House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(9 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
1. What assessment his Department has made of the effects on working families of recent changes to the level of benefits.
The Minister for Pensions (Steve Webb)
Since the financial crash of 2008, while average wages have risen by around 10%, working age benefits have risen by around 20%—a sign of our commitment to those who are most vulnerable, despite the black hole in the public finances that we inherited.
Chi Onwurah
In their relentless demonisation of those on benefits, this Government forget to say that only 3% of welfare spending goes on benefits to the unemployed, and a half of all those in poverty are in working households. In the north-east, working people are £1,800 worse off per year since this Government came to power, and a quarter of a million of them do not even get the living wage. Now the Minister decides to freeze working tax credits. Why is he balancing the books on the backs of the working people?
Steve Webb
It is difficult to know which of those dubious assertions to choose from that question. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady asks which one is dubious. She says that 3% of what she calls welfare spending goes to the unemployed—[Interruption]—goes on benefits to the unemployed, so she presumably counts state pensions as welfare spending. I do not.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
I welcome the news that over the last 12 months we have seen the largest annual fall in unemployment since records began. Does the Minister share my view that the best way out of poverty is through sustainable employment and a regular pay packet—something enjoyed by an extra 847 of my constituents since January 2013?
Steve Webb
My hon. Friend is quite right. We know that the risk of a child, for example, being in poverty is three times as great if they are in a workless household rather than a working household. We have almost become blasé about new record falls in unemployment month after month. That is the key to our drive to tackle poverty.
Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)
I ask the Minister this week to support the living wage campaign in his own Department. Can he tell the House how many contracted-out workers outside London in his Department have yet to receive the living wage?
Steve Webb
The right hon. Gentleman deserves great credit for his promotion of the living wage. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State inherited a situation in which some of the Department’s employees were not receiving the living wage. Our Department has committed to it, and we have had that dialogue with our subcontractors as well.
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
I also welcome the rise in the living wage announced today. The Minister will be aware that jobseeker’s allowance claimant numbers are falling across the board in every single constituency in the north-east, and by 31% in my Hexham constituency over the last year. Does he agree with me that coming off JSA and into employment is surely the way forward?
Steve Webb
My hon. Friend is quite right. It is entirely welcome that we are ensuring not only that more people get into work, but that work pays through the universal credit reform, which this coalition Government are proud to have introduced.
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
According to the Government’s own figures, 20% of working people in my constituency earn less than the living wage, yet they will lose hundreds of pounds a year through this Government’s freeze in working tax credit. How does that possibly reward people who want to work, and how can the Minister justify that when the Government give tax cuts to the wealthy?
Steve Webb
The largest number of people who have benefited most from tax cuts during this Government are those who are in work and paying income tax. Under this Government, a typical basic rate taxpayer is £800 a year better off in cash terms as a result of our changes to the personal income tax allowance, and over 3.2 million individuals will have been taken out of income tax altogether.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
Harrogate borough is part of the roll-out of universal credit, and the feedback from jobseekers and employers has been universally positive. Will the Minister explain a bit more about the benefits to the UK economy as a whole when this roll-out is completed?
Steve Webb
My hon. Friend is quite right that the early indications from those receiving universal credit have been positive, in line with the expectations of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. We are designing the system to be simpler for people and to make sure that when they take work, work pays. Already those on the front line who are working with unemployed people are welcoming the new freedoms universal credit gives them to support people back to work.
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
2. What assessment he has made of the effect of his welfare reforms on the economy.
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith)
Our reforms are having a very positive impact on the economy, as my hon. Friend has seen. The deficit is down by more than a third, and we are at a record level of employment. Recent statistics have shown that both the number and rate of workless households is at a record low, too—the lowest since 1996.
David T. C. Davies
May I commend my right hon. Friend on these reforms, which as he said have led to record falls in unemployment while also cutting the deficit? Does he agree with me that all of this is threatened by the policies suggested by Labour Members, who caused the financial chaos that we have had to deal with in the first place?
Mr Duncan Smith
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is worth highlighting one particularly revealing set of figures. For workless households, both the number and the rate are at record lows: 3.3 million and 15.9% are the lowest since ’96. Children in workless households number 1.5 million, at a rate of 12.7%—again, the lowest on record. Under Labour, some 2 million children lived in workless households. That is now collapsing, thanks to the work we are doing. Labour’s plans would only return us to the bad old days.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
Why are jobcentre staff being told to say to people, “We are not here to help you to find work; we are simply here to check that you do it for yourself”?
Mr Duncan Smith
I do not believe that that is correct. I have the highest respect for the people who man jobcentres all over the country, and who do a remarkable job in helping many of those who have fallen out of work to get back into it. Jobcentre staff now tell people that their own job is to help them to find and take work, but that they themselves have a responsibility to do whatever is necessary to find work and take it. Their job is a combination of helping people and ensuring that they perform their task of seeking work and taking it. I am sure that, actually, the right hon. Gentleman agrees that that is the right thing to do.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
What assessment has my right hon. Friend undertaken of economies similar to ours that have ducked the challenge of welfare reform, and of how their economic performance compares with ours?
Mr Duncan Smith
We do not need to go very far to see the country that the Opposition held up as the paragon of virtue in the European Union. It is, of course, France. I should point out that the French pursued the policies that the present Opposition think are right for the British economy. Adult unemployment in France is at record, scorchingly high levels, and youth unemployment is far higher than it has ever been in this country, while it is falling here.
Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (UKIP)
As my right hon. Friend will know, the benefit cap is encouraging some people to move out of London, where rents are high, to areas such as Clacton and Thanet. Does he agree that local councils should be able to act to discourage benefit migration of that kind?
Mr Duncan Smith
There has been very little movement of more than about five miles from people’s existing homes as a result of the benefit cap. Most people have settled, and many—two thirds—have either gone back to work or found alternative employment. Let me say to the hon. Gentleman that there is something called the discretionary housing payment, and his local council, like any other, can make decisions about how it modifies the process. It is up to councils to do that, and we leave it with them.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
The flagship of welfare reform was supposed to be universal credit. The Secretary of State’s former adviser told Radio 4 last week that the Secretary of State had known that the project was going badly wrong since May 2012, but he continued to tell the House that it was “exactly on track”. The Chair of the Public Accounts Committee expects IT write-offs to exceed half a billion pounds after the election. What is the right hon. Gentleman’s estimate?
Mr Duncan Smith
Yet again, the right hon. Gentleman has got his facts completely wrong. The reality is that, as was announced only a few weeks ago, universal credit is not only doing well, but is to be rolled out nationally. The right hon. Gentleman may be smiling because he has the idea that Labour might somehow get into government, and might inherit a success. I can tell him that Labour will not get into government, but universal credit will get more people back to work. It is already the case that it will give the economy net benefits of more than £30 billion, and there will be direct benefits of some £9 billion a year as a direct result of the roll-out that we are planning successfully.
Stephen Timms
According to page 34 of the “21st Century Welfare” Green Paper,
“The IT changes that would be necessary to deliver”
universal credit
“would not constitute a major IT project.”
Is not the problem—as I pointed out to him at the time—that the Secretary of State failed to grasp the scale of the undertaking at the outset, and that hundreds of millions of pounds have been wasted as a result?
Mr Duncan Smith
Again, the right hon. Gentleman is wrong. No money has been wasted. The roll-out means that, with all the work that we are doing, the vast majority is reusable through the digital system. I should be happy to invite him into my office to discuss the issue; the door has always been open to him.
Let me also say this, however. I wish that the Opposition would stop trying to play silly games and would recognise that this benefit, which is now being rolled out successfully and whose national roll-out has been announced, will be a massive benefit for those who are seeking work and those who are in work. It is time that the Opposition sat down with jobseekers and those who run the jobcentres, and got their story straight. The hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) spent about half an hour in a jobcentre, and then disappeared without talking to anyone there.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
3. If his Department will make an assessment of the potential effect on child poverty of a two-year freeze in benefits.
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith)
Under this Government, the number of children in relative poverty has fallen by 300,000. The Government have no plans to make any further assessment of this kind. Such an assessment would only be provided in reference to Government policy.
Rushanara Ali
The End Child Poverty coalition recently found that almost half of all children in my constituency now live in poverty. Of the 2.6 million children living in poverty across the UK, two thirds rely on tax credits and in-work benefits. How does the Minister square that with the recent changes to benefits, which are going to make matters worse, and is he today redefining poverty?
Mr Duncan Smith
I am interested in the hon. Lady’s question because in the report Alan Milburn brought out as part of his commission he recommended that we should
“supplement the existing child poverty targets with new measures to give a more rounded picture of those in poverty”,
and I agree with that. That is what we have set out to do. We took a consultation, and we are now considering that consultation and we will be bringing forward recommendations.
May I just say to the hon. Lady, however, that many of the forecasts about child poverty proved to be wrong? Child poverty has actually fallen, and, interestingly, I notice that the figures for her area show that Tower Hamlets has seen the largest fall of any local authority in England, down 7.1%, and down 9.6% since 2010 for those on tax credits and below the poverty line.
Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
I am sure that when I voted for the welfare cap I was surrounded in the Division Lobby by large numbers of Labour Members of Parliament. Does my right hon. Friend agree that one can only have an effective welfare cap, and cap the welfare bill, if benefits do not rise faster than wages?
Mr Duncan Smith
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right and he is approaching this from the logical perspective, which is that we have a responsibility to make sure that the economy is in balance, that we get the deficit down and that we are able to afford what we want to do to support the most vulnerable. What the Opposition fail to recognise time and again is that the economy that they left in a totally wrecked position has got to be sorted out; we cannot just go spending what we do not earn.
Mr Peter Hain (Neath) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that children are also being pushed into poverty because his Department is not pursuing errant non-resident fathers vigorously enough? As he knows, my constituent Lisa Jones, a hard-working single mother, has been totally frustrated by the lackadaisical attitude of the Child Support Agency in tracking down the father, despite knowing his mother’s address, when he owes £23,000 and she has been struggling on tax credits and housing benefits to bring up a teenage boy while the father takes exotic holidays and avoids court orders. Will the right hon. Gentleman stop his weasel-worded replies to me and sort this matter out now?
Mr Duncan Smith
I completely agree that in the right hon. Gentleman’s individual case, which I do know about and I recognise, that money should go to the parent with care. We fully agree with that and the CSA, part of the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission, is bearing down to try and get the details of this individual. As he knows, this case is a little complicated because the individual moves time and again before the agencies can get hold of him, but I have to say that I have already intervened by talking to them about this, and I promise the right hon. Gentleman this, and ask him to pass this on to his constituent: I personally will take direct interest in this because it is outrageous that this individual gets away with what he is doing. I have told the CMEC that it must bear down on these cases. The reforms we are bringing in will do just that, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman can reassure his constituent that we will sort this out.
Mr Speaker
There will be a further report to the House on the matter in due course. I am quite confident of that.
Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
Can my right hon. Friend confirm that, in spite of what Opposition Members say, relative child poverty has fallen by 300,000 under this Government since 2010?
Mr Duncan Smith
Yes, and it is something the Opposition do not really want to talk about. The forecast was that it would rise. In fact, it has come down. It is also important to recognise that nearly 400,000 fewer children now live in workless households and that the proportion of children on free school meals getting five good GCSEs is up from 31% under the last Government to 38% as of a year ago.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
4. How many people are claiming jobseeker’s allowance in Bury North constituency.
The Minister for Employment (Esther McVey)
The number of people claiming jobseeker’s allowance in Bury North was 1,304 in September, a fall of more than 500 people since 2010.
Mr Nuttall
I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does she agree that this fall in unemployment has not happened by accident? It has only happened because this Government have cut tax and red tape on businesses, giving them the confidence to grow and take on new employees?
Esther McVey
My hon. Friend is quite right. The latest reports from the British Chambers of Commerce show that businesses are feeling more confident and are taking on more people. In the north-west, an additional 109,000 people are in work this year. He knows only too well how important it is to get a job that can lead to career progression. He is a working-class Tory who got himself into a job, did a correspondence course in law and then set up his own legal practice. We want those opportunities for everyone.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
5. What change there has been in the number of people claiming employment and support allowance over the last two years.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Mr Mark Harper)
Based on the latest published national statistics, as at February 2014 there were 2.46 million people on employment and support allowance and incapacity benefits, a fall of 98,000 from February 2012.
Sheila Gilmore
I thank the Minister for his reply. Since the incapacity benefits migration started, 250,000 IB claimants have been found fit for work, yet he is now telling us that the total number has fallen by only about 90,000. That might explain why the Office for Budget Responsibility is forecasting that spending on incapacity benefit alone will rise by £3 billion more than the Government expected in 2010. Is it not time that the Minister and his colleagues realised that, despite all the rhetoric, many people are not fit for work and that the necessary support is not there for those who do want to work?
Mr Harper
I would point out to the hon. Lady that we have had some problems with the work capability assessment—[Hon. Members: “Ah!”] Before Opposition Members jeer, they should remember that this has happened under the provider that the previous Government appointed. We have taken action to sort the problems out, and Atos has agreed to exit from its contract. From 1 March next year, the new provider that I appointed last week, Maximus, will be taking over and will do a better job.
Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
I welcome the Government’s decision to introduce a new provider. The Minister has just confirmed that it was the previous Government who appointed Atos. Can he explain how the new provision will be materially different from the outgoing arrangements?
Mr Harper
Yes, I can. I have taken a close interest in the contracting process, and we have learned from the previous experience. We are confident, given the bid that Maximus put together and the successful contracts that it has operated in Australia, Canada and the United States of America, that it will be able to deliver the assessments competently over the next three years.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Last week, the BBC reported that Ministers were considering cutting employment and support allowance for those in the work-related activity group—that is, those who have been assessed as being too severely disabled or too ill to be ready to work. I was grateful for the Minister’s letter, which I received this morning, assuring me that that did not reflect Government policy. I am sure he will want to place that on the record in the Chamber now. However, Ministers are in trouble with employment and support allowance. Over the course of this Parliament, it is likely to have a cumulative cost of £8 billion more than they had planned. The Office for Budget Responsibility has also sounded the alarm, saying that
“spending would remain higher…because of delays to the work capability assessment programme”,
which puts the Government’s own annually managed expenditure cap at risk. Will the Minister guarantee that there will be no cut, now or in the future, to the benefits on which disabled people rely, in order to pay for the Government’s policy failures?
Mr Harper
I am glad that the hon. Lady has referred to the letter I sent her, because it confirms that the BBC report
“does not reflect Government policy.”
It also makes the point that we have seen
“a fall in out of work benefit numbers of 832,000 since 2010—the total is now below 4 million, the lowest figure since 1990”,
that incapacity benefit numbers have fallen by 98,000, and that the spend on incapacity benefits has also fallen by £1 billion in real terms between 2009-10 and 2013-14.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
I thank the Minister for his comment that the mooted cut was not Government policy. Can he reassure me and others that it will not become Government policy and that he will not consider making cuts in that area? People who are unwell or disabled often face additional costs to those faced by everyone else.
Mr Harper
The hon. Gentleman talks about disabled people having higher costs; he is obviously talking about the personal independence payment, which is the help we give to people to help them to stay or become independent. The BBC report was talking about employment and support allowance, which is an out-of-work benefit.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
6. What support his Department has provided for young people seeking employment.
The Minister for Employment (Esther McVey)
In the past 12 months, youth unemployment has fallen by a record-breaking 253,000. This Government have developed an array of support for young people including: work experience, sector-based work academies, traineeships, the Work programme and increasing apprenticeship numbers.
Andrew Stephenson
I thank the Minister for her answer. Youth unemployment in my constituency has halved since 2012. I recently visited my local Asda in Colne to see the work it is doing with local jobcentres. What more can my right hon. Friend offer to end youth unemployment in Pendle?
Esther McVey
My hon. Friend is doing a lot locally to help people into work. He has had three job fairs so far, and is soon to have a fourth. It is by working with business, as he is doing in his constituency and we are doing nationally, that we have businesses and trade associations engaged in running programmes such as movement to work and feeding Britain’s future. All such initiatives are giving young people opportunities to move into work. We are not complacent, and recognise that there is more we can do. We are looking to create an extra 3 million apprenticeships in the next Parliament to ensure that we have full employment for young people.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister sounds so plausible and she has oh so many skills learned in the television trade, but she should pick up the Local Government Association report that said that so many young people in this country are being badly served and that there will be 2 million of them unemployed or under-employed in the next few years because the model that we have for helping young people is not fit for purpose and that after four and a half years she has done very little about it.
Esther McVey
It would have been better had the hon. Gentleman stopped after his first sentence. Not only am I plausible—I was giving the true statistics. Let us be honest: it was the Opposition who said that unemployment would be up by a million at this stage. How wrong they were. [Interruption.] We have unemployment up by 2 million. [Interruption.] Sorry, the Opposition said that it would be down by a million. Employment levels are at a record high: more than 30.7 million people are now in work, putting the figures on a par with pre-recession rates.
Esther McVey
The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but rather than living on planet fantasy I ask him to look at the facts.
Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)
Youth unemployment in the Ribble Valley is relatively low. One of our great facilities, the jobcentre in Clitheroe, is currently under review and the suggestion is that it should close. Does the Minister accept that young people in rural areas have to travel large distances to get to a jobcentre? As these jobcentres are important, they should not be told to get on a bus to Blackburn.
Esther McVey
My hon. Friend is right that jobcentres are important. The question is how we best support jobcentres and claimants. Can young people in rural areas make their claim on the phone or online, and can we align various other organisations so that they can come together and help support people in a fully rounded way? Obviously, what we are doing is right, because, as he says, in his area employment is up and unemployment is down.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
The Minister budgeted for 160,000 young people to complete the Youth Contract wage incentive payments. When the Department pulled the plug on that scheme, fewer than 10,000 young people had actually completed the 26 weeks on the programme. Will she tell the House what went wrong?
Esther McVey
What I will do is tell the House what went right, as that is what people want to know. We have a record number of young people in work. We had a £1 billion Youth Contract, within which was an array of different opportunities—work experience, sector-based work academies and wage incentives. Working with businesses, we found that work experience, sector-based work academies and apprenticeships were the things that they want, and they are the ones offering the jobs. We have seen 40,000 young people—not 10,000 young people—start in that way. We have redeployed the money from the Youth Contract to areas where it will be most effective. The situation is far from what the hon. Gentleman outlined, as what we are doing is working.
Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)
7. What the average waiting time is for an assessment for personal independence payment.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
14. What the average waiting time is for an assessment for personal independence payment.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Mr Mark Harper)
When I was asked this at the last departmental questions, I said that the straightforward answer was that PIP claimants were having to wait too long and we are putting that right. I am pleased to say that since I answered that question we have made considerable progress; both the assessment providers have significantly increased the number of claims they are processing. That is good, and we will meet the Secretary of State’s commitment that nobody would be waiting 16 weeks by the end of the year. On the statistics, we will pre-announce the publication in due course, in line with the UK Statistics Authority code of practice.
Cathy Jamieson
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I also thank the Minister for that answer, but I would like him to make something absolutely clear. If one of my constituents phones up the Department today to make a PIP claim, will that be dealt with within 16 weeks or will they hear what people are often hearing, which is that it could take up to six months?
Mr Harper
Nobody will be waiting longer than 16 weeks by the end of the year. One area where we are performing better is Scotland; the contract Atos runs in Scotland has some of the best performance we are seeing, so I hope that if someone were to make that claim now they would get a decision much more quickly than the hon. Lady might expect.
Lilian Greenwood
My constituent Ian Want has severely painful osteoporosis. Having already waited three years for a decision on his claim for disability living allowance, he applied for PIP. Capita rang him at 10.30 pm on a Wednesday to tell him that his medical assessment appointment was at 8.10 the following morning— 50 miles away, in Stoke-on-Trent. Will the Minister apologise to Ian and to the many other disabled people who are being let down by his Department?
Mr Harper
I do not know the specific circumstances of that case. If what the hon. Lady describes is the case, it is clearly not acceptable to expect somebody to travel at such short notice and I will look into the matter for her. As I said, however, both the assessment providers are making considerable progress in the number of assessments they are making and communicating to the Department, and departmental decision makers are making considerable progress in making decisions.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
While people are awaiting the assessment for PIP, what special help is given to those with mental health conditions who want to get into the workplace to assist them to do so?
Mr Harper
We are looking at a number of options to help people. My hon. Friend will be aware that the national health service has made some announcements about the extra help it will be putting in place for people with mental health conditions from April—this will be a significant improvement. We are also running some pilots, examining access to psychological therapies and linking those up with support in getting into work. So she will see that more support is available for those with mental health problems, both now and going forward.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
Will the Minister ensure that the welcome progress on PIP is also reflected in a legacy on DLA claims, because under-16s, for whom these claims still have to be made, are also experiencing long delays?
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
8. When he plans to begin the assessment of existing recipients of disability living allowance for eligibility for personal independence payment.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Mr Mark Harper)
We have consistently said that we would take a controlled approach to introducing PIP, continuously learning lessons as we went along. That is why we have introduced reassessments of existing disability living allowance claimants in a phased way, beginning from last October.
Duncan Hames
Is it indeed quite an inheritance that the new Minister has on his plate in this area. In June, I told his predecessor about a constituent of mine who had received arrears of more than £5,000, having waited 10 months for his PIP assessment. Given the difficulties we have heard about this afternoon, will he consider the time frame for the transfer of existing DLA recipients to PIP and waiting until such a time as his Department is able to give them a timely decision about their entitlement?
Mr Harper
I agree with what my hon. Friend says; we are conducting the further natural reassessment roll-out only in those areas where I am confident we have the capacity to undertake the claims in a timely way. We are doing it in a carefully controlled way. The majority of DLA claimants will not be invited to claim PIP until 2015 onwards under a programme of managed reassessment.
Mr Frank Roy (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
Thousands and thousands of DLA recipients are feeling the effect of the unjust bedroom tax. What does the Minister intend to do to raise discretionary housing payments to help alleviate the problems felt by people on DLA?
Mr Harper
The hon. Gentleman is right to mention discretionary housing payments. I looked into this matter quite carefully. We have been very generous in the amount of money that we have given to local authorities. Indeed, many local authorities have not spent the money we have made available to them. We also made available further funds for which local authorities could bid and, again, not all of that money was spent. So we have given local authorities the wherewithal to use discretionary housing payment to support those who they think have a good case following the removal of the spare room subsidy.
Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)
One of the advantages of having two assessment companies is that the Minister should be able to make performance comparisons between them. Has my hon. Friend assessed the performance of both companies, and is there any good practice that can be carried from one to the other?
Mr Harper
My hon. Friend makes a good point. I look at the performance of both providers, Atos and Capita, and he is right—where we see good practice and particular things that work with one, we want to make sure we share that information with the other. Having the two is helpful for the Department in assessing their performance.
David Wright (Telford) (Lab)
I support the point made by the hon. Member for Chippenham (Duncan Hames). Why are some of my constituents from Telford awaiting a PIP assessment being told that they will have to go to Stoke-on-Trent? It is an 80-mile round trip. One of the journey recommendations provided to one of my constituents involved sitting on a railway platform overnight waiting for a train. This is a disgrace. When is the Minister going to sort it out?
Mr Harper
Under the guidance that we give assessment providers for journey times, no one should have to travel for more than 90 minutes on public transport to go to an assessment, so if that was what the hon. Gentleman’s constituent was told, that was clearly a mistake. Ninety minutes is the maximum time people are supposed to have to travel by public transport, and for no longer.
Mr David Ruffley (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
9. What recent discussions he has had with his EU counterparts on measures to reduce benefit tourism.
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith)
My Ministers, officials, and I are in regular dialogue with the European Commission and other member states about the co-ordination and reform of social security. The most recent meeting was at the October Employment and Social Policy Council.
Mr Ruffley
The think-tank Open Europe today proposed that EU migrants’ eligibility for in-work benefits and out-of-work benefits be restricted for the first three years. Are my right hon. Friend’s EU counterparts in northern Europe sympathetic to such views?
Mr Duncan Smith
Although I have not read the report, Open Europe has stated what we are already discussing with Ministers of many of the other countries concerned. They are all pretty much in agreement that the present system does not give them enough leeway, and there is a general sense that they want people to contribute more before they receive benefits. That is very much the tenor of the discussion, so what the think-tank writes is pretty much what I think is going to happen in Europe.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his decision to ensure that my constituents who fled Sierra Leone because of Ebola were able to claim benefits and were not affected by the habitual residence test. Will he therefore reinstate the old rule whereby people who were advised by British embassies and high commissions to come back to Britain will have the habitual residence rule waived?
Mr Duncan Smith
The moment I heard the hon. Lady’s question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, I immediately said to the Department, “Let me have the news on this”, and I changed the policy on that specifically for Ebola. I am keeping the matter under review to look at whether it is necessary to make a wider exemption, depending on what the embassies say, and I will come back to her about that in due course. I was horrified to see what had happened to her constituents.
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
10. What recent estimate he has made of the number of people subject to the under-occupancy penalty who have moved into a smaller home since the introduction of that penalty.
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith)
The latest published figures showed that, as a result of various actions, 65,000 people were no longer affected by the removal of the spare room subsidy. As at December 2013, around 22,000 had downsized or moved a year ago. New figures to be published in due course show that if that trend continues, up to 50,000 will have moved or downsized by now, with the total no longer affected even higher.
