I turn now to the amendments. Amendment 22A would place a statutory duty on the SSRO when performing its review of the single-source framework to consult with industry and to publish the results of the consultation exercise. As noble Lords will be aware, many aspects of the single-source framework under Part 2 will lie in regulations rather than in primary legislation, and many of the clauses in this part give the Secretary of State the power to make those regulations. This is to allow the regulations to be periodically updated to take into account changes in procurement approaches, the defence sector and what is being procured, without the need for primary legislation. I reassure noble Lords that we are aware that the new single-source framework represents an important change to single-source procurement. We have been consulting closely with the industry throughout the development of Part 2, including the Bill and the detail of the regulations.
In October 2011, the noble Lord, Lord Currie, published his report and we subsequently ran a full public consultation which completed in January 2012. In April of that year we started a defence suppliers’ forum subgroup with our top 10 single-source suppliers. These included BAE Systems, Finmeccanica, Rolls-Royce, Babcock, Thales, MBDA, QinetiQ and others. Over the past two years we have met with them more than a dozen times to share our proposed approach and understand their concerns. Beneath this forum we also established a number of technical working groups on specific matters such as confidentiality, the SSRO and risk, and most recently on the regulations themselves. In January alone this year we spent four full days discussing the draft regulations line by line with industry, and we expect further such discussions before the summer. This is a substantial level of consultation, more than is typical for new government policy, and it has resulted in our making some important changes to our framework, such as introducing the new criminal offence to protect industry information.
It is certainly not in our interests to create an unworkable framework. For one thing, we pay for any additional overheads our suppliers will incur, which will be incorporated into their single-source prices, provided that they are reasonable. We also need the capability they provide and have no desire to make it hard to do business with the MoD. Indeed, it is out of a desire to ensure that the framework is as practical as possible that we have consulted with industry to the extent that we have. Industry cannot claim that it has not been consulted prior to the first regulations being made.
Lord Astor of Hever
“( ) The provision that may be made under subsection (1) by virtue of section 42(2) includes power to specify penalties of different amounts according to the value of the contract to which the contravention relates.”
Lord Astor of Hever
Lord Astor of Hever
“(4) A statutory instrument containing—
(a) the first single source contract regulations,(b) provision made by virtue of section 14(2), (6) or (8) (contracts to which single source contract regulations apply), whether alone or with other provision, or(c) provision made by virtue of section 33 (amount of penalty), whether alone or with other provision,may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.(5) Any other statutory instrument containing single source contract regulations is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”
Lord Astor of Hever
“( ) No statutory instrument containing an order under subsection (1) in respect of Part 1 (with or without provision under subsection (4)) is to be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”
House of Lords
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Introduction: Lord Richards of Herstmonceux
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Businesses: Town-centre Parking
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Williams of Trafford
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of town-centre parking policies and their impact on local businesses.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)
My Lords, the Government’s assessment is that town-centre parking policies can have a significant impact on local businesses. If parking is too expensive or difficult, shoppers will drive to out-of-town supermarkets or just shop online, undermining the vitality of town centres and leading to “ghost town” high streets. The Government intend to support local shops in town centres by reforming overzealous and unfair rules on parking enforcement.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I thank my noble friend the Minister for her response. Can she assure me that the Government will clamp down on the use of car parking as a means of revenue-raising for local authorities?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
I thank it is worth offering your Lordships a little context in responding to my noble friend’s Question. Local authorities’ total income and net profits from parking more than doubled under the previous Administration and councils are still making net profits. We also know that there is public concern. The Transport Select Committee said in a report published last year:
“There is a deep-rooted … perception that local authorities view parking enforcement as a cash cow”.
All independent reports show that parking is affecting high streets and local businesses. Therefore, I am very pleased to be able to confirm to my noble friend today that the Government have just completed a consultation on new measures to tackle this problem, and are considering those responses before announcing what action they are going to take.
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
My Lords, with the Government’s renewed interest in tackling parking charges and easing the burden on local businesses, can the Minister explain why the three London councils with the highest parking charges and fines per person are Conservative? In fact, in London, Conservative boroughs took double the amount in parking fines and charges per residence compared with Labour boroughs.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
As the noble Lord heard me say, this is a problem that we think started under measures introduced by the previous Government.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
In fact, Labour’s Local Government Minister at the time, John Healey, called for councils to charge for more services, including parking. When Labour was in office, he said:
“Only one in five councils are using charging to the full potential”.
Labour’s current shadow Minister has admitted that the Labour Government too easily reached for increasing costs as a way to drive change on things such as car usage. It is this Government who are tackling that problem.
Lord Bradshaw (LD)
Is the Minister aware that in a typical city, buses and trains convey twice as many shoppers to the centre as come by car and taxi? The Government’s consultation paper, to which the Minister referred, obviously will make parking enforcement more difficult. It also will forbid the use of TV cameras to police the areas outside schools. Will the Minister ensure that the review that is being undertaken of the responses to the consultation document looks particularly at the effect on the efficient operation of bus services, road safety and nitrogen oxide emissions?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
As my noble friend will understand from my earlier responses, we are carrying out this review because we think some of the parking measures already in place are having a negative effect on the vitality of our high streets and towns. The measures that we are considering are there to address the importance of parking. My noble friend mentioned specifically the use of CCTV cameras. I stress that we are considering the use of those cameras in parking bays, and what is important is that they are proportionate in their use.
The Lord Bishop of Wakefield
My Lords, I want to focus particularly on the impact on small towns, which may not necessarily have trains and buses bringing people into them. Where there are not just large-scale out-of-town developments but also small-scale shopping centres, where it is easy to park for nothing, the impact on the high street is significant. In Mirfield, in the diocese from which I come, free parking has had a very good impact. In Berwick-upon-Tweed, another town I know very well, there is no free parking and that is seriously affecting local businesses. Can we be assured that Her Majesty’s Government will encourage local authorities to look at ways of finding more parking spaces in small towns?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
The right reverend Prelate is right to raise the issue of more free parking. In a recent report published by Deloitte, more free parking was the single biggest issue raised by people who responded. In examining some options, we are trying to ensure that local people have a greater say in the parking arrangements of their local areas—and, clearly, access to free parking should be one of those things.
Lord Hughes of Woodside (Lab)
My Lords, since the Minister chose in the first Answer to politicise this matter when she defended Conservative local government by saying that it was following Labour Party policy, will she invite her colleagues in Conservative local authorities to follow Labour Party policy in opposing the bedroom tax?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
The point that I am making to the noble Lord is that parking is an issue that affects all areas and is of great importance, and that we are not afraid to address an important issue in a proper manner.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, about 51 years ago Admiralty Fleet Order 150/63 was produced, which taught one how to treat snake bites. The first step was: kill the snake. Does the Minister believe that the snakes here are people who dislike and hate car owners? As the right reverend Prelate says, in small towns people have to use cars and there should be a concerted effort to ease restrictions in those sorts of places.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
The noble Lord is right, and I am disappointed if my response to the right reverend Prelate did not give him the right impression. Clearly, access to free parking is an important matter for people. The Government are trying to make changes in order to ensure that, in particular in small towns and those that are not thriving in the way that they deserve, we are not blocking their progress.
Lord Marlesford (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the purpose of parking meters is to allocate scarce space for parking, so that if at peak times one cannot find a place, it means that the charges are too low, and, if there are a lot of empty places, it means that parking charges are too high?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
That is a rather philosophical question. The most important thing is that charges are appropriate, and the Government are trying to ensure that the charges imposed by local authorities are appropriate and are seen as fair and reasonable by the people who have to pay them.
Schools: Careers Guidance
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Humphreys
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress has been made in implementing the recommendations of the Ofsted report of September 2013 Going in the Right Direction? Careers Guidance in Schools from September 2012.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Nash) (Con)
My Lords, we want all schools to follow the example of the best and provide inspiring careers advice for young people, based on more real- life contact with the world of work. In response to Ofsted’s report, we are strengthening statutory guidance, particularly with respect to contact with the workplace, and in improving information on apprenticeships and vocational options. We are developing the role of the National Careers Service. Ofsted is ensuring that careers guidance and pupil destinations will be given greater priority in inspections.
Baroness Humphreys (LD)
I thank my noble friend for his reply. Ofsted reported that in more than three-quarters of the schools visited,
“the new arrangements for careers guidance were not working well”.
What specific guidance have the Government given to schools on what constitutes a comprehensive careers guidance strategy, which was recommendation 1 in Ofsted’s report? How will that ensure that all pupils receive appropriate and impartial guidance to enable them to make educated choices concerning their educational pathway post-16?
Lord Nash
My Lords, the revised guidance will make it clear that schools should have a strategy for the advice and guidance they provide to young people. The strategy should be embedded within a clear framework linked to outcomes for pupils rather than an ad hoc set of activities. It should reflect the school’s ethos and meet the needs of all pupils. We will share case studies so that schools can learn from the very best practice. The revised guidance will also set out clearly what schools can do to ensure that pupils have information about all the types of education and training they can pursue, and hear directly from different types of providers, including further education and sixth-form colleges, and employers delivering apprenticeships.
Baroness Bakewell (Lab)
My Lords, there is an ongoing problem of informing young people about apprenticeships. This is a long-running story, found to be inadequate by the Ofsted report, which said that the careers advice being given in schools is not addressing that. The dilemma is that when a teacher on the staff of a school is also the careers officer, their loyalty to the school inclines them to advise children to stay on in the sixth form. What can the Government do to generate a new national careers service energy, so that this particular problem is more swiftly answered?
Lord Nash
I take the noble Baroness’s point, although I think that more people staying on in school is hardly our biggest problem in education. Ofsted is very focused on making sure that guidance is given well. In relation to apprenticeships, we fund the National Apprenticeship Service that funds the Education and Employers Taskforce to deliver a programme of apprenticeship knowledge and employability skills to 16 to 18 year-olds. More than 70 advisers from the National Careers Service, the National Apprenticeship Service and Jobcentre Plus were stationed in the Skills Show in November last year, and the National Careers Service and the National Apprenticeship Service ran a jobs bus road show. A wide range of marketing materials and resources about apprenticeships are available on the National Apprenticeship Service website and it has also developed a free mobile app. So this is something we are very focused on.
Baroness O'Cathain (Con)
My Lords, can my noble friend tell the careers advice people that we must make sure that we get the right jobs for the right people? The mismatch at the moment is horrendous, particularly with ICT jobs. It is estimated that by the end of next year there will be something like 400,000 to 700,000 mismatched jobs. The competition in the BRIC and MINT countries is making hay when it comes to these jobs. What are we doing to try to rise to that challenge?
Lord Nash
My noble friend is quite right. The UK’s long-term economic future depends on high-level technology skills, and the Government are committed to strengthening the teaching of computing and in particular computer science in schools. That is why the new computing curriculum, which is to be taught from September this year, will be mandatory at all key stages. It has a greater focus on how computers work and on the basics of programming, as well as covering digital literacy and the application of information technology. It encourages pupils to design computer programmes to address real-world problems. The inclusion of computer science in the EBacc will help ensure that more pupils obtain a high-quality GCSE qualification.
Baroness Lane-Fox of Soho (CB)
My Lords, is the Minister aware of a report that came out of the EU two weeks ago valuing the internet app economy at several billion and stating that it will need one million jobs by 2020? Does he agree that the changing nature of the ICT world and of jobs needed within it is complex and should be reflected in careers guidance?
Baroness Hughes of Stretford (Lab)
My Lords, despite the Minister’s claims, Ofsted, the Education Committee, the British Chambers of Commerce and the CBI have criticised the Government’s hands-off approach to careers guidance. The CBI said recently that careers advice is on life support now in many schools in England. Does the Minister accept that it was wrong to give schools sole responsibility for careers advice but no money to deliver it? Will the Government now act to eradicate the postcode lottery in careers guidance and insist, as my noble friend said, on independent, face-to-face advice for all young people?
Lord Nash
I know that the noble Baroness and I share aspirations for what we expect for young people, but the answer to her question is a firm no. As noble Lords know, the fact that the country is short of money is not this party’s fault. However, I also think that the assumption that a face-to-face interview with a careers adviser is the gold standard is a very outmoded model. As noble Lords will see when we publish our guidance, I hope shortly, we have a very strong emphasis on employer engagement, which we believe is the secret to good careers advice. I give an example: Westminster Academy, which has built up partnerships with more than 200 employers, has 73% FSM and 75% A* to C, including English and maths. I can think of no better example or argument for employer engagement on the ground, giving pupils a direct line of sight to real-life workplaces rather than just career advisers.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend will know that one of the hardest things in career education is building up those networks, contacts and opportunities for work experience. It is particularly difficult for children from disadvantaged backgrounds—one has only to look at interns in Parliament itself. How do we ensure that children and young people from disadvantaged backgrounds have those opportunities?
Lord Nash
My noble friend is quite right. We have to ensure that work experience and internships are not just available from daddy’s or mummy’s friends. The Social Mobility Foundation has done a great deal of work in this regard, and I know that it is developing a focus on providing work experience and internships for pupils from backgrounds who would not normally be able to access them. Even it struggles sometimes to engage with schools, but that is something that we are very focused on.
Local Authorities: Local Plans
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Tyler
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps local communities may take where a local authority has not prepared an up-to-date local plan; and what powers Ministers possess to encourage timely development of such plans.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)
My Lords, local plans enable communities to participate in planning and are the best way to create great places and meet their needs. This Government have therefore put local plans at the heart of the planning system and will consult on introducing a statutory requirement on authorities to put plans in place. However, in the absence of a local plan, communities can still exercise a range of community rights, establish neighbourhood plans, and make their views known on all development proposed locally.
Lord Tyler (LD)
My Lords, I am delighted with my noble friend’s Answer—it is not often one can say that—but can she confirm that the Government recognise the urgency of this issue if there is to be a consistent pattern of district plans nationwide by the end of 2014? What steps can Ministers take now in advance of any statutory powers to ensure that a district such as the Cotswolds, which I know very well, of which 70% is in areas of outstanding beauty, does not drag its feet any longer? Does my noble friend agree that the absence of an up-to-date district local plan can make development control arbitrary, unfair and open to large-scale speculative development, threatening communities such as Tetbury and Chipping Camden?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My noble friend makes some interesting points. My first response to him is to restate that local plans are indeed the best way for local people to decide how best to meet their own planning needs. The Government are supporting local authorities to publish and adopt their plans, because we recognise that this is a complex process. We have trebled the number of local authorities with adopted plans since 2010. However, as I have said, because this is so important, we will consult shortly on whether to make adopting a plan a statutory requirement and, if so, by when.
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
My Lords, we know that a number of local authorities are frustrated in facilitating the provision of housing, particularly affordable housing, where there is inadequate land supply within their boundaries and neighbouring authorities are ignoring their duty to co-operate on housing growth. The needs of Stevenage and Oxford are just two examples. As the Minister is aware, local authorities are required to provide evidence that they have complied with the duty in their development plans if the plans are not to be rejected by the examiner. How many local plans have, to date, been sent back for that reason? Does the Minister not agree that the duty to co-operate is proving to be a totally inadequate policy, given the scale of housing provision that our country needs?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
I do not have the specific data to respond to that question from the noble Lord, but I can say to him that 75% of local authorities have now published a plan and 52% have adopted that plan. As I have already said, this is a massive increase on where we were in 2010, so there is real progress. However, because this is so important, we may, as I have said, introduce a statutory requirement to ensure that this happens across the board.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con)
Is the Minister aware that there is a conflict between the minerals plans that are being developed and the local plans? It is rather important, particularly in view of the previous question, which emphasised the need for housing, that the mineralogical, underground plans should be finished in time for the local authority to know that it is not going to build on top of what could be a huge local asset for the community. Having attended the mineralogical group, I think there is some problem of liaison because these two items are covered by two different departments. Can the Government liaise between these departments in such a way that the necessary first one will actually be completed first?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
In drafting and publishing local plans for consultation, local authorities are required to produce those plans in line with Government policy with the planning policy framework. Clearly, if there is any specific matter, there are ongoing discussions on that, but I am pretty sure that the way things are working is adequate.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
Will the Minister make clear which country she is talking about?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
I am talking about England. If I were to talk about Wales, where the Labour Party is in government, things are a lot worse over there.
Lord Avebury (LD)
My Lords, in the case of planning for Travellers, the DCLG issued a paper requiring local authorities to provide, by the end of March 2013, a five-year supply of specific deliverable sites against targets based on up-to-date assessments of local need. Will my noble friend say whether the Government will ask local authorities to submit returns by the end of March this year showing how they have satisfied that requirement? If the answer is that hardly any have done so, will they embody the requirement in statute? Is there ministerial power to enforce it?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
As my noble friend knows, the policy is clear that, through local plans, local authorities should plan to meet housing needs and the needs of Gypsies and Travellers. This Government do not impose or monitor targets, but the Planning Inspectorate is applying the policy robustly in examining local plans.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, someone well beyond my pay grade has suggested that villages should be able to expand with small and proportionate developments in order to ensure that we build housing in rural areas and make villages vital communities again. Would the Government agree with that?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
The most important thing as far as planning is concerned—which is why we are so committed to local plans—is that all housing decisions be locally driven.
NHS: Patient Data
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Turnberg
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the proposal to establish a national collection of data about patients, in the light of the decision by NHS England to postpone its introduction.
Lord Turnberg (Lab)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare my interest as scientific adviser to the Association of Medical Research Charities.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, NHS England’s care.data programme takes forward the ambitions set out in the Government’s information strategy for health and care in England, The Power of Information, published in 2012, in particular elements of chapter 5 of the strategy. The Department of Health strongly supports NHS England’s decision to do more engagement work before data collection takes place. This is a vital programme which will bring real benefits to patients.
Lord Turnberg
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for his response. Few people doubt that there are enormous benefits to be gained from patient data, both for the care and treatment of patients at the moment and for research into treatment for future patients. However, does the noble Earl agree that NHS England has been remarkably unsuccessful so far in communicating both the benefits and the safeguards to confidentiality? Does he further agree that it is vital that NHS England uses the next six months, which is the delay, to develop some robust and convincing methods of communicating with the public?
Earl Howe
I entirely agree with the noble Lord. This is a vital programme which will bring real benefits to patients. It has major potential benefits for research and public health. It commands generally wide stakeholder support. However, there is no doubt that concerns over how this has been explained to patients have been raised and those concerns need to be addressed. I agree that the next six months will be crucial in pursuing that aim but it is essential that this programme commands public support.
Lord Kakkar (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as professor of surgery at University College London. What assessment have Her Majesty’s Government made of the proposed European data protection regulation which, if passed, has the potential to impact seriously on our national strategies with regard to health informatics and biomedical research?
Earl Howe
My Lords, we take that concern extremely seriously. The draft text that has been published by the so-called LIBE committee would, if enacted, pose serious obstacles for our research effort in this country. We are taking every opportunity and using every effort to persuade both the Parliament and the European Commission that the original text is the one we should go with. That work is on-going and the Ministry of Justice is leading on it.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Hill of Oareford) (Con)
Let us hear briefly from the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, and then we can go to the other side.
Lord Cormack
Will my noble friend assure the House that the leaflet which was recently sent out, and which was far from satisfactory, will be replaced by something that really communicates what people need to know?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I am aware of concerns around the leaflet. Many people have said that they have not received it, which is clearly a concern. NHS England, which is leading on the development of the programme, will consider how to ensure that it engages fully with stakeholders and the public over the coming weeks and months and respond to the concerns that have been raised. The Government will also be engaging with stakeholders to see what we can do from a broader perspective.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I refer noble Lords to my health interests. Is not one of the problems that if a patient wants to opt out of the system they have to go to or communicate with their general practitioner? I am sure the noble Earl will have seen the report at the weekend from the Royal College of General Practitioners that GPs are sometimes rather difficult to find. Would it not give the public more confidence if they could opt out in a straightforward way rather than have to go to see their GP and then depend on the GP to enact that in practice?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I cannot agree with that. The GP surgery is where the records are kept and would seem to be the natural place for patients to go. They do not have to make an appointment to do that. If they are concerned, they can write a letter or send an e-mail to the GP practice and then have a conversation later if they would like to. I do not think this is a difficult process.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, it is clearly illegal for pseudonymised data to be worked back and then aggregated with other available data. Can the Minister assure the House that the Government will consider increasing the penalties for infringing personal data, including prison sentences for serious breaches and a ban on the offenders and their organisations accessing any data for up to 10 years? This is because current organisations are often not taking seriously breach-of- data fines.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I have seen quite a lot of comment on this aspect of the issue in the press. At present, the Information Commissioner’s Office already has the power to impose a fine under Section 55A of the Data Protection Act and the current penalty is up to £500,000, which is quite a severe penalty. To amend that would require changing the Data Protection Act and, at the moment, the Government have no plans to do that.
Lord Walton of Detchant
My Lords, does the Minister accept that all appropriate steps are being taken to protect the anonymity of these data? In the light of that, is it not more important to the future of medicine in this country that the availability of this massive database should be taken advantage of in relation to medical research, which will in turn have the undoubted effect of giving huge potential for improvement in patient care?
Earl Howe
The noble Lord is absolutely correct. It is worth pointing out that the vast majority of medical research in this country relies on fully anonymised data. It does not require patient-identifiable data. An organisation making an application for information that is identifiable would be allowed to do so only if it had obtained patient consent or had been granted legal approval to do so, either by the Secretary of State or the Health Research Authority, or where there is a public health emergency of some kind.
Divorce (Financial Provision) Bill [HL]
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
House Committee
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Citizenship (Armed Forces) Bill
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Trefgarne (Con)
My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to speak in Committee or move a manuscript amendment. Accordingly, and unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
International Development (Gender Equality) Bill
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)
My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Unless, therefore, any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Leasehold Reform (Amendment) Bill
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Unless, therefore, any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Deep Sea Mining Bill
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Wilcox (Con)
My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Unless, therefore, any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
National Insurance Contributions Bill
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Empey
“Opposition status in the Assembly
(1) Schedule 6 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (standing orders: further provision) is amended as follows.
(2) After paragraph 4(2) insert—
“(3) The standing orders shall include provision in relation to the allocation of the Chairmanship and Deputy Chairmanship of the Public Accounts Committee.”
(3) After paragraph 5 insert—
“Opposition status6 (1) The standing orders shall provide for official opposition status to be allocated to any party with at least one seat in the Assembly which is not a part of the Executive.
(2) Official opposition status shall only be introduced under sub-paragraph (1) if approved by a cross community vote in the Assembly.
(3) For the avoidance of doubt, it shall not be possible for the Assembly to revoke the official opposition status accorded to members under the provisions of this paragraph without the consent of the Secretary of State.””
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, perhaps I will be permitted a brief pause while your Lordships’ huddled masses leave.
As we discussed this topic in Committee and also had a significant debate on it at Second Reading, there will be no need to repeat many of the concerns that were expressed at that stage. However, the amendment approaches the matter from a different point of view. It was made clear that there was an anxiety that changing the effect of the 1998 Act through the miscellaneous provisions Bill could be seen as imposition of the idea of official opposition status over the head of the Northern Ireland Assembly. Under the amendment, the trigger for any action would be a request from the Assembly itself.
The noble Baroness will be well aware of my anxiety and that of a number of others that although of course the Assembly has powers to change its Standing Orders which could give effect to opposition status, the weakness in that argument is that what is given by the Assembly can be taken away by the Assembly. The danger is that, if an Opposition are established, it is on a grace and favour basis and will only have sufficient independence as long as that is the will of the other parties in the Assembly.
My purpose in moving the amendment, and that of my noble friend Lord Lexden, is to ensure that we move one step closer to providing additional accountability, so that the Executive can be held to account. Parties would have the option of achieving a status that will give them some additional speaking rights and supply day debates and provide for the very significant issue of the future chairmanship and deputy chairmanship of the Public Accounts Committee. In other jurisdictions within the United Kingdom, those offices are held by parties that are not in the Government, whereas under the current arrangements in Belfast, they are occupied by parties that are in the Government. So that issue is fairly self-explanatory.
One issue that has come to my attention is that some elements within Sinn Fein feel that if opposition status is granted to parties in the Northern Ireland Assembly, that might in some way encourage parties not to share power with them. Parties are not going to decide not to share power with Sinn Fein on the basis of whether or not they could have opposition status, they are going to make that decision on a bigger political picture, so that is an Aunt Sally of an argument. Nobody is going to refuse to share power with Sinn Fein simply on the basis that they could get opposition status, a couple of supply day debates and so on. That argument is not credible.
If your Lordships think that there is no need for looking at opposition status in the Bill, I draw your attention to the fact that last year, an attempt was made to take away powers of one of the Northern Ireland departments, the Department of the Environment. An eight-page amendment was introduced at the very last minute which had the effect of removing some powers from that department and moving it to another one. That was done without any consultation through the committee and at the very last minute, so therefore there was no opportunity to have proper scrutiny of that proposal.
In essence, that makes my case for me, because it is precisely to counteract that risk that I believe that we require to provide certainty and a guarantee that if the Assembly chooses to go down the route of providing for an Official Opposition, which I hope it does, that Opposition will be a proper, free-standing Opposition who will have certainty that they cannot find themselves hobbled later should they fall out of favour with the executive parties of the day. We must remember that we cannot look at this simply in the context of the current make-up of the Assembly. We are looking years ahead—that make-up may change over time. It is for those reasons that I believe we need to go a bit further than the Minister has indicated in the past. Will the Minister tell us if she agrees with the proposition? I believe, reading her response at the previous stage—in Committee—that she does, and that she believes that there is this issue, raised by some people, that, in the absence of a guarantee which is not confined to the Assembly, the opposition status would be left in a fairly weak position.
I have an open mind on the methods we might choose to deal with this. This is one proposal. If we look at the Northern Ireland Act, and Schedule 6 to that Act—which deals with the question of Standing Orders—there are indicative Standing Orders set out in relation to committees and other matters, so we are not proposing anything wildly different. I also re-emphasise that the trigger for this has to be the Assembly itself, so that we are not forcing something on the Assembly that it does not want. At the end of the day, we need to put in place a mechanism that ensures that, if an Opposition are formed, they are free, independent and not subject to pressure. I believe that that would be an extremely valuable element in improving accountability. I support the mandatory coalition arrangements—although one would like to see a day when that is not necessary, it is necessary and will be for the foreseeable future; I doubt very much that anyone in this House today will see the day when it is not necessary. We are not getting into the argument about whether we are trying to replicate the Westminster system—we are not. That argument should be set to one side. However, that does not mean that the system is not capable of being improved or evolving. I draw the attention of the House to some speakers at the previous stage who said, “Oh well, we cannot impose things and we cannot interfere”. Parliament has imposed and interfered, and in fact a later amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, is a classic example of both interference and imposition. This Parliament has already interfered and imposed and it has done so with its eyes wide open. Indeed, in a debate in this House in 2006, the implications of pursuing the imposition were made clear—and that has proved to be correct.
Let us not hide behind the argument that you cannot look at an issue simply because it is not necessarily provided for in the current arrangements. Political deals have been done, and political deals have been imposed, and that is how the system works. We are not proposing that sort of methodology. As can be seen from this amendment, the trigger is the Assembly itself. It has to make the move, it has to ask, and it has to decide that it wants to go down this road. This amendment seeks to ensure that there is a guarantee and certainty that that Opposition, once established, will be free and able to pursue their objectives without let or hindrance from whichever happen to be the governing parties of the day.
Will the Minister comment in her response on how we can achieve these objectives, if she is not content with this proposal? I hope the Government understand that we are not here to impose; we are here to improve and to see the institutions evolve. I know that we are aware of the sensitive situation with regard to devolution throughout the United Kingdom. We know that eyes will be looking from Scotland at what we do here on this issue, and I understand fully that most of your Lordships do not want to give any hostages to fortune or provide any ammunition so that people in Scotland could say, “There you go. They are trying to impose something and if they’ll do it on Northern Ireland, they’ll do it on Scotland or on Wales”. I fully understand that argument, and the anxieties which those who hold those views feel over Scottish independence.
I do not want to provide ammunition to anybody in Scotland who seeks to break the union, but I repeat: the trigger for this has to be the Assembly itself, which takes it out of the realms of imposition. Between now and the next stage of the Bill, it ought to be possible to find a means of achieving these objectives without doing damage to the principle of non-interference. In that spirit, I beg to move.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, I supported my noble friend Lord Empey’s amendment in Committee and I support the current version of this valuable amendment with no less vigour. He has explained its aims and objectives fully and I have only a little to add from my own Conservative and Unionist perspective, which is identical to that of my noble friend, who is the chairman of the Ulster Unionist Party. The not unimportant constitutional issue which the amendment seeks to address is simple and straightforward. The Northern Ireland Act 1998, which created the devolved institutions through which the Province is largely governed today, made no provision for the establishment of an Official Opposition with the appropriate rights and privileges. My noble friend has explained the reasons for that omission and this amendment would fill that constitutional lacuna.
It contains, as my noble friend has emphasised, no element of dictation or compulsion. It makes soundly based constitutional provision for the establishment of an Official Opposition, while leaving the Northern Ireland Assembly entirely free to judge when it would be appropriate to invoke this valuable addition to the constitutional order under which it conducts its affairs. In other words, by inserting provision for an Opposition into the 1998 Act, this amendment would supply the one element which is missing from Northern Ireland’s remarkable constitutional dispensation that followed from the Good Friday agreement, and so complete that dispensation. It therefore has great significance but it would do something else of importance as well. It would signal this Parliament’s support and encouragement for the evolution of Northern Ireland’s devolved institutions in the direction that public opinion in the Province increasingly favours: towards a state of affairs in which the Government are challenged in detail, day by day, by an Opposition who fulfil the great constitutional function prescribed for them of providing,
“a standing censorship of the government, subjecting all its acts and measures to a close and jealous scrutiny”,
as one leading late 19th-century authority on the constitution put it in resounding language.
Is it not right—is it not indeed the duty of the Parliament which brought into being Northern Ireland’s unique constitutional order—to support and encourage its evolution so that the devolved institutions that operate under it can carry out their work with ever growing success as the years advance? Your Lordships might consider what beneficial effect an Official Opposition could have had if they had been in existence today. They could have prevented the restrictions that limit so worryingly the operations of the new National Crime Agency in Northern Ireland—a matter that aroused grave disquiet when we discussed it in Committee. An Official Opposition might also have made it unnecessary for us to hold the debate on defamation which is to follow shortly.
Some say, “Leave the Assembly entirely free to follow its own course. Do not trouble it with advice from Westminster. Do not disturb it by strengthening the constitutional basis on which it operates by making statutory provision for an Opposition and placing that provision at the Assembly’s disposal for its introduction”. That does not seem to me the right, constitutionally sound approach. As my noble friend has explained, the Assembly could establish an Official Opposition under its own Standing Orders. However, that, in his own striking phrase, would be a grace and favour Opposition, existing through the good will of the Executive with their commanding majority in the Assembly. To work well, an Opposition would need stability and confidence. If they rested on a statutory basis under this Parliament’s legislation they could not be removed precipitously or capriciously. Let us now take the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to the point that is now needed by adopting this amendment.
In replying to the debate in Committee the Minister said:
“It is important that a formal Opposition should have sufficient status if they are to be effective in holding the Executive to account. The Government will reflect on what has been said in the debate and we will certainly return to this on Report”.—[Official Report, 3/2/14; col. 22.]
I hope at the end of this debate my noble friend will be able to tell the House that the Government will either adopt this amendment or will bring forward something similar at Third Reading.
Lord Trimble (Con)
My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Empey, tabled his amendment on this matter in Committee I added my name to it. I make clear that the absence of my name from this amendment today does not mean that I have changed my mind. I agree with what the noble Lord has said and I hope he gets a very positive response from the Minister.
Lord Alderdice (LD)
My Lords, in Committee I made it clear that I was very supportive of the principle of establishing an Opposition in the Northern Ireland Assembly. I remain of that view. In fact, I think it could be a very helpful improvement and evolution of the constitutional arrangements. It is clear that Standing Orders in the Assembly can accommodate this. When the Assembly was first established it had a very flimsy little pamphlet of Standing Orders. It was very important that the Assembly on all sides agreed to a process of negotiating and ultimately passing Standing Orders with cross-community support in the Assembly. That meant that all Members of the Assembly felt they were their Standing Orders. I would prefer to try to find that way forward. I do not accept the proposition that the noble Lord, Lord Empey, referred to about this being an imposition. I agree with him that this is not about imposition; it is about facilitation. The dilemma is, as he described, that it requires the larger parties in the Assembly to buy into the proposition before his amendment, even if passed, would come into operation. It is a bit of a Catch-22 situation. To achieve the things he and the noble Lords, Lord Lexden and Lord Trimble, want to achieve will require a process of negotiation between the party or parties that wish to have the possibility of being an Official Opposition and the current parties of government. Of course, these things can change—they have changed since the agreement, with the size of parties and their influence and so on.
Is there any leverage? I think there is considerable leverage. For example the Ulster Unionist Party, which is no longer as substantial in this House as it once was, has a substantial number of Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly and indeed has ministerial positions. It would be possible to negotiate with the two largest parties in the Assembly on the basis that, as vacating ministerial presence on the Executive to take up opposition status would be to the advantage of the other parties, appropriate recognition as the Opposition would be sought in return.
This leads me to two areas where I feel some dissatisfaction with the specifics of this amendment. First, there is the suggestion that a party with one Member could become the Official Opposition. I would rather see a slightly higher bar than that in the Northern Ireland Assembly. The idea that a single Member could form a party of their own and have the status of Official Opposition seems unwise. There should be some more substantial number; it is going to be a bit arbitrary whatever it is, but one is both arbitrary and unwise. I can think of many individual Members of the Assembly who might choose to adopt that status and create merry hell for everyone, including themselves and the Speaker. I would rather that there were more.
The second is related to that: the special position that is accorded in the chairmanship of committees, as suggested in the amendment. Again, for a very small party of one or two people to be able to corral those significant positions seems unwise. However, I emphasise again that the principle that is being supported by the noble Lords, Lord Empey and Lord Lexden, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, is one that anyone who wants to see the evolution of the Assembly should espouse, and if there are things that can be done by the Secretary of State and our own Minister here or by others in your Lordships’ House to move that forward, we should certainly do so. However, I remain to be persuaded that this amendment is going to take us in quite the direction and for quite the distance that its proposers might hope.
Lord McAvoy (Lab)
My Lords, in Committee there was a broad consensus—that is the key word—that the creation of an Opposition, or the allocation of opposition rights to parties in Stormont, lay within the scope of the Assembly and could be achieved through its Standing Orders. That consensus is again confirmed today. The Assembly’s Standing Orders have the power to grant informal recognition to non-executive parties in the Assembly on a proportional basis. There was also unanimous agreement as to the value of opposition and the additional effectiveness that an Opposition would bring to scrutinising the Executive and holding it to account. In fact, “consensus” appears to be the key word in this discussion.
In Committee, several noble Lords raised concerns about the vulnerability of any arrangements that were determined solely by Stormont. Concerns were also raised about the efficacy of the Assembly’s committees, particularly the chairmanship and deputy chairmanship of the Public Accounts Committee. The current amendment represents an understandable attempt to overcome those anxieties. By placing the creation of Standing Orders that grant opposition status within the Northern Ireland Act 1998, and by making it impossible for the Assembly to revoke official opposition status, the independence of an Opposition would appear to be guaranteed. Through this amendment, any Opposition would not be dependent on the continued good will of the Assembly for their status and associated rights. Bearing in mind the word of the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice—“evolution”, which is particularly relevant—that might not be welcomed.
We all wish to see the continued normalisation of politics within Northern Ireland. Great strides have been made. It is a rocky road at times but it is still a great road to be on. However, as I have said before, the situation and structures in Northern Ireland are unique. It is for this reason that I and the Official Opposition share the doubts mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice. Is this the way ahead? Unless you are sure about something, you should not support it in Northern Ireland.
After so much division, the 1998 agreement established an Assembly and Executive in Northern Ireland that would be inclusive and make decisions consensually. These very same principles apply to the creation of an Opposition within the Assembly today. It is not a case of hiding behind the mantra of devolution. Devolution has a capital “D”. It is not a mantra. It is an effective way of delivering power and devolving power down in a very centralised society, which the United Kingdom can be at times.
In June 2013 the Assembly and Executive Review Committee concluded that, as yet, no cross-community consensus had been reached. This followed a government consultation in 2012 that reached the same conclusions.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Wales Office (Baroness Randerson) (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Empey and Lord Lexden, for tabling this amendment. As I have acknowledged previously, they have done us a service in raising the profile of this important issue and they are to be strongly commended for that. I think that we have agreement at the very least on one thing across the Chamber this afternoon: that is, an Opposition is an important part of democracy. The Government agree that the creation of an Opposition would be a welcome step on the road to rigorous scrutiny of the Northern Ireland Executive and an important part of the democratic development of Northern Ireland.
This afternoon several noble Lords—the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, for example—emphasised the development of the Assembly as a democratic institution and the importance of that development. I myself, from my own experience as a Member of the Welsh Assembly, recall that the original Welsh Assembly as set up did not have a strong Opposition embedded within it. It did not have the institutions of an Opposition, and the positions to which the noble Lord, Lord Empey, refers in his amendment, were not necessarily there for the Opposition to take up.
As the Opposition grew within the Welsh Assembly, one could see—day by day and month by month—the effectiveness of scrutiny growing within the Assembly. To my mind, therefore, there is no argument about the importance and desirability of an Opposition. The key thing we have here is a discussion as to whether that should be done, as the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, suggested, through the internal standing-order processes of the Assembly—the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, suggested the same approach—or whether it should be something that has safeguards imposed from outside. There we have the issue of the development of Standing Orders within an organisation.
The personal experience I just referred to includes being chair of the Welsh Assembly’s Standing Orders Committee, which I always regard as one of the more challenging roles that I have taken in politics. Clearly, as the organisation develops, the Standing Orders become more sophisticated and more difficult to overturn. If the approach within the Northern Ireland Assembly is taken via Standing Orders, that of course does not necessarily mean that they are likely to be overturned—although I recognise entirely the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, of the challenge last year to the power of the Department of the Environment, and the point that there are unsettled moments in the development of Northern Irish democracy.
Therefore, as I set out in Committee and as has been referred to this afternoon, the Government previously consulted on the issue of an Opposition in the Assembly and concluded that there was a lack of broad support between the parties in the Assembly for changes to the current legislative framework.
Lord Kilclooney (CB)
The Northern Ireland Assembly is losing credibility across Northern Ireland and is passing very little legislation. I am very worried that the turnout at the next election will be poor. The Minister says—and the spokesman for the Opposition said the same—that the initiative must come from the Northern Ireland Assembly itself, but if all five main political parties are now in the Government, what incentive is there for any of those parties to resign from the Government and become the Opposition?
Baroness Randerson
The noble Lord makes a very important point. However, because there may not immediately be an obvious incentive to do so, that does not necessarily mean that in other circumstances one or more of those parties might not find it appropriate to go into opposition. In the history of party politics in general, from time to time a party believes that the time has come to renew itself, and the party also might believe that the time has come for it to take a stronger role of scrutiny. It is important that we do not regard the current situation in Northern Ireland in terms of the balance of political parties as one that will necessarily exist in decades to come. There have been remarkable changes in Northern Ireland among the political parties since the establishment of devolution, so we should not think that the current situation will necessarily always continue as it is.
I return to the point I was making. Noble Lords will be aware that the Assembly can in effect facilitate an Opposition at present through its Standing Orders, as has been referred to here this afternoon. However, as I said earlier, I recognise the concerns that those Standing Orders could be overturned at the behest of the larger parties in the Assembly. In response to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, the Government understand the desirability of sufficient protection being afforded to an Opposition against such a threat if it is to be truly effective in holding the Executive to account. It is important that the Opposition are enabled to do their work without feeling that their position is under threat. However, of course it is also possible to protect an Opposition internally, through Standing Orders.
However, as the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, highlighted in Committee and again this afternoon, this is about the Assembly’s internal procedures. I disagree with the noble Lords, Lord Empey and Lord Lexden. It would not be appropriate for the Secretary of State to have authority over the Assembly’s internal affairs, as the amendment suggests. In the view of this Government, it is not appropriate for the Secretary of State to intervene internally in the processes of the Assembly. We also believe that it would be inappropriate to impose a requirement for the Assembly to make particular provision in this field. Indeed, we ought to show great circumspection, given that there has been no opportunity for consultation on these matters with the Northern Ireland Assembly in recent months. However, we will reflect further on the issue in the light of today’s debate. I make no promises of particular action, but we commit to considering whether there is more we can do within the constraints of the Government’s view that we should not intervene directly within the Assembly. Above all, I hope that the parties in Belfast are listening and will think carefully about amending Assembly arrangements in the light of what has been said today. With that in mind, I hope that the noble Lord, when he comes to reply, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Perhaps I might add a word about another issue, since otherwise we will not have an opportunity to consider it today. In Committee, concerns were expressed about the current provision in Clause 6 to make the reduction in the size of the Assembly a reserved matter. I would like to respond in more detail to some of the concerns debated in Committee. The current provision would enable the Assembly to legislate, with the Secretary of State’s consent, to reduce the number of Members returned to it for each Westminster constituency. The noble Lords, Lord Alderdice, Lord Empey and Lord Bew, expressed reservations about the current provision in that it did not provide sufficient protection, notably for smaller parties in the Assembly. In their view, the Secretary of State’s ability to withhold consent from such an arrangement was not a sufficient safeguard.
The Government recognise those concerns. There is a significant body of opinion that favours some reduction in the Assembly’s size, but it is certainly not our intention that it should become a radically smaller institution. When it was established, it was the intention that it should be a widely inclusive body, and that remains an essential element of the Northern Ireland settlement. Accordingly, we propose to bring forward an amendment at Third Reading that would limit any reduction in the Assembly’s size to five Members per constituency. The amendment would make clear that such a reduction would require cross-community support in the Assembly.
We will, of course, return to the detail of this amendment at Third Reading, but I hope that I have given a clear indication of the Government’s intentions and reassured noble Lords. Following my comments on this amendment and in the light of my reassurance that we will consider further the issue of our position in the Assembly, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Empey, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Empey
My Lords, I welcome the debate that we have had. As Members of this House will be well aware, when a miscellaneous provisions Bill passes your front door, a variety of things inevitably appear in it. Of course, at the end of the day the Government brought the Bill here, so it is their fault that all these issues are being raised.
Throughout this process we have been trying to raise the profile of this issue. Earlier, I made the point that changes have been made to the architecture of the Assembly without the consent of the Assembly, without the consent of all the parties and, indeed, without any consultation with all the parties. It is against that backdrop and in that context that these amendments are being brought forward.
I am sure that I speak for my noble friend Lord Lexden when I say that we have no particular allegiance to this amendment vis-à-vis another. We are trying to achieve an objective, which is to allow the Assembly to evolve. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, that there is a Catch-22 situation. If you want the Assembly to have the trigger mechanism to seek an opposition status, to some extent you are giving it a veto. Equally, the only alternative to a veto is an imposition, but it has already been said around the House that that is not where we would seek to go.
I thank the noble Baroness for saying that she wishes to reflect further on the issue without commitment. We are open to finding a way to evolve the situation, whether that is through consultation with the parties, led by the Secretary of State, or by another mechanism or other means. All we want is to see progress.
The noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, raises a very important point. I have been a lifelong supporter of devolution, as have many noble Lords here, but credibility is being lost. Sometimes things need to be refreshed and people need to see change and delivery. It is important that we do not confuse the facts. For instance, my noble friend Lord Lexden and I have brought forward this proposal but that does not mean that the party that I represent necessarily wishes to seek a status for itself now. It may very well be that other considerations, such as the stability of the institution, have to be taken into account. However, we have to look to the future and, as the noble Baroness said, the future generations of politicians need the best structure that we can give them.
With regard to the Minister’s point about the size of the Assembly and her intention to bring forward an amendment on that, I would just suggest that in the mean time she does an exercise on the impact that it would have had on the Assemblies that have been elected so far to see what it would have produced. The noble Baroness is a great advocate of proportional representation; her party sought to introduce it for this House and the other place. However, whenever people talk about it, I get the impression that they do not fully understand its implications. I suggest that people have a look at the figures to see what PR would have produced in the context of the Assembly elections in 1998, 2003, 2007 and 2011—what those elections would have looked like and what impact it might have had.
We had a proposal to reduce the number of constituencies in the United Kingdom Parliament. That would have been a perfect solution to the situation in Belfast because a reduction in the size of the Assembly would have been taken care of without the Assembly having to get involved; 12 seats would have disappeared and the Assembly would have gone down to a more reasonable size.
However, we are where we are and, on the basis of the noble Baroness’s assurances that she wishes to reflect without commitment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Empey
“(3) Subsections (1) and (2) shall only enter into force after the remaining provisions of this section have been complied with.
(4) The Secretary of State shall establish a body corporate called the Northern Ireland Civil Service Commission (“the Commission”).
(5) The Commission must publish a set of principles to be applied for the purposes of recruiting persons on merit on the basis of fair and open competition.
(6) Before publishing the set of principles (or any revision of it), the Commission must consult the Secretary of State.
(7) Northern Ireland Civil Service management authorities must comply with the recruitment principles.”
Lord Empey
My Lords, this is a very simple amendment. In Committee we discussed at considerable length the fact that we were seeking to ensure that the principles of merit and of equality of opportunity were always at the forefront of Civil Service recruitment. I take the point that in this case we have the anomaly that civil servants effectively are answerable to the devolved Parliament, whereas the Civil Service Commission is not. I believe, too, that if we cannot agree on the principles of merit and equality in terms of the Civil Service Commission, we are in severe difficulties.
I refer to the letter that the noble Baroness sent to us and to the fact that in Committee many people praised the Civil Service for its work in very difficult times over a prolonged period. Many civil servants conducted almost political negotiations on behalf of Ministers, in some cases at great risk to their personal safety. We owe them a debt of gratitude in that regard. The point was made that the situation in the 2010 Act gave the Whitehall Civil Service Commission one status, whereas the Civil Service Commission in Northern Ireland has a different one. The amendment was drafted to deal with that anomaly. I am interested to know how the Minister has reflected on these matters since Committee and whether she feels able either to support the amendment or to bring forward her own. I beg to move.
Lord Bew (CB)
My Lords, I support the amendment. The shadow of history lies over it. When the Northern Ireland Civil Service was established in 1921-22, something like 60 appointments were made without any normal procedures of recruitment being applied. Over a period of time a struggle to achieve a professional Civil Service began. The time between 1925 and 1944 when Sir Wilfrid Spender was head of the Civil Service was key. In the memoirs of a Catholic civil servant, Patrick Shea, who reached the top of the Northern Ireland Civil Service, one can see the degree to which great efforts were made to institutionalise procedures that reflected what Sir Wilfrid thought were the best procedures in Whitehall.
That backdrop explains why, when direct rule came, Ministers of all parties—I do not just mean Conservative, Labour or Liberal Democrat Ministers who had dealings with the Northern Ireland Civil Service, but Ministers who leant to one particular side or the other in Northern Ireland—always found that the Northern Ireland Civil Service delivered excellent and objective advice. If one looks at the non-controversial nature of north-south relations, which is of particular importance at the moment, it is clear that the big political decisions in such a context were made by the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, who is in his place today.
It is also the case that the work done by the Northern Ireland Civil Service in looking at areas of viable co-operation between north and south is a very important reason why the settlement is so stable. As the noble Lord, Lord Empey, has said, we owe a debt of gratitude to the Northern Ireland Civil Service. As I have argued, that integrity and professionalism has been hard won. The pressures of localism do not go away: it is not 1921 anymore. At this symbolic moment, it seems to me that noble Lords who supported this amendment want to say that a stronger message is desirable in terms of defining the principle of merit and of fair and open competition. That essentially is the idea behind this amendment: that that signal should be sent in a firm way.
Lord Alderdice
My Lords, whatever reservations I might have had with regard to the previous amendment I have none at all about putting my name to this one as it is very important. There was some talk in the debate on the previous amendment about the imposition of the will of the Westminster Parliament or Westminster Government on Northern Ireland. In a sense, this amendment and the next one refer to two clauses where it is almost as though the Westminster Parliament and Government are intentionally withdrawing their involvement and moving from excepted to reserved matters that were rather carefully put in the excepted category. Why? Many of us were conscious of the fact that over a substantial time in the historical period referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Bew, the United Kingdom Parliament and Government were less involved in that part of the United Kingdom than might have been advisable, and things went awry.