Julie Hilling
The justification for the cruel and heartless bedroom tax is that it would force people to move into smaller homes. As only about 5% of people hit by the tax have been able to move, not least because in areas such as mine there are no smaller properties to move to, does the Secretary of State accept that this policy has manifestly failed?
Mr Duncan Smith
Actually, I do not, and by the way I think the hon. Lady’s figures are not correct. I gave her higher figures even for last December. The rationale for the policy was fairness. The previous Government left us with the situation where some on housing benefit in the private sector were not allowed to occupy houses that had extra rooms, so balancing that is fair. Getting housing benefit spending under control after it nearly doubled in cash terms under the previous Government, and helping those living in overcrowded accommodation while we build more houses, giving them a chance to move into houses where they can fit their families—that is decent and fair.
Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)
Given that, according to recent surveys by social landlords, more than half the people impacted by the bedroom tax are now in arrears, what advice would the Secretary of State give those social landlords, particularly housing associations, about the unsustainable financial position they now find themselves in?
Mr Duncan Smith
Of course, we always keep in close contact with social landlords to ensure that they do what they are meant to do and do not overcharge. The Homes and Communities Agency’s latest figures show that arrears have fallen in the same period from last year and rent collection among housing associations is stable at around 98%, so I think that it is safe to assume that the under-occupancy penalty has had little effect on housing association arrears.
Gregg McClymont (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (Lab)
The bedroom tax surely has a claim to be the most wrong-headed and iniquitous policy introduced by any Government in recent memory. The Government’s justification for this cruel tax was that putting it on social housing tenants would incentivise families and individuals to move into smaller homes, but the policy has one fatal flaw: the absence of homes for those families and individuals to move into. Surely the Secretary of State must today concede that the policy has been an abject failure and scrap the tax immediately.
Mr Duncan Smith
Apart from the rhetoric, the reality is that the hon. Gentleman is wrong. It was his Government who started the process in the first place. I remind him that when they introduced the local housing allowance, they refused to allow anybody who accepted that benefit to live in a house that had extra bedrooms, because that would be unfair on those who were in that accommodation. We have restored that fairness. That is the right thing to do, and it saves £500 million a year.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
11. What forecast he has made of the likely level of child poverty in (a) 2015 and (b) 2020.
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
16. What forecast he has made of the likely level of child poverty in (a) 2015 and (b) 2020.
The Minister for Pensions (Steve Webb)
Relative child poverty is now at its lowest level since the mid-1980s, and there are now 300,000 fewer children in relative poverty than in 2010. However, poverty projections are based on a number of factors that cannot be reliably predicted, including the median income.
Diana Johnson
According to the most recent figures published under this Government, 53% of children in the Orchard Park and Greenwood ward in my constituency are living in poverty, compared with 11% in the neighbouring constituency of Haltemprice and Howden. What is the Minister going to do to ensure that we do not end up with a permanently divided society?
Steve Webb
The fall in unemployment has happened across the country, and the risk that a child will be living in poverty is three times greater for those living in workless households than for those living in a house in work. We now have over 300,000 fewer children living in workless households, with more falls since those figures were put together. That is the best antidote to child poverty.
Lucy Powell
Those same figures show that Manchester Central has the fourth highest rate of child poverty in the country. That comes on top of the finding by the Government’s own Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission that there are now 600,000 more children in working households living in absolute poverty. When will Ministers stop denying that that is a problem and do something about it?
Steve Webb
I was very struck by the comments of the hon. Lady’s hon. Friend the shadow Education Secretary. According to a recent article:
“Criticising the policies of the last Labour government, Mr Hunt said that the party had previously been too preoccupied with tax credits and not given enough thought to tackling social problems in families.”
We are tackling those social problems through the troubled families initiative and a whole range of initiatives, such as the pupil premium, free school meals and more help with child care for young children. Disadvantaged children will benefit from our measures.
Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
Assuming that the Department for Work and Pensions supports the armed forces covenant, will the Minister indicate whether the children of any serving personnel might be brought into child poverty as a result of the Ministry of Defence’s decision in recent days, as we approach Remembrance Sunday, to jack up the rents for Army married housing?
Steve Webb
I take a close interest in those matters, as vice-chair of the ministerial committee on the armed forces covenant, and know that my hon. Friend has a proud record in speaking for his constituents on these matters. We have sought to benefit the children of serving personnel—for example, with regard to education if they have to move around the country—but I will be happy to raise with colleagues in the Ministry of Defence his concern about the impact of the rent increase and ensure that he receives a written response.
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
12. What steps he is taking to help people with disabilities into work.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Mr Mark Harper)
There is a range of provision to help disabled people, including the Work programme, Work Choice and Access to Work. We also launched our Disability Confident campaign to promote disabled people to employers.
Jesse Norman
I thank the Minister for that reply. Jobseekers with learning difficulties need support that jobcentres sometimes struggle to provide. They often do better when placed in social enterprises like Pack-IT Hereford in my constituency. Will he take steps to encourage such placements, and join me in congratulating Pack-IT Hereford on its work?
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
But the inconvenient truth for the Minister is that the Work programme has been a terrible failure, particularly for those on employment and support allowance. Last week, Ministers were boasting that things have improved: that 10% of people are being helped. That is fine—but what is he doing for the 90% who are not?
Mr Harper
The hon. Gentleman is a bit of a glass-half-full person. The 10% of people being helped through the Work programme is a significant improvement, and a significant number of people who go through Work Choice get into work. That is a very considerable record, and 116,000 more disabled people are in work this year than last year.
Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
13. The Minister is right that when it comes to getting a job, personalised support is as critical to people with a learning disability as it is to anyone else. Will he support Basingstoke’s Mencap, which provides training and a jobs club, and in February a jobs fair, to help people with learning disabilities to find the right work for them?
Mr Harper
I very much support my right hon. Friend, who is very knowledgeable about these matters, and congratulate Mencap in her constituency on its Aspire project. It strongly supports the work of the Disability Confident campaign in getting more disabled people, including those with learning disabilities, into work, and I commend it strongly.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
15. What recent estimate he has made of the incidence of in-work poverty.
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith)
The number of people in in-work poverty fell by 300,000, according to the latest figures. The rate is flat in general terms since the election, despite there being more people in work than ever before, and there are almost a million more people in working families and above the poverty line.
Kerry McCarthy
Tomorrow is equal pay day, which marks the day on which women effectively start working for free because they earn on average only 80p for every £1 a man earns. Does the Secretary of State agree that addressing the gender pay gap, which has got worse under his Government, is key to tackling in-work poverty, and what does he intend to do about it?
Mr Duncan Smith
First, let us start from where we are: more women are now in work than ever before, which is a huge start. I also accept—[Interruption.] The rate is even better: it is a record rate. Of course, it is absolutely vital and right to ensure that women who go to work get paid a decent salary. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Employment has been leading the charge for the Department, doing a lot of campaigning. Universal credit, as it rolls out nationally, delivers for working women a far better deal, with higher wages, than they would get under the present system.
Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab)
Given that 20% of workers are struggling on the minimum wage alone, when was the last time the Secretary of State spoke to employers about adopting a living wage for their workers?
Mr Duncan Smith
I have talked to employers endlessly about making sure that they pay a decent wage—first, making sure that people pay the minimum wage, which the last Government were rather slack about but we have done a lot on. My own Department pays our employees in London the London living wage, and we negotiated with the contractor to make sure everybody gets it, including all the cleaners.
Mr Speaker
I am sure that the House is aware—but if not, I can inform Members—that the House of Commons is itself an accredited living wage employer.
Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith)
Today, I welcome the tougher action my Department has taken to recoup debt and safeguard taxpayers’ money. Now, where overpayments result from benefit fraud, the Department will always recover the maximum amount in legislation, ending concessions that previously meant that people paid back less, and making exceptions only where children will be affected.
Mr Raab
Will the Secretary of State confirm that, on the latest official data, child poverty, elderly poverty, fuel poverty, inequality—using the Gini coefficient—the numbers of people not in education, employment or training, and the gender pay gap are all, every single one, lower under this Government than when Labour was in office?
Mr Duncan Smith
This Government have dealt with huge problems that were left to us. First, we had a collapsed economy. We are now putting that right, and we are also getting more people back to work. The best way to get people out of poverty is to get their families into work. Under this Government, there is now the lowest number of households in poverty.
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
As others have remarked, this week is living wage week, when we celebrate the success of employers and campaigners in moving towards getting more workers paid a wage that they can afford to live on. Under this Government, the number of people paid less than a living wage has risen from 3.6 million to 4.9 million—more than one in five people. Does the Secretary of State agree that this Government’s failure to tackle low pay means that more people in work are living in poverty, which is a key reason why the Government are spending £400 million more on housing benefit for people in work than when they came into office?
Mr Duncan Smith
It is good to see the hon. Lady; I know that she did not turn up and vote for her party’s own motion last week, and did not even sign it, but now we have her here. I answer her question by simply saying this: the reality is that we have seen the minimum wage rise faster under this Government than under the previous Government, with an increase of nearly 10% since the election. My right hon. Friend the Business Secretary is doing everything he can to pursue companies that do not pay the minimum wage, and we are prosecuting them.
Rachel Reeves
First, I would like the Secretary of State to withdraw what he said about my not being here last week. He does not know the reasons why I was not here, and I expect him to withdraw those comments.
The truth is that the in-work benefits bill is rising in real terms because of this Government’s failure to build a recovery that benefits everyone, not just a few at the top. We have seen a historic squeeze on wages for the majority and the minimum wage falling behind the increase in inflation, with an increase of just 70p in five years. The reality is that taxpayers are footing the bill for the spread of low pay and insecurity under this Government. Is it not time that the Secretary of State adopted Labour’s plans to raise the minimum wage, to get more workers paid a living wage, to ban exploitative zero-hours contracts, and to build an economy that works for all working people?
Mr Duncan Smith
I remind the hon. Lady that it was under her Government that the minimum wage stalled. Under this Government, it has risen by nearly 10% to £6.50 from October 2014. As for those who are supposed to be worse off, it is calculated using real earnings. Labour Members use a very simplistic calculation, and it does not give the full picture. The reality is that this Government categorically have done more for low-paid people than the previous Government did in their whole time in office.
Mr Speaker
A point of order will come after questions. If it relates to these matters—[Interruption.] No, there is discretion. Exceptionally, I can take it after Question Time if it relates to these matters.
Mr Speaker
That is fine: I can take it after this questions session, most certainly.
Chris White (Warwick and Leamington) (Con)
T2. The number of young people claiming jobseeker’s allowance in Warwick and Leamington has fallen by 70% since April 2010. Will the Minister join me in congratulating local businesses and the young people who work so hard to make this possible, and outline what measures are being taken to ensure that this trend continues?
The Minister for Employment (Esther McVey)
I will indeed join my hon. Friend in congratulating not only the businesses that are supporting young people into work but the young people who have now got a job and are on their career journey, which we hope will be successful for them. Equally, I congratulate my hon. Friend on having a jobs fair in Leamington town hall and helping more people into work. It is Members on the Government Benches who are having jobs fair after jobs fair and really looking at ways to help people into work. [Interruption.] Rather than chuntering, it would be good if Opposition Members copied what we are doing.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
T4. A couple of weeks ago, a very disturbing press report said that teachers are having to resort to spending their reserves, or even the pupil premium money, on providing food, clothes, transport, beds, and even ovens for children living in poverty because they take the view that if children are not fed and have nowhere to sleep, they will never be able to achieve educationally. Is it not an absolute disgrace that schools are having to resort to that because the safety net is not there to meet the fundamental needs of these children?
Mr Duncan Smith
I have not seen that report, but I am happy to look at it. However, I believe that the work being done in schools under this Government to support people who come from low-income families is phenomenal. Introducing that support for those children means that more children are now staying in school. As I said earlier, they are getting better results directly as a result of that support provided for them in school.
Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
T7. Casework in my constituency has shown that, although the Department for Work and Pensions does well in identifying and prioritising claims made by terminally ill patients, when those claims are passed to Atos there is a lack of monitoring. What steps is the Department taking to ensure that those claims are dealt with in a timely manner at every point in the system?
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Mr Mark Harper)
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s question. We have introduced a range of improvements for claims from terminally ill people. We are already seeing claims at around the expected level of 10 days. The assessment providers treat these cases as a high priority: 99% are processed within two days and 100% within five days.
Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab)
T5. One of the greatest failings of this Government is the high level of in-work poverty and the significant cost of in-work benefits. Therefore—this is a similar question to that asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin), who stole my thunder a tad—is it not time for the Secretary of State to be a real advocate of the living wage, to help address this problem?
Mr Duncan Smith
Under this Government, take-home pay rose last year by more than inflation for all but the richest 10%. Average annual pay growth is 3.7% for those who have stayed in work between 2012 and 2013, and disposable income last year was higher than in any year under the previous Government.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
T8. Which Minister is responsible for worklessness? Will they get to their feet and accept the grateful thanks of the nation that the number of workless households is the lowest since records began, and will they explain to the House how it has been achieved?
Mr Duncan Smith
This is a tough one, but I will endeavour to do my best. On behalf of my team and my Government, I accept that we are doing the right thing, and more people are going to work than ever before.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
T6. Will the Secretary of State confirm the rumours that the job fairs occurring up and down the country get a lot of assistance from his Department and that that assistance goes to Conservative MPs and even Conservative candidates, but that Labour and Opposition Members are not offered the same support when they run anything similar?
Mr Duncan Smith
That allegation is without foundation. The jobcentres in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and all the others will give every bit of support to every Labour Member and any other Member, nationalist or otherwise, to get their job fairs going. I recommend that Labour Members do more to create job fairs in their own constituencies, to help people get back to work.
Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)
T9. Ministers will be aware that another first for this side of the House is the launch of the Enfield over-50s jobs forum, helping to break down the barriers of getting older people back into work. Will Ministers meet me and support the vast number of local and national companies that have got behind it and fully support it?
Esther McVey
I will indeed meet my hon. Friend. I congratulate him on all the work he is doing, not just on job fairs in general but in supporting people over 50. He has developed something unique to help people have fuller working lives. I would be delighted to take forward what he is doing. In fact, I have looked at it, the Department now has a hold of it, and we are going to spread it right across the country.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
In earlier questions on the bedroom tax, it was not mentioned that this unfair charge hits 60,000 unpaid family carers, many of whom are not able to move from adapted homes. They cannot move into work, they cannot take extra hours and they need those additional rooms, which are essential for getting enough sleep to enable them to carry on caring. Is it not about time that we accepted that they should be exempt from the bedroom tax?
Mr Duncan Smith
We have already had court cases that leave this very clearly with the Department. Our view is that those who need to be exempted are exempted, and we have left discretionary payments of some £380 million with local authorities to make those local discretionary decisions themselves. The hon. Lady’s local authority can do just that.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
T10. Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming this Government’s approach to the national minimum wage and its rise to £6.50 last month, which is the biggest cash increase since 2008 and 3% above inflation?
Mr Duncan Smith
That is exactly what has happened. The minimum wage has risen faster under this Government than under the previous Government, and we are driving for greater acceptance among businesses.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
How many people does the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), aspire to help on an annual basis through the Access to Work programme?
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
It is all very well for Germany to lecture us on the importance of the free movement of workers in Europe, but that is what it is supposed to be about—workers. Because Germany has a contributory system, one cannot arrive there and claim benefits. Will the Secretary of State take action, sort this matter out, take on the European Commission and say that people have to contribute taxes for three years before they can claim benefits here?
Mr Duncan Smith
We have already taken action. We have closed many of the loopholes and tightened things up. Come Monday next week, nobody will be able to claim out-of-work benefit for more than three months, and after that people will have to leave the country. They will not get housing benefit, they have to be able to speak English and they have to show that they are resident here. And that is only the beginning.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
A research group from Oxford university has analysed the data from the Government’s new sanctions regime. It has identified that 4.5 million people on jobseeker’s allowance have been sanctioned, including young people. One in four of those who were sanctioned left JSA. More than half of those who left did so for reasons other than employment. In the light of that, will the Secretary of State apologise for his claim that his policies are getting people into work, when they clearly are not?
Mr Duncan Smith
As far as I am concerned, jobcentres apply sanctions only as a last resort. With the new actions that we have taken to get mandatory reconsideration, the number of appeals has dropped. The truth is that when the hon. Lady’s party was in government, it accepted the need for sanctions when people did not do what they were expected to do. Only in opposition does it claim that it is opposed to sanctions. It would not implement that policy if it was in government.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
I welcome the fall in the number of JSA claimants in my constituency from more than 1,500 to below 700 since 2010. However, one area in which we face significant recruitment problems is nursing. That is a problem not just in Staffordshire but across the country. Will the Secretary of State talk to the Secretary of State for Health to see whether we can increase the number of training places at universities across the country?
Esther McVey
We will indeed speak to all the Departments to ensure that more people are recruited in different areas all the time. We speak to trade associations, national employers and other Departments. The wonderful news, which will be celebrated in all parts of the House, is that record numbers of people are in employment.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
Will the Secretary of State update us on the work that is being done to prepare for the application of the welfare cap? Will he say whether that work has been informed by devolution considerations?
Mr Duncan Smith
As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are in the middle of discussing devolution proposals that emanated in Scotland but that cover all other elements of the United Kingdom. The key point that I make to him again and again is that Northern Ireland has not implemented the welfare legislation. As a result of that, it is difficult for us to deal with Northern Ireland directly on these matters, but I am certainly willing to engage.
Mr Speaker
As I indicated earlier, I will take the point of order because it relates to these matters.
Rachel Reeves
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Secretary of State criticised me for not turning up to vote on an Opposition day motion last week. He knows nothing of why I was not able to attend last week. I kindly ask him to withdraw his criticism and apologise for the aspersion that I could not be bothered to turn up to vote in the House of Commons.
Mr Duncan Smith
I simply made the point that it was good to see the hon. Lady here because she did not turn up to vote in the last debate. I understand that she retweeted that she was in Rochester at the time. She was not put down as a signatory to the motion. Those are the points that I made.
Mr Speaker
Order. We cannot have a protracted exchange on this one matter. However, if the hon. Lady wishes to add anything further, I am content that she should do so.
Rachel Reeves
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was not in Rochester last week. I will give the Secretary of State one last opportunity to withdraw the aspersion and apologise. He knows nothing of the reason why I was not here last week, so I ask him to withdraw the aspersion and apologise.
Mr Duncan Smith
I stand by my assertion that the hon. Lady did not vote and that her name was not on the Order Paper.
Petition
John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)
The petition is from 573 residents of Acocks Green.
The petition states:
The Petition of residents of Acocks Green and customers of the Post Office in Acocks Green and others,
Declares that the Petitioners oppose the proposed move of Acocks Green’s Post Office branch from 1100 Warwick Road to 1131 Warwick Road; further that the proposed new location has fewer serving hatches, a significantly narrower pavement and, unlike the current location, no canopy above the pavement for when customers have to queue; and further that the Petitioners are concerned about the viability of the new host company and its store, and therefore the long term security of the branch.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to listen to calls for the Post Office to reject the current proposals for the movement of the Acocks Green Post Office and seek alternative, more appropriate proposals.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001394]
Child Abuse Inquiry
(9 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the independent panel inquiry into child abuse, which has been established to consider whether institutions in England and Wales have taken seriously their duty of care to protect children from sexual abuse.
The House will remember that in July, I made a statement in which I announced my intention to establish the panel inquiry. I did so because of the growing evidence of organised child sexual abuse, conducted over many years, and serious allegations about the failure of some of our most important institutions to protect children from this disgusting crime. I established a panel inquiry, because it is the best way of making sure that the inquiry is conducted by a team of experts with empathy and sensitivity to the feelings of the survivors of child abuse. The fact that it is a panel consisting of several people means that it has within it more expertise than any one person could offer. Importantly, the public can have extra confidence in the integrity of its work, because no one individual can take important decisions or come to judgments alone.
The members of the panel—Sharon Evans, Ivor Frank, Dame Moira Gibb, Barbara Hearn, Professor Jenny Pearce, Dru Sharpling, Professor Terence Stephenson and Graham Wilmer—are in place, and they are supported by Ben Emmerson QC, who is counsel to the inquiry, and Professor Alexis Jay, who is the panel’s expert adviser. The panel therefore consists of members with a broad range of experience and skills. They have backgrounds in social care, academia, law enforcement, health care, the media and voluntary sector, and some have experienced sexual abuse themselves as children. I believe that the panel can command the confidence of the public and—most importantly—of the survivors of child abuse.
The House will know, however, that on Friday, the panel’s chairman, Fiona Woolf, announced her intention to resign. She did so because, as she wrote in her letter to me,
“it has become clear that the inquir,”—
if she continued to chair it—
“would not have the widespread victim support it so desperately deserves and needs.”
Fiona Woolf’s resignation follows the resignation of the panel’s first chairman, the noble and learned Lady, Baroness Butler-Sloss. Both women, I believe, had strong credentials to chair the inquiry. Baroness Butler-Sloss was the first female Lord Justice of Appeal, president of the family division of the High Court, and she chaired the Cleveland child abuse inquiry. Fiona Woolf is a leading lawyer and a former president of the Law Society. However, for different—and in the end, understandable—reasons, both Baroness Butler-Sloss and Fiona Woolf concluded that they did not command the confidence of survivors.
Almost four months after I announced my intention to establish a panel inquiry, it is obviously very disappointing that we do not yet have a panel chairman, and for that I want to tell survivors that I am sorry. To put it bluntly, it will not be straightforward to find a chairman who has both the expertise to do this hugely important work, and has had no contact at all with an institution or an individual about whom people have concerns. I still believe, however, that it is possible to find somebody who is suitably qualified and can win the confidence of survivors, so I want to turn now to what I plan to do to recruit a new chairman.
I will hold meetings with representatives of the survivors of child abuse, starting next week. I have already had a number of discussions with Members of Parliament who have campaigned for an inquiry into child abuse—the hon. Members for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming), for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk), for Wells (Tessa Munt), for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson), and my hon. Friends the Members for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith)—and I will continue to have discussions with them. I will also discuss the appointment of the new panel chairman with the shadow Home Secretary and the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz). I have already agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that the nominated panel chairman will attend a pre-confirmation hearing before the Home Affairs Select Committee.
In the meantime, the panel will go about its important work, and I can tell the House that it will hold its first meeting on Wednesday 12 November, and meet every Wednesday thereafter until Christmas. The panel will organise other meetings that will discuss the different themes and issues covered by the inquiry, and attendance for those meetings—for both panel members and expert witnesses—will be set accordingly. In addition, the panel secretariat is planning two regional events that will be held before Christmas, and another four that will be held in the new year. Those regional events will provide an early opportunity for survivors to give their views about how the panel should go about its work.
One matter that I know has been raised by some campaigners is whether the inquiry should become a statutory inquiry. The inquiry, as constituted at present, like the inquiries into Hillsborough and the murder of Daniel Morgan, is a non-statutory inquiry. I have already said that the panel will have access to all Government papers, reviews and reports that it requests, and subject to the constraints imposed by any criminal investigations, it will be free to call witnesses from any organisation it deems appropriate. However, as I said to the House in July, I want to make it clear that, if the panel chairman deems it necessary, the Government are prepared to convert it into a full statutory inquiry, in line with the Inquiries Act 2005.
Another matter that has been raised is the terms of reference for the inquiry. Some say the terms are too broad, while others say the terms are too narrow. I do not propose to narrow the terms of reference, because to do that would risk missing out, in a fairly arbitrary manner, some important institutions. Likewise, I do not propose to extend the terms of reference to include Northern Ireland, Scotland or the Crown dependencies. I will, however, discuss with the new panel chairman how the Hart inquiry in Northern Ireland and the Oldham inquiry in Jersey can feed in to the panel to make sure that no information, and no institutions or individuals with a case to answer, can fall through the cracks.
I can also tell the House that the Government are considering ways of trying to make the experience of giving evidence less traumatic for survivors. The panel will therefore take evidence not just in public and private meetings, but remotely, with witnesses able to speak to panel members from their homes. The secretariat to the inquiry is also in discussions with officials in the Department of Health and other organisations to ensure that counselling and support is available to survivors before and after they provide evidence to the inquiry. To ensure that there is an open channel of communication between survivors, the panel and the Government, I will establish a survivor liaison group, which will meet on a regular basis as long as the inquiry continues.
Some Members of the House have suggested that the Government should publish today the Wanless report about the Home Office permanent secretary’s investigation into the so-called Dickens dossier. I can tell the House that the Wanless report will be published next week. That is because it is about a separate but related matter to the work of the panel inquiry, and I want members of the public and the media to have time to scrutinise both this statement and the Wanless review properly.
In the midst of debate about names, structures and legal powers, we must always keep in mind the survivors of child abuse themselves. Let us remember the events that prompted me to announce this historic inquiry into child abuse in the first place. There was the systematic abuse of vulnerable young girls in Derby, Rochdale, Oxford and other towns and cities across the country; examples of celebrities abusing minors and getting away with it, apparently because of their fame; and evidence that some of the most important institutions in the country, from the BBC to the NHS, failed in their duty of care towards children.