It does not seem to me that we have learnt from that. Indeed, some indications over the past two or three years are that people on this side of the water, relieved to some extent that Northern Ireland is less in the headlines than it was for 20 or 30 years, are just hoping that everything will go on all right. The noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, has rung a warning bell that maybe things need attention, and I think he is right on that score. I have heard no demand in Northern Ireland for the issues referred to in this amendment or the next to be changed, so I am a little puzzled why these propositions have come forward in the first place. If they do proceed, they must be addressed properly.
I have two concerns. First, while I accord entirely with the positive remarks of the noble Lords, Lord Empey and Lord Bew, about the Northern Ireland Civil Service, and from my positive experience in most circumstances over some years, nevertheless, particularly as I was trying to get the Assembly up and running, it became apparent that many of the more senior civil servants were operating off a kind of Civil Service rulebook from 20 or 30 years before. They really had not kept up with the kind of developments of Civil Service culture on this side of the water. There was nothing malign about it but it seemed that things took rather a long time to get across the Irish Sea in terms of cultural change. So, one of my concerns is that if we simply offload and do not put appropriate rules in place, those cultural changes that take place on this side of the water may not be picked up as quickly back at home, and I do not want to see that.
Secondly, when appointing senior civil servants it is suggested that the Civil Service as a whole, and the basis on which it recruits, is entirely a devolved matter. That is clearly legally true. However, I ask my noble friend to consider—she may not be able to respond immediately—whether, if it became apparent that the merit principle did not apply and proper recruitment was not happening in Northern Ireland, would that not be a matter of concern to this Parliament? If it became apparent that there was discrimination, inappropriate appointments were being made or that the merit principle was not the key principle, is it seriously being suggested that this Parliament would have no locus, interest or legitimate concern, and that the Secretary of State who was responsible for negotiating the resources that those civil servants would spend, and who might have a legitimate concern for the propriety of appointments, could say nothing about it? I am not entirely persuaded that that argument stands up. I do not necessarily say that we would ever get to that position but if we talk ourselves into the notion that this Parliament and the Government have no say in the overwhelming majority affairs in Northern Ireland, that is a recipe for neglect, benign or otherwise. I do not want to contribute to that.
I support the amendment not only because, technically, I think it is important, and historically it is appropriate, but because it gives us the opportunity again—as the noble Lord, Lord Empey, said, they do not come by too often—to raise the issue of Northern Ireland and the responsibility of this place and the Government here on what is a devolved institution, not an independent one.
Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)
My Lords, in Committee the Minister sought to reassure me about why the opportunity was not being taken in this Bill to introduce the defences of Civil Service impartiality in Northern Ireland that exist for the rest of the United Kingdom under the 2010 Act. She said:
“It is the Government’s intention that we would be moving to devolution with safeguards that would have the kind of statutory enforcement that exists for England”.—[Official Report, 3/2/2014; col. 36.]
I take that to mean that that statutory enforcement would be introduced before devolution takes place. Can the Minister explain how that is to be done? Since the only further legislative move that is necessary before devolution takes place is a statutory instrument introducing it, is that the means by which she says the statutory defence of Civil Service impartiality will be introduced? That is my first question.
My second point is the reason why I support this amendment now. If and when that statutory instrument comes before the House, we will have a chance to vote only for or against the whole statutory instrument. That is a less satisfactory means for the House to deal with it than if we were able to debate this sort of amendment to the Bill before it comes into force.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill (LD)
My Lords, I was not intending to take part in the discussion of this part of the Bill, but I would be grateful if my noble friend the Minister could clarify whether the existing legal regime in Northern Ireland forbids any form of discrimination within or by the Civil Service. It was my understanding that that was the position under the Northern Ireland Act as it stands. I know that in Northern Ireland there is some backwardness in amending equality law. It still has not, as we have done, produced a single Equality Act. That is most regrettable. It is true that it was Labour that first sought to initiate that reform. But in terms of the Civil Service and public administration, I understood that not only in common law but under the Northern Ireland Act any form of arbitrary discrimination, direct or indirect, would be unlawful. I would be very grateful if that can be clarified.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I suspect that the noble Baroness has a sense from the tone of this debate, as in Committee, of how strongly your Lordships’ House feels on this issue. The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, made the point that we have devolution, not disengagement, and there is a responsibility here for your Lordships’ House.
The noble Lords, Lord Alderdice and Lord Bew, made the point about the differences—not just cultural but practical—between the Northern Ireland Civil Service and the Westminster Civil Service. As a Northern Ireland Minister, I was struck by the far higher profile that senior civil servants have in Northern Ireland than they do here in GB. This is partly because, particularly when the Assembly has been suspended or there have been different governance arrangements, it has often been a civil servant who has undertaken the role that Ministers have here in defending or promoting policies and engaging with the public. So the difference is cultural and practical.
The timing of the Minister’s letter on this issue to noble Lords, dated yesterday and which I received today, is rather unfortunate. I appreciate that we have just had a recess, but it would have been helpful to have had the letter earlier; it may well have informed more of the debate today and the amendment that is being put forward.
There are a couple of points in the Minister’s letter on which I would like some clarification. I think that there is some confusion about what has been devolved and what is excepted. In her letter, she mentioned the debate in Committee and said that,
“many of the points made in debate related to the impartiality of the Northern Ireland Civil Service as a whole, which is of course a transferred matter”.
But the reason why there was a debate around impartiality was that we were discussing the role of the Northern Ireland Civil Service Commission, which is not an excepted matter. It was the role of the commission that brought about that debate. I think that people fully understand that the Northern Ireland Civil Service is devolved, but it is the role of the commission and its responsibility in ensuring the independence and impartiality of the Civil Service.
The point of the amendment and the whole tone of the debate is that, when the Northern Ireland Civil Service Commission is transferred, it is with the statutory understanding that it retains its remit for ensuring impartiality in appointments to the Northern Ireland Civil Service. I do not think that there was any misunderstanding in the debate in your Lordships’ House about what was transferred or excepted, but the reassurance was required, which was not really explicit enough in the Committee debate, that before being a devolved organisation there would be statutory protection on its remit for impartiality.
The Minister said in her letter that there would be further parliamentary scrutiny in both Houses, but the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, is relevant here—it would be secondary legislation. But she also says that she intends to bring forward an amendment at Third Reading. I think that it is a great shame that we do not have the amendment before us today, because it would have been helpful to your Lordships’ House to be able to discuss it today. What we will seek from her today is to understand exactly what that amendment would say. If the earliest time we see that amendment is at Third Reading, it is rather late in the day, and I am disappointed that we do not have that government amendment before us today. If she could clarify exactly what it will say and what the process of debate and vote will be, that would be extremely helpful to your Lordships’ House and might allay some concerns. I hope that she is able do that—but, to put it on record again, it would have been helpful to have that amendment today.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville (Con)
My Lords, I mean no disrespect to the shadow spokesman for the Opposition in speaking immediately after her. I hesitated to speak in the debate because I had played no part whatever in the proceedings so far, but I detected some mild anxiety in the exchanges between the government Front Bench and the advisers behind me. Therefore, I reckoned that uttering for a moment might provide enough time for any matters of that sort to be resolved with total confidence.
Like many in your Lordships’ House, I was alerted to this problem by the original letter expressing concern about the difference between Northern Ireland and the rest of the kingdom at the moment in these regards. For reasons that are in no remote sense the responsibility or fault of the Minister, I was unable to attend any of the briefing meetings that she very generously provided for people interested in this Bill. It is possible, because I have not taken any part, that I have not received correspondence that may have come to other noble Lords.
Having listened to the debate this afternoon and read the debate that occurred in Committee, I have a sense of unease. I do not have a sense of confidence that all is well. We are rather late in the proceedings of this Bill to be dealing with these sorts of concerns. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to give a significantly clearer position of exactly where we are and why at this particular moment.
Baroness Randerson
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his amendment. I know from Committee, and this afternoon, that this issue gives rise to considerable debate, in which of course there is very wide interest. I am grateful to the noble Lord for bringing the matter back on Report.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, criticised the timing of my letter. My letter was dependent on knowing on which aspects I had not been able to satisfy noble Lords following the debate in Committee. There were a number of other issues of debate that have not come back to us because clearly the debate produced a satisfactory response to what I had said. I was therefore picking up those issues which had been raised in amendments by noble Lords or which had been raised with me directly in that noble Lords had told me that they intended to table amendments on those issues. Therefore, having got a picture of what noble Lords were interested in and concerned about, I wrote in the hope that, by giving some advance notice, I would enable your Lordships to prepare your points for debate with an eye to what I was planning.
Returning to the points made this afternoon, noble Lords will be aware that this amendment is the same amendment that the noble Lord tabled in Committee. As I outlined then, while we have much sympathy with the concerns that underlie it, to which the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, has just referred, the Government cannot accept it; first, on the basis that it is technically problematic; and, secondly, because it will pre-empt a public consultation on the future devolution of the Civil Service Commissioners.
It is worth emphasising again that Clause 10 is concerned only with the appointment of the Civil Service Commissioners and not the wider Civil Service. There have been a number of references today, as there were in the previous debate in Committee, to the issue of the Civil Service as a whole. That is, however, a devolved issue, and therefore it is important that we bear in mind that we are talking only about the appointment of the Civil Service Commissioners.
Clause 10 does not change the current procedure for the appointment of Civil Service Commissioners for Northern Ireland. Appointments are currently an excepted matter, and the Bill proposes to make them a reserved matter, as is currently the case with the commissioners’ functions and procedures. But the Bill opens the possibility of responsibility for the appointment of the commissioners and their functions and procedures to be devolved at a later stage.
I recognise that noble Lords have concerns that the principle of appointments to the Northern Ireland Civil Service should be made on merit and through open and fair competition, and that this should be protected, as is the case with the Home Civil Service here. In Committee I made it clear that the Government are certainly open to the possibility of new statutory safeguards being put in place in the context of devolution. But as I indicated previously, attempting to write them in now would pre-empt a consultation on the future devolution of the commissioners, not least in Northern Ireland itself.
In any event, we do not have the time to put in place provision on the complex issues involved during the remaining stages of this Bill. Some of these matters, as I have said, are anyway a devolved responsibility on which we should not legislate without the consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly. It is unnecessary to make such provision at present because the House, along with another place, would have the final say over whether devolution should take place when an order to that effect was proposed.
On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, about the opportunities for the House to vote on a statutory instrument prior to devolution and that it would be a yes or no vote, the process for this is that the Secretary of State would bring an Order in Council to the House and the House can decide whether there are sufficient safeguards in place. If there are not, presumably the House would vote against that order.
Lord Butler of Brockwell
I am grateful to the noble Baroness but I am afraid that she is not assuaging my concerns. In Committee, she gave me a precise undertaking. Today she has said that the Government were open to the idea of introducing the same kind of statutory safeguards for the Northern Ireland Civil Service as exist in the rest of the United Kingdom. In Committee she went much further than that and said that we would be moving to devolution with safeguards that would have the kind of statutory enforcement that exist for England. Is that going to happen before devolution or not?
Baroness Randerson
I hope to come to that in the latter part of my response. I was attempting to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Butler, on the specific issue of the process. Prior to the intervention I was saying that the House would have the final say on whether devolution should take place when an order to that effect was proposed. However, in responding to the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Butler, I should make it clear again that the Government are committed to protecting the independence of the Civil Service Commissioners and that we fully understand the concerns expressed about the future independence of the Northern Ireland Civil Service.
We recognise the significant and important role played by the Civil Service in Northern Ireland and, in the light of the concerns expressed, the Government propose to bring forward an amendment at Third Reading which would require the Secretary of State to lay a report before both Houses on the independence of the Northern Ireland Civil Service prior to bringing a devolution order. In her report the Secretary of State will be required to set out her view of the effect of devolution on the principle that persons should be selected for appointment to the Northern Ireland Civil Service on merit and on the basis of fair and open competition. That approach flags up the importance your Lordships attach to the question. We would wish the House to be reminded of that at a later date when and if a devolution order is brought forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, asked whether discrimination is possible at this point in time in the Civil Service. There are extensive safeguards in Northern Ireland law and in the 1998 Act against discrimination in employment and, more generally, against discrimination by public authorities. I am sure that on this issue it would be more significant if I responded to the noble Lord in detail, possibly by letter, which I could place in the Library.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for her reassurance. I want to make it clear that my understanding, as a matter of law, is that if the commission were not to recruit on merit, on the basis of fair and open competition, that would already be unlawful both by statute and common law. The House may need that reassurance in considering whether the proposal now being made, for a report in the future, would be sufficient safeguard against abuse. If the Minister finds it more convenient to confirm that in writing, I would be grateful for that.
Baroness Randerson
As an issue of principle, my understanding is that that is the situation. However, in order that noble Lords might understand it in more detail, I will ensure that a letter is sent to my noble friend and a copy placed in the Library in order that we can make the current situation clear. As I listened to this debate and read the Hansard report of our previous one, it became clear that this is a complex issue in which we are, in practice, moving between the appointment of the Civil Service Commissioners on a fair, equal and open basis and the standards by which we would expect the Civil Service in Northern Ireland to operate. Some of these issues are devolved but it is important to be clear about which safeguards are already in place, at which level, and which points are devolved. I give way to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I am grateful to the noble Baroness. She is trying to be very clear and I wish I could be equally clear at this point. The noble Baroness used two phrases that give me concern. At some points she talked about the independence of appointments to the Northern Ireland Civil Service Commission but in her letter, and at other times, she referred to the independence and impartiality of appointments to the Northern Ireland Civil Service for which the commission is, at some levels, responsible. That is where there is some confusion.
We are just a few days away from Third Reading and I would be very concerned if an amendment were tabled quite late in the day and the only discussion we had was on the Floor of your Lordships’ House. Would it be possible for the Minister, before tabling the government amendment at Third Reading, to discuss it with noble Lords who have raised concerns to ensure that they are content with its wording and feel that it does what they are asking for it to do? The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, is quite right. We are very late in the day to be at this stage with the matter not resolved. It would be very helpful if the Minister could agree to circulate the amendment and discuss it with noble Lords prior Third Reading.
Baroness Randerson
One our problems is that the Bill refers to the appointment of Civil Service Commissioners but the amendment goes beyond that because, as has been pointed out, this is a miscellaneous provisions Bill and things are put into it which add to its scope. In attempting to respond to the debate, we have all been discussing the qualities of the Civil Service in Northern Ireland—its free and open appointment and independence. We have therefore been ranging well beyond the point in the Bill. I am absolutely happy to organise a meeting with noble Lords who are concerned about this issue. It is essential to have a full discussion of any proposed amendment and ensure, as far as possible, that noble Lords are satisfied with the direction of the amendment.
As the noble Baroness has pointed out, there is an issue with timing. We have Third Reading next week so it is essential that we move on under a realistic timetable. The Government are absolutely committed to having public consultation before making fundamental changes to the appointment of the Civil Service Commissioners. We are not considering devolution of anything without wide public consultation and the agreement of the Assembly. We have a relatively limited period of time in which to produce an amendment that works within those parameters.
Lord Alderdice
I hesitate to intervene, but will my noble friend clarify something else? She talked about the importance of public consultation. I do not ask her to clarify this now, but perhaps she could do so in writing before the Bill’s next stage. The noble Baroness on the Opposition Front Bench said that culturally and socially there is a difference in the roles of the heads of the Civil Service departments in Northern Ireland. It is my recollection that there is a legal and constitutional difference from this part of the world as well. I recollect that the heads of Northern Ireland government departments are the civil servants, not the Ministers, which is a different position from that in the rest of the United Kingdom. I am not certain that all noble Lords are aware of the fact that it is a quite different position. Therefore, sensitivities that some of us have on these matters are all the more acute. I see my noble friend Lord Trimble nodding his head, and that ought to be confirmation sufficient for me, but I ask the Minister to confirm between now and the next stage precisely what is the position and, in particular, the status of heads of department as civil servants.
Baroness Randerson
My noble friend is correct in his general point, which is that the Civil Service in Northern Ireland has a different status from that in the rest of the country. The situation changed in 2010, when additional safeguards were introduced for the rest of the country.
I suggest that the best way in which I can deal with the detailed approach for which my noble friend is asking is to add it to the letter that I originally said that I would write to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, because it is very much in the same field and at the same level of detail. Then we can have the precise legal and historical background to the different situation that exists for the Civil Service in Northern Ireland. My noble friend makes an important point that we are looking historically at a different situation.
I draw your Lordships’ attention to my proposal of an amendment that the Secretary of State should bring forward a report. I think that our approach flags up the importance that your Lordships clearly attach to this very important question. Requiring a report will feed back into the consultation process that we have committed to undertake on the question of whether the responsibility should be devolved and in which circumstances. I hope that your Lordships will agree that such an amendment goes much further than the current clause. We will of course return to the detail of these amendments. It is obvious that we are going to have ongoing discussion on this and we will return to it at Third Reading. I hope that this will provide the noble Lord with the necessary assurances and that he will consider withdrawing his amendment.
Lord Empey
My Lords, when this amendment was tabled, I thought it was going to be a fairly simple, straightforward matter—but as very often happens, that has not proved to be the case at all.
The Northern Ireland Assembly has not asked for any powers to be devolved with regard to the Civil Service Commissioners. Indeed, as we look at the next amendment, it has not asked for any of those powers to be devolved either. Contrary to the rumours, the people on the Newtownards Road do not speak of little else. My point is that this proposal has come from the Government of their own volition. It has not been sought. I have never heard anybody raise the issue at all.
The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, referred to the letter that some of us received in January from the chief commissioner. If I may be permitted to quote a little from it, it says:
“We have a similar role to that of the UK Civil Service Commission chaired by Sir David Normington, which regulates appointments to the Home and Diplomatic Civil Service. However, unlike Sir David’s Commission, the Northern Ireland Commissioners do not have the benefit of formal legislative provisions”.
It goes on further:
“Rather, our role continues to be governed by a Prerogative Order in Council”.
The noble Baroness is suggesting new proposals. We know that there is a clash between what is devolved and what is not devolved, but what is not devolved is currently excepted. As the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, said, a number of issues were deliberately left as excepted issues because they were potentially so sensitive. They went to the core of areas where people felt that things had not been well handled in the past, and it would be better for the long term to leave them to the one side.
The other point to bear in mind about the Civil Service in Northern Ireland is that the statutory role, function and power lies with the department, not the Minister. There is a complete difference. If the Minister is not there for whatever reason, the department can continue to apply policy that has already been decided. The law states that the Minister directs and controls the department, but in the absence of the Minister, the department itself has the power to continue implementing policy. That is a very distinct difference.
Lord Trimble
I must apologise as my memory is not clear enough on whether the noble Lord was present at a discussion I am going to mention. However, he will recall the time when, for political reasons which are not relevant to this point, I had resigned and I was proposing that my other Ministers would also resign. There was a discussion of senior officials about what we do in this situation. I cherish the comment made by someone who I will not identify, who said, “We must be very careful because we don’t want people to find out that we can take decisions without Ministers”.
Lord Empey
The noble Lord is perfectly correct. I recall being at a number of meetings where that issue was discussed. The law states that the Minister directs and controls the department when the Minister is there, but the power is vested in the department. That is why this is such a sensitive issue. We are in the House of Lords but the department Permanent Secretaries were known as the six barons in the direct rule years, because it was to them that people turned for resources and other things. There is a very distinct difference, and that is why this is such a sensitive issue. As I have said, the Civil Service Commissioners themselves clearly have anxieties. The Assembly has not asked for this but the Government, for their own reasons, have decided to bring it forward. If they were prepared to drop it, I am quite sure that Members here would be more than content. However, in view of what the Minister has said and in view of her letter, and the fact that she intends to hold further consultations, I believe it appropriate that I now beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Alderdice
“( ) In subsection (2) of section 68 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission), for “approved by the Secretary of State” substitute “nominated by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister and confirmed by a vote of the Northern Ireland Assembly”.
( ) In subsection (3) of section 68 of that Act, for “appointments” substitute “nominations”.
( ) In subsection (3) of section 68 of that Act, for “Secretary of State” substitute “First Minister and Deputy First Minister”.
( ) In subsection (2) of section 69 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (The Commission’s functions), for “Secretary of State” substitute “the Northern Ireland Assembly”.
( ) In subsection (3) of section 69 of that Act, for “Secretary of State and the Executive Committee of the” substitute “Northern Ireland”.”
Lord Alderdice
My Lords, this amendment follows on in a sense from many of the principles of the previous amendment, but there are also some significant differences. The question of human rights and how to maintain them has been a long-standing interest and concern of mine. My first formal involvement in the issue occurred in my late teens and early 20s when I was a youth representative in the human rights commission of the Irish churches. However, I have never been a human rights fundamentalist. I remember one of the senior clergy in that commission describing the question of human rights in a way that I have always found helpful. He said that “human rights” is an important and helpful disturbing notion. In other words, it is something which should always make us ask certain kinds of questions, but on its own it does not determine all human behaviour—in particular, the balance of human rights and human responsibilities.
As I say, human rights has always been a matter of concern to me. When I got involved with Liberal International, which is the worldwide organisation of liberal political parties, I found that its only standing committee—apart from the bureau, executive and congress—is the one on human rights. I got involved with that committee and became its chairman, and I was the chairman for some time. As I tried to help that organisation move forward, I thought that it would be a good idea to consult an old friend and colleague from Ireland, Mary Robinson, who at that point was the High Commissioner for Human Rights at the United Nations. When I went to discuss this in her office in Geneva she said, “If you’ve got an issue and you have a campaign, and if you are successful in your aims, you will have achieved success in one campaign; but if you can put in place a structure or an organisation, or an institution which has longevity and good people in it, then you will address not just one issue but one issue after another”. She encouraged me to encourage my colleagues in different parts of the world to set up parliamentary human rights committees, ombudsmen and, importantly, independent human rights commissions and institutions, and I spent quite a number of years trying to do that.
However, it is not just about human rights commissions but about independent human rights commissions. In particular, these commissions need to have an independence from the Executive in those countries. It is enough that they frequently find themselves dependent on the Executive for funding; it is even worse if they are wholly dependent for their nomination and appointment on the Executive. One of my concerns about this proposal to open up devolution of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, with appointments made by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, is that it would undermine this question of independence. I am puzzled about it because the other area of devolution that we are conscious of is not just Wales—with respect to my noble friend on the Front Bench—but also Scotland. What is the situation in Scotland? The Human Rights Commission there is responsible to the Scottish Parliament, not to the Scottish Government or Executive. I was completely unsurprised to find that when the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission was asked to respond to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in another place, it said, “If the Government want to move ahead on this, that is all very good. But it would conform much more closely to the Belgrade principles if it were accountable to the Assembly and not to the Northern Ireland Executive”.
I have therefore tabled this amendment. It is not a complete amendment or an amendment which I intend to press—it is entirely a probing amendment. I urge colleagues not to get involved in finding flaws with it because that would be much too easy a job. I am simply setting down the principle that, if and when the Government move forward with this proposal—and perhaps my noble friend can even give me some encouragement that at Third Reading there might be an amendment that will address this question—the Northern Ireland Assembly is the key body to which the Human Rights Commission is accountable, and the Assembly and not just the Executive should have a say in the appointment of Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission members and chair. In practice, it may well be the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister that makes nominations. In political terms, it is hugely important that the members are accountable to the Assembly, perhaps with a vote for their appointment and the tabling of an annual report to it.
There are many ways in which the Human Rights Commission already involves itself with the Assembly; for example, it advises the Speaker, when he requests it, on the human rights compliance of legislation before it comes to First Reading and before it leaves the Assembly. That is not the issue. It is the question of principle. If it is to be and to remain an independent body there should be a clear significance of that by it being accountable to the Assembly and not just to the Executive. I beg to move.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
My Lords, I support the object of my noble friend’s amendment and I want to explain why. I have practical experience in Northern Ireland. Between 1975 and 1977 I had the privilege of being the special adviser to what was then called the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights in Northern Ireland. At that stage the commission was examining the highly controversial question of whether the European human rights convention should be given direct effect in UK law or in Northern Ireland law. The Northern Ireland Office, like others within that Government, was strongly opposed to the idea of incorporation at that time. I regret that there was undoubted interference behind the scenes with the commission by the Northern Ireland Office. A member of the Executive was present throughout and reported back to them. At one stage there was an attempt to remove me because they saw the way that the body was going, and when we produced the report in November 1977 three members of the commission who had been—in my view—on the right side were removed summarily in a way that I thought was quite wrong.