Since I made my statement in July, the evidence has only mounted. We have seen the Alexis Jay report into abuse in Rotherham, and the report by the hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey), which was commissioned by Tony Lloyd, the police and crime commissioner for Greater Manchester. Both reports exposed serious failings among the police, social services, schools and other institutions, and the obvious conclusion is that, if only we had learned from those appalling cases earlier, there would be fewer victims of abuse today. I believe the whole House will agree with me that we owe it to the survivors in all those cases to work together, to let the panel inquiry do its job as quickly as possible, and to start to learn the lessons of the many cases where undoubtedly too many things went horribly wrong.
I want to end my statement by issuing a direct message to the many survivors of child abuse and their representatives:
I know you have experienced terrible things. I know we cannot imagine what that must be like. And I know that, perhaps because of the identity of your abusers or the way you were treated when you needed help, many of you have lost trust in the authorities. I know some of you have questioned the legitimacy of this process. I know you are disappointed that the panel has no chairman. I understand that. I am listening, and to you, I say this: I am as determined as you are to get to the truth. That is why I set up this inquiry.
We have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to do something that is hugely important. Together, we can expose what has gone wrong in the past. We can prevent it going wrong in the future. We can make sure that people who thought they were beyond the reach of the law face justice. We can do everything possible to save vulnerable young children from the appalling abuse that you suffered and endured. Let us come together to make this process work and finally deliver justice for what you and too many others have suffered.
I commend this statement to the House.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement to the House today.
Two years ago this month, the Home Secretary came to the House to announce investigations into abuse in north Wales care homes. I asked her then if she would set up an overarching inquiry into child abuse. In July this year, she rightly agreed to do so and said that she wanted it to start as quickly as possible. Four months later, that inquiry has not started and has been mired by confusion. I therefore welcome the changes she has announced today and her apology to survivors of abuse for the things that have gone wrong.
This House will be united in our determination that this inquiry should get back on track. For too long, children have not been listened to when they called for help. From the BBC to the national health service, from care homes to the police, from local councils to national Governments of all political parties, no institution or organisation should be complacent about how they may have failed in the past, or might be failing even now, to make sure that children are heard and protected, that criminals are brought to justice, that problems are not covered up, and that survivors get the support they need. No one should be in any doubt about the deep damage that abuse causes to those survivors for the rest of their lives. To get the inquiry back on track, we also need to recognise the things that went wrong, because it is vital that it does not fail again.
First, much more work is needed to involve survivors. I welcome the further announcements the Home Secretary has made today. The Home Secretary was specifically asked in July by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) how survivors would be involved. In July, she said that that was up to the chairman of the inquiry. However, I think that that approach from the Home Office has been what has caused some of the current problems. As she has recognised today, Ministers need to engage directly themselves with survivors on the impartiality of the chair and the work and purpose of the inquiry before it starts. I welcome her commitment now to meet survivors, in particular to develop additional support and counselling, and to establish a survivors’ forum or liaison group to ensure that their voices are heard. She will know how important it is that this liaison group or forum works effectively. Will she specifically consult survivors in those meetings on the terms of reference and on the issues the inquiry should focus on before it starts?
Secondly, on the choice of chair, I welcome the Home Secretary’s proposals to consult more widely. Will she ignore those siren voices who say it is not possible to find someone who is not a close contact of those whose decisions may be investigated by the inquiry? She will know that other sensitive inquiries have managed to do important work without going wrong and without being derailed, including the Hillsborough and Soham inquiries, and the current Northern Ireland inquiry into child abuse.
Thirdly, on transparency, the inquiry has to address concerns about whether there have been institutional cover-ups. Does the Home Secretary therefore agree that it was very unwise of Home Office officials to become involved in redrafting Fiona Woolf’s letters? Will she tell the House whether Ministers or special advisers saw those earlier letters, or were involved in redrafting? Will she make sure that no one in the Home Office is involved in drafting any disclosure letters for the next chair?
I welcome the Home Secretary’s announcement that the Wanless review report will be published next week. Will she make a statement to the House on it? She will know that there will be considerable interest from all parties in the House. This is not just about the past. We know that abuse is happening now on an unacceptable scale. Will she therefore ensure that there is much greater transparency on child protection work today, particularly the work of the National Crime Agency, to make sure that we are not making the same mistakes again and are not storing up more problems for children in future?
Fourthly, on the progress of the inquiry, I welcome the Home Secretary’s agreement to getting the panel moving before the chair is appointed and to keeping open the need for it to be a statutory inquiry, because it is vital that it can get access to all the information and testimony it needs.
This is an extremely important inquiry. The Home Secretary has done the right thing to recognise that things have gone wrong, and we will support her in the action needed and whatever it takes to get things back on track and ensure that the inquiry works. However, let me also urge her not to forget the scale of the problem of child abuse and exploitation happening right now and the weaknesses in the child protection system today. We need a fearless and robust examination of how children have been let down, and we will support her in making sure that happens; but we also need strong action to protect children and make sure they are heard in future. She is right that this is a once-in-a-generation opportunity; it is important, not just for survivors but for our children today, to make sure that this historic opportunity is not lost.
Mrs May
I thank the right hon. Lady for the tone and approach she has taken to this matter. As I said in my statement, across the House we all feel that we have an opportunity to do something that can deal with the terrible abuses and crimes that have taken place in the past and to learn the lessons that are necessary for the future. As we have seen with the recent reports into Rotherham and the report about Greater Manchester from the hon. Member for Stockport, these issues have not gone away. We continue to see abuse taking place and we continue to see failures, sadly, in our institutions—some of them the very institutions that children should expect to be able to trust to protect them from these sorts of crimes.
The right hon. Lady asked a number of questions. On engagement with survivors, as I indicated, I will be meeting with survivors groups. The secretariat to the panel inquiry has also started some separate meetings with survivors groups already. As I indicated, there will be further opportunities for such meetings and for some open forums in different parts of the country, where it will be possible for people to come forward. I recognise the importance of that process; it is an important part of the work that the panel inquiry will be undertaking.
I believe it will be possible to find an individual who is able to chair the inquiry. Of course, it is necessary that that individual has the confidence of the survivors and the skill set required to lead a team, which is what the panel inquiry is all about. This is not about one person as chairman making decisions; it is about a team of people with different expertise and experience—some on the panel are survivors of child abuse themselves, as I have said—coming together to ensure we can get to the truth.
The right hon. Lady asked a question about the drafting process for the letters and whether I was aware of it. I was not. I have checked with my special advisers; they were aware only that a letter was being written. They had no knowledge of its different iterations and had no part in drafting or redrafting the letter.
The right hon. Lady made reference to the need for transparency in a number of areas and in relation to the National Crime Agency as well. The work that the National Crime Agency has been doing—particularly the now over 700 arrests we have seen in Operation Notarise—is an important sign of the seriousness with which it takes these issues. As she will be aware, the director general of the National Crime Agency, Keith Bristow, has made a number of comments about the significance and the size of the potential problem we face in this country. It is shocking. I am sure every Member of this House is appalled by the scale and nature of these crimes. I believe the National Crime Agency is being open about the work it is undertaking on that.
We owe it to the survivors of historic child abuse, as well as to those who might be subject to child abuse today, to ensure not only that the panel inquiry is doing its work, but that those involved in criminal investigations today are bringing perpetrators to justice.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I commend the Home Secretary for the very measured way in which she has approached this issue, and I remind the House that it is only because of her that this inquiry is now taking place in response to Back Benchers’ requests. I remind my right hon. Friend that this is an overarching inquiry, encompassing everything from Savile to Rotherham, and not about individual children or individual people who may or may not have been implicated. This is not a one-woman show; it is a panel of experts open to scrutiny. Will she reiterate to me that to put survivors at the heart of this inquiry, it will be necessary to consult them about the possibilities for a future chairman and to have a sounding-board of survivors and victims, who have not been listened to for so many decades, so that they can continue to shape the inquiry as it goes forward and gain their confidence every step of the way? That is vital and I know she supports it.
Mrs May
My hon. Friend makes very important points, and I am grateful to him for the conversations we have had. As I indicated, I have spoken to a number of Members who have been campaigning on this issue over the years. He is absolutely right that the terms of reference mean that the panel inquiry will look at a period of 44 years—from 1970 to today—and that it is open to the panel to decide whether it wishes to go beyond that period. It is indeed overarching, looking at cases of historical abuse and more recent cases to find out what were the institutional failures when it came to protecting children, and what further lessons need to be learned. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we must remember the survivors in this work; it is for them that we are trying to find the answers to what happened in the past and trying to ensure that in future people will not have to go through the terrible experiences that some did. I will set up a liaison group, whose aim will be exactly as my hon. Friend suggested—to ensure that the survivors are kept in touch and able to contribute as the inquiry goes along.
Mr David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
I commend the Secretary of State and my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) for the tone of the statement and the response. The emphasis on survivors and victims raises the issue, as the Home Secretary mentioned, of the scale of the problem. What immediate steps could be put in place not just to help the historical victims but to prepare for further revelations? It is beyond belief that this is not a nationwide problem rather than one confined to the areas that have already been identified. Given the enormity of the task confronting the panel, would it be reasonable in practical terms at least to consider having a joint chair, so that two people could address not only the historical lessons but where we need to go in changing the culture and altering the nature of how this country’s institutions have worked?
Mrs May
The right hon. Gentleman makes an interesting suggestion, which was proposed to me by another Member this morning. The point of having a panel is that not just one individual or indeed potentially two co-chairs will be undertaking this work. The idea is to have a group of people coming together with different experience and different expertise. Unlike in simple judge-led inquiries where one person leads, it is very much the case that all the panel members will contribute. The chairman’s role is about the management of the inquiry, but the management in this case will be through a team of people brought together to ensure that the work is done properly.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
The Home Secretary is to be commended for the tone in which she has delivered the statement. Is there not a problem, however? If the chairman asked for an Inquiries Act 2005 inquiry—I experienced this when I had to demand the public inquiry into the Mid Staffordshire hospital, which proved to be a significant success—does the Home Secretary realise that she would have to disband the whole thing and go back to square one? Would it not be far better to start off with an Inquiries Act 2005 inquiry, which would allow evidence on oath, compulsion of witnesses and other matters to help us get to the bottom of this as we did with the Mid Staffs inquiry?
Mrs May
I hesitate to question my hon. Friend’s comments on such matters, but my advice is that it would be possible to turn the inquiry into a statutory one—namely, an inquiry with the powers of a statutory inquiry to compel witnesses—but for that to happen it would be necessary to have a request from the chairman. At the moment, it is not possible because we do not have a chairman. Once the chairman is in place, they will be able to make that judgment and come forward if they wish to turn this into a statutory inquiry.
Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)
Will the Home Secretary follow up the—in my view—very sensible suggestion from her right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), the former Attorney-General, that the net should be cast more widely on this occasion, and that the search for a chair should extend to jurisdictions abroad that are similar to ours?
Mrs May
Our initial consideration of potential candidates did involve looking more widely than the United Kingdom, and I should be happy to repeat that process. It should be borne in mind that it is not only the United Kingdom that has seen examples of child abuse of this sort. If we do look more widely, we must be careful to ensure that individuals will again be able to have the confidence of survivors.
John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)
Leah McGrath Goodman, an American journalist, was banned from entering the country by the UK Border Agency, as a result of which she was prevented from investigating child abuse in Jersey. The allegations involved a senior UK politician. I hear what the Home Secretary says about terms of reference, but the terms of reference would exclude investigation of an issue that falls into two jurisdictions. Why, for instance, was Leah McGrath Goodman arrested at Heathrow airport recently? Will the Home Secretary look carefully at such issues, which are evidence of the way in which things have been covered up during the present decade?
Mrs May
I know that my hon. Friend has long campaigned for events that took place in Jersey to be included in any inquiry that is held. As I explained earlier, I will take steps to ensure that no work that is done by the inquiry into matters in Jersey is lost to this inquiry, if it is relevant to this inquiry, and that no one falls through the cracks. As for the case of the journalist coming through the border, I was not aware of it, but if my hon. Friend writes to me about it, I will respond.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
I welcome the tone and content of the Home Secretary’s statement, which drew a line under the flawed process that we have seen so far, and which will give hope to the victims who have been waiting for this inquiry. The Select Committee accepts her proposal that we should conduct pre-appointment hearings, which may well set a precedent for parliamentary scrutiny of future public inquiries. In the meantime, she has set a very ambitious programme for the panel, and it is right that it should begin its work by meeting every Wednesday until Christmas. Who will chair those proceedings, or will the chair rotate between the panel members?
I am glad that the Home Secretary will be publishing the Wanless-Whittam report. The Committee hopes to examine both gentlemen next week. Will the Home Secretary assure us that there are no other documents that are relevant to the inquiry and have not been published, and that, if there are any such documents, she will make them available to the Committee and to the panel?
Mrs May
It would be possible for me to appoint an existing member of the panel to chair it on an interim basis, but I think that that should be discussed with the panel members to ensure that they are comfortable with any arrangements that are made. They will have their own proposals about how they wish to conduct their work. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman and the Select Committee for their willingness to take the process on board, and to hold a pre-confirmation meeting. I asked for that to be done because I think it important for the appointment to have a public element that can further guarantee the confidence of survivors in the process.
I certainly intend all Government documents to be made available to the inquiry, but I caution the right hon. Gentleman that it will be for the panel to consider the appropriateness of publishing some of the material that is put before it. The same process applied to the members of the Hillsborough inquiry panel. There were some matters that they considered, for a range of reasons, in relation to individuals with whom they discussed those matters, and it is possible that there are matters of that sort that this panel would not wish to be aired in public.
Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
The whole House will welcome the Home Secretary’s determination to get to the truth. Can she reassure constituents who have been victims of child abuse and have contacted me that the inquiry will start its work as soon as possible, and that the appointment of the chair will not cause unnecessary delay? I think that the victims deserve answers, and they are concerned about the delay that they are seeing.
Mrs May
I can give my right hon. Friend that reassurance. We had previously been waiting for the chairman to be in place before the inquiry set forth on its work. I think it is important that it does start now. As I have said, it is possible for it to start without a chairman, because it is a panel of members. I think everybody in this House wants to see this work started, and to get it going so we can see results coming from the work of the inquiry, because that is what is due to survivors. I am sure that that sentiment will be supported across the whole House.
Ann Coffey (Stockport) (Lab)
I also welcome the Home Secretary’s statement. One of the shocking facts in historical child abuse cases is that institutional and wider public attitudes at the time enabled abusers to prey on children at will because children were not listened to. Does the Home Secretary agree that part of this inquiry’s job in learning from the past must be to bring forward recommendations about how we tackle wider cultural attitudes that mean that vulnerable children are still too often blamed for their own abuse because of how they look or what they wear?
Mrs May
I absolutely agree. What has been shocking in the Rotherham case and in the hon. Lady’s report into Greater Manchester—and we have also seen this in the historical cases—is the fact that those who were being abused often raised their voices but were not heard because they were not believed, or because, and I think this is truly shocking, people felt that those young people were in a circumstance such that they should not be listened to. As the hon. Lady said, in some sense this was seen as just the sort of thing that happened to those sorts of young people. This is an appalling attitude. We have seen it, and, sadly, we see it still today, in the work that is being done out there, as the hon. Lady has revealed. We see police officers, people in social services and others almost casting to one side certain individuals and not being willing to take up their cases. It is time that people looked not at the credibility of the individual, but at the credibility of the allegation.
Mr Andrew Lansley (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I welcome what the Home Secretary said about the panel proceeding with its work, but it does depend in part on the results of other inquiries into institutions, including those by Kate Lampard on the NHS and Dame Janet Smith on the BBC. Can the Home Secretary tell the House any more about the progress being made in the production of those reports? Clearly the panel will be able to access disclosure of documents, but I think we should assume that it will wish to go beyond that to independent investigations. Will she tell the House what kind of investigative resources would be available to the panel, should it seek them?
Mrs May
My right hon. Friend is right. I am not able to give him an absolute timeline on the other reports he referred to, but I am very happy to write to him, or for the Secretaries of State responsible for the Departments affected by those inquiries to write to him, to indicate where they are at the moment. It is important that all the evidence that is brought before this panel inquiry is available to it and it will obviously be looking at both historical cases and, as the reviews become available, looking into those reviews.
As for investigations taking place, it is not the task of the inquiry to determine criminal or civil liability for any individual. Where it is the case that allegations are made against an individual as a perpetrator, those allegations will be passed to the police. There will be an ability, through setting up various processes, to ensure allegations go to the police and are properly dealt with. So the investigation into specific allegations will be a matter for the police.
Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab)
I also welcome the Home Secretary’s statement, but does she agree that the role of the Home Office in the redrafting of Fiona Woolf’s letter in many ways displays the kind of self-preservation instincts held by the Home Office that got us into this mess in the first place? Who instructed the civil servants to assist Fiona Woolf in redrafting that letter?
Mrs May
The process, as I understand it, was that Fiona Woolf wanted to ensure that she was as transparent as possible in the information she gave in the letter she sent to me, and therefore went through a number of drafts in order to ensure that all information was available. As I have indicated, I was not aware of those iterations of drafts of the letter. I think it is important that we have ensured that there was transparency from Fiona Woolf, but, of course, other members of the panel were also asked to write to me to indicate whether there were any matters they felt should be known and people should be aware of before the panel started its work.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
I welcome the tone adopted by the Home Secretary. It is absolutely right that survivors must have confidence in the work of the inquiry. May I press her on the matter of the Kincora boys home in Northern Ireland? In her statement, she has said that she will not expand the terms of reference to cover Kincora, but I understand that she wrote to the First Minister of Northern Ireland last week to say that if there was not enough co-operation from the security services, she would seek agreement to bring that matter inside the terms of reference. Will she make it clear what is likely to happen in that regard?
Mrs May
I am not able to look ahead and see how this is going to progress, but I am clear that we need to ensure that Sir Anthony Hart has all the information he needs to be able to undertake his investigation into Kincora. I have made it clear today that we need to ensure that nothing happens to allow any information or any individual to slip between the cracks in terms of the work of the two inquiries. We will be talking to the panel inquiry about what needs to be put in place to ensure that information can be exchanged where it is relevant to both inquiries, precisely so that people will not slip between the cracks as a result of there being two inquiries.
Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for putting survivors at the centre of this inquiry. She made a very personal statement today, which I am sure will be appreciated. In a previous statement, she said that a mechanism would be found to allow panel members to have access to intelligence service files, where relevant. Will she give us a little more detail on the progress on that front?
Mrs May
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has campaigned long and hard on this issue on behalf of survivors. This is an issue that we have looked at in relation to Kincora boys home, and we are also looking at it in relation to this inquiry. It is my expectation and intention that all Government agencies will make information available to the inquiry when they are requested to do so. We are in the process of working out the protocol to ensure that that is possible between all agencies and the inquiry, so that no stone is left unturned.
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
I join others in commending the Home Secretary for her tone. I also commend the tone of those on the Opposition Front Bench. I particularly commend the Home Secretary for setting up the inquiry in the first place. By doing so, she has transcended the issues of the past, and we now hope to arrive at some important truths. What is often not mentioned is the vast expertise of the members of the inquiry panel. They bring with them a vast amount of experience, and two of the panel’s members are themselves survivors. Will she confirm her confidence in the panel as it stands? I commend her for factoring in the crucial importance of survivors being at the forefront of this exercise.
Mrs May
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. He is absolutely right: we brought the panel members together precisely because of the breadth of their experience and expertise. As he said, Graham Wilmer, who established the Lantern Project, is himself a survivor who has worked to help and support other survivors. Another member of the panel, Professor Pearce, has been working on these issues in an academic setting. There is representation from the health service, as well as from Dru Sharpling, an inspector of constabulary who brings the law enforcement angle to the panel. The members of the panel possess a significant amount of expertise and individual experience, and I believe that all of them coming together will lead to them being able to get to the truth.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
I should like to add my voice to those who have expressed appreciation of the Home Secretary’s sincerity today. No one doubts her sincerity for a moment. However, most people do not get a second chance, never mind a third one, to get something right. Will she now listen carefully to the unanimous representations from the Home Affairs Select Committee and the Northern Ireland Assembly—it is a difficult enough task to get a unanimous view from the Assembly—that Kincora should be included in the inquiry? Will she now get this matter right as well?
Mrs May
I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s concern about the Kincora inquiry, and that there have been representations; indeed, the First Minister himself made representations to me about the inclusion of Kincora. As I have indicated, I want to ensure that the Hart inquiry can do its work and have access to all the information to which it needs to have access. I also want to ensure that there is no question of any problems, individuals or organisations in any sense escaping attention as a result of there being two inquiries. For a number of reasons, not least the fact that the panel inquiry currently covers England and Wales, any work undertaken here obviously could not require changes in Northern Ireland, because this is a devolved not a reserved matter. We are all at one in agreeing that we want to make sure that these inquiries get to the truth, and that nobody and no institution can slip through the net.
Sir Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con)
May I urge my right hon. Friend to think about the suggestion made by our hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) about setting up a statutory inquiry as soon as possible? I appreciate what she has said about waiting for the appointment of the chairman, but as soon as the chairman is appointed, will she consult him or her on transferring the inquiry across to the statutory system? It is much better to do that now, rather than when we are halfway through the process.
Will my right hon. Friend consider appointing, or urging the appointment, of a serving or recently retired senior judge who has experience of family law, children’s law and historical sex abuse, so that we can have an inquiry chairman who brings with them their authority and who commands respect?
Mrs May
I thank my hon. and learned Friend for his proposal. The process for a statutory inquiry is that it is for the chairman, once they are in place, to determine whether the inquiry should become a statutory one. I have made it absolutely clear—I do not think that I can be any clearer—that if they feel that that is necessary in order to compel witnesses and have the other powers of a statutory inquiry, the Government will respond to that.
On the sort individual who should be appointed, the important aspect is to have somebody in whom everybody dealing with the inquiry can have confidence and, crucially, in whom survivors can have confidence. When she wrote to me, Fiona Woolf said that it was that issue that led to her resignation.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
In making the progress that we all want, will the Home Secretary consider the names I will send to her of two people who are sensitive and greatly experienced in this field, but who cannot in any way be classed with the metropolitan elite? We should not move away from this matter without considering the serious situation in which the first of the seven versions of the letter, which was not presented to the Home Affairs Committee, gave the impression of a close friendship between the Brittans and Fiona Woolf, while the final version suggested that they were almost strangers. Was that not an attempt by the civil service to mislead the Committee and, by doing so, to mislead the House? What is she going to do about that?
Mrs May
I do not believe that there was any attempt to mislead the House. The letter that I received was the letter that Fiona Woolf agreed. I believe that she intended in that letter to be as transparent as possible about the nature of her relationship with the noble Lord Brittan. I am sure that many Members of the House have proposals about individuals who would be appropriate for the chairmanship, and I will certainly look at the names that the hon. Gentleman wishes to send to me.
Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s desire for the committee’s work to start as soon as possible, but does she share my concern that the longer its work continues, the harder it will be for a chair to pick up that work and assert themselves? May I press her to explain a little further the extent to which she has considered asking a panel member to take the chair?
Mrs May
I understand my hon. Friend’s point. We will consider a variety of names for the chair. He and others have suggested that we should look at taking someone from within the panel itself, but as the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) has said, there may be other suggestions that Members wish to make. It is a fine judgment, and I want to ensure that the person who is appointed has our full confidence and can carry on the work of the inquiry. But, as my hon. Friend has also said, that process must not take so long that it becomes difficult for the individual to pick up the work of the inquiry. We will be operating in the knowledge of both those aspects.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
Whatever the distinguished legal experience was of the two people originally chosen, why did the Home Secretary decide to restrict her choice to a very small part of Westminster? On reflection, would it not have been better for her to have consulted on this serious issue—as she intends to do now, which I very much welcome—from the very start?
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
In joining in the welcome for the Home Secretary’s approach and tone, may I also ask her this: in the preparatory work and the taking of evidence that she has announced that the panel will be doing, can it be borne in mind that there may come a time when the chairman, having been appointed, wants to make a decision under the Inquiries Act 2005? Would it therefore be possible to ensure that the work of the panel is constructed in such a way that it avoids possible later duplication? That is the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) was making when he said that it might be necessary to recall witnesses and so on. If the panel had that in mind, it would be very useful.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
The Home Secretary will be aware that very many survivors of sex abuse were genuinely frightened and upset at the notion of Fiona Woolf chairing the panel. Mr Alex Wheatle, who experienced child abuse in the Shirley Oaks home in Croydon, wrote in The Independent to that effect, so it is for the best that she has now withdrawn. On the question of security services, if the security services refuse to supply information, or if they supply information that is so heavily redacted that it is worse than useless, what recourse will the chair of the inquiry have?
Mrs May
As I said when I made the statement in July and as I have repeated here today, I have been very clear to all the agencies involved that it is the expectation and the intention that they should make evidence available to the inquiry. Of course, as has been mentioned, the chair will have to consider whether this is a non-statutory or a statutory inquiry with the powers to compel witnesses that a statutory inquiry would have. I wish to reiterate that, across the whole of Government, we have an opportunity to address this issue, find out what happened in the past, find out the failings and ensure that we learn the lessons for the future, and that is what I expect every part of Government to do.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement and her support for this inquiry and look forward to the publication of the Wanless and Whittam report next week. Will she confirm that the reasons for the delay in the publication of that report are exclusively those that she gave in her statement and that officials in her Department are not engaged in redacting any material from that report that they do not consider suitable for placing in the public domain?
Mrs May
I can assure my hon. Friend that there are two reasons why the report has not yet been published. One is, as I said in my statement, that it is important that it is published separately and on its own, so that people can look at it and then look at this statement and what I have announced today and consider them both properly. Receiving a report of this sort is not just a formality. I have had to consider it and I have asked some questions to ensure that it has addressed the terms of reference that were given.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I particularly welcome the fact that the Home Secretary will be consulting the survivor groups before appointing a chair, but may I press her on the terms of reference a little further? Will she confirm that they can be amended and broadened as the inquiry progresses if new evidence comes to light suggesting new avenues to be covered, not just on Jersey, but in any other direction the evidence might suggest?
Mrs May
We were very clear in the terms of reference about one particular aspect: it would be open to the inquiry panel to come forward if it wished to extend the timeframe we have set. What I am keen to ensure, as I am sure are other Members, is that the terms of reference are such that the inquiry is able to do its work, and do it within a reasonable time scale, so that we can see some answers coming. We do not just owe that to survivors; if there are lessons to be learned and actions that need to be taken to protect children, currently and in the future, we need to see those lessons and be able to put those actions into place. If the chairman and the panel were to reach a point where they felt that their terms of reference were such that there was an important aspect they were not able to consider that was preventing them from getting to the truth, of course the Government would look at that.
Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
My right hon. Friend has rightly set broad terms of reference and has rightly set a wide time scale so that nothing can be excluded. But the panel is going to be required to consider the behaviour over many years of broadcasters, children’s homes, churches, clubs, Government agencies and organisations, hospitals, schools, youth organisations and others, so does the House not have to recognise that that is a herculean task and that we have to be patient? If this work is going to be done properly, it cannot be done instantly; it will take a little time. There is a trade-off between having broad terms of reference and a wide period of examination, and the time it takes for the work to be done.
Mrs May
My right hon. Friend makes a very important point. It is essential that we are able to ensure that the inquiry can get on with its work and, as I have just indicated in response to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), that we start to see results in terms of the analysis that will be undertaken of what has gone wrong in the past, what is continuing to go wrong and what further lessons we need to learn. We owe that not just to the survivors of past incidents of abuse, but to those who are vulnerable and could be potential victims in the future.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the new start to the inquiry, but may I say to the Home Secretary that anyone who watched the Baby Peter documentary last week will know what a difficult area this is in terms of simply getting to the truth of what really happened in the death of one child? What we need out of this committee is not only independence; we need it to be rigorous so that it finds out who the perpetrators are, because this is a national scandal. Will she also bear it in mind that during my time as Chair of the relevant Committee, I found some deeply damaged people who were the victims of false allegations of abuse? It destroyed them, their careers and their families, so getting the balance right in this and not having a hue and cry is essential.
Mrs May
The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. What is essential is that the results of this inquiry are those in which everybody can have confidence, to ensure that it has got to the truth. As he says, it is very difficult in this area to identify what has happened, but I would say that we have seen, in the reports on child abuse in Rotherham and in the report from the hon. Member for Stockport, some good examples recently of people—Professor Alexis Jay and the hon. Lady—who have gone out and been able to identify real failings in institutions which, sadly, are still taking place today.
Charlotte Leslie (Bristol North West) (Con)
Further to the questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) and others, I thank the Home Secretary for assurances that there is the potential for the inquiry to be statutory, but given that those potentially implicated may be embedded deep in the marrowbone of the establishment, does she agree that in order to gain the confidence of the survivors, imbue fear into perpetrators who may think they are untouchable and protect existing and future potential victims, the inquiry must have teeth right from the start, not be dependent on the chair’s discretion? Given that it is the establishment itself that is under investigation, those teeth may have to be very long and very sharp indeed.
Mrs May
I agree that we want to ensure that the panel is able to get to the truth. In this area and particularly looking at historical cases, this is not an easy task and members of the panel will have to be prepared to go wherever the evidence leads them. My hon. Friend referred to the discretion of the chair. The point of having the panel is that it is not the discretion of the chair that will determine where this inquiry goes, who is called to give evidence or what reviews are considered. That will be for the panel as a whole, which is why it is important to have the breadth of expertise that we have on the panel.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
It is right that the emphasis should be on support for survivors, but can the Home Secretary give more detail about the survivors liaison group, how it will be set up and, more importantly for me, whether there will be representation from my constituency, Heywood and Middleton?
Mrs May
This is my first opportunity to welcome the hon. Lady to the House, and she is already standing up for her constituents, as she has just indicated. The precise model of the survivors liaison group is not yet available. I will discuss with survivors groups how that liaison group should be operated in order to ensure that it has the confidence of survivors and is able to input to the extent to which we wish it to. On that basis, I am not able to confirm who will be on it and therefore which part of the country they will be from.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and her heartfelt commitment to seeing the inquiry process moved further forward. I also welcome the announcement that the inquiry panel will be able to take evidence remotely, which is vital, given the victims’ experiences. When will the panel be able to use this innovative and appropriate approach? All Members of the House, with her, are keen to move the inquiry forward as fast as possible.
Mrs May
We are keen to ensure that we get the technology in place as soon as possible so that the inquiry panel can take evidence remotely, for those who wish to do so. I am sure my hon. Friend will recognise, though, that we need to ensure the security of that process. When the matters being dealt with are as personal as they will be for survivors, it is right that we get the technology in place and ensure that it is secure.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
The Home Secretary has stressed the importance of current protection for children. In the appalling case of the deputy head teacher from Cardiff in Wales who was jailed in May this year for having secretly filmed children in toilets, it turns out that the National Crime Agency did not pass on details about this man to the South Wales police for a whole 19 months. The NCA has information about 20,000 individuals who have accessed child abuse on the internet and only 700 of those have been prosecuted. What will she do to ensure that progress is made in dealing with the issue so that children can be better protected?
Mrs May
From the timeline that the hon. Lady set out, the information that she refers to would initially have been with the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre before the National Crime Agency was established. The National Crime Agency has been clear about the number of people it has identified who have been looking at child abuse images. Under the National Crime Agency more people who are looking at child abuse images are having action taken against them. In the past year more than 1,000 people have had action taken against them, and Operation Notarise has led to the investigation of over 700 individuals. So the National Crime Agency is working. It is ensuring that every case that comes to it is looked at and considered, and that appropriate action is taken. It prioritises those that are of the greatest potential harm to children.
Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)
I thank the Home Secretary for the compassion and understanding she has displayed today towards the survivors, and for her drive in setting up the inquiry. The scope and nature of the inquiry are unprecedented and she has talked about a reasonable time scale, but it might take some time and, as she has recognised, child sex abuse is taking place today. Should not the panel therefore come forward with some recommendations early on to help stamp out this horrific child sex abuse? Will she give the panel an opportunity, perhaps via an interim report, to bring forward recommendations for her consideration?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend makes an important point. I indicated in my statement in July that I expected the panel to publish an interim report before the general election, but obviously the time scales have since shortened. One of the things that I think the inquiry panel will want to look at, and that I believe it should look at, is the question of how it can report throughout the process on the work it is doing. I think that would reinforce the confidence that survivors and others can have in the process and allow the panel, if it comes across issues on which it feels action should be taken sooner rather than later, to report on them so that action can follow.
Mr Michael Meacher (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)
Is not an important dimension of this scandal—the Home Secretary signed off on all this—the fact that her Department made two utterly inappropriate, establishment-ridden appointments and then, to cap it all, drafted and redrafted a letter seven times in order to play down and disguise the relationship between Fiona Woolf and Lord Brittan, who was Home Secretary when all the Home Office files on this alleged Westminster and Whitehall child sex abuse mysteriously disappeared? Can she not understand that because of that background and despite her words today, which I welcome, she has already lost the confidence of much of the public about her capacity to conduct a highly sensitive inquiry of this kind in a properly objective and impartial manner?
Mrs May
I am afraid that I do not accept the premise of much of what the right hon. Gentleman said. For example, he said that all the Home Office files relating to these matters have gone missing, but that is not the case; and he made a number of other references. All I will say in answer to his question is that I am not conducting this inquiry; I have established the inquiry, and I have done so because of my concern both about the historical cases and about the continuing cases of child abuse and child sexual exploitation in this country. We should be ashamed of what has happened in the past and, sadly, what we see happening on our streets today. The panel will be conducting what I believe is a once-in-a-generation inquiry that will give us the opportunity to recognise the problems and failings of the past and ensure that we address them so that in future fewer children will become victims of this appalling crime.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
I acknowledge and welcome the huge cross-party support for this most important inquiry, but does my right hon. Friend agree that the shadow Home Secretary’s complaint that the Government have not been listening to the voices of victims would have rather more resonance had the inquiry been instituted under the previous Labour Government, rather than it falling to this Government to institute an investigation into child abuse?
Mrs May
I note the point my hon. Friend makes. I shall simply make two points in reply. First, it is this Government who have set up the inquiry, but I have commended the tone with which the shadow Home Secretary responded to my statement. Secondly, I think that the overwhelming view across the House is that we want the inquiry to get on and do its work.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
In the 893 pages of the Waterhouse report on child abuse in north Wales, there are only five references to the Welsh language. All of them refer to various management issues, all are negative in tone, to varying degrees, and none relates directly to survivors’ experiences. In the spirit of listening properly to survivors, will the Home Secretary ensure that this new inquiry, whoever chairs it, gives proper and active consideration to the languages used by survivors, whether Welsh, English or community languages?
Mrs May
The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point that has not been raised with me before. I would expect the panel inquiry to ensure that it is able to take evidence from all survivors who wish to give evidence to it, and to recognise that some may wish to give it in a language that is not English.
Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement and thank her for taking the time and trouble to consult my colleagues and me, and for recognising the importance of trust in the process. Will she expand a little on her thoughts about the six regional events and their place in the process, protecting survivors against what can be a slightly intrusive press, and making sure that services such as counselling are available to support them?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend makes some important points. The intention of the secretariat and panel in having the regional events is to ensure that the panel is more accessible for people across England and Wales, and to make it easier for people to give evidence. As I have said, we will also ensure that evidence can be given remotely, in recognition of the fact that some will find it difficult to come to a hearing. I also expect that the inquiry panel will want to look at the balance between the occasions it takes evidence in public and in private. Many survivors may wish to give their evidence in private, and I would expect the inquiry panel to recognise that and deal with it. The secretariat is talking to Department of Health officials about the counselling and support that should be available to victims, not just after they have given evidence but possibly before they give it too.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
Following on from the previous question and from the welcome that has been given for the survivors liaison group, I know the Home Secretary said that further details are not yet available, but has she thought about what practical support will be available for survivors who want to travel to London to give evidence or to be part of the survivors liaison group, as well as the psychological support and counselling they may need when they have to relive and recount what was obviously a very traumatic experience?
Mrs May
Yes, we are indeed considering those aspects. It is commendable that the secretariat has already indicated that it wants to have some regional events, so that people do not have to come to London to give their views. Although it has announced a number of events over the coming months, given the length of the time the inquiry will take, I would expect that that is a matter it will return to. Everybody wants to ensure that survivors can give their input into the panel inquiry’s work, while recognising that for many it will be traumatic and difficult, and it will be necessary to build trust so that survivors feel able to come forward.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
To what extent have other countries undertaken historical child sex abuse inquiries, what are the key lessons to be learned, and has any nation ever embarked on as ambitious an inquiry as the Home Secretary has set out?
Mrs May
I am aware that some abuse inquiries have taken place in other countries, Australia being one that comes to mind. I cannot say what work the panel inquiry will look at; it might well wish to see whether lessons can be learned from work done elsewhere, as well as looking at the reviews that have taken place. I am not aware of another inquiry with such a wide breadth, in terms of the type of matter being dealt with or the historical span.
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
Next week is one of these new parliamentary half-holiday weeks. Will the Home Secretary confirm that she will make a statement on the Wanless report so that Members of the House can ask her questions about it?
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
I know that the sensitivity expressed towards survivors extends also to the victims who unfortunately have not survived up to this point. The Home Secretary knows that many of us in Northern Ireland have not been persuaded by the line call in respect of Kincora. Regardless of whether people are giving evidence to the Hart inquiry or to the panel inquiry, who will make the call in relation to the Official Secrets Act? She has referred to agencies that will co-operate. Will those agencies control the evidence that might be given by former officers or agents, or will those people be able to give evidence to these inquiries on an unfettered, unfiltered basis?
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
My constituents who were subject to abuse at Beechwood and other children’s homes in Nottinghamshire have already waited long enough for their voices to be heard. I welcome the Home Secretary’s assurance that she will listen to survivors, but will she also ensure that Nottinghamshire police have sufficient resources to conduct their ongoing criminal investigations in a timely manner so that the survivors secure justice?
Mrs May
I recognise that a number of forces around the country are conducting investigations both into current issues of child abuse and historical cases. I have been discussing matters relating to resources with the national policing lead on such matters, who is Chief Constable Simon Bailey from Norfolk.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
I am sure that most people now want to see the inquiry proceed without any further setbacks. However, given the unfortunate circumstances surrounding the choice of persons to chair it, is the Home Secretary absolutely certain that all other members of the panel have been thoroughly checked and that there is nothing in their backgrounds or contacts that could lead people subsequently to question whether they are the right people to serve on it?
Mrs May
Of course, due diligence was done on the members of the panel. In addition, as I said earlier, each member of the panel has written to me with an indication as to whether they believe that there are contacts or other matters that would affect the inquiry that they are taking part in, and those letters are available.
Mr Michael McCann (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Lab)
Nearly 900 men have made complaints to County Durham police force about the abuse they suffered as youngsters at Medomsley detention centre in the 1970s and 1980s. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the inquiry’s terms of reference will be wide enough to include an examination of Government-endorsed abuse such as the “short, sharp shock” treatment introduced by a previous Administration?
Mrs May
The inquiry panel will be looking at all the views and all the issues that have been raised in relation to historical child abuse. As I said, it is absolutely my intention to ensure that all Government Departments and agencies make sure that the inquiry panel has available any evidence that it wishes and needs to see in order to be able to undertake its duties properly and to look at the historical cases of child abuse but also the more recent cases of child abuse.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
Will the Home Secretary tell the House why the Home Office felt it necessary to remove a specific reference in the early drafts of Fiona Woolf’s letter to allegations of child sex abuse in Edinburgh?
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
The Home Secretary has indicated that Fiona Woolf made her letter of disclosure available to the Department for review in order to ensure that she fulfilled her obligation for transparency. The problem the Department has is that, in the seven successive reiterations of that letter, it became less rather than more transparent. Will the Home Secretary ask the permanent secretary to interview the senior official in the Department who effected and initiated those changes in consultation with Fiona Woolf, and ensure that that civil servant can explain why those changes were suggested at each stage to Fiona Woolf and whether they did in fact increase or reduce transparency?
Mrs May
The hon. Gentleman has made a number of assumptions about the process. I reiterate what I said earlier: Fiona Woolf wrote to me with the intention of being as transparent as possible about any issues and connections she felt it appropriate to refer to me. Obviously, it has been shown that the secretariat looked at a number of drafts. The letter that came to me was the letter that Fiona Woolf agreed.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
On preventing future child abuse, the two cases of grooming I have dealt with during my time as an MP have both involved 15-year-old girls in relationships with men where the police and other agencies simply described them as having bad taste in boyfriends. It was almost as though there was a countdown to their 16th birthdays, when they thought they could wash their hands of them. Does the Home Secretary agree that, even if people present as being in a relationship, that is still clearly a case of child abuse and something we ought to be seeking to prevent?
Mrs May
That is another example of the issue raised earlier by the hon. Member for Stockport—namely, an attitude to young people that has dismissed some instances. It could very well be the case that a girl of 15 is in an abusive relationship. If so, it needs to be considered as an abusive relationship and the allegations need to be considered properly, rather than simply dismissed because of the age of the individual. Everybody needs to recognise that there is an age of consent, below which people should look very seriously at the allegations made.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
One of the conclusions of the report by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) is that we need to address the cultural issues that underpin much of the abuse, including the sexualisation of children as young as primary school age. On that basis, will the Government reconsider their opposition to compulsory personal, social, health and economic education, including age-appropriate relationship and sex education?
Mrs May
I am having a number of discussions with the Department for Education and I understand that the Education Secretary is looking at the advice available in relation to PSHE. A number of issues that have been discussed in this House over time come under that particular heading. We all want to ensure that young people and children are being given appropriate advice and guidance.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
I commend the Home Secretary, particularly for her earlier remarks about assessing the credibility of the accusations rather than the credibility of either the accuser or the accused. That is a very important starting point. She also seemed to indicate that there would be a degree of interim reporting, which I welcome, because this is clearly going to be a massive undertaking. Does she envisage that the whole inquiry could turn into almost a standing commission? That might not be a bad thing, because it might be necessary in the longer term.
Finally, in my own borough there have been complaints about Islington children’s homes in the past and the council has investigated them. The council is in a very different place now, but nevertheless it welcomes the inquiry and will co-operate with it. As the Home Secretary is fully aware, many of the children who were abused in children’s homes also went to homes in other parts of the country—in some cases to the Channel Islands. It is therefore very important that the inquiry is able to investigate across local authority administrative areas and, indeed, across jurisdictions to ascertain what happened, tragically, to many very vulnerable young children who were taken to homes in the Channel Islands.
Mrs May
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments, especially his remarks on the willingness of Islington council to participate in the work of the inquiry. His idea of a standing commission has not been raised before. Although it will take time for the panel of inquiry to complete its work, I do not want there to be an expectation that it will just carry on because the impact of its report might be lost and, crucially, that would affect our ability to act on its findings. I expect the panel to make interim reports, as I said earlier, so that any necessary actions can be undertaken as soon as possible, and so that survivors and others can see the ongoing work and continue to have confidence in that work.
Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)
The Home Secretary has rightly asked the Home Affairs Committee to conduct pre-appointment scrutiny. She also mentioned the involvement of survivors. Will she reflect on how the involvement of survivors in the selection process could be brought closer to the public part of the confirmation through the Select Committee to increase their confidence and our confidence that there will not be a third stumble along the way?
Mrs May
I will certainly reflect on the process that we will put in place for survivors to have an input. Ultimately, it will be my decision, but I am putting the parts of the process in place to ensure that people can have confidence that we have explored all the avenues that it is necessary to explore before proceeding.
Recall of MPs Bill (Programme) (No. 2)
Ordered,
That the Order of 21 October 2014 (Recall of MPs Bill (Programme)) be varied as follows:
(1) In paragraph (2) of the Order (number of days for proceedings in Committee), for “three days” substitute “two days”.
(2) In the Table in paragraph (4) of the Order (order of proceedings etc. in Committee), for the entries for the Second and Third days substitute:
Second day | |
Clause 6, Schedule 1, Clauses 7 to 10, Schedule 2, Clauses 11 to 16, Schedules 3 to 5, Clauses 17 to 20, Schedule 6, Clauses 21 to 25, remaining new Clauses, remaining new Schedules, remaining proceedings on the Bill | The moment of interruption on the second day |
(3) In paragraph (5) of the Order (proceedings on Consideration), for “one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced” substitute “five hours after the commencement of the proceedings”.
(4) In paragraph (6) of the Order (proceedings on Third Reading), for “at the moment of interruption on that day” substitute “six hours after the commencement of proceedings on Consideration”.—(Mr Gyimah.)
Recall of MPs Bill
(9 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
That schedule 1 be the First schedule to the Bill.
Amendment 38, in clause 7, page 5, line 27, leave out “maximum” and insert “minimum”
This amendment changes the number of designated places for the signing of a recall petition from a maximum of four to a minimum of four.
Clauses 7 to 10 stand part.
That schedule 2 be the Second schedule to the Bill.
Clauses 11 to 13 stand part.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Sam Gyimah)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mrs Laing. For some reason, I suspect that today’s debate in Committee will be less excitable than Second Reading or the first day of Committee.
The clauses and schedules in this group set out the process by which constituents can sign a recall petition, who is eligible to sign the petition and where the responsibility for running the process rests. I will summarise the effect of the provisions and address amendment 38, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), when I describe clause 7.
Clause 6 provides that every constituency in the United Kingdom will have a petition officer and that the role will be fulfilled by the person who usually runs UK parliamentary elections in the constituency.
Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister so early on. He will know that in Northern Ireland, the chief electoral officer has huge responsibilities because we have Assembly elections and local council elections. Will any additional resources be given to the chief electoral officer and his staff so that he can be the petition officer under the Bill?
Mr Gyimah
Yes, it will be up to the local authority to provide additional staff to help the electoral officer fulfil their duties with regard to petitions. Petitions will be funded centrally through the Consolidated Fund, so returning officers will get the resources that they need to perform their role. We focus on the returning officer in that context because they have experience of running elections, and we believe that they have the necessary skills and experience to run the petition process.
Clause 6 gives effect to schedule 1, which sets out the general duty of the petition officer in the conduct of the recall petition. It empowers them to appoint deputies, delegate their responsibilities, and claim expenses for running the petition.
Clause 7 sets out the steps that a petition officer for a constituency must take on receiving the Speaker’s notice issued under clause 5. The petition officer must, as soon as reasonably practicable, designate
“a place, or places, at which a recall petition is to be made available for signing”
by constituents. They must designate
“the 10th working day after the day on which the officer received the Speaker’s notice”
as the first day on which the petition is open to be signed, unless that day is not practicable. In that case, it may be sensible to defer proceedings to the next day. The clause also requires the petition officer to make the petition available for signing in a maximum of four places, ensuring that venues selected have “reasonable facilities” for signing the petition, and are accessible to people with disabilities
“so far as is reasonable and practicable”.
Amendment 38 would make it a requirement for the petition officer to select a “minimum” of four places where the petition can be signed, and no maximum would be set on the number of places that could be selected. I can see the good intention behind the amendment, which is to ensure that the process is as accessible as possible. However, I reassure hon. Members that the Government have tried to address that concern, by accepting a recommendation from the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee made during pre-legislative scrutiny that the number of signing places be increased from one to a maximum of four. Introducing a minimum requirement of four signing places and not setting a maximum number could result in an inconsistent approach across the country and increase costs. For example, my hon. Friend has 21 wards in his constituency and if he—perish the thought!—were subject to recall, the returning officer could decide on 21 signing places in his constituency. In constituencies such as Norwich North or Norwich South, for example, which are densely populated, there would be just one place to sign the petition because of that dense population.
Mr David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD)
Will the Minister accept that there is a certain inconsistency about the geographical size of constituencies?
Mr Gyimah
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point that takes me further into my argument. We are taking additional measures to ensure that the petition is as accessible as possible. For example, the petition period is eight weeks, so constituents have eight weeks to decide whether they want to sign it, and to make time to sign it at a time convenient to them. It is worth remembering that this process is very different to polling day. That takes place on one day, and therefore returning officers try to make as many places as possible accessible for constituents. I therefore urge the hon. Member for North East Somerset to withdraw his amendment.
Clause 8 places a duty on the petition officer, in accordance with regulations under clause 18, to send a notice of petition to persons registered in the register of parliamentary electors for the constituency. That notice will serve a similar function to the poll card at elections, and set out how and in what ways electors can sign the petition if they wish. Importantly, clause 8 also specifies that the notice of petition must include information on the particular
“recall condition which has been met in relation to the MP.”
Petition officers will find the details of that condition specified in the Speaker’s notice issued under clause 5. Including that information on the notice of petition should help the recipient to understand why the recall petition has been opened, and to decide whether or not they wish to sign it.
Clause 9 requires the petition officer to make the recall petition available for signing
“at the designated place or places, and by post”
for a period of eight weeks from the designated day, in accordance with regulations in clause 18.
As I have said, the eight-week period has been chosen because it ensures that electors who wish to participate have sufficient time to consider information on the reasons for the recall petition, including the views of campaigners, and any public response given by the MP.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
Is there any particular reason for eight weeks?
Mr Gyimah
The view is that eight weeks—roughly 40 working days—gives sufficient time, or even more than ample time, for constituents to engage properly with the process.
Clause 8 details who is entitled to sign the recall petition. The general rule is that a person who is eligible can sign the petition on any day during the eight-week signing period. They must be on the register of parliamentary electors and entitled to vote in a parliamentary election in the constituency as a result of an application made on or before the day of the Speaker’s notice.
Lady Hermon
I am very grateful to the Minister for allowing me to intervene again. I gently remind him that, after the 2001 general election, vote stealing in Northern Ireland was identified as a serious problem, particularly in Sinn Fein constituencies—that is a statement of fact and also a criticism. To deal with that serious problem, all those registered to vote must produce a photographic identity document. The Government have been good in producing free electoral ID cards, but will a person signing a recall petition be required to produce photographic ID?
Mr Gyimah
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention—she is welcome to intervene as much as possible. The petition signing process has been designed with general election voting in mind. In Northern Ireland, where voter ID must be produced, the petition process will require voter ID.
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
Will the Minister clarify his point about the system working in the same way as a general election? What is his expectation of the opening hours for the petition? Try as I might, I cannot find any rules about how long it must be open. Will he set out the position?