I agree with my noble friend about the great importance of the independence of the commission from the Executive, and I wish that this was not a devolved function at all. I think that the commission would be better protected if it was not being devolved. However, given that it is to be devolved, and in accordance with the Paris principles and the Belgrade principles, it is vitally important that it is seen to be independent and properly buttressed. In supporting the amendment, I do not know whether the particular solution would be the right one because I can envisage a situation in which the Assembly might be guilty of improper interference. However, I am certain that the independence of this body is vital. The Joint Committee on Human Rights has been in frequent touch with the Human Rights Commission in Northern Ireland and we have been very concerned about the need for its independence to be properly protected.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
My Lords, I had not intended to speak to this amendment. I have not been present in previous discussions on this Bill in your Lordships’ House. I simply wish to endorse all that the noble Lords, Lord Alderdice and Lord Lester, have said about the importance of the independence of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. The separation of that commission from the Executive is profoundly important not least because it gives assurance to people that the commission itself will act independently. We still have very profound constitutional issues at stake in Northern Ireland and I urge your Lordships to support the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, in this matter.
Lord Empey
My Lords, I have great sympathy with the point that the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, has made. It is another of these proposals that have not been asked for but have been arbitrarily put forward. One could almost have the sense in the back of one’s mind that the department was pushing these things out just to get them off its desk and out of its file and pass them on, and that would be a mistake. As the noble Lord said at the outset of his remarks today, certain issues were deliberately not included, and this is one of them.
We know that the Executive and the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister have had difficulties with the appointment of other commissioners. It set out to appoint one victims’ commissioner, I think it was, but after a prolonged period of time we ended up with four. At this stage, there is not a good track record.
My own personal view is that matters should be left alone. I do not know where the demand is for this; it is not there. To pile more pressure on the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister over other sensitive issues at this time is not particularly helpful, to be honest. As it is, that office is struggling to get decisions out on a whole range of issues, and I cannot see any rational reason why we would deliberately add to that, particularly when no one has sought this power. It is almost the inverse of the argument that was being made in respect of opposition: we do not want to impose something, but here we are shovelling things out that have not even been asked for. The best solution to this would be to leave well alone.
I had the privilege of serving on SACHR for a couple of years. It was a wonderful forum at times when things were really difficult. Let’s face it, it is very difficult to separate the politics from the appointments, and especially to separate the two from the budget. These are all things that come together. You know what people say: you get someone in the long grass. It might not be straight through the front door but there are other ways of doing it. I support the amendment and my personal opinion is that the Government should leave this alone; it is not worth the risk.
Lord McAvoy
My Lords, I understand the concerns that have led the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, to table this amendment. The discussion of human rights has played an important part in the establishment of devolved structures within Northern Ireland. Today the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission continues to play a key role in maintaining these institutions. Throughout the Assembly’s legislative process, the Human Rights Commission can intervene at any point to prevent the governing parties from creating legislation that does not conform to proper international standards of human rights. Given the importance of the commission to the legislative process, there is an understandable need to preserve its independence and impartiality.
The noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, mentioned that there seems to be an air of lack of faith in the Assembly in Northern Ireland. There is certainly anecdotal evidence in conversations to justify that complaint, or at least to make a valid one. I urge all representatives from Northern Ireland and noble Lords and noble Baronesses here to use what influence they can to try to move things along. If the public start to lose faith in the Assembly, we are all in trouble, so we should all be trying to inspire faith in it. The noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, was absolutely right to refer to that.
In Northern Ireland, the devolution of the relevant power to the Assembly would appear to offer a firm guarantee of the commission’s continued independence. While recognising the valid intent of the amendment, I think it would be a mistake to accept it at this time. As acknowledged by the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, a very valuable service is being performed by having this discussion.
The actual powers concerning the Human Rights Commission have not yet been devolved. Prior to the actual devolution, the Government have committed to carrying out extensive consultation and encouraging debate within Northern Ireland. It will not be until after this that the actual form that the devolution of these powers will take will be decided. Only then will it potentially be necessary to consider an amendment such as this.
Everyone agrees about the fundamental importance of human rights to the exercise of devolved government in Northern Ireland. It is also agreed that this is ensured through the independence of the Human Rights Commission and the impartial nature of its work. The preservation of this impartiality will be foremost in discussion when we come to actually devolve these powers. However, since the precise model for the devolution of these powers has not yet been agreed—and it will only be agreed after consultation within Northern Ireland, which will hopefully include a large say for the public—I feel that at this time the amendment has been quite rightly described as a probing amendment and the Official Opposition cannot support it.
The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, made a strong case that the devolution of these responsibilities should be to the Assembly, as is the case in Scotland. The point was made in Committee that the impartiality and independence of the commission is crucial and must be both retained and maintained. Therefore, we welcome the Government’s commitment to ensure that proper consultation and debate on this takes place in Northern Ireland before a vote is taken to devolve these responsibilities. I conclude by thanking once again the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, for the service that he has provided the House.
Baroness Randerson
My Lords, I hear strong echoes in this debate of the concerns raised in the previous debate. The Government have a similar potential solution to assuage the concerns of noble Lords. I am grateful to my noble friend for tabling this amendment and I understand his concerns in relation to the independence of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission should it be devolved in future. I make that point to my noble friend Lord Lester: it is by no means a foregone conclusion that the Human Rights Commission will be devolved in the future. It will be subject, of course, to consultation and discussion.
Indeed, let me say at once that we share the concerns that several noble Lords have expressed today and we are clear that they must be addressed before devolution. For that reason we will propose amendments at Third Reading that will ensure that they are addressed, albeit not quite in the way suggested in my noble friend’s amendment. It is worth reminding the House that Clause 11 of the Bill moves certain functions relating to the commission from the excepted to the reserved category.
The Government made a commitment in their response to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee’s pre-legislative scrutiny report on the draft version of this Bill to consult formally on any future devolution of responsibilities relating to the commission and the other arm’s-length bodies discussed, prior to any devolution taking place. I want to reiterate that commitment today. The concerns expressed in the debates here will obviously inform that consultation. We will also ensure that the commission retains its responsibility for the scrutiny of non-devolved matters relating to Northern Ireland—such as national security and terrorism—in the event of any future devolution of responsibilities for the institution.
My noble friend raised the issue of the Belgrade and Paris principles. The Government are fully aware of the huge significance of those principles and we are absolutely committed to the idea that they are fundamental to the future independence of the Human Rights Commission. Nothing we do in future will challenge that. We know the importance that the commission attaches to the high regard in which it is held internationally.
At this stage we are not considering in detail the model for how eventual devolution will look. The Bill would simply move certain policy areas from the excepted to the reserved field so that devolution could take place by order later. That would require a vote in the Assembly to accept the new powers. Ultimately it would be for the devolved institutions to determine the structures and lines of accountability they wanted in operation. However, it seems obvious that if there are already models in operation which seem to work well they could provide a suitable starting point when these issues are considered in detail. In Scotland, for example, the devolution is to the Scottish Parliament, which has proved to be a very successful model.
As I said, the model of devolution needs to be determined in the light of the public consultation. There are many detailed questions to be addressed about the devolved arrangements, if it is eventually decided to devolve. We obviously have to take the views of the Human Rights Commission itself into account, those of others in the community, those of the receiving institutions, the Assembly and the Executive. Your Lordships will have an opportunity to debate those detailed arrangements at a later stage. Any proposal to devolve requires a vote here, as well as in another place and in the Assembly. However, we believe that it would be right to put on record now the view of the House that those questions require close scrutiny.
The noble Lord, Lord Empey, expressed the view several times during the debate today and previously that the Government are deliberately pushing things off the desk. I say to him and to others who go along with his viewpoint that there is another way of looking at this. The Government see this as part of building a broader base for devolution in Northern Ireland. As the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, said, it is part of moving things on in Northern Ireland and creating a more normal political model. It is hoped that by broadening the base of devolution in Northern Ireland it will be made firmer and stronger as a result. However, to noble Lords who expressed concerns about this, I acknowledge that the Government are very sensitive to the issues of timing and very much aware that the progress of devolution in Northern Ireland is not always as trouble-free and speedy as we would wish to see.
In recognition of the concerns expressed about that issue, the Government intend to put forward an amendment at Third Reading which makes clear that the future independence of the commission is something that needs to be guaranteed at the point of eventual devolution. Accordingly, the amendment will propose a requirement on the Secretary of State to lay a report in both Houses prior to bringing forward a devolution order. The Secretary of State would be required to set out in her report the effect of that devolution order on the commission’s independence.
We will of course return to this at Third Reading, but I hope that my noble friend is reassured that the Government take the matter seriously, and that he will be willing, as he has indicated, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Alderdice
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Lester, the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, the noble Lords, Lord Empey and Lord McAvoy, and my noble friend the Minister for their very constructive and positive contributions. Noble Lords may recall that in Committee I spoke in opposition to the Question that Clause 11 stand part of the Bill, so I started from the same position as my noble friend Lord Lester and the noble Lord, Lord Empey, that “‘twere better it weren’t here at all in the first place”. That did not find favour.
I have therefore brought forward a probing amendment to encourage the Government to do the right thing, which is at least to ensure that if this comes forward there will be very clear requirements. I welcome the assurance—perhaps even reassurance—from my noble friend the Minister that there will be an amendment at Third Reading. However, she said that it will not be the same solution as the one that I propose. Let me just remind the House of some of the things that the Belgrade principles actually set out. They include the principles that:
“Parliaments should ensure the financial independence of NHRIs”—
national human rights institutions,
“by including in the founding law the relevant provisions”;
that:
“NHRIs should submit to Parliaments a Strategic Plan and/or an Annual Programme of Activities”;
that:
“Parliaments should take into account the Strategic Plan and/or Annual Programme of activities submitted by the NHRI while discussing budget proposals”;
that:
“NHRIs should report directly to Parliament”,
not to the Executive; and that:
“NHRIs should submit to Parliament an annual report on activities, along with a summary of its accounts, and also report on the human rights situation in the country and on any other issue that is related to human rights”.
There is nothing about the Executive because it is about holding the Executive and others to account. The reference is to “Parliaments”.
The Belgrade principles are not something from the distant past; they were agreed in February 2012. NHRIs produced these principles along with academics from the United Kingdom, one of the 10 jurisdictions involved. It will not be good enough if we decide that these are good principles for other places but not for ourselves. I want to make it clear that, while reassurance will certainly be helped by a report from the Secretary of State, the problem about the approval of this House and another place, as was pointed out with regard to the previous amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, is that it is a bit of a nuclear option. By the time it comes to the House, it is a question of voting yea or nay, and the House, quite properly, is very reserved about using that power. Therefore, it is either about sorting the matter out before it comes to this place or it is a real problem getting it sorted out.
I made it clear that this is a probing amendment and I look forward to the amendment that my noble friend will bring forward at Third Reading. But I should make it very clear that this is no marginal matter. The issue of human rights is a fundamental one in general terms, but in my part of the country it has very particular important resonances. Any sense of disengagement or diminution of the importance of such an issue by making it subject to the whims and wishes of the Executive would be a serious error. I find it difficult to see how it would fit with the Belgrade principles if it were not made accountable to the Northern Ireland Assembly, much as is the case in Scotland between the Human Rights Commission there and the Scottish Parliament. However, with those concerns and reservations, and with genuine appreciation of the efforts of my noble friend and the amendment which she promises us at Third Reading, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lexden
“Defamation
(1) Section 17 of the Defamation Act 2013 (short title, extent and commencement) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2), after “Wales” insert “and Northern Ireland”.”
Lord Lexden
My Lords, I brought forward this amendment in Committee. I am reintroducing it because of the immense importance of the issues that it seeks to address and because of the urgent need to make progress with regard to it in Northern Ireland. My interest in Northern Ireland is of very long standing, stemming from the days when I lived there while teaching at Queen’s University in Belfast in the 1970s.
On 1 January, a new Defamation Act came into effect in England and Wales. By common consent, it will confer great benefits. Those benefits were three years in the making, they have the full support of all three main political parties, they were subject to careful scrutiny by a Joint Committee of both Houses and a full public consultation took place across the whole United Kingdom. The new, widely welcomed libel law has perhaps been more carefully thought through than any other piece of legislation in recent years, and your Lordships will immediately think of many other pieces of legislation that could usefully have been thought through with the care given to the new Defamation Act.
There is practically universal agreement that the new law strikes the right balance between protecting individual reputations and upholding freedom of expression. The benefits of this major, far-reaching reform will be enjoyed fully throughout England and Wales but not in Northern Ireland. For the first time ever, Northern Ireland now has a different libel law—the old law, which belongs firmly in the past because it cannot provide properly for the needs of the present, let alone the future.
In this immensely important area of our law, which directly affects so many people and so many publications, Northern Ireland has been split from England and Wales. The union of our country has been weakened. A common jurisdiction has been divided into two—not after careful consideration of the effects of such a rupture but without any inquiry whatever into the consequences. Whereas the new law in force in England and Wales was prepared with great care, the old law has been retained in Northern Ireland without any explanation being offered by the Northern Ireland Executive, who are responsible for its retention there.
The Executive do not even seem to have held a collective discussion on the matter, despite its importance. It was only through the persistence of journalists that it finally emerged last year that a single Minister was responsible for the Executive’s inaction because he had withdrawn a proposal that would have led to collective discussion in the Executive. Not a word of all this formally reached the Assembly, to which the Executive are accountable. It is an extraordinary state of affairs. I have the words of my old friend the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, about the danger of declining faith in the Assembly ringing in my ears.
The Northern Ireland Executive’s inaction is fraught with risk and peril for the community whom the Executive exist to serve. More than 6,000 people work in publishing and the broadcast media in this part of our country. Their jobs are now at risk. The costly hazards of the old law could drive out the media companies which provide those jobs. New investment by international companies at the cutting edge of the digital revolution—so badly needed to bring down unemployment and enlarge the Province’s shrunken private sector—will be seriously imperilled. The impact on ordinary people using the internet could be severe. The new defences to an action enshrined in the new law will not be available to our fellow countrymen and women in the Province. They could find themselves facing huge bills, long-running court cases and financial ruin for what they believe to be a piece of harmless content on the web.
Consider, too, the position of those who might have to use the law to protect their reputation. Fortunately, it is rare that people have to take out injunctions on grounds of a potential libel to protect their reputation, but it does happen and it can often mean the difference between protecting and destroying someone’s life. A man or a woman in Northern Ireland faced with such a prospect would, in order to make an injunction work, now have to take one out in four jurisdictions under very different laws: one in Northern Ireland under the out-of-date common law; one covering England and Wales with a modern regime; one covering Scotland; and potentially one covering the Republic of Ireland, where the law is different again. Failure to do so would mean that the injunction is not worth the expensive paper on which it is written. Such a prospect, and the huge costs involved, would be beyond the ability of most people other than the super-rich. Therefore the action—or rather, inaction—of the Northern Ireland Executive is, in effect, not only exposing ordinary people to great risk but removing the ability of ordinary people to use the law to protect themselves.
The old libel law that the Northern Ireland Executive has retained without explanation can have literally fatal consequences. Last July a senior NHS cardiologist told a committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly that a large American company had used the old law to prosecute him and suppress his research evidence that revealed serious problems with one of its products, used to close holes in the heart. He told the committee that while he was gagged by the old law some patients who had been forced to have faulty heart devices surgically removed had died as a result. He said that Northern Ireland must ditch the old law to stop such outrageous instances of the suppression of freedom of speech.
Yet the Northern Ireland Executive ignore such powerful evidence of the need for change. All they have been prepared to do is to seek a review by the Northern Ireland Law Commission, but all the relevant information is in the public domain already. A review could take a very long time. The Executive should back the Private Member’s Bill introduced at Stormont by the Ulster Unionist leader, Mr Mike Nesbitt, to replace the discredited old law with the new one. That they have so far failed to do. Freedom of speech, human rights and the integrity of the law itself: those three fundamental elements of our democracy and our free society stand at the heart of the crisis—I do not think that that is too strong a word—that my amendment seeks to address.
This issue cannot be evaded by maintaining, as the Labour Front Bench has sought to do, that devolution removes from the Government and this Parliament the duty or the responsibility to take action. My amendment is about freedom of speech above all. While devolution is a core value of modern British constitutionalism and the Sewel convention is the central principle within our current devolutionary arrangements, freedom of speech is an even more fundamental value of our constitution.
In conclusion, I have three questions for the Government and I would be grateful for my noble friend’s comments. First, will the Government secure from the Northern Ireland Executive a clear, public explanation of their inaction, which they have so far failed to provide? Secondly, will the Government establish and place on public record what, if anything, the Northern Ireland Executive now intend belatedly to do? Thirdly, if the Executive prove unresponsive, what further action will the Government take? I beg to move.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
My Lords, I was unable to be present for the earlier stages of the Bill, but I have read all the debates, including the discussion on 3 February about the amendment then moved by my noble friend Lord Lexden, with the powerful support of the noble Lords, Lord Bew, Lord Black of Brentwood and Lord Empey, and now moved again by my noble friend Lord Lexden, with my support and that of the noble Lords, Lord Black and Lord Pannick. I noted then the welcome support from the Minister for the aim of the amendment, even though she was unable to support the amendment itself.
I have a particular interest—I say this with some trepidation, as I sit opposite the noble Lord, Lord Carswell, in case what I am about to say in any way disturbs him—in that my experience as leading counsel for the Irish News in the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal in the Convery case brought home to me, as nothing else had, the importance of persuading Parliament to strike a fair balance between the right to protect a good reputation and the right to freedom of expression.
The Irish News was sued for libel for a review written by Caroline Workman, an experienced food critic. She was highly critical of the quality of the food, drink, staff and smoky atmosphere at the Belfast Italian restaurant, Goodfellas. The owner, Ciarnan Convery, claimed that the article was a hatchet job, and the jury agreed. After a lengthy trial, he was awarded £25,000 damages and four times that amount in legal costs. Caroline Workman was subjected to detailed and lengthy cross-examination about the accuracy of her article. The experience was so traumatic that she gave up her profession as a journalist. Everyone at the trial was confused about the difference between truth, fact and honest opinion. We succeeded in the appeal but the state of the common law remained unsatisfactory. That is one of the factors that caused me to think that it was about time Parliament intervened.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment. I agree entirely with everything that has been said by the noble Lords, Lord Lexden and Lord Lester of Herne Hill. There may, of course, be some justification for the reluctance of Northern Ireland politicians to bring the law of libel into the 21st century; there may possibly be something unique about free speech and reputation in Northern Ireland that demands the retention of laws that purport to address communications but were developed before the internet, blogs and tweets and, in many cases, before the invention of radio and television—but I doubt it. No credible explanation has been provided as to why Northern Ireland law should remain in the dark ages. I very much doubt whether the Minister will be able to offer any substantive reason why changes in the law thought necessary across the House in relation to England and Wales are not equally necessary in Northern Ireland. In those circumstances, I am unimpressed by the argument that Parliament should do nothing because this is a devolved area. The Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly have had ample time to act and have done nothing.
In libel trials, counsel habitually refer to the biblical statement that a good name smells sweeter than the finest ointment. I have to say that I detect an unpleasant odour in the law of Northern Ireland, and I very much hope that the Minister will be able to tell the House that she is going to do something about it.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, I must declare an interest in this subject as the executive director of the Telegraph Media Group and draw attention to my other media interests in the register.
I have been involved in this issue throughout the process, since it first became apparent that there was a real problem in the debate that my noble friend led on this last summer, at the launch of the Private Member’s Bill by Mike Nesbitt in Belfast in September and in Committee on this Bill. Throughout that time, some powerful arguments have been put forward in favour of change, both here in Parliament and by civil society organisations in Northern Ireland, the media and academia among them. There have been strong arguments about the impact on jobs, to which my noble friend referred and about the impact on ordinary people who, in the phraseology of the mortgage adverts, could find their home at risk for something that they have simply written on Twitter or Facebook. There is the damage that could be done to the creative economy in Northern Ireland and to academic freedoms in higher education as well as the real dangers of media plurality.
We have heard many other arguments advanced today by my noble friend Lord Lester about the difficulties that the judiciary will face, and my noble friend Lord Lexden made reference to the difficulties that litigants will face, and those seeking to protect their reputation. So there have been many powerful arguments that in my view, given the gravity of the situation, should be met with equally strong ones as to why the new Defamation Act should not apply in Northern Ireland, particularly as this issue impacts on the most fundamental human right—free speech. If there are arguments, we should hear them today, but all we have had is a deafening silence: silence from the Northern Ireland Executive and silence from the political establishment in Westminster, which I fear simply wants to shy away from the issue on the basis, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, says, that this is a devolved matter. In Committee, my noble friend the Minister majored on this point, comparing the situation in Northern Ireland with that in Scotland, missing the fundamental point that there is a different libel law in Scotland. That has nothing to do with devolution, but is to do with development of the common law that dates back many centuries. False comparisons such as that will not do. Deafening silences will not do, because freedom of speech for an important part of our United Kingdom is at stake.
Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP)
My Lords, defamation, in common with other civil-law matters, is a devolved area, so the law in Northern Ireland is indeed a matter for the Northern Ireland Assembly. As the Minister stated in Committee, it is essential that we all respect the devolution process—and part of that process is that you have different laws in different parts of the country.
Devolution in Northern Ireland permits the devolved legislature and Executive to develop policies that differ from those in the rest of the United Kingdom. Therefore it is only right and proper that the Northern Ireland Executive should have the opportunity to consult on whether or not the Defamation Act 2013 should apply to Northern Ireland. Indeed, the Minister of Finance and Personnel, Mr Simon Hamilton MLA, has already asked the Northern Ireland Law Commission to assess the Defamation Act 2013. The Northern Ireland Law Commission is an independent body and will undertake a complete public consultation on the issue so that the people of Northern Ireland will have an opportunity to contribute to the discussion. I am sure that noble Lords who have contributed to this debate will make a robust submission to the Law Commission.
As we have heard, currently Mr Michael Nesbitt MLA has said that he is to introduce a Private Member’s Bill. To date he has launched a consultation on the issue but as yet no detailed analysis of the responses he has received has been published. I understand that he is willing to pass these responses on to the Northern Ireland Law Commission. The law commission is a fully independent body and is not subject to the direction or control of the Assembly or Government. The Northern Ireland Finance Minister has made it abundantly clear that, as with any other law commission report, all recommendations will have to be thoroughly assessed with a view to making final policy recommendations.
It is only right and proper that the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly be allowed time to receive this report and I trust that they will act in a responsible manner after receiving its findings.
Lord Carswell (CB)
My Lords, the Defamation Act 2013 was wholly admirable legislation which righted and rebalanced the law of libel and slander in a thoroughly excellent way. It needed to be done and had been required for some time and I applaud the efforts of those who supported its enactment and who pioneered the hard work required to get it into legislation.
I cannot understand, and I can think of no sensible or acceptable reason, why the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly have failed to adopt the Act and put it into effect. However, I have listened with great interest to what has been said today by the eloquent speakers who have supported the amendment and I have read what was said in Committee, when I was not able to be present, and I find myself in complete agreement with practically everything that has been said today about the desirability of Northern Ireland introducing the provisions of the Defamation Act.
I appreciate the kind sympathy that the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, has extended to the Northern Ireland judiciary, of which I was privileged to be part, although not in the litigation to which he referred in such affecting terms. I think it was after I had been translated to become a member of the Appellate Committee of your Lordships’ House and therefore I cannot speak about the rights or wrongs of that case or of any other particular litigation.
Notwithstanding all that I have said, I have concerns and reservations and I owe it to the House and to those noble Lords supporting the amendment to say why. This is a reserved matter, as the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Belmont, has reminded the House, and it is therefore devolved unless taken back by the sovereign Parliament. I accept—there is no doubt about it—that, in principle, this Parliament, as a sovereign Parliament, is entitled to override any part of the legislation and to enact this if it sees fit, if it thinks that it is a proper case to do so.
My concern is whether it is right, sensible or wise to intervene in this way with a reserved matter, however important or desirable it is that the amendment should be put into effect. Where are the limits to lie for the House taking such a step? Is it not dangerous precedence for us to do that, even with something as important and fundamental as this? I accept all that has been said about the importance of free speech and the subject matter of the amendment, but is it wise? Would it create danger; would it start a process? If we do this in relation to this Bill, where will it finish if other people try to press Members of either House to introduce similar legislation amending Northern Ireland law in reserved matters on less fundamental subjects?