Thomas Docherty
I am grateful to the Minister, but if I understand him correctly, the Government are proposing to use a town hall or council office. As you will know from your constituency, Mrs Laing, that council office is not necessarily open from 7 am to 10 pm. Perhaps the Minister wants to rethink that answer.
Mr Gyimah
The hon. Gentleman mentions a town hall or local council office, but it is not necessarily for the Government to determine that. The petition officer will determine where the petition takes place and make the appropriate arrangements for the handling of that petition. That is not being prescribed in the Bill, as he says. I will try to get him further information on that point in due course.
Other constituents will be able to take part in the petition process: anyone aged 18 years or over can do so, and so can anyone whose 18th birthday is before the end of the signing period. Clause 10 sets out that the last day on which a person can make an application to register as an elector, which will enable them to participate in the recall petition, is the day when the Speaker’s notice is issued. The electoral registration officer must determine such applications on or before the cut-off day, which is defined as the third working day before the beginning of the signing period. Such a cut-off mirrors practice at elections and ensures there is a point in time when the register is set and can be distributed to signing places to ensure that only those eligible to sign the petition can do so.
Clause 10 gives effect to schedule 2, which inserts new section 13BC into the Representation of the People Act 1983, and which is on the alteration of registers of parliamentary electors and necessary amendments. The amendments are necessary to ensure the recall petition process can rely effectively on the register of parliamentary electors.
I have received inspiration with regard to the question from the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty). Opening hours will be set out in regulations. Obviously, locations would not be open all hours, but there may be a possibility of their opening later. That will be a matter for the petition officer to determine, and will be set out in regulations.
Clause 11, as I mentioned, establishes that electors will be able to sign the petition in person by post or by proxy.
Lady Hermon
It is very kind indeed of the Minister to invite an intervention before I am even on my feet. As I have indicated to the Committee, vote stealing in Northern Ireland was a very serious crime and had to be dealt with very seriously. For those who turn up in person to vote at a polling station there is a requirement for photographic identification. There are also very strict regulations on proxy voting and voting by post. Will equivalently strict measures be put in place to ensure that recall petitions do not result in an increase in vote stealing? It is such a serious crime.
Mr Gyimah
Once again, the hon. Lady makes a very powerful point. As I said, the practice has been designed to mirror the practice in general elections, so the same strict standards will apply to the petition process as one would ordinarily expect in the course of a general election.
Clause 11 allows electors to sign the petition in person by post or by proxy. The entitlement to sign the petition by a particular method will be subject to regulations to be made under clause 18, which will set out the process in more detail. It is worth noting that once a recall petition has been signed the signature cannot be withdrawn. That is the usual way that public petitions are administered. It could undermine the process and cause confusion if electors were allowed to withdraw their signatures from a recall petition at a later date.
Clause 12 sets out that it is an offence for two or more signatures to be added to the petition by, or on behalf of, any individual elector, just as in elections it is an offence for two or more votes to be cast by, or on behalf of, an individual elector. The Government believe it is important that the recall petition process is secure. Systematic fraud would be hard to orchestrate at an election. The provisions are necessary to deter any attempts at double signing to inflate the number of signatures in a petition. The provisions should also give constituents confidence in the result of the petition.
Clause 13 sets out three conditions in which the recall petition process will be terminated before the end of the eight-week signing period. The conditions that would trigger an early termination are: the date of the next UK parliamentary general election being brought forward to a date that falls within the six-month period of the date of the Speaker’s notice; if an MP’s seat is vacated, for example because the MP is disqualified; and where the first recall condition was met and the MP’s conviction or sentence, or the order in question, is overturned on appeal.
Thomas Docherty
I apologise—I perhaps should have raised this point with the Minister in advance—but I have being going backwards and forwards between clauses 3 and 13. As I understand it, clause 3 states that the recall petition shall not take place—I apologise if I am incorrect—until the appeals have expired. Is it therefore not a contradiction for clause 13(4) to say that the recall shall fall if the conviction is subsequently overturned on appeal?
Mr Gyimah
The hon. Gentleman makes a very smart point. He is clearly reading the Bill in detail, as he should. The distinction relates to “in time” and “out of time” appeals. The explanatory memorandum refers to some appeals that could be out of time and could therefore be overturned when the recall petition has already started.
As I was saying, electors will be less likely to sign the petition knowing that they will shortly be able to have their say at the ballot box, thereby impacting on the overall objective of the recall petition. That is why the petition will not be taken forward under those circumstances. The second and third conditions—that the seat is already vacant and that the conviction has been overturned on appeal—are clearly appropriate reasons for terminating the petition early.
In summary, I have set out why the clauses and schedules in this group are necessary, as they establish who can sign a petition and how. The provisions ensure that petitions will be administered by those with experience of running elections and in a manner consistent with the rigours of an electoral process.
Lady Hermon
For the sake of clarity, can the Minister sum up what the position is now in Northern Ireland for someone who wishes to go and vote in person? They will be required, as in a general election, to produce photographic ID and if they do not turn up in person, the same rules for proxy and postal voting will definitely pertain, to ensure that we do not have vote stealing again in Northern Ireland. [Interruption.] I do not think that is what he said either. Indeed, that was what I was hoping the Minister had said to me, but I have a horrible feeling that it was not what he confirmed.
Mr Gyimah
The advice I have received is that the same protections on voter ID will apply in Northern Ireland. In relation to postal signatures, this will be available on demand in Northern Ireland, unlike for elections, because we recognise that signing a petition in person may raise different issues from casting a secret vote. The position is therefore slightly different from what I said earlier.
Lady Hermon
I am very grateful indeed to the Minister for repeating the explanation that floated across the Chamber to him to correct what was said earlier. I must invite him to go back and look at the evidence taken after the general election about the serious problem with postal voting in Fermanagh and South Tyrone, Belfast West and other Sinn Fein constituencies. They had something like three times as many postal votes as any other constituency throughout the UK, so provisions were introduced swiftly to deal with vote stealing, particularly where it involved postal votes rather than impersonation.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
I want to make a few brief comments and ask the Minister some questions about clause 6 and schedule 1, and clauses 7 and 9. These provisions relate, as he said, to the petition officers who will be appointed.
My questions are about the costs incurred in this process. The Bill is non-specific and refers to the condition that
“the total of the officer’s charges does not exceed the amount…specified in, or determined in accordance with, regulations made by the Minister”.
However, one of the interesting things about the Bill is that it is accompanied by a detailed impact assessment, which goes into such meticulous detail on the likely costs incurred during the process that it lists the estimated total costs of one recall petition, which include the cost for the petition officer, at £500, the cost of the petition signing place, at £734, and the cost of the petition notice card, at £20,891. I was wondering why, if that much work has been done, the Government are waiting for secondary legislation. Why not build it directly into the Bill, so we could see exactly the cost that is likely to be incurred? If we are committed to secondary legislation, when are we going to see the provisions for it coming forward? Will it be done quickly? I presume it will be, because if the work has been done, I see no reason at all why it cannot be brought forward immediately. Perhaps it is, in reality, already available and could be presented to us.
My second point relates to clause 7, which refers to a “maximum of 4 places” where the petition can be signed. To his credit, the Minister has said that he has taken into account the opinions of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, but why has he not taken into account the representations made, not just by the Member who tabled the amendment, but by the Electoral Commission? The Electoral Commission has provided a circular, which has gone to all Members. It says that it sees no reason why there should be “a maximum of four” places in which to go and vote, suggesting there should be “a minimum of four” places. It makes the very good point that our constituencies vary enormously in their size and geography, so four places might be appropriate for a compact constituency, but nowhere near enough for more rural constituencies.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I imagine that, for the Western Isles or even parts of rural County Durham, four places would be quite inappropriate because people would have to travel long distances. In common with my hon. Friend, I cannot understand why we are having a maximum of four rather than a minimum of four places.
Wayne David
That is precisely the point; my hon. Friend puts it very well. Surely, given the extreme variation in the geographic nature of UK constituencies, it makes good sense to have a degree of flexibility. It would be very unfair, for example, if certain voters in large, geographically dispersed constituencies with a difficult geography felt that they were being excluded from a democratic process that we know has excited a great deal of public interest. I would be grateful if the Minister responded not just to what I am saying, but to what the Electoral Commission has said after taking the trouble to circulate information to all Members.
My third point relates to clause 9. The Electoral Commission has queried the wisdom of the Government’s stating on the face of the Bill the wording of the petition, suggesting that it would be far better to have a process of testing among electors to see what words would be most appropriate, most effective and best understood. I think that is a very fair point. We have seen in previous legislation, such as the recent Bill on the EU referendum, that the form of words used makes a big difference to the impression created for the electorate; and we want them to make a fair and objective choice about the pros and cons of a given situation as conveyed in a question.
I would personally question whether the Government have chosen the best form of words. Let me cite clause 9(4), which states:
“By signing in the box below, you are signing a petition for [name of the MP], the MP for [name of constituency], to lose [his/her] seat in the House of Commons”.
I question whether “to lose” is the best phrase to employ. Would not “to no longer continue” be better? It might make a difference to the way in which many people cast their vote. The only sure method of testing that would be an exercise involving a representative cross-section of people to see how they responded to different forms of words. That is important, because words are not simply objective statements per se. They can have certain implications, and lead to certain inferences. The word “lose” might strike some people as excessively strong, and might dissuade them from casting a positive vote.
Mr Jones
My hon. Friend is making a good point. The MP in question might not lose his or her seat following the signing of the petition. If a by-election followed, it would be up to the electorate to decide. If a very small number of people wanted to destabilise an MP, this would be the way to do it.
Wayne David
That, too, is a good point, which deserves careful consideration. I think we all know from our experience of various referendums in the past that the words that are used on a ballot paper can be very important indeed. I think that the Government should recognise that what they need to do is consult the people, and come back later with a properly thought through and broadly acceptable measure.
Mr Jones
We should bear in mind what has happened in the United States, where so much pressure is put on people who feel that they have done nothing wrong, or have been challenged because of their policy positions, that they resign at that point, and do not stand in the subsequent recall election. The phraseology in the Bill could be used in the same way. The pressure put on individuals could be so great that they would give up before the by-election even if they had done nothing wrong.
Wayne David
That concern was expressed during our last sitting, and it is a concern felt by many people in the House and beyond. We need a democratic process in which people can have confidence, and which fulfils a proper function. We do not want the Bill to be used, indeed abused, as a vehicle enabling external interests, perhaps well financed, to put undue pressure on democratically elected representatives.
I am pleased to say that the extremely well-prepared impact assessment refers to the costs that would be incurred for the Welsh translation of recall petition documents. It is estimated that the cost of a petition in one of the Welsh constituencies would be £100. I welcome that information, because—casting my mind back not too far—I remember that there was quite a hoo-hah in the House when the Government forgot that bilingual ballot papers would be needed for the elections of police and crime commissioners. Some of us said to the Government at the time that we thought it very likely that secondary legislation would be necessary. We were told “We have consulted our expert lawyers, and they have said that there is no need for it.” However, the expert lawyers were wrong, as is often the case, and there was a need for legislation at the last moment—literally just before the PCC elections. However, because the Government had made a mistake, they had to have extra forms produced in English in Wales just in case there was not enough time to get the new secondary legislation on to the statute book. The result was that at the end of the day the Government simply wasted £130,000 of taxpayers’ money because they would not take advice from us.
Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to be serving under your chairmanship in the Chamber, Sir Roger, rather than being hidden away in a dark corner of the House.
I have a very modest amendment to bring forth: amendment 38, which I hope the Committee will consider. All I am doing is changing one word. I am changing the word “maximum” to “minimum”, so I am in fact changing only two letters; I am changing “ax” to “in”, so we are axing “ax” and bringing in “in.” The reason for doing so is because I am a supporter of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith): I think that if we are going to have recall we should do it properly, and if we are going to do it properly we should do it generously, and if we are going to do it generously, it should be easy for people to exercise their right under it.
Mr Kevan Jones
I know the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) is unable to be here today through illness, but in the argument he was putting forward last week in Committee he championed the fact that people would have to turn up to one place to sign the petition, arguing that that would somehow make it very difficult to achieve the threshold. Is the hon. Member for Richmond Park now saying that that was not the case?
Jacob Rees-Mogg
My amendment is supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park, and he kindly added his name to the list; indeed it appears immediately beneath mine on this amendment, so yes, indeed, it does have his support, which I am very grateful for. It is a recognition of the difference between constituencies and the fact that this point is already provided for in other areas of legislation. I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend the Minister said and he made some very important points in saying that there may be discrepancies between one constituency and another and raising the issues of cost.
Mr Jones
I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman has not answered my question. The point the hon. Member for Richmond Park was arguing last week was that because people would have to turn up in person to one point—the town hall, for example—his proposed provisions would not often be used. Is the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) now saying that the hon. Member for Richmond Park is arguing we should have multiple centres to make it easier for people to take part in a recall?
Jacob Rees-Mogg
The hon. Gentleman is tempting me to make arguments for somebody who is not here, which is a wonderfully hypothetical approach to be taking. I must make my own arguments for what I believe about this Bill, and my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park will make his arguments when he is here, as he did so eloquently last week in favour of his amendments to the Bill. I must focus on my amendment 38, and its purpose, however. I hope that clarifies the matter, Sir Roger.
I was saying that I completely understood what the Minister was saying on the issues of differentiation between constituencies and cost, but the first point is accepted in all our elections anyway, and is accepted in legislation that this very Government passed. The legislation providing uniform constituencies made exceptions for the very largest geographical areas, because it recognised that it is unreasonable not to make different arrangements for those beyond a certain size. Therefore, when there are thousands and thousands of acres—sometimes into the thousands of square miles—we make different arrangements from those that we have for the much smaller, more compact constituencies.
I do not fully accept the Minister’s point about cost. Clause 18 provides Ministers with considerable powers to make regulations affecting the opening hours of the places where the petition may be signed. The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) has raised this matter in the past. In my view, it would therefore be possible for people to sign the petitions in local post offices during their opening hours. This would involve minimal cost, while giving constituents in the larger geographical areas easier access to the process.
This is important because the difference in size between the constituencies is extreme. I have here a little list, at the top of which is Ross, Skye and Lochaber, whose area is 4,709 square miles. That is a little over 3 million acres, which is three times the size of the county of Somerset. To have only four places in such a vast area would place an unreasonable constraint on people’s ability to exercise the democratic right that we are proud to be giving them. We should be positive about the Bill; it is a good thing to allow constituents to have greater control over their Members of Parliament. Access to the process would be very easy in the smallest constituency, Islington North, which has an area of only 2.8 square miles. Such a constituency would hardly need more than one place, because it would not be too difficult for people to get around, unlike in Ross, Skye and Lochaber.
In my own area, God’s own county of Somerset, my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath)—whom I am happy to see in his place—represents an area of 367 square miles. The constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger) is even bigger, with an area of 417 square miles.
Lady Hermon
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene on his geography lesson, which is very interesting. I know that he will have read the Bill from cover to cover, and he will know that the Minister has confirmed that there will be an option to vote by post or by proxy instead of turning up and signing a petition in person. So why is he campaigning for a minimum of four locations in which people can sign? Should he not be encouraging people to make use of the postal service and to spend money on second-class postage?
Jacob Rees-Mogg
I rather agreed with the hon. Lady when she expressed her concern about the difficulties of voting by post. It has become much too easy and is susceptible to high levels of fraud, and I do not believe that that is a problem only in Northern Ireland. It is increasingly a problem in England, and probably in Wales and Scotland as well. We have heard about the problems in Birmingham; my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) has made regular references to them. I would therefore prefer people to be able to go somewhere physically and add their name to a list.
Mr Kevan Jones
It is a Daily Mail myth that postal vote fraud is rampant. When the Electoral Commission ran its all-postal-vote pilots in, I think, 2006, it found that there was not widespread fraud, although there were problems in certain communities.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
There are undoubtedly greater difficulties with postal voting. My major concern is that it undermines the secrecy of the ballot. When ballot papers go into people’s homes, they are likely to be seen as a family affair, in contrast to the secrecy involved in going into a corner of a polling station to vote. As I was saying in response to the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), I believe that it is better for people to turn up to vote in person and that that should be facilitated. That would reduce the need for excessive postal voting.
I shall not go through all the constituencies on my list, but I should point out that my own has an area of 122 square miles, or about 85,000 acres. That is about the maximum area that could conveniently have only four registration places. Such an arrangement would simply be unreasonable in a bigger constituency, such as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome.
There is a broader point to make: the rural areas often get forgotten. There is a polling station in my constituency that is in somebody’s porch. About 85 people go to vote there. There are even smaller polling stations across the country; some have only a couple of dozen electors who are eligible to vote in them. We used to make it easy for people to turn up and vote, and if we are introducing new democratic rights, we ought to make it similarly easy for people to turn up and exercise them.
We should think about the rural areas: they have fewer people, but their democratic rights are just as important as those of people who live in dense urban areas, as the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) so rightly said. There are differences between constituencies, and we recognise them in other ways. In passing, it is worth mentioning the great county of Yorkshire, which has a particularly large number of seats that cover large areas and have small populations. Yorkshire has more acres than there are words in the Bible, if the Apocrypha is excluded, and it is divided into very large geographical constituencies. Again, each of them ought to have more than four places for people to go to. I hope that the Government will listen on this matter, and understand the need for rural populations to exercise their rights as freely, properly and easily as the urban mass population.
Mr Kevan Jones
I want to comment on amendment 38, which the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) has just spoken to. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David), I am generally sympathetic to the idea that having a maximum of four places would be disadvantageous and totally impractical in some large rural constituencies. In the Western Isles, for example, there would have to be a decision about which islands should have such a place. There is a genuine need for the Government to consider that problem.
Thomas Docherty
Is my hon. Friend aware that unlike for an election, where the returning officer is required to consult the political parties regularly about the location of such places, I understand that there is no specific requirement for the petition officer to consult political parties about the location of these offices?
Mr Jones
I was about to come on to that. The interesting thing is that even though the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) argued last week that recall would be used on very few occasions, he supports amendment 38 because it would be so difficult for everyone to go to one place.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly has said, if there are more than the maximum of four, there needs to be some regulation or control over the number of places, otherwise a different situation may arise. I remember one council in the north-east where a certain person was in control of the location of polling stations, and it seemed as though there was one on every street corner in her ward. The hon. Member for North East Somerset told us that the amendment is designed to increase democratic turnout, but as in such a case, putting one on every street corner could be used to encourage people to oppose an MP.
I sympathise with the view that a maximum of four places is too prescriptive, but there must be some regulation or control for such places, otherwise a petition officer might be put under undue political pressure locally to have dozens and dozens of sites to make it as easy as possible for people to secure a recall. The Government need to change the provision, but they also need to add some guidance or regulations alongside it, because otherwise there will be abuses of the system. Having large numbers of these places might be designed to encourage people to turn out deliberately to undermine and remove the Member of Parliament not for any democratic reason, but for political reasons.
Mr Heath
I want to make a few observations on the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), and on some of the clauses in this group.
My first observation relates to the number of places at which people can sign the petition. It seems to me completely impossible to equate the notion of fair access across the country with setting a maximum of four places for constituents such as mine, as my hon. Friend correctly said. It takes me about an hour and a quarter to drive from one end of my constituency to the other. Were there very few places, that would effectively disfranchise those who wish to attend a place of signing in person from being able to do so. Obviously, such an issue does not apply in urban or suburban constituencies, but it certainly does in the wide open spaces of rural constituencies, some of which are represented in the Chamber this evening.
Wayne David
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the eloquent points he is making. Given that the ballot paper is very important, being the direct interface between the voter and the end result, whatever that may be, would it not be far better, even at this late stage, if the Government simply accepted this basic point, which the Electoral Commission is also making, withdrew this provision and returned to this, as he says, through regulation?
Mr Heath
I do think that, because I have had the great pleasure, during nearly 18 years in this House, of serving on innumerable statutory instrument Committees and considering the wording of ballot papers and the like through statutory regulation. That seems to me the much more appropriate way to get it right. Such an approach might also deal with the specific issue about the Welsh language. I seem to recall, although I might be wrong, that we have on occasion examined the Welsh language version of what appears on a ballot paper as well, and it is prescribed; it is not left to someone to translate it as they choose. So the hon. Gentleman rightly says that the Government would be well advised to remove the prescription in this clause and say, “The Minister may, by regulation, prescribe the words that will appear on the petition signing sheets.” That will allow the Government to go away, talk to the Electoral Commission, get the words right and come back with a regulation that provides for that.
The last point I wish to make relates to postal and proxy votes, about which the hon. Member for North Down makes an incredibly important point. I cannot see why the regulations on applying for a postal or proxy vote, and for the execution of such a vote in an election, should be any different from those used for the petition. These things are equally important to our electoral and democratic process, so I would like to think that whatever applies to one will apply to the other, to ensure that we have a proper level of checking.
Mr Kevan Jones
I agree with what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but is there not a slight difference? In an election someone gets sent a ballot paper, but they would not be sent a ballot paper to say, “Do you want to sign this petition or not?” The two are slightly different.
Mr Heath
I am not clear what the process is. The hon. Gentleman may well have more information on this than I do currently, but I am not clear how the postal and proxy vote system will work in respect of a petition. The people registered for a postal or proxy vote for an election may not be the same people who would wish to exercise their right to such a vote in the case of a petition. Some people, particularly those who do not have a petition signing place within half an hour’s drive or a three-day bus journey from where they live, may well want to exercise a postal or proxy vote, whereas for an election they can just toddle down to the village hall or an outbuilding of the local pub to cast their vote. So a different group of people may well be involved, and I would like to know what the process will be.
Mr Jones
This is also about knowing what the process would be to ensure that the signature being sent in is authentic. Since we had the change on applying for a postal vote, a signature and a date of birth is required, and I understand that the signatures are scanned and have to match. If someone has just written on a small piece of paper that they want a recall and they send it in, is that good enough? How do we verify that the signature is from a legitimate person, one who might not have applied for a postal vote?
Mr Heath
The hon. Gentleman is right about that. We all have experience of petitions where we look down the names and find people who are perhaps not resident in our constituencies, because they happen to be otherwise employed in a theme park in Orlando or as President of the United States; there are all sorts of reasons why they are not legitimate electors of our constituencies, but nevertheless the names have been appended. I believe the Minister’s answer to that is simply, “We have introduced an offence of providing a false signature in the Bill.” That is not a sufficient deterrent, as we know because we have seen the evidence for that many times. So we need some sort of checking procedure to make sure that when Mr Michael Mouse signs a petition it is the Mr Michael Mouse who is a resident of Railway cuttings, Cheam or a relevant address rather than a Mr Michael Mouse who may be a figment of someone’s imagination.
Mr Jones
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The signatures and names and addresses are not going to be published in the public domain, so how does anybody challenge whether the signature sent in asking for a petition is genuine? I am sure that during his 18 years in the House he has had many petitions where he has written back to people who then deny ever signing a petition. There has to be a procedure in place to ensure that there is at least some public scrutiny of those signatures. If there is not, the 10% threshold could be reached with bogus signatures.
Mr Heath
The hon. Gentleman is of course absolutely right. Indeed, people sometimes forget that they have clicked to add their name to a letter that the computer generated the day before. When we contact them they know nothing about what they have apparently just written to us about in great detail and about which they feel passionately. We all encounter that; it is not an unusual experience. He and I share the view that we need safeguards to make sure that the names that appear are the right ones. There is, however, one point where I will disagree with him. He is still fighting the good fight about the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) when he talks about the possibilities of people harassing a Member using this process. The two triggers we have at the moment—criminal conviction and the 21-day suspension —are very limited. Some of us believe the provision should be wider than that and there should be at least one more trigger, and we will pursue that, but I do not think it is open to the sort of abuse he suggests. I therefore see no reason why we should not make it as easy as possible for people to sign a petition if that is what they choose to do, where those trigger points have been satisfied. With that, I shall be interested in hearing what others have to say.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
First, I rise to speak in support of amendment 38, which seems to make a reasonable point, one I understood the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) supported: whatever the trigger points for a petition, there certainly has to be a sufficient number of places for people to go, particularly in a far-flung constituency, but the petition points would not replicate the number of polling stations or anything else like that. The point was being made that the petition points should not be so numerous or diverse as to create a wide open situation and to be much more difficult to manage, particularly given that a period of time is being offered for the petition to be signed. Unlike a single day, polling day, for voting, a designated period, which some of us think is too long, is provided for in the petition. It gives people ample time to keep the thing going in a way that could be politically debilitating to a constituency or a city.
Mr Kevan Jones
The hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong, but in Northern Ireland, I think, voters must show ID. In the UK they do not. What is there to stop someone putting someone else’s name on a petition? If the list of names and addresses is not made public, how could anyone challenge an entry and say, “I didn’t sign that petition”? That is a weakness. Even if, in the UK, a presiding officer is present, there is no guarantee of the identity of the person signing.
Mark Durkan
The hon. Gentleman raises another significant point in the Northern Ireland context. Yes, ID is required in order to vote. In a proper recall system, just as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome suggested in respect of postal and proxy votes, the same standard should apply to them in relation to recall as would apply in relation to elections and ballot papers, and similarly as regards voter ID in Northern Ireland. If somebody is coming to take the power of a voter in respect of a recall petition, they should have to present the same provable ID as is required in respect of an election. It is not particularly arduous and people have got used to the system. There is the electoral ID card, which covers people who do not have the other forms of ID.