I do not find it easy to answer such questions. I am concerned that, if we go down that road, it is difficult to see where it will take us. I would very much like to see the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly adopting this without delay. It is time it was done briskly and expeditiously, but whether we should do it is another matter. It is with very real regret that I find it difficult to support the amendment, however important and desirable the result would be.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a producer at the BBC. I support this amendment and add my concerns to those of other noble Lords at the refusal of the Northern Ireland Executive to implement the Defamation Act 2013. I was sorry not to have been able to attend Committee but I read, with regret, the Hansard report of the Minister’s speech, in which she said she could do little beyond offering some encouragement for this to go forward.
The failure to implement the Act is having a deleterious effect on free speech in Northern Ireland. Even before the Defamation Act 2013 was implemented in England and Wales, Northern Ireland was particularly blighted as a place where free speech could flourish. The conservative nature of the libel judiciary in Northern Ireland means that a judge has to decide that a jury would be perverse to decide a libel case in favour of one party or the other. This sets the bar very high for the prompt resolution of disputes and allows a plaintiff to say that matters must go before a jury. As a result, trials are lengthy and expensive, whereas, in England and Wales, the judge can, at an early stage, determine the questions of fact about whether a statement is defamatory on a simple balance of probabilities test, which considerably shortens the process.
The disadvantages facing authors in Northern Ireland have been fully exploited by both politicians and putative plaintiffs. The BBC is one of the few organisations big enough to defy the threats of those who want to chill free speech and stop investigative journalism. My indefatigable and courageous colleagues who work on Northern Ireland’s investigative programme “Spotlight” find themselves under attack in a way that is hard to believe in the rest of the UK.
I cite two recent cases. In October 2012 “Spotlight” broadcast a programme called “Belize Oil” which investigated the business affairs of Susan Morrice, a Belfast-born businesswoman, now based in Denver. She raised money for an oil exploratory company called International Natural Energy. Astonishingly, the company struck oil in Belize and made millions of dollars. However, the class B shareholders—many from Northern Ireland—who were not professional investors, did not receive a penny in dividends. They sued Ms Morrice, who was found guilty in a Caribbean court of having siphoned off thousands of pounds of company money for her personal use.
As the programme was being prepared for transmission, the journalists involved were bombarded with daily, sometimes hourly, threats of defamation. After transmission, a libel writ was issued against the programme. Tens of thousands of pounds of licence payers’ money was spent as BBC journalists and lawyers prepared the defence case, only for Ms Morrice to drop the case. This is the woman who has Northern Ireland’s gas and oil exploration rights.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I hesitated as to whether or not to intervene, as my experience of devolution is in regard to matters relating to Scotland, but I have also had experience in the UK Supreme Court of devolution matters relating to Wales. I think it is right that I add a word of caution in support of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Carswell, said. The amendment seems to me to raise a constitutional issue not quite in the terms suggested by the noble Lord opposite. The issue is really how one balances the structure of the devolved legislature’s powers between what is reserved and what is devolved.
In Scotland, the language is different. As noble Lords will know, the position is that matters open to any legislation are called reserved matters. In Scottish parlance, what we have been talking about here is a devolved matter, which would be a matter for the Scottish Parliament. It is well established by convention that it is not open for Westminster to enter into legislation relating to devolved matters unless there is a Sewel convention which permits that. It is arranged with the Scottish Parliament and a Motion is passed through the Scottish Parliament that approves of the measure that this House or the other place seeks to pass. That is well established and happens quite frequently. It helps one get over the difficulties of demarcation, if there be any.
I am certain that north of the border—I am talking about Scotland, on this side of the Irish Sea—to use the word alarm would be to put it rather softly. It would be regarded as quite offensive for Westminster now, having devolved matters, to tell the Scottish Parliament how it should deal with an issue such as this. I make absolutely no comment on the nature of defamation law in Northern Ireland; that is not the issue. The question is whether it is really properly open to this House to engage with the matter, given the nature of the devolution arrangement which both Houses have approved and which is in legislation. As was suggested, there are other mechanisms for bringing about reform of the law. It may be extremely frustrating that it would take so long, but the law commissions exist to take these matters on board. Unpalatable though it may be, I would respectfully suggest that the advice of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Carswell, is absolutely sound. It would be most unwise of this House to disregard it.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, I wonder whether I could just ask this question. Given that the European convention limits the powers of the devolved institutions in Scotland and Northern Ireland and given that it expressly empowers the Secretary of State to require action if inaction would lead to a breach, would it not therefore be the case that it is within the competence of the Executive in London, and if necessary the Parliament in London, to secure compliance with the convention rights to free speech and a good reputation?
Lord Hope of Craighead
The noble Lord is quite right that the powers of the Executive are controlled by convention rights. The legislative competence of the Parliament is controlled in the same way and it is open to a court to pronounce an affirmative order requiring a member of the Executive to do something. There are mechanisms, and these would be put into place through the existing devolved system. This is something that could be arranged, but that is quite different from what is being suggested here, which is, without that background and without that attempt being made, to simply legislate from this House. I underline the caution which is being properly urged on the House by the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Bew
My Lords, I rise to support a central point made by the noble Lords, Lord Lester and Lord Black, concerning the way in which the current arrangements contain the possibility of great unfairness and difficulty for the Northern Ireland judiciary. I am a supporter of the Defamation Act 2013 and, as noble Lords have said, I served on the Select Committee of both Houses. Put aside for a minute the wisdom or otherwise of that Act—and I do believe it is a wise Act—the problem for the Northern Ireland judiciary is that it is now stuck with the interpretation of an antiquated law, while the rest of the United Kingdom, in particular the media, will be operating fundamentally according to a rhythm set by the Defamation Act 2013.
I want to make a further point concerning the issue of forum shopping, or, as it applies in the Defamation Act, libel tourism. The Northern Ireland judiciary in recent cases—I am thinking particularly of the ruling by Mr Justice Deeny in the Sean Quinn case on 10 January 2012—has clearly set itself against what we might call forum shopping. Mr Justice Deeny argued that that key, very important bankruptcy case was not suitable for Belfast on the grounds that Mr Sean Quinn had had his being and his residence in the Republic of Ireland for the previous 32 years. That is a clear indication of the broad thinking of the Northern Ireland judiciary on this question of forum shopping. In the case of the libel law, it is the issue we used to know as libel tourism, which the Act is designed to deal with. So we know to some degree where the thinking of the Northern Ireland judiciary is on this question.
There is a sense within European law in general that forum shopping is not something to be encouraged, and yet Northern Ireland is stuck with legislation—our old libel law—which actually encourages forum shopping. I am just trying to bring home to the House that the point made by the noble Lords, Lord Lester and Lord Black, is actually a profound one. The judiciary of Northern Ireland is being placed in an extremely difficult position by the current arrangements. I understand the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Browne. I have already been approached by the Law Commission and I assure him that I will give as full evidence as I possibly can to it.
Lord King of Bridgwater (Con)
My Lords, I hesitate to intervene in something on which such distinguished legal brains have been brought to bear but, briefly, as a layman in these matters, I am very impressed by the arguments made by the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, and the power of the argument about the desirability of uniformity in the application of defamation laws. The noble Lord, Lord Browne, said that the advantage of devolution is that we can all make different laws. However, as a good unionist he will know that it is very desirable that as a union we stick together as closely as we can and do not make a principle of establishing every different law that we can between the different parts of the United Kingdom.
As a loyal member of the United Kingdom, I think it is desirable that the Executive of Northern Ireland should look at these matters as it seems that they are likely on some occasions to significantly disadvantage some of their own supporters, who might find themselves caught up in some very unfortunate implications. Although there is the devolved power, that power should be exercised also with respect to the position of other parts of the United Kingdom, which may find from the illustrations given by the noble Lords, Lord Black and Lord Bew, that these are difficult matters.
I hesitate to deviate from the noble Lord, Lord Lester, as he and I have a bit of history as well in some areas, as anybody will know who remembers the broadcasting ban or the amazing events when the chief constable decided to deprive female constables of the right to carry arms. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, was active during my time in that area.
At the end of the day, I am not quite clear from the exchanges that have taken place whether this is just genuine inertia or whether there is a fundamental objection within the Executive to doing this, thinking it totally undesirable in Northern Ireland, and exactly what the background to this is. However, I am prepared to accept that it is the determination of the Executive to address this, although they are moving very slowly. That is the most preferable way to go in terms of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Carswell, said, and not to get caught by being unnecessarily accused of trying to undermine the devolution proposal. The message should go out very clearly from this House that we think this is highly desirable and almost essential to do. We look to the Executive to do it as speedily as they can and bring this matter into line, without imposing it in the amendment as proposed.
Lord Trimble
My Lords, the great advantage of this debate is that it has enabled a wide range of people across the House to express their views on the desirability of extending the modern defamation law to Northern Ireland. I very much hope that the Northern Ireland Executive will pay attention to the views that have been expressed here. There has been no argument presented in favour of retaining the old, outdated laws. I have not heard any and, from what has been said, I gather that nothing has been said by the Northern Ireland Executive to explain what is going on. The noble Lord, Lord Browne, referred to the decision inviting the Northern Ireland Law Commission to look at the matter. I hope that will happen quickly and that it indicates that action is being taken, rather than something being done just to fend off criticism. I hope that something happens there.
I must also attach significant weight to the hesitation and reservations that have been mentioned. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, referred to what might happen in Scotland if this was to happen. That brought back to mind what happened in Northern Ireland in, I think, 1923, when on a certain measure London was indicating that it was likely to override the decisions being taken by the then Northern Ireland Ministers. I think it was suggested that they might seek to withhold Royal Assent from legislation that was going through Stormont, and the then Northern Ireland Prime Minister made a very robust response to that. It was of such a nature that the proposal disappeared and there was then no attempt to interfere with the exercise of devolved powers.
Lord Empey
My Lords, nobody could doubt that this debate has been very wide-ranging. The contributions from our noble and learned colleagues and others have made us realise that the matters we are discussing are of very great significance.
There are a number of easy solutions. Obviously, the Executive can act at a far greater pace than they are at the moment. However, there has been a change in the past few months with the change in Finance Ministers at Stormont. Mr Hamilton’s predecessor was very dismissive of any actions being taken in this matter; Mr Hamilton has asked the Law Commission to intervene. The Private Member’s Bill that Mr Nesbitt has before him has had his consultation and he has undertaken to share that consultation with the Law Commission. I believe he met it last week and reassured it that that would still be the case.
However, there has been a change in the pace at which this consultation is going. Originally we thought it would be brief and to the point because this issue has been consulted on time after time. However, I am now hearing stories that there is going to be a scoping study and then there will be a consultation by the Law Commission on top of the consultation that has already taken place in the Private Member’s Bill, on top of the consultation on the 2013 Bill. By my very rudimentary calculations, that would take the issue outside of the current Assembly’s mandate, which ends in 2016. What could be an easy solution could in fact simply kick the can down the road.
There is no question that those of us who have had the privilege of being in Stormont know that the issues raised by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Carswell and Lord Hope of Craighead, are important. By any stretch of the imagination, the easiest solution is for Stormont to deal with this itself. However, the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, and his colleagues point to the wider obligations of the United Kingdom Government and the issue of free speech and human rights. Of course, human rights have an international obligation, which is excluded from the devolution settlement and reserved to Westminster.
Pressure and sentiments have been expressed on all sides of this House. I hope that in their winding-up statements both the Government and the Opposition will encourage an early resolution to this, rather than simply going on and on with consultations for years. The truth is, and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, made this point, that there are a few schoolyard bullies back in Belfast who regularly threaten people who speak their minds.
We have not mentioned today the other issue of academic publication, which is vital. Having had some responsibility for that, I know that there are many good researchers. We encourage research; indeed, we want to find even more money to put into research, only to find that the researchers could be prevented from actually publishing their findings. No one wants us to be in that place.
There is a simple solution to this, and I hope that the pressure from all sides in this House will direct us towards the solution, which is for the Northern Island Executive to encourage the Assembly to pass a legislative consent Motion. Alternatively, if that opportunity has now passed, the Assembly has the Private Member’s Bill in front of it; it could take over that Bill and introduce it very quickly. That is the course of action that I hope it will follow.
Lord Alderdice
My Lords, I had not intended to speak in this debate, but when I heard the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Browne, and the reservations of the noble and learned Lords, Lord Carswell and Lord Hope of Craighead, I felt that it was important to address the question of devolution and what the devolution doctrine means. It does not seem to be admissible of an entirely legal constitutional interpretation. It does not seem to be a matter of saying, “We’re devolved; we don’t have to give any kind of explanation to anyone for what we do. We can simply make arbitrary decisions”. It was not ever intended for that purpose. It was intended in general terms, and in particular in Northern Ireland, to ensure that decisions were made on a cross-community basis that ensured that the governance of Northern Ireland took into account the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland and its particular needs—domestically, within the United Kingdom, in relation to the Republic of Ireland and in relation to its relatively remote status. There are many areas where devolved government appropriately makes different decisions because, in terms of education, healthcare, transport or agriculture, the situation is different economically, practically, culturally, socially or whatever.
In certain circumstances, the notions adumbrated by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Carswell and Lord Hope, are completely correct, and their cautions in those circumstances would be well taken. The purpose of devolution is to enable that kind of differentiation. However, no reason has been given by the Northern Ireland Executive for this delay and for holding back. The noble Lord, Lord Browne, very appropriately supported his party in its decision on this matter, but even he did not give any good reasons why he should not fall in with the operation of the new Defamation Act in the rest of the United Kingdom. Nor, as far as I am aware, has there been any public debate at home in Northern Ireland, any indication that an agreement has been reached or any reasons adduced why we should not move forward—on the contrary, there has simply been an arbitrary decision that we are not going to go ahead on this. Then—and the noble Lord, Lord Browne, presented this in a very positive way—we will have this local consultation. That is fine if it is to ensure that there is real local difference, but it is not fine if the consultation kicks the issue into the long grass, and there is a suspicion that that is what it is all about.
On top of this, there are those circumstances where one can appropriately seal off Northern Ireland, as it were, to deal with particular issues. Animal health might be one. However, this issue cannot be dealt with in an isolated fashion. The whole point is that publication, whether digitally or in hard copy, cannot be isolated within Northern Ireland, and it puts everyone at risk if one tries to do that inappropriately.
I therefore want to emphasise that, although I appreciate the reasonable cautions, it does not seem to me that devolution is meant to enable the local devolved Executive to make arbitrary decisions without explanation or clarity, or decisions that are simply inappropriate to the circumstances. Then the question comes of how we deal with this. Do we deal with it by simply slamming something through this evening in your Lordships’ House and leaving somebody else to pick up the pieces—political or legal? I think not, but my noble friend Lord Trimble has pointed in the right direction. That is to say, whatever the limited remaining powers and opportunities of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, one of the opportunities she has is to take the messages from this Palace to the Stormont Administration and say to them, “Do you realise how strongly people in the rest of the United Kingdom feel about this? They are not terribly accepting of the notion that you are going to take a whole lot of time to deal with this. If you want to take a little time to tweak it or for your own particular reasons, that may well be acceptable”. However, I would be assured and reassured by the Minister, not if she were to say that she was going to accept this—because I am sure that she is not going to be in a position to do that—but if she were able to say to us that the Secretary of State, her right honourable friend, will take seriously what has been said in your Lordships’ House tonight, convey that to the Northern Ireland Executive at the most senior levels, and ensure that the matter is taken seriously and expeditiously.
Lord McAvoy
My Lords, this has been a wide-ranging debate with speeches of quality. It further justifies the existence of this place, where such a measured debate can be held. The noble Lord, Lord Lexden, cited journalists as one of the main reasons why he was bringing this forward. I could think of many other occupations that have inspired more sympathy and understanding than journalists, but I take the point that he made. On a totally irrelevant point—and it is a good job that there is not a Lord Speaker to rule me out of order—I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, invariably sits in a seat below the coat of arms of a former stadholder of Holland, better known as William III. I am sure it is entirely coincidental, but it many ways it is quite appropriate.
This is the second lengthy discussion we have had on this issue and I am sure I will be shot down in flames with my intervention, but there we are. I will repeat the point I made in Committee—that the extension of the Defamation Act is a devolved matter. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, made a powerful point about the nature and state of devolution as a principle, and it is a principle. Nevertheless, I place on record immediately that the Labour Opposition favour the introduction of the Act as quickly as possible and will seek assurances from the Minister as to how she intends to pursue that matter.
It is clear that the extension of the Defamation Act 2013 to Northern Ireland stands firmly in the competence of the Stormont Assembly. It is through the Assembly’s passing of a legislative consent Motion, not an Act of Parliament, that the Defamation Act 2013 will come into force in Northern Ireland. The noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, said, if I am picking him up right—and, as a former forklift truck driver in a factory, I hesitate to cross legal swords with him—that devolution was a flawed principle. As a lay person, I do not understand the concept of attacking it on that basis. A free Parliament passed that law; a free Parliament passed devolution and a free Parliament has a right to make mistakes and will make mistakes, as the noble Lord, Lord King, knows well. The principle of devolution was passed by a free Parliament, and we in the Opposition recognise that and are very reluctant to get involved in laying down the law to a devolved Assembly. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, quite rightly mentioned the reaction in Scotland if London—in parentheses, England—tried to “dictate” to the Scottish Parliament on a devolved issue. We can have legal debates and highly principled debates here but, if we do not understand the nature of the political impact of the things that we try to do, that would be a flawed approach.
Baroness Randerson
My Lords, I know that the concerns expressed so eloquently by my noble friends Lord Lester and Lord Lexden are shared widely across the House. That has been obvious from the debate today. There can be no doubt, either in Westminster or in Stormont, about the strength of concern felt by many noble Lords about the failure so far to reform the law on defamation.
Many organisations and individuals have also highlighted concerns about the possible effects of there being differences in the law between Northern Ireland and England and Wales. For example, the noble Lord, Lord Bew, referred to the problems for the judiciary in trying to deal with an out-of-date law and the noble Lord, Lord Black, and other noble Lords referred to the impact on the media. As we have heard, there has been an active campaign in Northern Ireland involving civil society organisations, academics, the media and some political parties. It is not quite true, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, implied, that nothing has happened since the Defamation Act was passed here. Things have moved on in Northern Ireland. There have been responses; they just have not been very fast or gone very far. It is not true to say that nothing has happened, because the campaign has certainly had an impact. The noble Lord, Lord Browne, outlined that there is action now in the Assembly, both by Mike Nesbitt and with reference to the Law Commission. Some scepticism has been expressed about whether this will lead to a result or whether it is just a delaying tactic by the Executive. I will not speculate on that, but I put it to noble Lords that the Law Commission is a well-respected, expert institution and if there were any intention to use the commission to avoid the issue, it seems to me that that would be likely to backfire. We have also heard about the consultation and the Private Member’s Bill brought forward by the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party, Mike Nesbitt. Undoubtedly his consultation produced some valuable responses and information. These are real changes and developments that have happened in Northern Ireland since the Defamation Act was passed here.
As I have said on previous occasions, the Government believe that the Defamation Act makes some very important improvements to the law that was previously in place. It introduces a tougher serious harm test to discourage trivial claims and a single publication rule so that a publisher cannot be repeatedly sued about the same material. It addresses libel tourism and prevents claims being brought in the English courts where the parties have little connection to this country. It provides simpler and clearer defences to those accused of defamation—for example, the creation of new statutory defences of honest opinion and truth and a new statutory defence for publications on matters of public interest. The Act also takes specific action to help encourage robust scientific and academic debate. It is important that those improvements and advantages are emphasised time and again as that is the way in which the Executive in Northern Ireland will be encouraged to develop their own legislation on this and to adopt the Defamation Act for themselves.
The noble Lord, Lord Lexden, asked some specific questions. It seems a very long time ago now but it is important that I respond to them. In response to his first question on whether the Government will secure a public explanation from the Executive of their inaction, I repeat that this is a devolved issue and it is important that we respect that devolution. However, that does not mean that the UK Government have not asked the question and would not appreciate an explanation.
Lord Lexden
Assuming that the question has been asked, should the House draw the inference and the conclusion that no answer has been given to the Government—no answer to the people of Northern Ireland, no answer to those in this House who have raised the question, and no answer to the Government either?
Baroness Randerson
It has been said several times this afternoon—more times than I can count—that the Northern Ireland Executive have not given any explanation. Of course, the most important group to which the explanation is owed is the people of Northern Ireland.
The second question asked by the noble Lord was whether we would establish what the Executive intend to do. I repeat that it is for the Assembly and not the Government to hold the Executive to account, and it is for the Assembly to seek an explanation. That goes along with my comment that the people of Northern Ireland are those to whom the Executive should be explaining themselves in the first instance.
In response to the third question put by the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, we have of course set out to the Executive what we see as the benefits of the Act and we will continue to discuss the issue. When my noble friend Lord McNally was Minister for Justice, he wrote to the Executive commending the Act, and I am absolutely sure that the Executive will in due course become aware of our debate this afternoon.
Therefore, the Government have been active in encouraging the Executive to consider the need for change. Prior to the introduction of the Defamation Bill before Parliament, there was contact at official level to establish whether the Executive wished to seek the approval of the Assembly to a legislative consent Motion. Following completion of the Bill’s passage, as I said, my noble friend Lord McNally wrote commending it to the Executive.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
My noble friend has emphasised the importance of the Law Commission in Northern Ireland. Can she correct my misunderstanding, if that is what it is? My understanding is that the Northern Ireland Law Commission consists of a part-time commissioner and a chief executive, and that is it. Am I wrong about that?
Baroness Randerson
I am not aware of the exact size of the Law Commission. However, I am aware that the Law Commission’s reputation is not affected by any issue regarding its size, in that it is clearly a body with a good reputation. If the commission is as small as my noble friend indicates, that might explain why it will take it some time to consider this issue. However, I am not able to give a precise answer to his question.
I wish to remind noble Lords that the civil law of defamation is of course a devolved matter, and under the Sewel convention decisions on whether legislation in transferred areas should apply to Northern Ireland usually fall to the devolved Administration. A number of noble Lords have set out why they believe the Government should consider breaching the Sewel convention. I urge them to consider the wider ramifications of doing so for our relations with all the devolved legislatures in the United Kingdom. I welcome the words of the noble and learned Lords, Lord Carswell and Lord Hope, in this regard. It is important that we respect devolution. It is not just in respect of Scotland that we should be wary of breaching the Sewel convention; I believe that it would be destabilising in Northern Ireland if we were to pick and choose which bits of devolution we decided to observe. My noble friend Lord Lester has eloquently explained the weaknesses of our non-federal system of devolution, but I urge noble Lords who are of the mind that we should breach the Sewel convention to look at this from the viewpoint of the nations of the UK. We should be considering what it looks like from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland if we pick and choose which aspects of devolution we observe.
Lord Kilclooney
Very briefly, I agree with everything that the noble Baroness has said about caution in dealing with the devolved Assembly. She has mentioned the Deputy First Minister, but what has been ignored in this debate is that he is in fact a Sinn Fein Deputy First Minister. Sinn Fein is the second largest party in the Assembly and has absolutely no time or respect for the House of Lords. To think that it is paying any attention to what is being said in this House would be misleading.
Baroness Randerson
However, as was pointed out earlier this afternoon, Sinn Fein has a considerable interest in promoting free speech in Northern Ireland. I believe that my noble friend Lord Lester referred to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, in that regard, as the two of them had worked together in relation to the broadcasting of Sinn Fein. It has an interest in the issue, but that probably goes beyond our debate.
I welcome the continued efforts made by the noble Lords, Lord Lester and Lord Lexden, on this issue. I am pleased that we have been able to continue our debate on this matter but regret to say that the Government are unable to support the amendment. I therefore urge the noble Lord to withdraw it.
Lord Lexden
My Lords, this has been a tremendous debate and I am deeply grateful to all those who have taken part in it with such vigour and authority. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, that it is purely a matter of coincidence that I so readily sit under the arms of the House of Orange. I must say at once that the views of certain members, particularly of the monarch of the House of Orange in the 17th century, played no part whatever in the views that I have formed.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Carswell, in his particularly powerful speech spoke for us all when he urged the Executive to adopt the Defamation Act, and to do it quickly. Our debate was also enriched by his cautionary words, and those of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, on the Sewel convention. Clearly that needs to be borne carefully in mind. As my great friend, the noble Lord, Lord Empey, said, the Government must be mindful of their wider obligations. That is the note on which we need to end.