Mr Jones
I agree that in Northern Ireland that provision is in place, but in the rest of the UK it is not. There is nothing in the Bill to suggest that people wishing to sign a recall petition in my constituency or any other constituency in the UK would have to provide some type of ID. Even if they did, because the names will not be made public, there is no way to challenge their authenticity. It is no good saying that signing a fictitious name is an offence. As the hon. Gentleman knows from his own experience in Northern Ireland, voter fraud used to be quite widespread.
Mark Durkan
The hon. Gentleman’s point gives rise to the question of location. Whether there is a minimum or a maximum of four locations, can people freely choose, turn up to any of them and register their signature on the petition? Will there be anybody to check there and then whether they are eligible? Many people may be unsure who their MP is or which constituency they are in. When it comes to setting up petition points, somebody should be in a position to verify that people are eligible to sign the petition by virtue of being on the register for that constituency, whether there is a particular geographic catchment for that constituency or an overall register for the constituency. That would need to be managed by way of regulation or other instruments. We cannot take care of all that in the Bill.
I have some sympathy with the points made about clause 9 and the language of the petition. That does not need to be in the Bill. There are also questions about the couching of that language and the need to make it clearer. Whereas on polling day people have to garner a significant amount of support to be successful, those who are mobilising behind a petition have to get only 10% in a constituency over a long period of weeks. It is not a high challenge that they are set. In those circumstances, it is not too much to expect that voters who are being given that opportunity should make sure that they are eligible to sign the petition. I think the test should be higher than 10%, which is why I supported the three-stage proposal from the hon. Member for Richmond Park.
Whichever version of recall petition we are discussing and at whatever stage it takes effect on either model, people should know that the process surrounding the petition is managed properly. If they think petitions are managed in a way that falls short of what they would expect at election time, we are inviting a culture of abuse. I hope the Government will consider the arguments, which will be supported both by those who broadly support the scope of the Bill that the Government have provided and by those who would challenge it. All of us want to know that if there is to be a petition process, it will be durable and reliable.
Thomas Docherty
May I first welcome the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) to his place? I understand that yesterday in the south-west he was seen on television but not heard. This evening we have had the benefit of both seeing him and hearing his wisdom. I shall deal first with a number of the points he made before turning my attention to the rest. He talked about minimum versus maximum and explained that he was looking to change only two letters, which perhaps is a new record, even for his minimalist approach. However, I am slightly surprised that he tabled the amendment: I know him to be a great believer in parliamentary process, yet he is seeking to overturn the advice of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee. Although we recognise the strength of his argument, we were slightly surprised to see him going against his colleagues.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
The hon. Gentleman will recognise that I take the view that the Chamber is the final and highest authority.
Thomas Docherty
I thought the hon. Gentleman took the view that Her Majesty was the final authority; he is obviously becoming a republican in his older age.
We have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman’s argument. He was right to talk about having two constituencies side by side, or indeed one surrounding the other—I think that his constituency completely surrounds that of Bath—and made some valid points about the square mileage and number of hectares in each. We do not necessarily agree that the situation differs for rural and urban constituencies. As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) pointed out, that would be determined more by public transport links, particularly the provision of bus services.
None the less, we think that the hon. Member for North East Somerset has raised a valid point. For example, we are concerned that Ministers are not at this stage able to give us greater clarity about opening hours, and that relates to a broader point. I refer the House to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee’s report, which set out a concern about the use of Henry VIII powers. That simply means that the Government are seeking to state in primary legislation that all the detail will be covered by secondary legislation, and they have not yet had a chance to set out those provisions.
We are concerned that the Government do not have a clear position on opening hours. There is an argument that opening hours should be from 7 am to 10 pm, as they are in a general election. Equally, however, if the Government are proposing ultimately to use city chambers, town halls and council offices, perhaps it would be unreasonable to require additional opening hours over an eight-week period. My understanding is that central Government would pick up those costs, rather than individual local authorities, so I wonder whether the Minister, if he receives inspiration before having to reply, could say, when the Government worked out the £55,000 cost of running a recall petition, was that based on opening hours of 9 am to 5 pm in up to four locations, or opening hours of 7 am to 10 pm?
The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) raised an important point about security—if I recall correctly, she made the same point last week during the Committee’s first day of considerations. The Government must accept that clearly more work needs to be done to answer those points. Several hon. Members have made the point, rightly I think, that the Government are yet to set out whether in practice they would use a marked register. If we take the example of having just one location for signing a recall petition—I am conscious that we are in danger of slipping into consideration of clause 18, but this relates to the question of where a petition can be signed—is it the Government’s intention that the petition officer would be sitting with the marked register and would cross off constituents’ names as they sign the petition, or would it not be made available?
Mr Kevan Jones
I suggest that without it the process would be completely open to fraud, because anyone could go in and sign the petition, and nobody would ever know if those names and addresses were just made up.
Thomas Docherty
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. We think that there are concerns about validity. The Member of Parliament and his or her supporters have a right, not unreasonably, to look at the marked register to ensure that there has not been fraud. Equally, the petitioners who organise a recall petition have a right to look at it. As in an election, we would be able to tell whether a person had voted, but not how they had voted. I hope that the Government will think carefully about that.
I hope that the hon. Member for North East Somerset will not press his amendment to a vote this evening, but I also hope that the Government will be gracious enough to promise to look at all these concerns again and, at least before the Bill goes to the Lords, come back with more substantive proposals on the type of petition station, opening hours and the issue of security. I believe that Ministers are genuinely acting in good faith, but I hope that they appreciate that we simply cannot allow all this to be done through secondary legislation.
One suggestion put to me some time ago was that an order should be laid at the start of each Parliament, stating that in North East Somerset, for example, there would be six places where constituents could sign the petition, that there would be seven in East Surrey, and four in Dunfermline and West Fife. The other issue is that the opening hours for polling stations at a general election are set in legislation, but nowhere can I find the opening hours for recall petitions, and that needs to be sorted out.
Mr Jones
That suggestion would not get around the point made by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) about the importance of where the petition stations are located. For example, if all the stations in his constituency were based in Orange lodges, I am sure that he and others would have something to say about it.
Thomas Docherty
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but you will forgive me, Sir Roger, if I do not speculate about the popularity or otherwise of my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) in the various Orange lodges of his constituency—going down that path would not end well for any of us in the Chamber. However, my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) is absolutely right that careful consideration has to be given. Again, we have not had enough detail. We are working from a series of assumptions about petition stations being in council offices and polling stations, but Ministers have not set out in any detail where they are likely to be.
Finally, in relation to my earlier point about consultation, there is a requirement for returning officers to consult at least with political parties and other interested parties on the siting of polling stations, and indeed on the boundaries of polling stations within electoral wards. We have not yet seen anything that would explicitly require the petition officer at least to consult. There is more work to be done on that issue.
We also have concerns about proxy and postal votes. The Minister might like to say a little more about why existing postal voters will still have to write in to request a postal vote, rather than simply being issued a petition form by post. I press the Minister to give us some satisfaction in that regard. Will he also confirm that there is often a last-minute flurry of activity to join the electoral register? I appreciate that he has made it clear that one has to be on the register at the trigger date, but often there can be a slight administrative delay, as we saw in the recent referendum in Scotland. Can he confirm that the application, rather than its processing, will be taken as the cut-off point as there can sometimes be a few days’ backlog?
Mr Gyimah
Welcome, Sir Roger, to the Chair. A number of very good points have been made and I shall deal with them. The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) made many interesting points, and asked why the Bill does not go into the same level of detail regarding expenses. The AV referendum process and the petition process mirror a referendum process, rather than a general election process. The AV referendum gave us some hard facts to work with.
Mr Kevan Jones
In an AV referendum, postal voters would be sent a ballot paper. Here, we are asking people to come forward to sign a petition. Those are completely different things, and they are getting confused in this debate.
Mr Gyimah
If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to develop my point, he will realise that I was speaking specifically about expenses. We have used the hard facts that the AV referendum gave us to develop some estimates, but the question is: how much detail can the Bill go into? The truth is that expenses may be incurred during a petition process that the Government could not have anticipated, so it will be down to the petition officer to submit expenses and costs, and we will set out a fees and charges order to cover that. That is why the Bill does not go into as much detail as the hon. Member for Caerphilly would have liked.
Rightly and understandably, there has been much discussion about whether the petition signing sheet will be user-tested. I hope I can reassure the Committee that its wording has been developed with the input of the Electoral Commission to ensure that it is balanced and fits with the commission’s guidance for referendum questions. The wording that we and the commission have devised gives petitioners the information they need, including the important addition that if the Member in question loses their seat as a result of a petition, there is nothing to prevent them from standing. It is worth making it clear that during the petition process, the Member in question is no longer a Member of Parliament: when recall is triggered their seat is vacated, but there is nothing to prevent them from standing in the subsequent by-election.
Wayne David
The Minister says that there has been consultation with the Electoral Commission, but the commission itself says that it would be far better if the opinion of a panel consisting of a cross-section of the population were tested before the final wording was agreed. There must be a sliver of doubt in the Minister’s mind, because the Bill itself says that
“The Minister may by regulations amend subsection (4).”
If the Minister wants to be able to amend it, why not take it out, and let us have a proper consultation?
Mr Gyimah
There is not a sliver of doubt in my mind. I am smiling because I actually agree with the hon. Gentleman on user-testing, which we would look to undertake as we go through the process of setting out the regulations, if need be amending the petition signing sheet. So the Government have not set their face against user-testing, which I believe is the main concern, and understandably so.
Thomas Docherty
The Minister refers repeatedly to the secondary legislation process and the Standing Orders. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) has said, the relevant wording is in the Bill—in primary legislation. Is the Minister confirming that the Minister in question will seek to amend the Bill itself at a later date, rather than pursuing the secondary legislation process?
Mr Gyimah
We will be using the powers of secondary legislation to amend the Bill once we have been through user-testing. The practical point is that we cannot user-test while at the same time debating the Bill. User-testing could throw up a completely different issue. We have developed the Bill with input from the Electoral Commission and we will user-test it as we go through this process.
Mr Heath
I applaud the Minister for being open-minded about this issue and I realise he is describing a process, but it really does not make sense to include specific wording in primary legislation and then say, “We will probably amend it, once we’ve done the user-testing, in secondary legislation”, because no one will know that. When they go to the primary legislation, they will find different words from those that will appear on the petition form. If I may gently say so, it really would make more sense to get rid of this clause, put “the Minister may, by order, prescribe the words” and let him get on with it by secondary legislation. That is not a Henry VIII clause—Henry VIII would have had just one signature, anyway. It is just sensible legislation.
Mr Gyimah
Let me finish describing the process I was outlining. We will get Royal Assent for the Bill, undertake user-testing, and then introduce secondary legislation. We in this House amend our legislation all the time—for next year’s general election we are looking at a number of things that were based on user-testing with the Electoral Commission. We may not have to amend it at all, subject to user-testing.
Thomas Docherty
I say in the spirit of bipartisanship that I think the Minister may have misspoken. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) is entirely correct. It is not normal practice to get Royal Assent and then seek to amend primary legislation. If I may try to be helpful to the Minister, he might wish to offer to the Committee that he will take this issue away and seek to establish some consensus on Report, or even in the other place.
Mr Gyimah
As the hon. Gentleman rightly points out from a sedentary position, we all want the same thing: we all want to ensure that this process works extremely well, and I will take on board the points that the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) has made.
A number of references were made to the wording of the petition signing sheet. The wording is set out in primary legislation but can be amended by secondary legislation if some problems transpire, as I said earlier, but we would look to gain consensus for the process.
The decision on where polling stations should be located is normally made by members of the council for the local authority in question. All local authorities must review their UK parliamentary polling districts and polling places at least once every five years. To assist with this, the Electoral Commission has produced guidance on conducting polling place reviews. A number of Members said that the decision on where to locate the polling station could in some ways prejudice the result. The truth is that unless there is a polling station in every part of the constituency, we will be open to that charge.
Mr Kevan Jones
It is important to point out that these are not polling stations but collection points for petitions. I accept that, as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) said, we no longer have last week’s nonsensical proposal by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith). However, it would be open to someone from a party in opposition to a Member of Parliament subject to recall to do exactly what the Minister just said. They could have a polling station on every street corner if they wanted to. In the constituency of the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), for example, let us say that the local party wanted, for unfriendly political reasons, to put a polling station in a certain building.
Mr Gyimah
The main point is that the person who determines where the polling stations are located is the petition officer, who is otherwise the electoral registration officer, and they have the skills and experience to determine how to run the process. It would be easy for the hon. Gentleman to make that charge if there were to be a petition station in every part of the constituency, but that is not what we are debating, because the Bill says that there will be a maximum of four.
Mr Jones
In my experience, it is possible to influence the outcome of these things. I remember that many years ago a council ward in the Newcastle city council area seemed to have a polling station on every street corner. When I became the Labour party’s local ward secretary, I asked why, and found—lo and behold—that the person in charge was a local councillor. I am not saying that this should necessarily be addressed in the Bill, but there should be some stronger guidance as opposed to just leaving it up to the local council.
Mr Gyimah
The hon. Gentleman seems to assume that the only way in which people can participate in this process is by turning up physically and signing the petition sheet. Let me be clear, by the way, that it will not be possible to see everyone’s signature on the petition sheet; in fact, it looks more like a ballot paper. People can participate by post or by proxy. It is not strictly accurate to argue that the place where the ERO decides to locate the petition station can, in itself, affect the result.
Mr Heath
I think that most electoral registration officers will fulfil their duties as petition officers with exactly the same degree of integrity as they would in elections, and they are also subject to supervision from the Electoral Commission. When the regular review of polling places takes place, we could ask the ERO, in consultation with all the people he has to consult, to designate where the petition places would be situated so that there was clarity on that at a time when it was not specific to a particular MP in particular circumstances, and everyone recognised that it was a neutral process. That would be very sensible, and it might be done by guidance or by regulation.
Thomas Docherty
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way; he is being incredibly patient given the number of questions. I have not yet had an answer to my question about costs, on which I am sure that he has had inspiration. As part of the £55,000 costs for a recall, what estimate was made of the number of people who would seek a postal vote?
Mr Gyimah
I will come to that point later.
The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) asked whether anyone can turn up at any location and sign, and asked about double signing. I assure him that these details will be set out in regulations. Constituents eligible to vote will be sent a petition notice card allocating them a location, and they will be able to sign only at that location. They will be marked off the register at that location when they are given a signing sheet.
Mr Jones
On a point of order, Sir Roger. I think that the purpose of a Committee is for the Minister to answer questions about what he is saying to it. When people ask the Minister questions, a lot of the time he clearly does not have a clue what he is talking about. He should accept interventions on these technical points—they are not general political points.
The Temporary Chair (Sir Roger Gale)
The hon. Gentleman has been in the House long enough to know that the Member who has the Floor determines whether he gives way on any particular point.
Mr Gyimah
Thank you, Sir Roger. I think I have been quite generous in allowing interventions in the spirit of allowing members of the Committee to contribute as much as possible to the Bill. As the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) said on Second Reading, we have been generous not only in accepting interventions but in accepting excellent ideas such as that just proposed by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath).
The hon. Member for Caerphilly asked about translation into the Welsh language. Clause 21(5) applies section 26 of the Welsh Language Act 1993 to regulations made under the Bill, and this would give a power for the appropriate Minister to provide a form of words in Welsh. I hope that that deals with his point.
The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife asked whether there would be a marked register. Yes, there would. We are considering whether it would be a public marked register, because in this case, unlike in an election, where we can have a register but be unable to tell which way people voted, people will declare by way of a marked register their intention on whether they want to get rid of an MP.
Mr Gyimah
That is precisely why we are considering the issue. Obviously, the point of the register is to mark people off for verification purposes as they turn up at the petition station. Further to that, we are considering whether to make the register public. We have to recognise that this process is very different from an election and think about what happens when the register becomes a marked register.
The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife asked about appropriate opening hours. I assure him that we will look into that when it comes to drafting the regulations. It may be possible for a petition officer to choose a location that is open in the evening, on weekdays, and so on. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome that we should have a consultation to determine some of these questions every five years rather than doing so in the heat of a petition process.
Lady Hermon
I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way. He kindly said to me at the beginning of the debate that he was happy to welcome as many interventions as I wanted to make, so I am taking him up on that offer.
A couple of very useful suggestions have been made by the hon. Members for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) and for Foyle (Mark Durkan). Will the Minister pick up on those as a compromise that would take us through this group of clauses? The hon. Member for Foyle rightly observed that eight weeks is too long a period, and that four is too small a number of designated places for a recall petition. Will the Minister consider shortening that period, because it will be agonising for the sitting MP? For eight weeks, a sitting MP who has been successfully elected in an election will not know whether they are sitting or suspended, or what they are going to be, until perhaps 10% of the electorate have cast some manner of vote. Will the Minister consider the compromise offered of more designated places and a shorter period in which a person could sign the petition?
Mr Gyimah
I thank the hon. Lady for that point. The Government are trying to strike the right balance. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) said that four places would be the minimum rather than the maximum, but not setting a maximum at all would risk having great inconsistency across our constituencies. Allowing for eight weeks provides a balance and people will be able to vote either by post or by proxy during that period.
Lady Hermon
I am enormously grateful to the Minister for giving way. If he persists with this line of argument, I invite him to visit Northern Ireland, particularly Belfast, where more peace walls have been built since the Belfast agreement was signed on Good Friday than existed during the troubles. We have constituencies that are divided. Four places for people to vote on a recall petition would be so unrepresentative.
Mr Gyimah
I appreciate the hon. Lady’s particular point about Northern Ireland, but I do not think that the Government’s point about a maximum of four places and allowing eight weeks is particularly onerous. If people are particularly exercised about signing the petition, eight weeks is a sufficient amount of time for them to be able to do so.
Mark Durkan
Only 10% of voters would have to sign the recall petition during those eight weeks, which is a longer period not only than the by-election campaign that would succeed the petition, but than the period designated for a general election under the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011. Is eight weeks reasonable?
Mr Gyimah
Eight weeks is reasonable, given that there will be a campaign on both sides. Once there is a notice of petition, the candidate would want to set their case before the electorate and the people who believe in the MP would also want to campaign. Eight weeks allows for getting people to the polling station to vote and for campaigns to take place. It allows for every step of the process to take place in an orderly fashion.
The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife, asked how the Government arrived at the estimate of £55,000 in our impact assessment. According to the breakdown, a total of £23,000 breaks into staff preparation and issuing, staff opening and check-in hours, training, printing and stationery, postage and equipment. I hope that gives the hon. Gentleman the necessary assurance.
Thomas Docherty
What I specifically asked about was how many electors the Government, in reaching that total, estimated would vote by post. The Minister has not given us that figure yet, but I am sure he has it to hand.
Mr Gyimah
I will have to get back to the hon. Gentleman on that specific point of detail.
In rounding up this debate, I urge my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset not to press his amendment. When establishing an electoral process, the Government believe that we have to ensure that we make it as open as possible. There are many cases where a smaller number of signing places will serve constituents just as well as a large number, but we must not set out in statute expectations of service that could be hard to meet. The flexibility that the Government have built into the Bill following pre-legislative scrutiny provides enough physical locations for signing when people wish to do so in person.
Before I sit down, I want to clarify one point. I said that the MP would not be an MP during the petition process. In actual fact, it is the seat that is vacated if the threshold is reached, but the MP would have to stand in the by-election and win in order to retake their seat. In that sense, the seat would be lost, albeit only temporarily.
The Temporary Chair (Sir Roger Gale)
Order. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to make a point of order, I will take it, but he knows that once the winding-up speech has been completed no other member will be called. If he wishes to refer to his amendment, I will come to it at the appropriate time, which is not now.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
The Temporary Chair
We now come to amendment 38, which has not been moved, so it is a question of whether any hon. Member who is a signatory to the amendment wishes to move it. You cannot withdraw it, because it has not been moved.
The Temporary Chair
Let me explain, for the benefit of the whole Committee, that only the lead measure, which in this case was clause 6 stand part, is moved. Other amendments and clauses are moved in the order that they are reached, so technically amendment 38 has not been moved, although the hon. Gentleman has spoken to it.
The Temporary Chair
No.
Clause 7
Where and from when the recall petition may be signed
Amendment proposed: 38, page 5, line 27, leave out “maximum” and insert “minimum”—(Jacob Rees-Mogg.)
This amendment changes the number of designated places for the signing of a recall petition from a maximum of four to a minimum of four.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Question negatived.
Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 8 to 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clauses 11 to 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 14
Determination of whether recall petition successful
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Temporary Chair (Sir Roger Gale)
With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 15 stand part.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)
Clauses 14 and 15 set out the actions that must be taken to determine whether a petition is successful, and the consequences of a successful petition.
Clause 14 sets out the mechanism for determining whether the recall petition was successful and the subsequent actions that the petition officer must undertake. At the end of the eight-week signing period, the petition officer must determine whether the petition was successful, notify the Speaker of the outcome and issue a public notice of the outcome in the form and manner to be set out in regulations.
The petition is deemed successful if the number of persons who validly sign it is at least 10% of the number of eligible registered electors—that is, the number of persons who are registered in the register of parliamentary electors for the constituency on the last day of the signing period, including those who made an application to register on or before the day of the Speaker’s notice and who were added to the register before the cut-off day. That means that at least 10% of those eligible to sign must have done so for a petition to be successful. Electors who are under the age of 18 at the end of the signing period will be excluded from that figure, as will additions to or removals from the register that take effect after the cut-off day, unless the addition or removal was made as a result of a court order or to correct an error.
Clause 14 provides that a recall petition is validly signed if it is signed by a person during the signing period who is entitled to sign under clause 10; if the person has not previously signed the petition and meets any conditions set out in regulations that are applicable; and if their entry in the register of parliamentary electors has not been removed after they signed the petition, as a result of a court order or discovery of incorrect information. Finally, clause 14 specifies that the Speaker must lay before the House of Commons any notice received from the petition officer on the outcome of the petition.
Clause 15 provides that if a recall petition is successful, the MP’s seat becomes vacant when the petition officer notifies the Speaker of the petition’s outcome. However, this provision does not apply if, before the petition officer notifies the Speaker of the outcome, the MP’s seat is already vacated as result of the MP’s disqualification or death, or for any other reason. Additionally, regulations may be made under clause 18 that set out the circumstances in which the validity of a petition may be questioned. Clause 15(3) ensures that the process by which an MP’s seat becomes vacant is subject to those regulations.
Clauses 14 and 15 will ensure that proper actions are taken to determine the result of a petition and give notice of the outcome. They will ensure that a vacancy arises when at least 10% of an MP’s constituents have signed a petition for their removal and that, by extension, a by-election will happen. I therefore commend the clauses to the Committee.
The Temporary Chair (Sir Roger Gale)
Under the circumstances, the only thing that I can do is to call the hon. Lady.
Lady Hermon
The Bill is so important that I think I would like to speak.
Voting in this country is a serious matter. We have the great distinction of being a democracy that is admired around the world. Men died in their thousands in the trenches during a world war that began 100 years ago. When we have a general election and voters come out in whatever numbers—we wish that they came out in greater numbers—and go to the trouble of casting their votes between set hours, which are generally 7 am and 10 pm, they have taken the matter seriously and have voted for an MP. Some MPs belong to political parties and some, like myself, stand as independents. Independent MPs do not have a party to pay for recall expenses or support them through a recall petition. It therefore behoves us to think about the legislation that we are passing.
Given that Bill will apply throughout the United Kingdom, we must think about the differences in Northern Ireland. I think that valuable lessons could be learned from the experiences of voter registration and identification in Northern Ireland. We have been very successful in defeating vote stealing as a major criminal offence. Those valuable lessons could be extended to the rest of the United Kingdom.
The Deputy Leader of the House rattled through clauses 14 and 15, which have been beautifully drafted by wonderful and skilled parliamentary assistants. What worries me is that we accepted in the previous group of proposals that there will be only four designated places where a recall petition can physically be signed, no matter whether it is in the islands and highlands of Scotland, the far reaches of Fermanagh and Tyrone, with their lovely spires, or the constituency of Strangford—if the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) was here, he would be able to speak for his constituency—which is a large and disparate geographical area. We have agreed that there will be four designated places and that there will be eight weeks. We have skimmed through the issue of the signatures on the petitions. In Northern Ireland, we have strict regulations for voting in elections to ensure that there is no voter fraud.
I was disappointed to hear the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah) dismiss the opportunity to think about improving the Bill. This is an important Bill under which an MP could face recall after only 10% of the electorate have voted for it. That is a very low threshold. If we are not careful in looking at the clauses this evening, instead of the Speaker being given a notice of a petition, a number of MPs will be going to their solicitors and calling into question the validity of recall petitions on the grounds of forged signatures and illegal proxy votes, because the Bill before us tonight is riddled with loopholes. It is no good for the Minister to say, “Oh, well. We will test the Bill when it gets on the statute book.” That will be a bit late in the day to test the legislation. We cannot leave it that late. We have an opportunity to amend it and improve it.