My final question is this: if the Northern Ireland Executive fail to pursue this matter properly, what further action will the Government take? That is the note on which we should end. I have constituted myself into a kind of watching brief on this matter and I shall seek opportunities, by one means or another, to raise this fundamentally important issue from time to time in the House. I hope that we shall be able to note progress: it is extremely important that we keep a watching brief on it. On that note, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Trimble
“Election of the First Minister
(1) The Northern Ireland Act 1998 is amended as follows.
(2) Omit sections 16A (appointment of First Minister, deputy First Minister and Northern Ireland Ministers following Assembly election, 16B (vacancies in the office of First Minister or deputy First Minister) and 16C (sections 16A and 16B: supplementary).
(3) Before section 17 (Ministerial offices) insert—
“A17 First Minister and deputy First Minister
(1) Each Assembly shall, within a period of six weeks beginning with its first meeting, elect from among its members the First Minister and deputy First Minister.
(2) Each candidate for either office must stand for election jointly with a candidate for the other office.
(3) Two candidates standing jointly shall not be elected to the two offices without the support of a majority of the members voting in the election, a majority of the designated Nationalists voting and a majority of the designated Unionists voting.
(4) The First Minister and deputy First Minister—
(a) shall not take up office until each of them has affirmed the terms of the pledge of office; and(b) subject to the provisions of this Part, shall hold office until the conclusion of the next election for First Minister and deputy First Minister.(5) The holder of the office of First Minister or deputy First Minister may by notice in writing to the Presiding Officer designate a Northern Ireland Minister to exercise the functions of that office—
(a) during any absence or incapacity of the holder; or(b) during any vacancy in that office arising otherwise than under subsection (7)(a);but a person shall not have power to act by virtue of paragraph (a) for a continuous period exceeding six weeks.(6) The First Minister or the deputy First Minister—
(a) may at any time resign by notice in writing to the Presiding Officer; and(b) shall cease to hold office if he or she ceases to be a member of the Assembly otherwise than by virtue of a dissolution. (7) If either the First Minister or the deputy First Minister ceases to hold office at any time, whether by resignation or otherwise, the other—
(a) shall also cease to hold office at that time; but(b) may continue to exercise the functions of his or her office until the election required by subsection (8). (8) Where the offices of the First Minister and the deputy First Minister become vacant at any time an election shall be held under this section to fill the vacancies within a period of six weeks beginning with that time.
(9) Standing orders may make provision with respect to the holding of elections under this section.
(10) In this Act “the pledge of office” means the pledge of office which, together with the code of conduct to which it refers, is set out in Annex A to Strand One of the Belfast Agreement (the text of which Annex is reproduced in Schedule 4).””
Lord Trimble
My Lords, we have reached the final straight and I shall try to get round the track as quickly as possible, and not delay those who are coming to debate other matters later.
I tabled Amendment 4 for the Committee, but unfortunately when it sat I was out of the country and unable to express my views on that occasion. However, I am delighted to see that the noble Lord, Lord Empey, made an excellent exposition of the issues involved, so I will not go back into that history. I want to focus more on what might be coming up in the future. Before moving on to that, it is important to remind noble Lords of the position as it was under the Belfast agreement—the Good Friday agreement—and as it was changed later, not as part of the St Andrews agreement but in some other way.
The key thing for noble Lords to bear in mind about the provisions in the Good Friday agreement is that there was a provision for the joint election of First Minister and Deputy First Minister, which means that a ticket had to be formed. There had to be an agreement on who would stand. A six-week period for this to happen was provided, but because it was a joint ticket and there were six weeks in which to do it, there was the opportunity for the largest party on the nationalist side and the largest party on the unionist side to interact; they had to come to an agreement. There were opportunities for views to be expressed about who might be the nominees.
In 2006 we had provisions that swept that away and provided for a mechanistic provision whereby the various provisions rather obscurely expressed in the legislation would apply, and it would be possible to identify immediately who should be First Minister and Deputy First Minister. This was to be done within a matter of days; I think that a week was provided for it. It was to go through automatically. I will not discuss what the motivations for that might have been.
I will look at the future and pick up the very important point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, that because of the way in which the Administration has carried on there is widespread dissatisfaction and disillusionment, and, in my interpretation of what he said, that is likely to have an impact when we next have an Assembly election. Participation rates in Assembly elections have been dropping. They will continue to drop. The drop will be felt most among people who feel dissatisfied about inaction. There are those who are feeling sore because they believed in the Democratic Unionist Party when it attacked the agreement and who then felt disgruntled after it decided that it was going to implement the Belfast agreement with merely cosmetic changes, as well as the significant change in identifying the First Minister and Deputy First Minister.
This opens up a very serious possibility, which I think that we need to be on guard against. It is possible that, as a result of declining participation, especially by working-class unionists, we will find that the unionist vote drops to a point where Sinn Fein becomes the largest party. The DUP will do what it has done before, running a campaign that says, “Vote for us, or else you will get a Sinn Fein First Minister”. It has done that several times—so often that it is not likely to carry much weight anymore. People can see that they were given this argument and then saw the results from the elections, which showed that the argument had no substance to it. So I am afraid that “Wolf” has been cried too often on this.
Lord Empey
My Lords, I made the point in Committee that this was an imposed process, without consultation. It offended every point that has been made in this House this afternoon in respect of respecting the settlement and tore up a key part of the settlement that was voted on by a referendum. It was literally a backstairs deal, in the worst tradition of backstairs deals, so let us not give it any credibility that it is some kind of dramatic move forward. It has created a sectarian headcount format for elections even though there is no difference in the powers that can be exercised by the First and Deputy First Minister. They both have the same powers and there is no hierarchy in that regard.
I would say to the Minister that, when she stands up to defend the devolution settlement, she will understand that it rings a bit hollow to some of us when it was the Government who broke that settlement and did so without consulting those who made the settlement—and, it must be said, the noble Lords, Lord Trimble and Lord Alderdice, and others who were there at the time to make the deal. There is a Scottish saying—the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, will know this—“Eaten bread is soon forgotten”. Had it not been for people like the noble Lords, Lord Trimble and Lord Alderdice, and others, there would be no Assembly for these people to sit in. A lot of people take it very badly that a deal that was done—a referendum that was passed—was swept aside in some kind of backstairs deal without even the courtesy of a phone call to say, “This is the line we are proposing to take”. Some of us learnt about it when we saw the draft of the 2006 St Andrews agreement Act. That is why, when I hear people defending the principle of devolution, it rings a bit hollow for some of us who have been around these things for some time.
I have, however, made my point. I support the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, in his amendment. It is that sort of thing that has been undermining. The potential for a six-week negotiation was the reason that Sinn Fein went to Tony Blair to get the thing changed; it was afraid that, if it put forward a particular candidate, that person would be negotiated out. It wanted certainty that whoever it was would go in. That coincided with the political changes that meant that, on the unionist side at that stage, it was much more convenient not to have to put your name on a ticket with a Member of Sinn Fein to get elected as First and Deputy First Minister respectively. It just happened to suit people at that time.
There is no noble principle involved in the 2006 amendment. It was, by any stretch of the imagination, a dirty deal.
Lord Kilclooney
My Lords, I do not want to be preaching more caution or to be more alarmist, but I find myself in total agreement with the analysis by the noble Lords, Lord Trimble and Lord Empey, of the situation within the Northern Ireland Assembly and the appointment of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, and the way in which this could be received by the community at large in Northern Ireland.
With the possible decline of unionist—I use the word with a small “u”—interest in the future of the Northern Ireland Assembly and with the possible lower turnout by unionist voters, under the new system that was introduced in St Andrews we could have a Sinn Fein First Minister in Northern Ireland for the first time. Can your Lordships imagine the reaction of what has been termed earlier in this debate the loyalist working class who had not bothered to vote and then find a former battalion commander of the IRA as their First Minister? I fear it would bring about the total collapse of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Lord Browne of Belmont
My Lords, this is an issue that the noble Lords, Lord Trimble and Lord Empey, have returned to on several occasions in the past, and I am sure that they will keep doing so in the future. However, as I pointed out in Committee, no other ministerial appointments, with the exception at present of the Justice Ministry, require cross-community support. It seems inappropriate that this requirement should be applied to the appointment of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister.
In Northern Ireland we are currently experiencing the longest period of stable government in a generation. What is detailed in the amendment simply moves us backwards and returns us to the position that existed in Northern Ireland pre-St Andrews. When we look back at Northern Ireland under the devolved institutions prior to the St Andrews talks and compare it with the stable Province we now have as a result of an extended period of devolved government since 2007, we see a remarkably different country.
As noble Lords will be aware, and as I mentioned in Committee, there is a legal requirement placed upon the Northern Ireland Assembly to provide a report on how the Assembly structures can be improved. My party, the Democratic Unionist Party, would be reluctant to pre-empt the work ongoing in the Assembly to review its functions and those of all the political institutions by supporting amendments such as this. It is my firm belief that it is inappropriate to simply unpick some parts of the relevant legislation. This amendment would simply divert attention from the important issues and challenges that Northern Ireland and its politicians face every single day. If changes are to be made we must look at the totality of the system of devolved government.
Lord Alderdice
I am encouraged by some of the things the noble Lord has said. I would be encouraged even more if he was able to give an undertaking that his party will also adhere to its commitment to this way of forming the First Minister and Deputy First Minister portfolios whatever the outcome of the Assembly elections in 2016. It would be a real reassurance not only to this House but to others if he was able to give an undertaking that his and his party’s commitment to this way of working is not only for when they have the First Minister but for whichever party has the First Minister.
Lord Browne of Belmont
I am not in a position to speak for the Executive or for my party in the Assembly. However, I am sure that they would wish to progress in a way that they believe will serve the people of Northern Ireland best.
I oppose the amendment and I hope that we will be able to proceed with the elections in Northern Ireland. Unlike the Ulster Unionists, I am not pessimistic about the outcome; I am very optimistic.
Lord Bew
My Lords, I support the amendment. It is not the least of the distinctions of the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, that he is a former First Minister of Northern Ireland. He is not the only former First Minister of Northern Ireland in this House, but he is the only one who can say that he was supported by a majority of both communities in the process of election. We have lost something in the structures of the Assembly and the way it operates simply by the absence of that process and that type of affirmation for the First Ministership.
However, I do not want to dwell on the past. A number of points have been raised today about the future and possible destabilising trends—some of which might or might not eventuate—and it is important that we do not sleepwalk into this possible crisis with the Executive and the institutions. The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, asked a profound question, and one way of considering the implications of the question is that some of the parties, at least, to the current arrangements may no longer have precisely the same investment in those arrangements that they once had. If possible, there should be a dialogue or discussion in the Assembly with a view always to maintaining the stability of Northern Ireland, because there is a possibility, for the reasons mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Kilclooney and Lord Trimble, that we are sleepwalking into a crisis with these institutions. The noble Lord, Lord Browne, is right: these institutions have delivered a form of stability for some years now, but that does not mean that they will continue to do so. I would like reassurance that the Government are keeping the matter under review and are not sleepwalking.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass (Non-Afl)
My Lords, first, I apologise for intervening at this late stage and for not having been here, as one might have expected, at the beginning of the debate. I was detailed to find out some information about a serious event that took place in 2006. I have only just received the information that the person who was suspected of the Regent’s Park bombing many years ago was arrested by the Metropolitan Police some time past and was able to pull out of his pocket a letter dated 2006 which said that he would no longer be deemed a terrorist. Over the past few months, a court case, held virtually in secret, has revealed that 187 terrorists were given that letter in 2006, saying that, although they were terrorists, they would no longer be deemed to be so. How can we vote with any assuredness on this Bill when we discover belatedly that, subsequent to the St Andrews agreement, this sort of behind-backs, underhand deal was carried out by the Government at that time?
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, this debate has been interesting, as was the one in Committee, although that was without the wisdom of the noble Lord, Lord Trimble; I say his name carefully. We have benefited enormously from the experience of noble Lords here this evening: this is the value of debates in your Lordships’ House on this issue.
Clearly, we all want to ensure that governance in Northern Ireland is based on a strong cross-community partnership. I readily accept that there is no system for electing the First and Deputy First Ministers that we all would consider perfect. Indeed, the current system may not be perfect. Let us not forget where Northern Ireland had been during the four and a half years leading up to 2006. It was a major step forward to have the institutions up and running again after being suspended for that time. That was the purpose of the St Andrews agreement, the ongoing discussions which came from it and the legislation subsequently passed by your Lordships’ House and the other place. For three and a half of those four and a half years I was a Minister in Northern Ireland, and it was a difficult, tense time, as noble Lords here tonight will know better than I. When I flew out to Belfast on my first day, I was told I should expect to be a Minister for about six months. When I left three and a half years later, the Assembly was still not restored. It was a very serious and difficult time.
Since the St Andrews agreement changed the arrangements, we have had the longest period of stable government in Northern Ireland in a generation. That is not to be underestimated or dismissed lightly. Many positives proceeded from that agreement. I understand why this amendment has been brought forward and the reasons for it, but it takes apart one part of the agreement that was agreed in your Lordships’ House and the other place through legislation. We have heard very eloquently from the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, why the popular 1998 agreement for electing First Ministers and Deputy First Ministers required the direct involvement of the Assembly. He and others welcomed that very clear demonstration of cross-community support. If we were to return to the pre-St Andrews system at this stage, it would have to be done by cross- community consensus and agreement, and I really do not think that we have achieved that at present. I understand the reason for tabling the amendment, but at the moment we do not have the agreement and cross-community support necessary to achieve it. We have to understand the reasons why that came about.
In this debate and others that we have had today, wider issues have been raised by several noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Bew and Lord Trimble, about the disengagement of local people in Northern Ireland. We have talked about it in terms of the Assembly, but there is also the wider political context. That is not peculiar to Northern Ireland, but I understand the concerns about it relating to Northern Ireland. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Bew, referred to it as a destabilising trend. All sides of your Lordships’ House want confidence in the system and the Assembly. We want the stability of the Assembly to be entrenched and enhanced. That will not be done just by the institutions or the apparatus of democracy; it is far deeper than that. Perhaps there may be an opportunity for further discussion in your Lordships’ House—I do not think that tonight is the time—to address those issues to bring the entrenched stability that I think we all want.
We do not support the amendment at this time, while understanding the reasons why it has been proposed.
Baroness Randerson
My Lords, I want to preface my response by referring specifically to comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis. Noble Lords have been in the Chamber this afternoon and may not be aware that I have issued a Written Statement that deals with that issue. I do not feel that it is appropriate to try to tackle it in this Chamber at this time, because it is not part of this debate.
I turn to the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Trimble, will be aware that the Government opposed amendments on this issue both in Committee in the other place and in Committee in this House. Despite the eloquence of the noble Lord, Lord Empey, we retained our opposition here. Again, we will maintain that position to this amendment on this occasion.
I recognise the noble Lord’s views on the matter, and he clearly has a close personal interest in the issue. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, highlighted in Committee and again just now, the St Andrews agreement, which led to this mechanism, ultimately led to the re-establishment of devolved government in Northern Ireland. It would be, to say the least, an unhelpful step if we were to start to unpick certain aspects of it.
I acknowledge the noble Lord’s views on whether the revised method for electing the First and Deputy First Ministers at Stormont was discussed at St Andrews. It is certainly the case that the noble Lord, Lord Empey, made that point in Committee. However, the revised method was enacted through the legislation which followed the St Andrews agreement in 2006. That legislation was endorsed and passed through this House. Whatever the merits of the amendment in the abstract, it would command limited support in Northern Ireland. Very probably, it would get virtually no cross-community support. It would provoke serious opposition and potential instability.
The current Northern Ireland settlement is imperfect, but it is what we have. I welcome the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and her party on this issue. Her words echo my thoughts.
The noble Lord, Lord Bew, made some very important points. In response, I would say that the Government are acutely aware of the tensions and difficulties in Northern Ireland and within the Executive. That is one reason why we do not want to destabilise the settlement either by changing or attempting to change the mechanism for selecting the First Minister and Deputy First Minister or by involving ourselves in the devolution settlement on issues that are devolved. It is important that we do not disturb the situation. That does not mean that we are sleepwalking, or allowing Northern Ireland to sleepwalk, into any unravelling of the current situation. I agree strongly with the views of the noble Baroness. With every month that passes, the institutions of Northern Ireland become more firmly established in the country and as part of the politics, and it becomes less likely that they will hit the sort of problems that occurred soon after devolution was established.
As I highlighted in Committee, reopening old debates of this nature is liable to create a distraction that would shift the focus of Northern Ireland politics away from the pressing challenges that Northern Ireland faces—issues such as community division and economic renewal. I hope the noble Lord would agree that those issues should take precedence at this time and, in doing so, will be willing to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Trimble
I thank noble Lords who have taken part in this little debate, which has gone on longer than I had hoped. As the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Belmont, said, these are issues that I have dealt with before. I remember certainly the first time I dealt with them in 2006. I divided the House, and I was very happy to have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Belmont, in doing so. He has changed his position somewhat since then. I merely mention this from the point of view of spreading news on the matter.
I note the statement of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, who said that if one was to make a change, the change would require cross-community support. She is right. That is how the agreement was made. The agreement was made based on a broad support —a “sufficient consensus” as we called it—and the majority of unionists and the majority of nationalists supported it in the talks. If you are going to make a change to it—although no express provision has been made as to how changes should take place—then the noble Baroness is quite right to say that the changes would be legitimate if they were made by the same procedure by which the agreement was made in the first place.
That is not what happened in 2006. I was finding it somewhat difficult to follow what the Minister was saying at some points, but I think it is absolutely clear that the change to the identification of First and Deputy First Ministers was not actually in what is called the St Andrews agreement. It came into the legislation to implement it, but it only popped up at the last minute without any coherent explanation of where it came from, and with no indication that there was the sort of cross-community support that ought to have been sought for it. People say going back would be a bad thing to do. The Minister says that going back would have limited support in Northern Ireland. The original agreement had a referendum, and it was supported by an overwhelming majority; that referendum is ignored. It has been said many times in this debate that we should not upset the devolution settlement. The devolution settlement was upset, peremptorily. That is undeniable. Consequently this is something to which we will return, until we get things sorted out on this. We have at present a bad system which may have bad consequences; I hear what the Minister says about not sleepwalking and I hope that that is the case. We shall see. Let us make sure that we do what we can to ensure that there is no sleepwalking. I think I can guarantee the Minister and the Northern Ireland Office that we will return to this aspect of this issue, to try and ensure that people are on top of this. We have a rotten system which may turn round to bite us. This is not the time to press the matter further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Social Welfare Law
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Low of Dalston
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their response to Tackling the Advice Deficit, the report of the Low Commission on the future of advice and legal support on social welfare law in England and Wales.
Lord Low of Dalston (CB)
My Lords, I am very pleased to have this opportunity of introducing the report of the commission, which I was honoured to be asked to chair, on the future of advice and legal support on social welfare law in England and Wales. I am grateful to all those who have put their names down to speak—it is quality more than quantity tonight. I am particularly honoured that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Peterborough should have chosen to make his maiden speech in this debate and I am sure that we are all looking forward to what he has to say with eager anticipation. I am also looking forward to hearing what the Minister has to say with eager anticipation. I must place on record my appreciation of the contribution of my fellow commissioners and our hard-working secretary and researcher, Richard Gutch and Sara Ogilvie, for this was truly a team effort and we had a brilliant team.
As part of the Government’s austerity measures, there have been significant reductions, estimated by the Government to save £89 million a year, in the scope of legal aid for issues of social welfare law. These are for things such as benefit debt, employment, immigration, education and many aspects of housing. This is compounded by reductions in local government funding for advice and legal support, which are likely to amount to at least a further £40 million by 2015. Some local authorities are cutting virtually all not-for-profit provision in response to the cuts in funding from central government approaching 40% by 2016.
Services are closing or retrenching on a significant scale, yet the demand for advice and legal support has never been greater and can only grow further as the Government’s welfare reforms are rolled out. I could tell your Lordships harrowing tales of the serious consequences for the advice sector, and therefore for individuals needing support, of the almost complete removal from scope of welfare benefits advice. However, partly because of time and the need for brutal summary, I prefer to concentrate in a more dispassionate way on what we are suggesting to address the problem. I do not think that anyone doubts that the austerity measures, however necessary, have left us with a real problem.
We were under pressure to recommend simple reinstatement of the cuts from two quarters: from lawyers, of course, who thought that our recommendations focused too much on the front end of the legal journey and insufficiently recognised the importance of legal interventions for resolving social welfare problems; and from those who resist any change in patterns of funding for public services, such as the introduction of the market. However, in a situation where we have to accept that there will be less money for legal help and representation, we were anxious to develop a fresh approach which, through measures to reduce the need for advice and legal support in the first place, developing more cost-effective approaches to service provision and drawing on a wider range of funding sources than hitherto, ensured that people could still meet a lot of their needs through a greater emphasis on information and advice, while ensuring that there is at least some money available for legal help and representation.
Rather than recommending simple reinstatement, we preferred to think in terms of a continuum of provision including public legal education, informal and formal information and general advice—often provided by local authorities—specialist advice, legal help and legal representation. We took the view that it was important to tackle the whole of this continuum in an integrated fashion and that legal aid should be seen as just one part of it, not in isolation as a stand-alone funding mechanism. We do not underestimate the importance of legal interventions for solving people’s problems. Sometimes it takes a lawyer to bring a recalcitrant defendant to the table. However, with cuts of the order of £100 million a year in legal aid, it seemed clear to us that the advice end of the spectrum was going to need to take more of the strain. The more we can do at the beginning of the process, we reckoned, the less we may need to do at the end. However, we are absolutely clear that there needs to be provision for legal help and representation at the legal end of the spectrum.
Of course, the advice sector is not beyond improvement. There is a general perception that it is too fragmented and could benefit from rationalisation from closer working together and a greater spirit of collaboration. We would also like to see the national umbrella bodies, such as Citizens Advice and AdviceUK, working more closely together and sharing their resources and experience more widely. AdviceUK told us about a system in Portsmouth based on what it calls “systems thinking”. It moved from a system that involved waiting for two hours, seeing a volunteer for 20 minutes then making an appointment to see a specialist—altogether potentially involving 13 steps before seeing an adviser who would help you—to a system that dispensed with triage or rationing, put specialist staff in the front line, with expertise in one area but able to pull in others as necessary rather than simply referring on, enabling you to see someone within 20 minutes. It has shown that approaches such as this can achieve savings of at least 30% and sometimes, as in its work in Nottingham, as much as 95%. Although it may seem like a Rolls-Royce service it can end up costing less in the long run.
Our report contains 100 recommendations but the six most important are: first, that public legal education should be given higher priority, both in school alongside financial literacy and in education for life, so that people know their rights and where to go for help. Secondly, though there are certainly factors making for increased demand in the welfare reforms and other austerity measures, we are convinced there are also ways of reducing the need for advice and legal support in the first place. For example, the DWP could be incentivised to get more decisions right first time by being required to pay costs on upheld appeals. Thirdly, we suggest ways in which courts and tribunals could be made to work more efficiently. Fourthly, the next UK and Welsh Governments should develop national strategies for advice and legal support, preferably with all-party support and there should be a Minister with responsibility for advice and legal support within the MoJ with a cross-departmental brief for leading the development of the strategy. Fifthly, local authorities or groups of local authorities should coproduce or commission local advice and legal support plans with the local not-for-profit sector and commercial advice agencies. Sixthly, we estimate that a further £100 million a year is required to ensure a basic level of provision of information, advice and legal support on social welfare law.
We are calling on the next UK Government to provide half of this by establishing a 10-year—to enable long-term planning—national advice and legal support fund for England and Wales of £50 million a year to be administered by the Big Lottery Fund. We aim to spread the load so that no part of government is asked to bear too great a burden. We therefore propose that the fund should be financed by the MoJ, the Cabinet Office and the DWP, as the main creator of the need for advice and legal support. Ninety per cent of the fund should be used to fund local provision in line with local plans, with 10% for national initiatives. The Big Lottery Fund should allocate the 90% share of the national fund to local authority areas, based on indicators of need using joint strategic needs assessments and health and well-being strategies. We have also identified other national and local statutory, voluntary and commercial sources of funding that we believe could contribute an additional £50 million a year to match the national fund.
Greater use needs to be made of new technology for the section of the population that is increasingly digitally literate. This will free up resources to enable more face-to-face, in-depth and intensive support to be targeted at those most in need. In addition to the current range of specialist lines, there should be a one-stop national helpline providing a comprehensive advice service to the general public and able to act as a safety net for those who have nowhere else to go.
Although I said that we were not arguing for a simple restoration of the cuts, that does not mean that we would not like to see any of them reversed. We would like to see funding reinstated for housing cases, for instance, so that people can get help before they reach crisis point and face imminent eviction. The scheme for the funding of exceptional cases under Section 10 of the LASPO Act needs to be reviewed, because as things stand it is just not working. This was intended to act as a safety net for funding cases that would now be out of scope of legal aid but where either human rights or EU law required the provision of legal aid. During the passage of the LASPO Act, it was estimated that there would be between 5,000 and 7,000 of these cases a year, but a Parliamentary Answer on 11 February this year stated that the total number of applications so far was only 1,030, of which only 31 had been granted.
In summary, our strategy is to suggest ways of reducing preventable demand, simplifying the system and enabling it to work better, putting more weight on the advice end of the spectrum and suggesting ways in which it could work more efficiently. We believe that by investing in a wider range of information and advice, with some legal help and representation, many of the undesirable consequences of the LASPO Act can be avoided and we will actually end up saving money. I hope very much that the Minister will find not only that there are things in our report with which he can agree but that it makes a useful contribution to the stabilisation and rehabilitation of our system of advice and legal support on social welfare law.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Low, on securing this important debate. As he said, he has attracted an impressive list of speakers, not least the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Peterborough, whose maiden speech we are looking forward to hearing. I hope very much that the Minister can respond to the debate in a positive way.
In my view, the Low commission report is the first positive, the first piece of good news and the first chink of light, if I may call it that, that we have seen for some time in this field. Considerable congratulations are owed to the noble Lord himself and to his fellow commissioners on producing this excellent report and on perhaps cheering us all up a little bit. I hope that the House will forgive me if I pick out one of the noble Lord’s fellow commissioners. Steve Hynes, director of the Legal Action Group, played an important part in setting up the commission, and the leading role he has played in the field of social welfare law over many years has, in my opinion, been outstanding.
It is important to have some good news because for years now the position has looked bleak and depressing, getting worse month after month. The truth is that social welfare law has been decimated over the past four years. That is because the Government seem to have decided as a matter of policy that access to legal advice for some people—often the poor, often the disabled, often the acutely vulnerable—in order to deal with those areas of law that affect everyday life, such as housing, debt, welfare benefits, employment and immigration, is not even a necessity, let alone a priority. This government policy is seen most obviously in LASPO itself and its implementation since 1 April last year.
However, the decision to downgrade this part of our legal system was taken well before 1 April 2013. How else can the following information set out in paragraphs 1.10 and 1.11 of the report be explained? I quote:
“Eligibility levels and the number of cases in social welfare law then increased between 2007 and 2010. This was due to three factors—the recession, which meant more people were potentially eligible for legal aid; a decision by the government to bring more people into scope; and an increase in the budget to allow more civil law cases to be paid for by the legal aid scheme.
When Labour left office in 2010, social welfare law legal help cases had peaked at 485,664 for the year 2009/10. However, by last year, 2012/13, the numbers of social welfare law cases had fallen to 293,319, due to decisions made by the coalition government to reduce expenditure on civil legal aid”.
That is a drop of nearly 200,000 cases annually—around 40% of cases—and all before LASPO ever came into force.
Another example is public legal education, mentioned in the report and by the noble Lord, Lord Low, in his speech today. Following the general election, not only was the outstanding committee that had advised the Ministry of Justice on this vital subject summarily disposed of, but the budget for work on public legal education over the next number of years was suddenly no longer. Now, 11 months after LASPO came into force, the position is much worse and gets worse with every announcement of a closure of a not-for-profit provider, or of redundancies and closures having to be made by big players in this field, such as the CAB and Shelter.
A lot of income from very modest legal aid payments is resulting in a sharp decline in the number of providers of these crucial services. Many fewer people are receiving legal help than deserve to. We know, as the noble Lord has said, that a pathetic, miniscule number of exceptional cases have been allowed through, even though the Government—perhaps laughingly—claim the scheme is working effectively.
This week’s news sums it up. On Friday, RAD Deaf Law Centre, with offices in London and Newport, is closing its doors. Its chief executive has said:
“Funding cuts have had a profound effect on RAD”.
Have we really, as a country or as a society, come to this: that the law centre that helps deaf people in our country has to close because the Government have abolished the meagre legal aid that went to provide important funding so it could do its vital work?
Last Friday, a newspaper reported that the Government are thinking of charging people making appeals against DWP decisions to social security tribunals. Is this a serious proposition, I ask the Minister? How much in charges do the Government think they will get from these appellants? Will it be more than 1% or 10% of the administrative cost involved in setting up these charges, or is it—this is what it seems like to me—just a rather crude attempt to stop people appealing at all, bearing in mind that in recent months 58% of those who wanted to overturn DWP-sanctioned decisions in tribunals have been successful?
The position is grim indeed, and that is why the report is so timely and so welcome. The report does not call for a return to the system that has been wiped away; it looks forward and recommends a number of modest, practical measures that will make it possible once again for everyone to obtain the legal advice that they need, when they need it. The report argues convincingly that, by modest expenditure, by spending a bit of money, the state will save money as all the evidence shows that early intervention in the sorting out of legal problems saves costs, both in human and financial terms in the long term.
The report starts with the premise that access to justice for all has to be the starting point for any proper legal system. It challenges the political parties in this country to disagree. Surely, none of the political parties does. With a general election looming, that is why this report is so timely. It asks us in the political parties to take this issue seriously and develop policies accordingly. That is why we should all be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Low, and his fellow commissioners. We must not let this opportunity go to waste. We would not be forgiven easily if we did.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Low, both on securing this debate but, more importantly, on the outstanding report that he and his commissioners have produced.
Many of us in this House, not least the noble Lord, Lord Bach, who has been at the forefront of the argument, warned the Government about the deficit that would arise through the cuts arising out of LASPO. In the debate instituted by the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, in December 2011, I asked,
“where is the funding for the specialist advisers of the CAB”,
and advice centres,
“going to come from when those legal aid contracts disappear?”.—[Official Report, 8/12/11; col. 909.]
The noble Lord, Lord Low, and his commissioners have been ingenious in their recommendations in seeking out funding streams from a number of sources. I fully support the concept outlined in the report that there should be a national strategy for advice and legal support in England, and hope that the current Welsh Labour Government will develop a similar strategy in Wales, although their general lack of vision does not make me too optimistic.
Noble Lords will also recall that we on these Benches warned the Government that their cutbacks in the LASPO Bill would result in advice deserts. My noble friend Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, who spoke in the debate of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, warned that,
“the present proposals risk creating advice and representation deserts where no appropriate legal advice or representation is available. This the Government have recognised, but the proposals also risk creating specialism deserts. The danger of advice deserts could be addressed by increasing the number of providers in more sparsely populated areas. The specialism issue is more difficult”.—[Official Report, 11/7/13; col. 453.]
In that context I will draw your Lordships’ attention to Wales. I am impressed that a member of the commission was Mr Bob Chapman, a member of the committee of the Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council in Wales and chair of the trustee board of the Swansea Neath Port Talbot Citizens Advice Bureau. It is clear from reading the report that Welsh issues have not been overlooked.
The report points out that the Independent Advice Providers Forum has collected evidence that £4.1 million-worth of cuts in Wales kicked in from April 2013, £2.4 million of which were from the loss of legal aid contracts, and the rest from reductions in Welsh government, local authority, European and other funding from corporate and charitable sources. In its place the Advice Services Transition Fund intends to put just over £1 million back into advice services in Wales. I fear that even that dire conclusion may be too optimistic.
On this very day, Powys County Council is meeting to consider its budget. It will be considering the recommendation of its cabinet to cut funding to citizens advice bureaux throughout the county. At first the cabinet said that it would be cut entirely, but last week it compromised. The proposal that is being debated today is to cut funding for the CAB by half in the current year and reduce it to zero in the following year. The chairman of the trustees of the Powys CAB, Chris Mann, says of this:
“Without core funding from the County Council, Powys CAB will lose all other sources of grants. These pay specialist and professional advisers on debt, welfare benefits, employment and housing and allow our volunteers to assist clients on a range of pressing social issues”.
The other sources of grants to which Mr Mann refers are contracts worth some £336,000 for the provision of essential services to the residents of Powys. Without core funding from the council, the highly skilled paid staff will lose their jobs, and the volunteers, who are so vital to the CAB, will be unable to continue.
The recent history is that in 2013 Powys CAB dealt with 21,000 advice issues, assisted more than 6,000 clients and secured £2.2 million in welfare benefit income for its clients. As Mr Mann points out, this money does not disappear into the air but is spent locally and supports the local community. It is true that the council has a small welfare rights unit but it cannot possibly cope with the work level if the CAB has to close. This is a large area of Wales, where poverty and rural deprivation are endemic. It is precisely the sort of area of desert that we foresaw when we were discussing the LASPO Bill. That is only one example, but it is significant in this context that, according to the CAB, £71 million—43.8% of its funding as a whole in 2012-13—came from local government. In the current year, it expects the percentage to increase to 46.2% from local government, as funding from legal aid drops from £21 million to just £6.5 million. This is a tragedy that is going to happen in vast areas of the country.
Perhaps the most impressive aspect of the commission’s report is that it does not seek to wind the clock back to the pre-LASPO position but recognises realities. Suggested funders include the Money Advice Service, the Department for Work and Pensions, the NHS, local government, trusts and foundations, as well as the legal profession through pro bono and dormant funds. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bach, that all political parties, in fashioning their manifestos for a future Parliament, should take all the commission’s recommendations on board.
Finally, I very much look forward to the contribution of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Peterborough. He spent eight years as Archdeacon of Chester, so I can greet him almost as a neighbour, even though he was on the wrong side of the border. I also welcome him as a graduate of Peterhouse in Cambridge to join our hardcore Petrean group in the House of Lords, with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, and others. I am sure that he will add lustre to our deliberations.
Lord Woolf (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Low, for arranging this debate and I join in the chorus of congratulations to the noble Lord and his fellow commissioners on their excellent report. I am not surprised that the report should be excellent; I use that word in referring to it because, having regard to the commission’s membership, about which comment has already been made, I expected no less.
The person whom I wish to single out is Amanda Finlay. Not only was she vice-chairman of the commission, she was a most valued member of the team which worked on my report on access to justice in 1998. I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I make a comment or two about the relevance of my report in the context of the report by the noble Lord, Lord Low, because there are similarities. His report covers some of the same ground, although my report was primarily concerned with the procedures in courts that were making it difficult for the majority of litigants to obtain the access to justice to which they were entitled if they were going to be engaged in litigation. The Low commission’s concerns, as we have heard, were much wider. It was concerned with courts and tribunals, but I think that was a minority part of its report.
The Low commission’s main concern, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Low, is the stressed position of those who need assistance in obtaining the help that they are entitled to under the welfare provisions of the law. As we have heard, it is a section of the community in the greatest need of help, and the state is under a fundamental and basic obligation to ensure that, so far as possible, its needs are met. As we have heard, the people in this group have been doubly disadvantaged: first, because of the pressures that have made them resort to the state to provide them with the means of meeting their basic needs; and, secondly, because their ability to receive the assistance that is necessary to ensure that they obtain the benefits to which they are entitled in law has been substantially reduced because of the cuts in legal aid and the reduction in funding that has occurred due to the need for austerity.
However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bach, that when one looks at the contents of the report as a whole, although it reveals an extremely worrying situation, there are signs of good news. Those signs confirm what I believe to be the case—that if we take a broad, holistic view of the situation, there are ways in which the effect of the deficit in assistance, which is inevitable in view of the cuts that have been made, can be mitigated by appropriate action. The noble Lord, Lord Low, has referred to the type of action that is required. Of course, we have heard the clamour in the media over food banks. That has vividly demonstrated that the conferring of rights on members of the public is of little value if those rights are not complied with in a way that enables them to receive the benefits to which the law entitles them.
I hope that I can claim that, to an extent, the problems in the courts to which I have referred were mitigated by the steps taken in consequence of my report. They included a change in culture on the part of the judiciary and the legal profession over the past few years, which has meant that the needs of the less fortunate members of the community are taken care of in a way that was not always so obvious in the past.
I suggest that the Low commission’s report gives the Government an opportunity to secure a substantial improvement in the situation regarding welfare benefits. Even in these days of austerity, they should be able to take advantage of that opportunity in a way that will benefit the section of the public to which I have been referring. If that is to be done, it is essential that we take advantage of all the new methods of communication that now exist. Those methods enable an amazing amount of information to be provided, which could be very helpful to those who seek the benefits to which they are entitled.
In different areas of the country there have been experiments that have demonstrated beyond doubt what can be achieved. They are set out in the Low commission’s report and are prominent in the 100 recommendations the commission makes. The core of the majority of those recommendations is that they are designed to meet the need for advice. I have no doubt that the national advice helpline that the commission recommends would be of value, as is the kiosk that exists in Cambridge, which was used by 65,000 people in 12 months. Those sorts of initiatives have got to be extended. I hope that, in setting out these various trials, the report will help the Government with what surely must be the objective of any Government—namely, to do what they can to ease the problems of those members of the community most in need of assistance.
The commission also stresses the importance of education. Increasing the use of education will not change the situation overnight, but in the long term that must be very important as well. I suggest that the position is extremely urgent; no delay should be allowed to occur. The report deserves, and should receive, an immediate and strong endorsement by those in charge today. The present Government cannot hide behind the fact that there is going to be an election in a few months’ time. Action can start to be taken now and plans can be made. That applies to the Opposition as well as to the Government. I look forward to the responses from both the opposition spokesman and the Minister to what we are hearing this evening. Like other noble Lords, I, too, very much look forward to the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Peterborough.
The Lord Bishop of Peterborough
My Lords, as I make this maiden speech I am delighted to have the opportunity to thank the many Members and staff of your Lordships’ House who have made me so very welcome here. I am also most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Low, for initiating this debate, and for producing with his colleagues this excellent, wide-ranging and challenging report.
I suppose it to be inevitable that cuts in government spending, however necessary they may be, will always hit the poorest most. It is therefore all the more important to give attention to ways of helping the most vulnerable to claim and receive the support to which they are entitled and the professional advice they may need. This report does that: I welcome it most warmly and hope that Her Majesty’s Government can do so too.
Three particular themes of the report resonate with me. The vision of equal access to justice, with the recommendation of a national strategy for advice and legal support agreed by all parties, is most welcome and would make a real difference. The vision of holistic systems thinking, with its direct addressing of poor and disconnected services, such as those described in the Nottingham study, makes complete sense. The emphasis on local provision, including from the voluntary sector, but requiring better training and co-ordination, is absolutely right. Those three themes, if implemented, would lead to better governance, fairer access and a less divided society.
I regularly meet some of the most needy members of the community. The diocese which I serve includes the lovely and relatively prosperous counties of Northamptonshire and Rutland. It also includes most of the rapidly growing city of Peterborough and other urban centres which are home to many vulnerable people and groups whose lives can so easily break down without the help and advice of the sort described in the Low commission’s report. The migrant communities of Northampton and Peterborough include many—especially older women—whose English is poor and not up to technical explanations or form-filling. The rural poor, not all of whom have access to dependable broadband or the skills to use technology—even if they had easy access to libraries, which they do not—frequently miss out.
I am privileged to be a trustee of the Farming Community Network, formerly the Farm Crisis Network, and am well aware of how difficult it is for some struggling farmers to access advice through the statutory channels. Our towns in the diocese I serve, including Corby, Kettering, Northampton, Wellingborough and the City of Peterborough, have their fair share of poor, white, excluded communities, many of whose inhabitants would benefit from supportive advice and advocacy. I spend time visiting our prisons, and am excited by the activities of charities which help prisoners to find housing or work when they are released. However, I am only too conscious that for many their functional illiteracy and innumeracy, and their all too common psychiatric disorders and behavioural problems, place them at a huge disadvantage in trying to become contributing members of society. I also visit and take an interest in psychiatric hospitals where I meet both in-patients and out-patients who need help and advice to cope with the pressures of life. At Peterborough Cathedral we have regular meetings for Armed Forces veterans suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder; again good people do their best to support them, but the necessary legal and other professional advice seems to be in short supply. All these people and groups need to know that they are valued, that society cares for them and wants to help them and that our affluent country has time and resources for them.
I notice that one of the bodies listed as having made a submission to the Low commission is the Peterborough citizens advice bureau. My chaplain is a trustee of that charity, and I follow its important work with some interest. Thanks to the collaborative partnership-working instigated by Peterborough City Council its funding has not been as badly affected in recent years as some other CABs. However, I notice the very significant increase in the number of cases it has had to deal with. Unique client numbers have risen from 7,190 in the year ending March 2012 to 8,744 for the first nine months of the current year, with an estimate of 12,000 for the full year. If this is typical of other CABs across the country we can see something of the growing need, brought about, according to Peterborough CAB, by a combination of the recession and welfare reform.
I am still very new to the customs and conventions of your Lordships’ House. Please bear with me as I learn from my mistakes. I take it that it is acceptable here for us, not least Bishops, to do God. One of the tests of a civilized society is of course the way in which it supports its weakest and most vulnerable members. I would go further than simply stating an ethical principle, however important. The bottom line for me is the calling of all who think of ourselves as children of God to develop in ourselves, and demonstrate in our words and actions. His especial love for the poor and needy.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I welcome the debate tonight. It is a privilege to speak after the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Peterborough. I congratulate him on his fine maiden speech; he has chosen an interesting debate to start his career here. As these things work out, it is perhaps perfect timing. Over the weekend I started a hashtag, which was very complimentary on social media, entitled “Bishops”. I am not sure if I am the first to do this, but I will be adding to it happily later tonight after his fine maiden speech. I warmly welcome the right reverend Prelate to your Lordships’ House and look forward to his many future contributions.
After spending a significant amount of time working on the Welfare Reform Bill and because of the consequences of that, the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill, I am grateful for what my noble friend Lord Low has done in this area and congratulate him on his commission’s work. On 21 January 2014 the New Law Journal stated that the Low Commission shines,
“much-needed light on the impact of the LASPO cuts on those largely poor and vulnerable people who up until nine months ago had legal aid as some kind of safety net”.
I do not think that anyone would have said that the system was perfect, but for disabled people it offered considerable help and support. That safety net is disappearing.
My noble friend’s work has not just shone a light on the system within which we are now operating, but has shown how real people are affected by legislation. I accept that when we are debating Bills it is hard to know how every person will be affected, but we are now starting to see it. My noble friend has provided some realistic and sensible proposals. He has not looked back to what some might call the halcyon days of legal aid, but importantly has looked forward. I hope that the Minister will look favourably at the suggestions that have been made. The Law Centres Network is just one organisation that has called for the recommendations to be implemented.
In the past two years we have seen what I believe are some of the biggest changes to the welfare system since its inception. Disabled people have been repeatedly affected by the changes, and not just in one area but in several. They are complex changes at that. I remember the noble Lord, Lord Freud, explaining to me during the Welfare Reform Bill that the new system around universal credit would be simpler, but it is by no means simple. While I have been disappointed that in this area there has been a continued failure to conduct a cumulative impact assessment, I understand why there has not been one. It would have made uncomfortable reading about how some of the most vulnerable people in our society are being treated. I accept that we are in tough economic times and agree that there was a need for looking at doing things in a different way.
One of the consequences of LASPO on disabled people, which has been raised with me by Unity Law, is that it has shifted the costs of civil litigation in respect of personal injury cases to the defendant company and done away with recoverable insurance premiums for claimants as a result. Because Equality Act cases do not include a claim for personal injury, but rather compensation for injury to feelings, and a request for reasonable adjustments, these cases are not cost-shifted and the insurance premium is needed to protect disabled people against the costs of losing.
I have met Chris Fry from Unity Law several times. He believes that if cost shifting applied to Equality Act discrimination claims, the legal aid budget would stretch further, because there would be no liability to third-party costs in failed cases. I realise that I am talking to many lawyers, and not for the first time do I regret studying only politics at university and not law. At this stage I will not go into further detail, but there are some really positive things that we can do in this area to mitigate some of the challenges that we are facing.
We are where we are, but the legislation has fundamentally changed how disabled people are able to access justice. Access to advice is important. As Citizens Advice describes it:
“Impartial advice is a fundamental ingredient to a healthy democracy”.
I know that Citizens Advice has offered me invaluable advice, but it has also worked with a significant number of people who have approached me for help and support. In the past year or so the largest number of e-mails that I have received have been from members of the public on this issue. The vast majority have been from disabled people asking for help in steering their way through the complicated system; I do not know whether this is perhaps because I am disabled or because I talk in this area. They are just not sure where else they can turn. Changes have occurred at local levels to advice services and those changes are not the same in every area. The number of people asking for help within this incredibly pressurised system is worryingly rising. One of the most recent cases to come to me has been from a deaf man who has repeatedly received letters directing him to a phone number. Obviously that is just not possible.
During our time debating LASPO, I spoke several times on the telephone gateway and repeatedly said that, while signposting people to a phone number may work for some, it would not work for all. I have also been contacted by someone with autism, who even more worryingly has said that he has absolutely no one around him to help him make this essential phone call, and he did not know where to turn. I was his last resort. He has tried to write letters, but received no response. He told me that he went to his local advice centre and was informed that the waiting list for an appointment was several weeks. Cases are being pushed to services that were previously stretched but are now more so.
In the area of appeals and tribunals, there is much work to be done to ensure that we have better decision-making in the first place. That sounds terribly easy, but I know that it is not. Reading through some of the social media streams this week, I hope that there will not be a regime for charging individuals for benefits appeals. I wonder whether the Minister would like to comment on this. If this were to be the case, it could be seen as yet another way of penalising disabled people.
The support that disabled people get is crucial. Within my noble friend’s report, I very much liked the proposals to embed information in GP surgeries or the places where people are every single day. I thought that was simple but brilliant. Educating young people as to their rights is something that should be on the curriculum right away, along with good sports provision—but that is another matter. The idea of a phone number and simple website is also an excellent idea to act as a triage. We perhaps still need to do more to ensure that disabled people have adequate access to the internet, but that is an aside. Whatever we do, I believe that we have a duty to provide adequate guidance, assistance and support to everyone, and I commend the work of my noble friend.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, it is a very real pleasure to follow the noble Baroness and her very thoughtful speech and to follow the right reverend Prelate. I join with the noble Baroness in congratulating him on his maiden speech. My impression in listening to both of them is that they contribute real value to this debate because they have experienced at first hand the problems that we are talking about. Some of us who are lawyers, such as myself, do not have that privilege, although of course we encounter many of those who are in trouble. But it is the real value of their contribution that needs to be studied very carefully, based on their own first-hand experience of the problems that we are talking about.
As for the report of my noble friend Lord Low, I express deep admiration for what he and his commission have achieved. I confess that I read the report with a mixture of despair and relief, rather like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, who talked about a mixture of feeling worried and encouraged. The element of despair comes from the appreciation that the report brings of the state in which we now find ourselves. Step by step, we have got into a position of real difficulty, in which so many gaps exist right across the system where legal advice and support are not available. It would be wrong to say that we have sleepwalked into this problem, because so many people have been advising Governments, particularly this one, time and again, that cutting back so much on legal aid, for reasons that we all understand, would add to and create this problem.
The relief and encouragement comes partly from the way in which the commissioners have gone about their work and the integrated approach that they urge the Government to adopt, and also from the various signs throughout the report of what is going on elsewhere in other sectors. The point that I wish to draw to the Minister’s attention is the need in this integrated approach to support what others are doing to fill the gaps.
Let me give one particular example based on my own experience in dealing with students in two of the Scottish universities. I know that the report deals with the position in England and Wales, but Scotland is not all that different; the problems are very similar. One thing that has been growing, both in Scottish universities and certainly in the universities in England and Wales as well, is an appreciation by students of the gaps that emerge and the part that they can play in filling them by providing legal advice where it is needed. There are two particular projects that I know about, one of which was started in 2003 by the University of Strathclyde Law Clinic, which is the largest of these institutions in Scotland, with 195 student advisers, and more recently the Aberdeen Law Project, which started in 2009 and has much the same ambitions, conducting much the same kind of work.
These projects are guided by lawyers within the academic community. They are also funded, to a very substantial degree, by law firms. It is a pro bono exercise. DLA Piper provides funds for the Strathclyde clinic; Pinsent Masons provides funds for the Aberdeen Law Project. This is greatly welcome, for, while the universities themselves would like to provide financial support, it is very difficult for them to do that, given the pressures on their own funding.