I would like the Deputy Leader of the House to address the following question. Given the importance of a recall to a Member who has just been elected in a general election, what will happen when an independent Member such as me is subject to a recall petition? I have no party to support me or to pay for me to fight off a recall petition. However, I would not hesitate in going to a lawyer, many of whom I taught in a previous incarnation. I am very proud to have taught in the law faculty of Queen’s university. Will the Minister clarify what will happen when an MP who has just been told that they have lost their seat through a recall petition looks to see who has signed it and finds that the signatures are not valid? What will happen in the intervening period? I would like him to address that when he closes the debate.
Mr Heath
I have just one quick question for the Minister. Has he or any other Minister had any discussions with the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority about whether it is producing a scheme to deal with the staff of a Member of Parliament who loses their seat by virtue of recall? I hope that it will not produce a scheme that allows for an ex gratia payment or severance pay for the Member of Parliament. However, will the Member’s staff be made redundant at the point at which the notice is served to the Speaker, or has no one yet thought about that? If no one has thought about it, I invite the Minister to think about it and urge him to get in touch with IPSA to see whether it can provide an appropriate schedule.
Tom Brake
I think that it would be appropriate for me to respond to the points that have been made.
The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) suggested that the Government had dismissed the opportunity to improve the legislation. I do not think that that is the case. For instance, we are looking actively at the proposals that have been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath). The Government are willing to listen to what Members say and to see whether we can respond.
The hon. Member for North Down asked how one will be able to check the validity of the signatures. In responding to the last group of proposals, the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah) confirmed that there will be a marked register. We are looking in greater detail at whether the marked register should be in the public domain. He rightly explained that the marked register that is made available after a general election or local council election is different in that all that can be ascertained by the people or political parties who look at it is that a person voted in the election; they have no idea how the person voted. A petition that calls for the recall of a Member of Parliament, whether they represent a political party or are independent, is a statement of opposition to that party or politician. The register is therefore different in terms of what it reveals about the person who has taken part in the petition process. That is why the Government are actively looking at whether it would be appropriate to make the marked register public. I agree that we need to have a process that allows people to look at who has voted and to check whether someone did or did not participate in an election or a petition. We are actively considering that point.
The hon. Lady spoke about the four designated places and said that eight weeks was a long period for people to be able to sign a petition. That is not a matter for discussion under clauses 14 and 15, but the Government have set out their view. We think that having four places strikes the right balance in making the places accessible to people. Those who have spoken about increasing that number have not referred to the fact that postal and proxy voting is available. People do not have to go to one, four or more locations as they can vote by post, and eight weeks is a sensible period in which to sign a petition.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
The Minister is outlining how long people have to respond to a petition. Given the concerns of the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) about potentially challenging some of the signatures, is there a length of time for which that will be open to a Member, or—mañana—could it be any time? How will Members know the rules governing the process?
Lady Hermon
The Minister replied to the point rightly identified by the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main), but no clause states any period in which an MP can challenge a recall petition. We are discussing clauses 14 and 15. Which clause covers circumstances in which an MP—quite rightly—seeks an injunction to prevent the Speaker from reading out the fact that their seat has become vacant?
Tom Brake
Again, the hon. Lady can draw parallels with other election processes and the avenues available for appeal regarding those who have voted in an election, if there is the possibility that fraud has taken place. She can look at how that process works in other elections.
Thomas Docherty
Perhaps I can be helpful to the Minister. The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) raises an important point, and as I understand it—the Minister may wish to get inspiration on this—the Speaker is not challengeable under judicial review and parliamentary privilege—[Interruption.] The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Gyimah) is nodding away. Is it correct to say that the Member cannot challenge the Speaker’s decision, and that therefore the only opportunity for such a challenge is before the petition officer has informed the Speaker that the threshold has been met?
Tom Brake
I am happy to take helpful interventions from the hon. Gentleman—and indeed any inspiration, which may be forthcoming—and to address his particular point and seek clarification on whether he is right to say that once the process has reached the Speaker, no appeal can be invoked.
My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome made a helpful query about whether the Government have engaged with IPSA about the impact on an MP’s staff should their employer be successfully recalled and subsequently lose their seat in a by-election should they stand again. Fortunately, we still have time in which those discussions can take place—if they have not done so already—and I am sure we want to ensure that IPSA is aware of that possibility. We clearly want clarity for staff on the impact that any recall would have on their future employment, particularly during the petition process, and immediately afterwards during the by-election should the Member seek to stand. If the Member decides not to stand in that by-election, what terms and conditions would apply to their staff? On that point, in the absence of more detailed inspiration—[Interruption.]
Thomas Docherty
Does the Minister agree that those discussions with IPSA must take place before the Bill becomes law, so that we do not have—as with most things to do with IPSA—a law of unintended consequences?
Tom Brake
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is in everyone’s interest for those discussions to take place as soon as possible. As we are debating this issue and the profile of recall is increasing, staff who may—for whatever reason—feel that their MP might be vulnerable to recall might start to ask themselves questions about their future employment. In response to an earlier intervention from the hon. Gentleman, the Speaker does not determine that the threshold has been met. The giving of the petition officer’s notice has that effect, and it is therefore challengeable. Details will be set out in regulations, but once the by-election has been held it is clearly too late.
Mr Heath
This raises an important point. In an election, the election is held, the result declared, and the Member of Parliament may take their seat, but that can be set aside by an election court in the case of malfeasance during the electoral process. If malfeasance during the petition process comes to light at a later date, it is not clear that there is a process for rectifying the situation. I think that is at least part of the point raised by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), and it may be something that Ministers will have to consider.
Tom Brake
I thank my hon. Friend for that further contribution. There may come a point where a Member of Parliament has been recalled, stood in a by-election and lost, but subsequently something is proved to have been flawed in the recall process. That is a possibility, and it is unfortunately difficult to see how the Government could come forward with something that would address that. There may be other circumstances that I have not thought of that it might be appropriate for us to consider, and I will certainly look at whether the Government need to take into account other aspects of this issue.
I am grateful to hon. Members for their views on these clauses, and some important points have been raised, particularly on IPSA. I believe that the clauses are necessary to ensure that a proper and consistent process is followed at the conclusion of a recall petition, and to establish that an MP will lose their seat if a petition is successful. I therefore believe that the clauses should remain part of the Bill in their current form, and I again commend them to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 14 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 16
Expenses, donations and reporting
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Temporary Chair (Sir Roger Gale)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
That schedule 3 be the Third schedule to the Bill.
That schedule 4 be the Fourth schedule to the Bill.
That schedule 5 be the Fifth schedule to the Bill.
Clause 17 stand part.
Tom Brake
Clause 16 gives effect to schedule 3, which sets out the regulation of expenditure; to schedule 4, which establishes the controls on donations to accredited campaigners; and to schedule 5, which sets the rules for making recall petition returns. Clause 17 deals with the control of loans to accredited campaigners.
The nature of the recall process means that a wide variety of groups will be campaigning for or against the recall of an MP. Concern was rightly expressed by right hon. and hon. Members on Second Reading about the impact of “big money” on the recall process. It is therefore vital that recall petitions are proportionately regulated to allow local groups to engage, while limiting the capacity for wealthy or overseas campaigners to have disproportionate influence over the outcome.
Campaign regulation under the Bill mirrors, with appropriate modifications, the Representation of the People Act 1983. As a successful recall petition will result in a by-election, it is sensible that the difference between the regimes regulating the petition period and a subsequent by-election is not too large. The Bill also draws on the regime for permitted participants in referendums in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. That is appropriate because the recall petition process will share many of the characteristics of a referendum.
Schedule 3 introduces two spending limits for expenses incurred during the recall petition period, with regulation appropriate to the sums. The first is a lower limit of £500. Campaigners who incur expenses of less than that amount are subject to that limit and no other regulation. They are known in the Bill as non-accredited campaigners. That lower limit will permit local groups to carry out a certain amount of campaigning, such as printing and distributing leaflets, without their being subject to the fullest reporting requirements.
Those who intend to spend more than £500 must become an accredited campaigner. An accredited campaigner cannot spend more than £10,000 during the recall petition period. That figure is similar to the amount a candidate can spend in the short campaign before a general election. Eligibility as an accredited campaigner is based on eligibility for becoming a permitted participant in a referendum, and includes individuals, political parties and companies. The intention is not to restrict campaigning to those who are eligible to sign the petition. An MP who is subject to a recall petition can become an accredited campaigner.
Lady Hermon
As the Bill extends to the whole United Kingdom, will the Minister take the opportunity to confirm that donations will be in the public domain, and that the Bill takes precedence over current procedures in Northern Ireland, where donations to political parties are protected by anonymity? I might have no idea who or what is trying to unseat me in a recall petition.
Tom Brake
I am afraid I am unable to give the hon. Lady the reassurance she needs. My understanding is that the Bill does not ensure that donations will be public, but if I am wrong, I am sure I can correct myself shortly.
Accredited campaigners will be subject to additional rules under the Bill relating to spending and donations. The rules follow an established approach set by existing electoral legislation that will be familiar to right hon. and hon. Members and party administrators.
Mrs Main
Currently, recognised parties have an imprinted logo on all leaflets to ensure that any leaflet that goes through a door can be traced. Will accredited campaigners have to band together under a logo? If not, how does one trace leaflets and associate them with expenditure on a campaign?
Tom Brake
I am not sure whether the hon. Lady is conflating having an imprint and identifying campaign groups that are working together in concert to fight against an MP. Under the rules on expenditure and the £10,000 limit, if two organisations are working together with a common campaign plan to try to get people to sign a recall petition, they will have to account for their expenditure collectively within that £10,000 limit. They cannot accumulate their expenditure. However, as we know from other elections, it is sometimes difficult to identify whether two campaign organisations are working together to oppose a particular candidate or party, because they might structure their campaigns in a way that is not entirely transparent.
Thomas Docherty
May I take the Minister back to the point made by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon)? As I am sure the Minister recalls, political parties currently have to declare to the Electoral Commission any donation they receive above a certain value. Members of Parliament are in addition required to declare to the registrar of interests any donation we receive to our campaigns above a value of, I believe, £500.01. Will the Minister therefore clarify whether a donation to the campaign of the Member of Parliament who faces recall would have to be declared to the appropriate authorities? Would a donation above £1,000 to a political party that is an accredited campaigner have to be declared to the relevant Electoral Commission?
Tom Brake
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, but I need to respond to an earlier intervention from the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) on imprints. The answer to her is that that will be set out in secondary legislation.
I also want to clarify the point I made in response to the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) on donations in Northern Ireland. It is a complex and important issue, and she has campaigned for greater transparency. To maintain public trust in the process of recall, it is essential that there is transparency in the funding of accredited campaigners. All donations of more than £500 will have to be reported by accredited campaigners, including the donor’s name. That includes donations from Northern Ireland residents to accredited campaigners. However, there is an exception when the accredited campaigner is a Northern Ireland registered party that is not a minor party, as these are regulated separately by the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. Under the Act, reportable donations to a Northern Ireland political party are currently not made public. In the specific case of recall, there will be anonymity for the donor. However, that is subject to changes that can be introduced under the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2014 to increase transparency on donations. I hope that that clarifies the issue for the hon. Lady and has picked up on the point about accredited campaigners having to report donations of more than £500 and the donor’s name.
Schedule 4 will deliver confidence that donations are appropriately controlled. The rules will prevent undue influence by wealthy or foreign donors over the outcome of recall petitions while allowing legitimate donations to be made. The definition of a relevant donation is consistent with wider electoral law. It is based on what counts as a donation to permitted participants at a referendum under the 2000 Act. The definition of permissible donor is based on the definition relating to donations to political parties. That will prevent the overseas funding of recall petition campaigns without preventing UK electors, organisations or companies from donating to campaigners of their choice.
Schedules 3 and 4 provide proportionate regulation of campaigners seeking to raise and spend money, and schedule 5 adds openness. To ensure transparency and compliance with the regulations, details of reportable expenditure and donations to an accredited campaigner must be submitted to the petition officer at the end of the recall process. Those submissions will be available for public scrutiny for a period of two years.
Schedule 5 sets out what is required in a recall petition return and is based on returns for permitted participants in referendums under the 2000 Act, although with appropriate modifications. Responsibility for the administration and conduct of the recall petition falls to the petition officer. That includes receiving and publishing accreditation notices and spending returns from accredited campaigners. The aim has never been to create a highly regulated process, but to ensure, as in a constituency election campaign, that spending and donations are transparent. The Electoral Commission will have a number of advisory, reporting and administrative roles that are similar, although with appropriate modifications, to those it exercises in elections more generally.
Clause 17 amends section 62 of the Electoral Administration Act 2006. The Act contains an order-making power to introduce controls on loans to candidates at elections, recognised third parties at national election campaigns and permitted participants in a referendum. No orders have yet been made under this section. The amendment made by the clause will extend the order-making power to accredited campaigners in relation to a recall petition. The Bill’s approach is consistent with wider electoral law and will deliver three objectives. First, it will not hinder individuals and groups who have an interest in participating in the petition process. Secondly, the system will prevent disproportionate levels of spending or donations being made in an attempt to influence unduly the outcome of the process. Thirdly, those who spend significant amounts on campaigning will be appropriately regulated and transparent about what they are spending and who is supporting them. I commend these clauses and schedules to the House.
Lady Hermon
It is very kind of you, Sir Roger, to call me to speak when I have not indicated that I wish to do so. I moved on the Bench to indicate to the Minister that I was most displeased with the response to my earlier intervention. I feel that I need to—[Interruption.] I am absolutely delighted to be called. It is awfully kind of you to call me, Sir Roger. I was not scolding you—I am really pleased.
Lady Hermon
I was indeed intending to rise. It is so nice of you to call me, Sir Roger.
This is a very important provision. I was under the illusion that the Bill would apply equally throughout the United Kingdom. I was encouraged by the Minister when he read out, very quickly and precisely, the carefully and very skilfully drafted words in relation to expenses, schedules and donations. The Minister built up my hopes by explaining that in Northern Ireland there would have to be a declaration when £500 was donated. However, exemptions will continue for donations to political parties under the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2014.
We have the most unusual and completely unjustifiable situation in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland can be safe enough to host the G8 summit in Fermanagh, a border county that at one stage was the heartland of the Provisional IRA and where many people were killed. Northern Ireland was safe enough to host the world police and fire games. Thousands of police and fire officers came to compete and absolutely loved the experience. Despite that, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland introduced the 2014 Act, which extended the period of anonymity for donations to political parties. We are moving in the right direction and there is a time scale in which we hope to be able to remove that anonymity, but at present we do not know who donates to political parties. That is not good for the democratic process in Northern Ireland. It undermines public confidence in the political parties—as if we needed public confidence in Northern Ireland to be undermined any further than it already is.
Since the Belfast agreement, many people have tried to build bridges between the two communities. In some instances, they have been very successful. When it comes to elections, however, the people of Northern Ireland have no idea who is funding the large parties. I do not want to personalise the argument. I sit as an independent MP and that is what I stood as. I am sure the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long) would not mind me mentioning her. She represents the Alliance party in this House. Alliance party members on Belfast city council voted to stop flying the Union flag over Belfast city hall on 365 days a year and instead to fly it on only 17 designated days. The hon. Lady, who very courageously represents Belfast East and does not sit on Belfast city council, has been subjected to death threats, and her constituency offices have been targeted regularly. She and her staff have had to put up with the most vile abuse and intimidation, but she courageously defends her seat and represents her constituents. She will not be easily intimidated and I am just full of admiration for her.
I would have expected the Minister to provide Members representing small parties like the Alliance party or those sitting as an independent, as I do, some glimmer of hope that a recall petition could not be funded anonymously by large donations to political parties that could get together to unseat a very able MP. I would hate to think that that would be the outcome in Belfast East. The hon. Lady is a very feisty lady and I am sure she will fight the general election, but that is what the recall petition could do.
The Minister insisted that the Bill has to apply evenly across the United Kingdom in terms of the eight weeks for the recall petition and only four places where people can sign petitions in a constituency. That has to apply equally throughout the UK. Constituents and MPs in Northern Ireland are therefore entitled to know, as they are in Yorkshire, Devon, Cornwall or anywhere else in the United Kingdom, who is funding the recall petition that seeks to unseat them when they have been legitimately and properly elected in Northern Ireland, just as other MPs have been legitimately and properly elected elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
Thomas Docherty
I will be as brief as possible. I did not think that this part of the Bill would be contentious—I assumed that that would come with clause 18 and the recall provisions—but I have been somewhat surprised by some of the points made by the Minister. I have taken the opportunity just now, in relation to the points raised by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), to read through both the Bill and the explanatory notes. I have a great deal of sympathy with her arguments. As far as I can see—the Minister will have the opportunity to be “inspired” and rebut my arguments—there is not a sentence in either the explanatory notes or the Bill that says the provisions will not apply equally to Northern Ireland. The exception is, of course, the donations that are allowed from the Republic of Ireland to Northern Ireland, but there is no specific reference to two different recall systems operating.
I suspect the Minister was not lucky enough to spend a great deal of time in Scotland in recent months during our referendum campaign, and I fear nor were those from the Cabinet Office. Many of the Government’s assumptions on collusion simply do not stack up with the reality of what we saw in Scotland. Let me explain. There was a concerted and clear effort by the Scottish National party and its supporters to co-ordinate activity. A number of organisations were set up—including Academics for Yes, Farming for Yes, Mums for Change and Christians for Yes—to receive significant donations from the same individuals, including Brian Souter and Mr and Mrs Weir, for the clear purpose of allowing multiple spends during the campaign.
There was a limit of £1.5 million that any one organisation could spend during the referendum, but the reality was that the yes campaign, through a very small number of donors, was able to stack up multiple spends. The reality is that it was impossible to prove on the ground that collusion was going on, even when brown envelopes were arriving through constituents’ doors with “Referendum information” on them containing four or five pieces of literature from Academics for Yes, Farming for Yes, Wings Over Scotland and others. Therefore, we are not convinced at this stage that the Minister has set out sufficient safeguards to avoid collusion by organisations.
Thomas Docherty
I entirely agree. There is merit in further discussion about that because, as the hon. Lady says, unlike in a general election, where there would be three or four competing parties each pursuing a different goal—trying, I would hope, to get their own person elected—in this case three out of four political parties might be pursuing one goal and able to spend £30,000, while the fourth party, the party of the incumbent, would be pursuing the other goal.
I urge the Government to have a careful think and to talk to Members across the House to see whether we can establish some rules. For example, I know that some hon. Members have suggested that rather than capping what each party could spend, we should cap the total spend on the two arguments—that is, for and against recall. I hope that Ministers will consider those arguments in the weeks ahead. We do not wish to detain the Committee; I know that Ministers are listening carefully—I am grateful to see some nods from the Treasury Bench. If the Minister assures me that he will undertake to meet the hon. Member for North Down to discuss her concerns and to meet the Opposition in the days ahead, I will not seek to divide the Committee on this issue.
Tom Brake
We have had a useful debate, identifying some areas where the Government could usefully do some more work on the Bill. As we have said on a number of occasions, the process that the Government want to follow with this Bill is one is that allows Members from all parts of the House to make suggestions.
Let me respond to the points made by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon). One thing that she omitted—I am sure she remembered it, but she did not refer to it—is that for the recall process to start, there has to be a trigger. It is not as if organisations are lining up to try to unseat her or anyone else, such as the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long); there is a trigger that starts the process. However, I agree with the hon. Member for North Down that once the process has started, some organisations will have more money to bring to bear on the campaign than she, or I or other individual Members may have.
The hon. Lady has raised a point, which was reflected in the points that the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) made about how to ensure a level playing field in expenditure. I am happy to look at the point he made about whether it would be practical to have a total cap on the for and against campaigns. However, I am sure that experienced campaigners will be able to find their way around that approach—[Interruption.] Not my party, of course; I was thinking more of the Labour party. So it would not be a guarantee that one side could not outspend the other.
The anonymity of donations is an issue that the hon. Member for North Down and, indeed, other Northern Ireland Members raise on a regular basis. It would not be appropriate for me to put forward a solution in this Bill to an issue that has been ongoing for some time, but I hope she will acknowledge that at least some partial progress has been made on transparency—albeit perhaps not the full Monty that she would like to see us delivering. She knows much better than I do how complicated politics are in Northern Ireland and how difficult it is to find solutions that are accepted in all camps there.
The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife has approached this Bill in a consensual, engaging way. He highlighted the importance of having safeguards against collusion among different organisations. I accept that that is a significant issue, just as it was in relation to, for example, the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014, where one of the biggest issues concerned the collective ability of third-party campaigners significantly to outspend others and the difficulties in identifying whether they were acting independently or as part of an organised campaign. Those concerns will also apply to this Bill; I acknowledge that. We need to be aware of the issue and ensure that as many safeguards as possible are put in place—which is why I have said that I would be happy to get back to him on his suggestion of capping both sides of the argument to ensure equality of arms in any recall petition campaign.
The hon. Gentleman raised a point about donations to political parties and the Member of Parliament. For clarity’s sake, let me put it on the record that donations to political parties will be declared and made public under the current legislation—the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000—rather than the Recall of MPs Bill. An MP who is an accredited campaigner will have to declare relevant donations in the same way as other accredited campaigners.
The hon. Gentleman also asked whether I would be willing to meet the Opposition to discuss their concerns about the Bill. We met earlier this morning, and I am happy to meet him whenever appropriate, whenever he feels there is a significant issue he would like to raise. Indeed, if the hon. Member for North Down would like to meet to discuss some of her concerns, Ministers would be happy to do that and to accommodate her.
Thomas Docherty
I do not wish to detain the Committee any longer than necessary, but I wonder whether the Minister can clarify something about his very helpful answer about MPs’ declarations. As I understand it, a Member of Parliament who is fighting a recall petition has not yet vacated their seat, so am I right in thinking that they would have to declare any donation made to the fighting of the recall while they were still an MP, regardless of the outcome of the petition?
Tom Brake
As the hon. Gentleman often does, he has come back with a very detailed question, to which I will respond in writing, as I have to conclude the debate on this particular grouping of amendments. I hope what I said has been helpful in setting out the Government’s position. We have identified some further areas where more work needs to be done. I commend these provisions to the Committee.
Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedules 3 to 5 agreed to.
Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 18
Power to make further provision about conduct of a recall petition etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Temporary Chair (Mr David Crausby)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: clause 19 stand part.
Government amendments 50 to 52.
Clauses 20 to 25 stand part.
That schedule 6 be the Sixth schedule to the Bill.
Tom Brake
Amendments 50, 51 and 52 seek to amend clause 19 and have been tabled in the name of the Deputy Prime Minister. I will also explain the effect of the other clauses and schedules in the group.
The Law Society of Scotland suggested that, as drafted, there is a circularity in clause 19 that requires clarification. We think that it is unlikely that the clause would be misinterpreted, but would prefer to clarify the drafting to avoid doubt. As drafted, the Speaker may appoint someone to take his place if he is unable to perform his duties. The circularity comes because if he is unable to perform his duties, he is also unable to appoint someone. The Government have therefore proposed these amendments to remove any ambiguity from clause 19. The effect of the clause is the same.
Clauses 18 to 25 are largely technical clauses. They allow the Government to make further regulations about the recall process and to amend or otherwise reflect existing legislation. Clause 18 provides for the Government to make regulations about the conduct of a recall petition. It is envisaged that regulations on the conduct of the campaign will be based on those that exist for elections, with amendments to address the particular circumstances of the recall petition.
Clause 19 mirrors existing legislation, which makes provision for the Speaker’s functions, such as issuing notice to the petition officer, to be exercised by another person in the absence of the Speaker. This can be a person appointed by the Speaker or it can be the Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means. As I have mentioned, amendments 50, 51 and 52 remove any ambiguity in this clause.
Lady Hermon
I could not possibly allow the Minister to move on so quickly from clause 18, which is very important because it ties in with an issue I raised earlier. He referred only to clause 18(1)(a), and I would like him to deal with paragraph (b), which provides that the Minister
“may make provision about the questioning of the outcome of a recall petition and the consequences of irregularities”.
As I raised earlier, if the Member who is being subjected to the recall wishes to stop the petition officer notifying the Speaker, that MP should have the opportunity to take legal advice and to seek an injunction to prevent it from happening. Will the Minister simply confirm that the relevant Minister will not take the opportunity to attempt to oust the jurisdiction of the court if a Member subject to a recall petition has perfectly understandable concerns about the irregularities experienced in the recall petition?
Tom Brake
I knew I would not get away without an intervention from the hon. Lady in this final group of amendments. I have more to say, and if I do not address her points, we can return to them later.
Clause 20 introduces schedule 6, which provides for minor and consequential amendments to be made to the Representation of the People Act 1983 and the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. For example, the Representation of the People Act 1983 will be amended to allow that the form of writ for a by-election can state that it is to be held as a result of a successful recall petition. The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 will also be amended to give additional functions to the Electoral Commission in relation to recall petitions. These amendments will give the Electoral Commission functions that are similar, albeit with appropriate modifications, to those it already exercises in relation to elections more generally. Further changes to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 made by schedule 6 ensure that the recall Bill can be successfully introduced into the landscape of existing electoral legislation.