There are ways in which the Government can encourage these projects, one of which was demonstrated by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland of Asthal, when she was in government. She encouraged and participated in an annual awards scheme to student organisations of this kind. It so happened that Strathclyde won the competition in one of the years I was chancellor. She was there, she encouraged what they were doing, and she gave the feeling that the Government were behind what was being done by these student bodies. That is valuable encouragement. It helps those who are thinking of providing funding to feel they are doing something which is in the broad public interest as well as in the interest of the students themselves.
The other aspect of the problem is the work done by the courts. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, made major strides in simplifying the way in which the courts go about their work. One point, which I particularly emphasise, is the way in which he educated us all in the need for case management, a phrase that I did not encounter in the early days but is now on everybody’s lips, and it works all the way down through the system. It is a means of simplifying issues, working with the litigants in person to be sure that as little time as possible is wasted and people identify the issues as soon as they can.
There is the emphasis in paragraph 5.27 on the need for independent advice. I thought that was a valuable point, partly because I have been serving on a Select Committee on personal service companies, a rather complicated tax matter. Part of the evidence that we have been hearing comes from people who have been trying to use an advice system that the HMRC provides for people who think they are in difficulties. The HMRC says that the advice system is completely independent and that nothing will be communicated to the tax inspectors. People do not believe it, and it is underused. There is, therefore, something to be said for the point drawn attention to in that paragraph—for the Government appreciating that there are independent advisers who need to be supported, as well as government-based advice systems.
The other point worth stressing, as others have done, is the way in which modern technology can be brought to bear to encourage people to seek advice. Younger people than I have apps attached to their iPhones which have access to all sorts of things. I have just acquired an iPhone, and I have been discovering its wonders. Surely there are things the Government could do to increase the accessibility of advice—of knowledge of how systems should be made to work in people’s interests and of the complex system of social benefits. There are avenues to which this report draws attention which are well worth pursuing and should not cost a great deal if proper advice is obtained.
I endorse the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bach—that there is an opportunity, because of the timing of this report. As he said, we should not let the opportunity go. I would warmly endorse that and all the recommendations made in this excellent report.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote (CB)
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Peterborough on his excellent and moving maiden speech.
Like all noble Lords who have spoken so far, I welcome this comprehensive and insightful report which the commission led by my noble friend Lord Low has published. It could not have had a better or more insightful chairman.
Reductions in legal aid and other funding for advice and legal support are having a serious impact on the ability of poor and vulnerable people to access justice. It is this theme on which I wish to concentrate in my contribution to this debate today. The Low commission report highlights the plight of a number of members of the public hit by the loss of legal aid to assist them. They face the kind of everyday legal problems which loss of a job, disability or other crises can throw at them. Examples given in the report include a young couple who were unable to get their landlord to undertake essential repairs; a person in debt who started suffering from severe anxiety and depression and is in danger of losing their house and job; and a disabled person who lost their benefits after being wrongly assessed as fit for work.
In the Government’s latest equality impact assessment, published after the changes to legal aid were introduced last year, a disturbing picture is painted of how these changes will impact on people who are protected by equalities legislation. Around 19% of the general population can be classified as disabled, but 54% of the people who sought advice under the legal aid scheme for benefit problems were classed as disabled. All but a small number of benefit appeal cases were cut from the scope of legal aid. This will mean many of thousands of disabled people going without the legal help they need. In housing cases no longer covered by legal aid, 61% of the clients are women. Organisations opposed to the changes in legal aid, such as the housing charity Shelter, point out that higher numbers of women seek housing advice as they are often left on their own to provide for children or have been forced to move from the family home because of violence or other abuse. Disabled people are also much more likely to face problems with disrepair due to poor housing conditions. Disrepair cases are often small in value and therefore not suitable for no-win no-fee arrangements. However, if they go unresolved, this can have severe consequences for family health.
Black, Asian and minority ethnic communities are more likely to face all of the social welfare problems with which the Low commission report deals. Some 86% of immigration problems previously covered by legal aid involve people from BAME communities. Often they face problems such as proving their status to claim state benefits such as their pension after a lifetime of working legally in the UK—an issue which will be publicised by a report soon to be published by the Legal Action Group. As the former vice-chairman of the Equal Opportunities Commission, the discriminatory impact of the changes to legal aid on people protected by equalities legislation is of particular concern to me.
Aside from these concerns over equality, there are practical considerations. When people get into difficulty in their daily lives, they need to be able to get the right information and advice as early as possible. If this information and advice is no longer available, they could become unemployed, homeless and/or in debt. Then not only will they suffer distress but the state will incur increased costs. Where legal support—whether in the form of legal help or legal representation—is also not available, the number of people who will then try to represent themselves will increase and the courts and tribunals will have to adapt to deal with this increase in unadvised and unrepresented litigants.
Likewise, when systems that are supposed to support people fail to function effectively, those individuals require extensive help, often including specialist and legal skills, to have their needs met. In its paper, Towards a Business Case for Legal Aid, Citizens Advice argues that the state has to pick up the cost of homelessness, poor health and the other consequences of people not receiving early advice on civil justice problems. It estimates that £1 of expenditure on legal aid saves the state around £6 in other spending.
I am sure that all my fellow Peers are heartened by the recent evidence of some upturn in the economy. However, if the experience of previous recessions is correct, it will be some time before the advice needs of the sort of people I have referred to will reduce. Many advice agencies are reporting an increase in demand for services while they are being forced to cut back due to cuts in legal aid and other public spending. For example, in April 2013 Shelter reported a 40% increase in the number of callers to its advice line seeking help with housing-related problems. I also note that, in a recent report, the Cabinet Office accepts that,
“there seems to be a pattern of rising demand”,
for advice,
“during difficult economic circumstances”.
This is hardly surprising.
It is for this reason—the increasing demand for advice and, above all else, the need to assist the sort of people facing the difficult circumstances I am describing—that I urge the Government to look seriously at implementing the recommendations of this excellent report. Everyone, regardless of their sex, ethnic background or disability should have the right to equality before the law. There are some excellent suggestions in this report which will certainly help, but I am deeply concerned that the reduction in the availability of legal aid, as well as other advice services, is putting the fundamental principle of a democratic society at risk.
Lord Gold (Con)
My Lords, I am most grateful to be allowed to say a few words, even though I am not on the speakers list. May I first—
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
If the noble Lord could take his seat. If both noble Lords intervene for just two minutes we should be able to fit both in. I was certainly not informed that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, intended to speak.
Lord Gold
I will be as quick as I can be. I commend the noble Lord, Lord Low, and his team for producing such a thoughtful report. I also congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Peterborough on an excellent maiden speech.
Although I accept, of course, that LASPO has reduced the scope for legal aid, it is not a new problem that there is a gap between what legal aid will support and the needs of those who have claims or grievances. One has to draw the line somewhere and there will always be deserving cases that cannot attract funding. The reality, as we all know, is that there is a finite fund of money available. The report identifies a number of ways in which this problem might be addressed, including recommendations for further government funding. The Minister will, no doubt, tell us what government support there might be for the Low funding proposals, including the Government’s view on taxing pay-day lenders. However, at a time when the Government are still looking to cut expenditure, I am not optimistic that further funding will be available. I would therefore like to propose that much more might be done by the private sector on a voluntary basis.
Now that I am no longer part of a large legal firm, I feel better able to offer others assistance. Paragraph 8.19 of the report rather delicately suggests that law firms might consider offering some funding support. I would suggest another course, similar to that suggested by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. Solicitors’ firms which undertake litigation work have been concerned for some time that, in training their young solicitor advocates, they have not been able to find sufficient cases where they can develop their skills. I know that all large firms encourage their solicitors to undertake pro bono work and a great number of legal advice centres are part-manned by young solicitors wanting to put something back into society. That could easily be extended to provide much assistance in both advisory work and, where necessary, through court advocacy, by tapping into what I think would be a willing resource. Many sets of chambers would welcome such an initiative and I am sure that the Bar and Law Society will support that.
I know that the Low report suggests that it is unrealistic to consider that pro bono help could replace publicly funded legal help, particularly as the laws and regulations can be complex. However, it is the lawyer’s stock in trade to run with something new and complex, and I have no doubt that there are sufficiently talented young lawyers around willing to help that those requiring assistance may well find themselves better represented than they might otherwise have been.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, I join others in congratulating the right reverend Prelate on his maiden speech, which, if I may say so, was wonderfully down-to-earth. I encourage him to go on doing God if he can relate the good Lord so closely to what I suspect most of us feel.
I congratulate the Legal Action Group on instigating the Low commission. I should declare an interest as one of the founders and first chair. Above all, of course, I identify myself with the congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Low. It is a formidable piece of work in a relatively short space of time. I wish the commission as much success in pushing forward the 100 recommendations as in putting them together.
I shall concentrate on the first of the six overarching recommendations in the report. I refer to public legal education which, the report states, should be given higher priority both in school and in education for life. I fear that I shall be a bit tetchy as we have so many fine words emanating from this place and so many fine pieces of legislation hitting the statute book. Indeed, we are inundating the people of this country with laws with almost the same effect as the floods in the Somerset Levels. The truth is that so much of what we do with the best intentions ends up unimplemented, misunderstood or not understood at all. The provision of education in schools is declining and not improving. Citizenship education is not part of the inspected curriculum. It is part of the curriculum overall but it is not inspected by Ofsted. Citizenship does not have to be taught at all by academies and free schools—roughly half of schools. The number of teachers training to teach citizenship is declining rapidly, as is the number of pupils taking citizenship. That is down to 2% for GCSE citizenship and only 8% for the half GCSE. The situation could not be worse.
Section 1 of the Legal Services Act 2007 states that there should be a regulatory objective of,
“increasing public understanding of the citizen’s legal rights and duties”.
That is honoured in the breach. The citizens of this country are falling further and further behind what we legislate in their name and, often, for them as individuals. We kid ourselves unless we own up to that and put as much energy and enthusiasm into implementation of the excellent ideas behind the report as we have put into this debate.
There is so much to do to give, in particular, the poorest and least capable any sense of what is available for them by way of the law. I entirely agree with the comments made about the crucial, essential need for advice on where it is most needed. We are hypocrites if we do not ensure that. Again, I commend the noble Lord, Lord Low, and his excellent commission and hope that this is a beginning, not an end, a determination, not an elegant manifesto.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, I join previous speakers in congratulating the right reverend Prelate on a notable maiden speech and in expressing profound gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Low, and his colleagues, for their comprehensive and lucid analysis of the problems of accessing advice and legal support in this critical area of social welfare law, and for the constructive proposals contained in the report.
The landscape the report describes is changing as a result of changes in the financial and, I would argue, political climate. Where once a thriving network of advice services, citizens advice bureaux, law centres, voluntary organisations and professionals was able to support people in times of great difficulty, we are now seeing virtual advice deserts—to use the phrase deployed by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas—within which an occasional oasis can be found, struggling with soaring demand and diminishing resources. As the report demonstrates, and as we have heard today, a number of law centres have closed, with more to come, while the survivors operate with reduced staffing. CABs, serving more than 2 million clients nationally, face shrinking budgets, while the impact of reductions in legal aid and advice increases pressure on them.
Many Members of your Lordships’ House have a long and active relationship with the voluntary sector, especially the advice sector. As a solicitor, I undertook legal aid work. I did pro bono advice sessions with the Newcastle CAB. I helped found the Wallsend CAB in 1973. I initiated the Newcastle Welfare Rights Service as chairman of social services in 1974, and as council leader supported the creation of the Newcastle Law Centre in 1978. The situation of that law centre, the only one between Kirklees and the Scottish border, is dire. From a staff of 14, with five qualified lawyers, it is now down to one solicitor and one adviser, with three staff. It does not undertake legal aid work.
The Newcastle CAB faces similar difficulties. It no longer has any legal aid funding. Its brilliant chief executive, Shona Alexander, has set out in the starkest terms the current position that she, her staff and volunteers, and, most importantly, her clients, now face. Staffing has fallen from 26 to 19, none legally qualified, and 11 of them on contracts expiring in March next year. Funding for a debt adviser by a local charity is ceasing and a full-time adviser and part-time administrator will be made redundant. The bureau’s opening hours have been reduced and demand is such that the bureau closes its doors after half an hour because it cannot accommodate in its waiting room the many people who wish to attend drop-in sessions. The average time taken to advise each client has increased by 50% or more because of the triple whammy of legal aid disappearing, welfare changes and cuts in public services. There is now no funding for interpreters or medical reports, and recently there has been difficulty with deaf clients, with interpreters charging the bureau £70 for an interview. Shona Alexander says:
“Just about every private law firm in Newcastle is referring clients to us because of legal aid cuts”,
and increasing numbers of clients need crisis intervention, especially because of benefit sanctions. She states that, ironically,
“every Government department website or letter refers clients to their local CAB”,
but of course, without providing any direct funding.
As if all this were not enough, there is the difficulty, mentioned in the report, of clients obtaining telephone advice from government departments at premium rates. The Newcastle bureau can deal with only 38% of incoming calls, while clients, some of them specifically referred to the bureau for the purpose by government departments, seek to use the CAB’s own phone lines.
Finally, Shona Alexander refers to two areas of high demand: welfare rights and employment. On the former, hundreds of clients seek advice, for while the city’s service is fully stretched, the CAB caters for non-city residents from the surrounding area as well. The part-time specialist worker is fully booked dealing with complex cases and coaching staff and volunteers with more routine work. In employment, the CAB relies totally on pro bono work from local solicitors, the very source referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Gold. However, there are,
“serious cases of discrimination, health and safety issues and other illegal work practices which are now going unchallenged”.
None of this catalogue of difficulty is unique to Newcastle, as the report makes clear, which is why there is such widespread interest in, and support for, many of the commission’s proposals, as evidenced by this debate. I hope that the Government will respond positively to the constructive proposals in the report. Like others, I was particularly attracted to the idea of public legal education that the commission seeks to promote. Will the Government revive the programme initiated by the previous Government, which, as my noble friend Lord Bach reminded us, they abandoned some four years ago? Will they review urgently the areas of welfare law now excluded from legal aid, particularly those highlighted by the commission in its report—again, this was stressed by the noble Lord, Lord Low, tonight—in relation to housing disrepair, harassment and eviction and disbursements for benefits advice? Will they fund the advice required for applications for exceptional funding and revisit the imposition of fees for employment tribunal applications? For that matter, will they disavow any intention of charging claimants fees to access decision-making and appeals processes, as was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Bach and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson?
I hope that the Government will endorse the suggestion of local and national advice plans, adopt the proposals to ensure quality of provision and support moves to share services across the sector and promote pro bono services, recognising that the latter must be seen as supplementing and not replacing properly staffed provision. Will they also look again carefully at the online and telephone gateway services, as others have mentioned, not least in respect of cost?
The report makes relatively modest demands for additional resources but I am slightly apprehensive about the call for local government to fund an extra £50 million. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, pointed out, councils already contribute 46% of the funding to CABs—some £73 million nationally. Many, including most of the areas where demand for advice and assistance in welfare matters is most acute, are facing unprecedented cuts in funding for mainline services, including statutory services. Requiring additional expenditure would constitute a “new burden”, which, under the Government’s own new burdens doctrine, should be funded by government and not by further cuts to existing provision.
However, I have a suggestion to make. Many people, alas, have suffered terribly from the recent floods. I hope that that damage will be made good by insurance; according to the industry, the cost will apparently be some billions of pounds. Most of us pay insurance premiums. Funding the commission’s proposals in this report would represent a mere fraction of the cost of repairing that flood damage. Could we not, as a society, treat the emergency situations that so often overwhelm our vulnerable fellow citizens—including many disabled people, as the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, pointed out—in the realm of social welfare law as something that we could collectively insure via a modest hypothecated surcharge on our insurance premiums? I invite the Government to consider and cost that suggestion, which may be a better way of helping to make good some of the resource that has been lost in the past year or two.
I spoke earlier about my early involvement with this topic of advice and legal aid. By chance, I recently came across a scrapbook that my father kept of my early years in local politics. It included a letter of mine about legal aid published in the Times in 1971. The Times was the beneficiary of my epistolary contributions as, at that point, I had not taken up reading the Guardian. The letter concluded:
“Is it too late to hope that some of Lord Hailsham’s undoubted energy will be applied to broadening, rather than restricting, the scope of legal aid?”.
This was at a time when Lord Hailsham was mooting changes to the availability of legal aid. I ask tonight: it is too late to hope that the Minister’s undoubted energy, ability and empathy will be applied in restoring the accessibility of advice and legal support for social welfare law, which is a potential life-saver for so many of our fellow citizens?
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (Con)
My Lords, I begin by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Low, on securing this debate and restating my belief, and the Government’s belief, in publicly funded legal services as an integral part of the justice system. All speakers have made valuable contributions to this debate but I am sure that noble Lords will forgive me if I single out the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Peterborough for his excellent maiden speech. It is clear from his description of the wide variety of people and situations which he encounters in his diocese that he will be able to bring many valuable insights into our debates. I am very glad to welcome him.
Notwithstanding the Government’s continued commitment to the justice system, any discussion on legal aid funding must focus on the spending that taxpayers fund and must recognise the financial realities we continue to face. As noble Lords are aware, legal aid was introduced more than 60 years ago. It has expanded very considerably in scope to become, arguably, something it was never intended to be. The Government were, until recently, spending scarce resources—in effect rather encouraging people to take their problems straight to court rather than trying to achieve successful and often enduring resolution of disputes in different ways.
The Government were forced therefore to take a fresh look and did not embark on the reform programme lightly. However, the fiscal challenge and the spending review settlement required all departments to look critically at where they were spending money, the effectiveness of those interventions and whether they could continue to be justified. A conscious decision was taken, following the public consultation that led to the LASPO Act, that spending the limited taxpayer funding available to the Ministry of Justice on social welfare law matters, when the majority of problems in this area did not require legal expertise to resolve, could not be justified. This and other difficult choices were scrutinised, amended and debated by Parliament after a thorough and wide-ranging public consultation.
People do not always need lawyers in cases involving divorce, employment, education disputes and debt problems, and courts should be a last resort rather than a first one. These are the types of problems that can and should be resolved before tribunals or similar bodies, which are designed to be accessed by unrepresented individuals. However, with the introduction of the LASPO Act—and this is often forgotten—we safeguarded legal aid to ensure that it was targeted to those who needed it most, for the most serious cases, in which legal advice or representation is justified.
We estimate that following the introduction of LASPO around £50 million will still be available in legal aid for social welfare law, which will fund community care and other high-priority debt and housing cases. For those who need or choose to go to court, but who fall outside the scope of the legal aid scheme, there are other resources available in other forms. There are a diverse range of services available that recognise and match the differing needs of individuals, helping them to navigate the system and resolve their problems. I accept that the challenge is to ensure that relevant services continue to be available in a sustainable way. We have seen industries innovate and modernise to address changing needs and environments. It is essential that the advice sector does so too. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, spoke of the increased use of technology. There is also the support for legal initiatives. My noble friend Lord Gold referred to pro bono contributions from young solicitors.
However, the Government have recognised the various pressures that the not-for-profit advice sector would face, as different funding sources were affected as a range of organisations reviewed their funding positions in the light of the changing fiscal environment. That is why the Cabinet Office led a review looking at the long-term sustainability of the not-for-profit advice sector. The Advice Services Review report, published in October 2012, acknowledged that the Government have a role in supporting the sector to adapt to the new funding realities but also made it clear that advice providers would need to take the initiative and change the way they work, adopting often a more collaborative approach with partner organisations across the sector to ensure the long-term sustainability of supply.
In fact, the Government did not wait for the outcome of that report. Since 2010 the Government have provided significant additional support over and above their usual funding to a range of front-line advice organisations such as Shelter, CABs and law centres that provide direct advice to clients on matters such as social welfare law, to help them adapt and make the transition to the new funding climate. This includes providing half of the £68-million advice services transition fund, launched in November 2012 and administered by the Big Lottery Fund, which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Low. This fund has provided a total of 228 grants of between £50,000 and £350,000, which are specifically available during 2013-15 to help the sector to address immediate need and help to strengthen organisations for the demands that lie ahead.
The Ministry of Justice itself has worked collaboratively with relevant partners in the sector to ensure that clients continue to be supported even after the introduction of LASPO. In the lead-up to the introduction of LASPO, the MoJ developed a targeted communication strategy to raise awareness of legal aid changes and, in particular, to signpost clients not eligible for legal aid to relevant alternative sources.
My officials also worked closely with other government departments, legal aid providers, advice organisations and relevant third-sector partner organisations to raise awareness and enable them to provide effective information about legal aid changes themselves and details about alternative sources. As part of this, we developed and introduced a new and simple online service. Those words are easy to utter but, having actually tried out this service, I can confirm that it is genuinely simple and can be accessed by those who are not sophisticated in these matters. It is considerably simpler than, perhaps, buying an air ticket from a budget supplier. People can check whether they might be eligible for legal aid. Where they might not be, this service will signpost them to alternative sources. To date, over 194,000 clients have used the site to look for assistance, and we continue to work with legal aid providers and advice organisations on improving awareness.
I turn to the excellent report itself, provided by the noble Lord, Lord Low, and his committee. I have read it with great interest. There are a number of important factors about it. I particularly applaud that it does not simply seek the reinstatement of the status quo ante but rather explores a range of different possibilities. It will be a considerable source of assistance to all the parties as they prepare for the election. The colleague of the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, Andy Slaughter, has said that he will be mining the report for ideas. I know that there have been meetings at No. 10 and that there the noble Lord has met my ministerial colleague with responsibility for these matters, Shailesh Vara. It is an important document that will provide food for thought and inspiration for the way forward.
I welcome the fact that the report does not duck the fact that there are fiscal challenges facing this Government, which necessarily means that fewer resources are available and that hard decisions will have to be made about how they are spent. I also welcome the recognition that the advice and legal aid services sectors are in a period of transition and innovation, which, as the report states, offers scope for agencies to work more collaboratively and in more cost-effective ways in order to help their clients’ needs.
I assure noble Lords that the Ministry of Justice recognises the importance of encouraging decision-makers to get it right first time—a point made in the report and by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, in the course of her speech—and of ensuring that we continue to innovate and improve the current system, as suggested in the report. I can confirm that the Ministry of Justice works closely with other government departments to improve decision-making. We are also considering the recommendations referring to the way in which Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service hears appeals. The Ministry of Justice has published a strategic work programme for those tribunals that describes how we are working to improve the system in line with efficiency, fairness and accessibility.
We have also established the Administrative Justice Forum, an independent body made up of a range of people who have direct contact and can represent views. We have made considerable progress in the improvement of feedback mechanisms on decision-making to the Department for Work and Pensions, with the introduction of telephone case management and the employment tribunal.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, drew an appropriate analogy to his work on access to justice and how that changed the culture and the way that we looked upon the resolution of disputes. That was referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, as well. I am glad to see that the judiciary is referred to specifically in the report of the noble Lord, Lord Low, as providing significant innovation in dealing with litigants in person, which are a reality that we have to face. I refer in particular to paragraph 4.12 of the report. This is the world in which we live: judges would no doubt prefer not to have litigants in person, but they are responding well, using modern technology in assistance to make the system more user-friendly for those who do not have the benefit of legal advice.
There was a great deal of complaint made by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, who I recognise has been a persistent champion of those needing social welfare law. He has also opposed almost every other cut, but I accept that he has made a particular feature of this area. He was critical of the use of the exceptional funding scheme and said that the Government were not, in fact, providing exceptional funding in the way that it was envisaged. I endeavoured to answer questions on that when they were raised in a Parliamentary Question recently. The position is that we think it is working; no doubt the forms might be improved, but we have to provide funding where there is a potential breach under the European convention or EU law. That is the position; that is what is provided by the Act.
There are many other features to which I would like to respond, but time does not permit me to do so. We acknowledge the many useful observations made during this debate and there is a great deal of value in what was suggested in the report itself, particularly in regard to the administrative justice and tribunal system. The Government will, of course, carefully consider these suggestions in the future and continue to incorporate them into our strategic work where it is appropriate to do so.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
Can the Minister give any reassurance at all to the many who have spoken about public legal education, particularly in schools?
Lord Faulks
I cannot give any formal reassurance as to whether public legal education will be part of any schools curriculum. It is clearly an important feature in the report and is something that will be considered along with other matters.