Mr Heath
I have three brief points to make. The first echoes the point made by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) about clause 18(1)(b). I do not think it satisfactory in this instance to have something decided by further regulation. This is a sufficiently important part of the procedure to be built directly into the Bill, so I ask the Minister to look at that.
My second point relates to clause 18(3)(c). If we are to maintain the position that we have a limited number of designated places, it is not satisfactory for people to be allocated to a specific designated place. If there are only four places in my constituency where people can go to sign this petition, people should not be told which one is the most convenient because it might be the wrong choice given where people work or whatever. I would prefer clause 18(3)(c) to disappear.
Thirdly, on clause 19, the Minister has proposed three explanatory amendments, but I have to ask why on earth the Speaker should be able to appoint a person to perform his functions. We have a system here whereby we elect four special Members: the Speaker, the Chairman of Ways and Means, the First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means and the Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means. If the Speaker is not able to carry out his functions, those responsibilities will fall naturally to the Chairman of Ways and Means and so on down the chain of command, as it were, in the Speaker’s Office. It is not appropriate for the Speaker to magic somebody else out of thin air to perform his duties when that person is not supported by the election of this House. This is a throwback to the old system whereby a Speaker was elected and everybody else was appointed by the Speaker. That is not appropriate. I ask the Minister to rewrite clause 19 to make it quite clear that in the absence of the Speaker, the Deputy Speakers will take on this responsibility.
Thomas Docherty
It is pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby. I have just three or four brief points and one substantive one. Let me begin with the substantive one.
As the Minister knows, clause 18 is the one about which Opposition Members have the most trepidation—and not just because of experiences in Scotland, but because of the recall petitions in the United States and elsewhere, and indeed because of the events that occurred in Oldham, East and Saddleworth in 2010 and the subsequent conviction in the elections court. The hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) has pressed diligently on this matter —today, in Committee last week and, if my memory serves me correctly, on Second Reading, too. Labour Members have some genuine concerns about the material that might be issued during the recall petition campaign. It does not appear to us to be absolutely clear at this stage that both accredited and unaccredited campaigners are required to abide by PPERA. The Minister’s stock reply throughout the evening has been, “We will cover this by means of regulation.” We seek a specific guarantee that the Government intend to ensure that all campaigners are covered by the requirements of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act.
Mrs Main
Will the Member of Parliament still be working as a Member of Parliament during the period concerned? If people write to him saying “I want to know this from you in your capacity as my Member of Parliament”, does he have to declare the costs incurred for his staff or anyone who replies to any such letters? That really does need to be sorted out if we are to have a level playing field.
Thomas Docherty
The hon. Lady has asked an excellent question. It is not for me to speak for the Government—yet—but I understand that during the recall petition phase, a Member of Parliament will still be a Member of Parliament. I trust that the Minister will nod his assent to that. If the petition is successful, the seat will be vacated, and the person concerned will no longer be a Member of Parliament during the period leading up to the by-election.
We need to know more details in regard to a number of issues. As I said earlier, it would be helpful to both Houses if the Government could at least produce draft regulations before the Bill goes to the Lords, if not before for the Report stage in the House of Commons. We think that there is plenty of room for potential abuse by campaigners, who, if not covered by PPERA, could make a series of unfounded allegations. We are concerned about the £500 limit, because a large number of individual constituents who had not supported an MP’s position on another issue could choose to spend £499. Although the petition itself had been called for on specific grounds of wrongdoing, it would then be possible for someone to say “My MP did not support my position on issue x or y.” There needs to be clear guidance not just on spending limits, but on what is written on the leaflets. We want Ministers to confirm that everyone will be covered by PPERA.
The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) made a valid point about the Speaker. I appreciate that we are not engaging in a broader debate on clause 19, but I think that there is scope for us to consider not just the question of who will appoint a Deputy Speaker, but the question of what will happen if the Speaker himself, or herself, is subject to recall in the future. The Government may say that if the Speaker were in prison, he or she would clearly be absent, but that might be for only one day. An expenses offence might be involved, if our proposed amendment is accepted on Report. We hope that the Government will consult Members on both sides of the House, and will consider clarifying the rules—either on Report or in the House of Lords—to ensure that if the Member of Parliament concerned is the Speaker, there will be a specific procedure enabling the Speaker to be recused from that process.
We have had a long and fulfilling debate, but I think that Ministers have plenty of homework to do. We would give them a C minus today, but they “could do better”. So far they have shown considerable attitude, if not aptitude, and we hope that when we return to the Bill on Report, their homework will be better.
Tom Brake
Let me respond briefly to the points that have been made.
The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) was rightly concerned about the possibility that a Member of Parliament could challenge the recall process. Regulations will set out the details of the way in which questioning about irregularities will take place, and the impact that irregularities may have on the outcome of the petition, but the courts will, in certain circumstances, be able to rule that the outcome of the petition is invalid. The hon. Lady may not feel that that is a substantial enough answer to her query, but I shall be happy to meet her if she wants to make further points or to be given further clarification.
My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) mentioned the limited number of designated places for signing, and the fact that they would be designated: in other words, people would have to go to specific signing points. As he probably realises, the purpose is to ensure that people cannot double-sign. If people could go to any of the four places, they might choose to move from one to another—
Thomas Docherty
Let me help out the hon. Gentleman, who does not usually need any help. According to my recollection, he was not disputing the issue of multiple signing. It was a question of who decided which petition station the constituent was assigned to, which is a slightly different issue.
Mr Heath
I do not want to delay things, but if there are four designated places, and there is a long period in which to check whether someone has signed in more than one place, it will not be like a general election, in which people turn up on the day and the result is announced that night. There is no reason why the electoral registration officer cannot detect that someone has visited more than one polling station. However, it may be greatly to the convenience of a person, particularly in a very large constituency, to go to one designated place rather than another to sign, and that may not be the one that happens to be the closest to that person’s house.
Tom Brake
I entirely understand that point, although I suspect that had my hon. Friend, in his previous guise, been at the Dispatch Box, he would have made the point that I have made. While in theory it is perfectly possible to check whether someone has signed at different locations, in practice, given that 20,000 people might potentially be signing the petition, it might be quite a hard task for the petition officer to undertake.
As for my hon. Friend’s point about the Speaker, the answer is that the provision follows existing legislation, which is exactly the point that he was making. However, I shall be happy to reflect on whether we need to do anything more.
The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) wanted to see draft regulations before the Bill reached the House of Lords. I am afraid that I cannot give him that assurance, but I can undertake to make any information that we can provide in advance available before the Bill goes to the Lords. The hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of the Speaker, although he made a slightly different point: he wanted to know what would happen if the Speaker himself was recalled. I think that the Government have understood that point and have covered all bases, but we have offered the hon. Gentleman a meeting, and I should be happy to explain in a further meeting why I think that the House would be able to respond to the scenario that he has in mind. I am grateful to all Members for giving their views. As I have said, these clauses are largely technical, but they are essential for the smooth introduction of a recall power that fits into our existing electoral system and uses safeguards to ensure that recall will be a fair and transparent process. In addition, the Government have tabled amendments 50, 51 and 52 to remove any ambiguity in clause 19. I therefore believe that clauses 18 and 20 to 25, and schedule 6, should remain part of the Bill in their current form.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 18 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 19
Performance of the Speaker’s functions by others
Amendments made: 50, page 13, line 3, after “person” insert
“who is, if a relevant circumstance arises,”
This amendment and amendments 51 and 52 remove a potential ambiguity in clause 19(1).
Amendment 51, page 13, line 4, leave out from “functions”)” to end of line 7 and insert—
‘( ) For the purposes of this section, a “relevant circumstance” arises if—
(a) the Speaker is unable to perform the Speaker’s functions because of absence, illness or for any other reason, or
(b) there is a vacancy in the office of the Speaker.”
Amendment 52, page 13, line 11, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
‘(3) If a relevant circumstance arises and no appointment under subsection (1) is in force, the Speaker’s functions are to be performed by the Chairman of Ways and Means or a Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.”—(Tom Brake.)
Clause 19, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 6 agreed to.
Clauses 21 to 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.
Bill, as amended, reported.
Bill to be considered tomorrow.
International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Bill (Money)
(9 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
20:46 - The House divided: - Ayes: 295 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Mr Desmond Swayne)
I beg to move,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Bill, it is expedient to authorise any expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by a Minister of the Crown or Government Department.
Philip Davies
I just wonder whether the Minister felt any embarrassment about bringing forward this money resolution the week after a report showed how much money his Department gives out that is either wasted or goes in some form of corruption.
Mr Swayne
One of the things we always discover with reports is that there is always an expectation, or a request, that the Department for International Development will do more, which is the case at present.
We have several very successful programmes for the reduction of corruption. What we have had from the International Commission for Aid Impact is essentially a request that we develop further programmes to deal with corruption at the local level and reduce its impact on the lives of ordinary people. As a DFID Minister, I am happy to consider everything we can do to achieve that, and I regard the report as a useful pointer.
I reject entirely the allegations that any of the current programmes have led to an increase in the level of petty corruption. I think the report has got the wrong end of the stick. It is not clear to me where that information has come from and it is certainly not clear in the report.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The problem is that when we have a departmental budget that, almost uniquely, is awash with money and is growing all the time, and where there is a limited number of countries under very difficult circumstances to which it is being directed, that must increase the possibility of corruption. That is what this report is saying, and that is what we are saying. That is why we are concerned about the amount of taxpayers’ money being wasted.
Mr Swayne
The issue before us this evening is the money to be spent in achieving a Committee stage for the Bill, rather than the total amount of money spent as a result of the principle of the Bill, which is what we dealt with in the second week of September. I agree with my hon. Friend, however, that it is absolutely vital that we develop programmes, schemes and methods of ensuring that every single penny is spent as it should be, and that it should not be wasted in corruption. I also draw my hon. Friend’s attention to the fact that the principle of the Bill was agreed overwhelmingly by the House—166 votes to seven. It is the will of the House that the Bill proceeds.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
I am sorry if I sound unhelpful but I have gone through every report in the independent audit and there are things that will concern the public, such as the review of the trade development work in southern Africa where we have discovered a payment to the Government of Zimbabwe in contravention of UK Government policy. We do need to keep tight control over money that is spent, or the taxpayer will feel that they are being fleeced.
Mr Swayne
It is vital that these matters are investigated and answers are given and that proper schemes are in place and enforced to ensure that the money is spent correctly. The purpose of this money resolution, however, is to give effect to the will of the House, clearly expressed in September, that this Committee proceed.
Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
Why, therefore, are the Government not bringing forward a money resolution for the European Union (Referendum) Bill—or, for that matter, the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George), because he will be on his feet in a moment if I do not include him?
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
As the Minister has said, this money resolution gives effect to the strong will of the House to see this Bill go forward. Does he agree with me that the very purpose of our development assistance is to help countries to grow—to develop and to establish stronger government systems—and to tackle the very corruption that inevitably occurs in some of the poorest countries in the world, and that actually we need to build a virtuous circle in respect of these issues, and not just pick things out one by one, as some Government Members are trying to do?
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
I entirely endorse this motion, but as the Minister said a moment ago, its purpose is to give effect to the clearly expressed will of the House. The House also clearly expressed its will on 5 September when we debated the Affordable Homes Bill. I do not understand why the Government are not bringing forward a money resolution for Bill No. 1.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)
Order. Minister, before you are tempted down that route, I would just like to remind the House that we are only debating the money resolution with respect to this Bill, and no other agreed or not agreed or yet to come before the House money resolution, so no Member should tempt the Minister to speak on any money resolution except the one before us today. That is important because we have only 45 minutes.
Mr Swayne
I am guided by your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker, but the fact is that I am no more able to gratify the hon. Member for St Ives than I am my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg). The fact is that this money resolution gives effect to the will of the House so this Bill can move into Committee.
Mr Bone
I think the Minister made a slight error with his numbers earlier. I think he was referring to the voting on the closure motion, when the debate was curtailed. The vote on the question on Second Reading was 164 to six. Will he enlighten us as to how the decision is made to bring money resolutions to the Floor of the House?
Mr Swayne
I stand corrected; my hon. Friend has clearly examined the record more scrupulously than I did. On his second question: that is a mystery to me. It is not for me to determine which Bills have money resolutions and which do not. That is a question that he might properly put to the Leader of the House on Thursday at business questions, because it is effectively his decision. The irony is that this Bill would not have required a money resolution in order to go into Committee had it not been for clause 5, which sets up a new body. The fact is that it is my intention to persuade my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Michael Moore) to amend the Bill in Committee by taking out that offending clause.
Michael Moore (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (LD)
I am happy to put on record the fact that the Minister and I have been having constructive discussions, and I hope that we will be in a position to bring amendments to the Committee together to deal with the matter that he has just raised.
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)
Will the Minister explain the process behind this particular money resolution? In an era in which the country knows that the Government have no money to throw around, what process did he go through to determine that there should be expenditure on progressing this Bill, which, if it is passed, would have serious implications for public expenditure?
Mr Swayne
The process is simple. We discussed it a great deal on Second Reading, but my hon. Friend is now effectively attempting to reopen that debate. The Bill was approved according to the clearly expressed will of the House, but it concerns a pledge that was in every party’s manifesto.
Mr Swayne
I hardly think that a private Member’s Bill could be referred to as being “pushed through” in that way. If it had been a Government Bill, my hon. Friend might well have complained about the operation of the Whips and about it being railroaded through; he has often complained about that in the past. Surely he does not think that that is happening with a private Member’s Bill; that is absolute nonsense.
Philip Davies
The Minister keeps repeating that approval of the Bill was expressed with the clear will of the House, but he also announced that 164 Members voted in favour of it. The last time I looked there were 650 MPs, so on what basis does he think that 164 Members represent the clear will of all 650?
Mr Swayne
The reason I keep repeating that the clear will of the House was expressed on that occasion is that it manifestly was. As my hon. Friend knows, the will of the House can be expressed through a majority of one. The fact that so many Members voted overwhelmingly in favour of the Bill’s Second Reading shows that that clearly was the will of the House. He is an aficionado of the House’s procedures on Fridays, and he will know that to get more than a quorum on a Friday is a substantial achievement. The fact that the House was filled with so many Members was a tremendous tribute to their strength of feeling and support for my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk’s Bill.
Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
I can understand why the Minister is getting excited, or even angry, but I urge him not to do that. The hon. Members who are putting him under pressure are not representative of this Parliament, and it is this Parliament that has the right to decide whether there will be a money resolution, just as we have the right to decide whether the Bill makes any more progress.
Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)
It has been a pleasure to watch the debate for the past few minutes. Watching Members on the Government Benches has been a bit like watching one’s mum and dad arguing.
I want to say a few words about the Bill, and about why we will be supporting the money resolution this evening. I am grateful to the Minister for outlining the financial implications of the Bill. The Labour party stands for a just society not only within our own borders but across a just world. More Labour MPs than any others voted for the Bill on Second Reading. The rights and benefits that we have established for people in the UK derive not from those people’s nationality but from their humanity. We must do all that we can to establish those same rights and benefits for the rest of the world’s people.
Mrs Main
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept the words of the previous Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Sir Alan Duncan), who said:
“it would be fruitless for us to invest in aid to relieve the plight of the poor in the short term if we did not seek to bring about lasting change.”
He went on to emphasise the importance of tackling corruption. Given that so many aid programmes are showing as either amber/red or red, it is important that we ensure that taxpayers’ money goes to the needy and not to the greedy.
Gavin Shuker
It is hugely important to ensure that aid gets to the right people. Indeed, the reports to which the hon. Lady referred in an earlier intervention make it clear that those who lose out the most are the poorest people in the poorest parts of the world where there is the most corruption. It is up to the Government to defend those people. I want to be generous and say that this challenge is faced by all developed nations when rolling out their aid programmes. I also agree with the hon. Lady about spending the money effectively, which is why I believe we can do much more to make the Department for International Development a real force for good in the world in relation to global institutional reform. It should not simply be the charitable arm of the UK Government. That should be our focus as we take the Bill through Parliament.
We live in a global community, yet every 10 seconds a child dies from hunger and malnutrition. A population more than three times the size of Birmingham dies each year from water-related diseases, and 1 million children die on their first and only day of life.
Richard Fuller
The hon. Gentleman just mentioned the charitable arm of the Government. Will he explain how that is different from the charitable feelings that we have as individuals?
Gavin Shuker
The hon. Gentleman has set me up nicely to explain the dualism involved. There is a belief among those who have latterly signed up to the cause that we have a responsibility to spend a significant proportion of our GDP on aid, but that that action represents the end of the process. They believe, for example, that we are getting value for money by buying a certain number of mosquito nets or toilets, or by digging a certain number of wells. In fact, we have to tackle the institutions that reinforce inequality in the first place. We should not therefore view DFID as the charitable arm of the UK Government; quite the opposite—it needs to be a force for transformation.
Stephen Doughty
My hon. Friend is making an extremely strong point. The British people are donating extraordinarily generously at the moment through the Disasters Emergency Committee’s appeal to tackle the spread of Ebola in west Africa, yet Conservative Members are chuntering in their seats and attempting to frustrate the Bill at this crucial time. The House has expressed its will to support countries such as Sierra Leone in developing strong health systems that would prevent outbreaks of diseases like Ebola in the first place.
Gavin Shuker
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I commend the Government for the work they are doing in Africa to tackle Ebola. We should be proud that this country is stepping up to the plate while other nations could do much more. However, it is institutional issues such as a lack of universal health care coverage—which we might have an opportunity to do something about in the post-2015 discussions—that will decide the fate of people in future outbreaks. We should not lose sight of that fact.
Philip Davies
The hon. Gentleman said earlier that we should not be judged solely on how much we are spending, and I agree with that wholeheartedly. However, this Bill is precisely about being judged on how much we spend. It does not do any of the other things that he thinks worth while. Does he therefore agree that we should ensure that the money we are already spending is spent properly before we consider increasing it, rather than doing what the Bill seeks to do, which is to increase it first then come back later to see whether it has been spent properly?
Gavin Shuker
It is clear that we need to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. I do not view it as inconsistent to raise our budget over the coming years in line with a set figure that we have been signed up to for a long time, at the same time as tackling corruption. That policy will form a safeguard for future generations, which is why it has cross-party support.
Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman makes his case with his customary passion and commitment to the cause. The Minister explained that we needed to agree to the motion in order to put the Bill into Committee so that we can then take out clause 5, which makes the motion necessary. If that is the case, what will the Opposition do in relation to clause 5?
Gavin Shuker
Those discussions are going on between the right hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Michael Moore) and the Government at the moment. It will ultimately be a matter for the Committee to decide, but we are certainly open to any measures that would ensure that the Bill reached the statute book in good time. This should be agreed on a cross-party basis, and I believe that we would all be in a much stronger position if we went into the next election with this legislation in place.
Mrs Main
The hon. Gentleman mentioned Africa. One of the commissioners of the Independent Commission for Aid Impact, Diana Good, who oversaw its work there, said:
“We had a number of grave concerns, from the £67 million unused money and misreporting to excessive expenses, against the background of a programme which was regarded as a flagship but failed properly to take into account the impact on the poor. DFID just relied on the assumption that the poor would benefit”.
We owe it to the British taxpayer to ensure that the poor are helped, not just to assume that they are being helped.
Gavin Shuker
We absolutely do. The hon. Lady makes an extremely good case for additional scrutiny. The Opposition hope that we do scrutinise the Department for International Development effectively. I simply point out that as we discuss this money resolution for a Bill about the total size of the envelope, we must not lose our sense of momentum in holding the Government to account. However, I say to the hon. Lady that those are slightly separate issues, and it would be good for the House if we made progress on the resolution.
Mr Bone
The shadow Minister is being very generous in giving way, and I have a high regard for him. He has talked a lot about the issues in the Bill, but we are discussing the money resolution. Does he agree that the tradition in this House is that if a private Member gets a Second Reading, which is difficult to do, a money resolution ought to be forthcoming so that the Bill can be discussed in Committee?
Gavin Shuker
I note that the hon. Gentleman has had considerably more time in the House than my good self—I believe he first sat on the green Benches in 2005, making quite an impact ever since—so I shall leave it to him to follow up that point with Ministers. It is true that we are committed to the Bill, and it is clear that we support the money resolution tonight.
The resolution focuses on money, not just integrity. It is therefore appropriate for us to reflect on the benefits that stem from our being a world leader in international development. Globally, we can see the true impact of poverty and the lack of opportunities, and how inequality and poor governance fuel extremism and hate. If we want the situation to change permanently, the only long-term solution is to invest in development.
Philip Davies
The money resolution states that it will
“authorise any expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by a Minister of the Crown or government department.”
How much money is the hon. Gentleman prepared to throw at it? The resolution says “any”, so how much money is he prepared to hand over?
Gavin Shuker
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will know, from his preparations for what I hope will be an entertaining speech, that the wording is fairly standard for a money resolution.
Our total spend is currently about 0.7% of GDP, and that will obviously be enforced by the Bill. Forgive me for saying that the general public may be misled—though certainly not by Members of this House—to believe that the amount we are spending is much greater. When asked, they said that on average 19% of our GDP is sent overseas, and when asked how much they thought should be sent overseas, they aimed for about 1.5%, so I am perfectly content with 0.7% to protect the poorest in the world’s community.
Sir Edward Leigh
To get back to the money resolution and the very important constitutional point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), does the Labour party think it is right and proper for the Government to expedite a money resolution for one private Member’s Bill—this Bill—but not for the European Union (Referendum) Bill, which many of us view as equally important?
Gavin Shuker
The vagaries of coalition politics are new to us all, including Opposition Members.
Mr Tom Clarke
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Given that we are debating a money resolution for the International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Bill, is it in order to expand the debate to deal with matters European?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)
I would say to the right hon. Gentleman, as I have already told the House, that this is not a general debate on the policy of money resolutions; it is specific to the International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Bill. Members have referred to others in passing, but they are not the subject of this debate. We are using up time in a time-limited debate. I am therefore sure that Members will stay in order, and I will certainly keep them in order by not allowing them to expand the debate to any other Bill.
Gavin Shuker
The Bill will be truly memorable, given the recent interventions.
The challenges we face are often global, and they require global leadership. It is clear that if we want to achieve a post-aid world, the 0.7% target must be met. That will require consistent leadership by developed nations; and passing the Bill, for which tonight’s money resolution is obviously needed, can only enhance the opportunity to encourage other developed nations that have made commitments to step up to the mark.
Money is only a small part of the story, because global leadership is also needed. That is why we will guard against DFID becoming the charitable arm of the UK Government when it can be an instrument for global development and change. It is true that the 0.7% target is enough to provide the most effective anti-malarial vaccine to every child in need, send 50 million children to school and provide sanitation for nearly everyone who needs it, but development is about much more than a single vaccine, sending one child to school or punching a hole in the ground. It is about providing a platform for empowerment and self-sustainability that will end the need for aid in our lifetime. I think that I speak for Members from across the House when I say that that should be our aim. We may disagree on the route to achieving it, but Opposition Members believe that passing the money resolution is a serious step forward, and we are backing it and the Bill.
Michael Moore (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (LD)
It will not surprise the House to hear that I support the money resolution. I am delighted that the Government have introduced it, and I am grateful to them for it. I welcome the speeches made from both Front Benches—
Michael Moore
And especially from the Back Benches. They have helped to shine a light on some of the issues involved in the Bill. I am not too hopeful about reaching agreement on them during the remaining stages of the Bill, but I hope we might do so.
On 12 September, we had a very striking result—whether it involved the whole House or otherwise—with 164 right hon. and hon. Members in favour of the Bill and only six opposed to it. That demonstrated that there was broad support across the parties for the idea of putting the United Nations target for official development assistance at 0.7% of gross national income into law.
During that debate, many interventions and the speech of the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) opposed the principle of the Bill and raised concerns—such concerns have been raised again this evening—about how official development assistance is spent, whether it comes from UK taxpayers or from others across the world. I expect and hope, assuming that we have a money resolution and can go into Committee tomorrow, that the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) will make many of those points and ensure that the Bill is thoroughly scrutinised in Committee.
Michael Moore
I can see where the hon. Gentleman is going with his intervention, but may I just say that decisions about other Bills, to which he may or may not be alluding, are way beyond my pay grade? Selfishly, as far as my Bill is concerned, I quite agree with him.
I welcome the fact that the efficiency and effectiveness of our official development assistance spending was a central feature of the debate a few weeks ago, as was entirely right. As currently constructed, the Bill includes a proposal, in clause 5 and the schedule, to introduce an independent international development office. The money resolution is required because of that provision, and it is fair to say that the specifics of the proposal have led to some discussion between the Minister, the Department and others who are interested in this matter.
Philip Davies
Given that the office is the right hon. Gentleman’s initiative and that the money resolution is specifically about it, how much does he have in mind for its cost?
Michael Moore
As little as possible, and that is the key to this whole process and to the discussions between the Government and me. Those discussions will be developed further in Committee if that is the will of the House. Specifically, we are talking about not only the principle of spending this degree of taxpayers’ money on official development assistance but appropriate scrutiny. I have listened carefully to the Government’s concerns, and I hope that we can find something that respects the principle, but does not burden the taxpayer with the undue costs of the machinery of government.
Philip Davies
Let me try again. If the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to put a figure on the cost, will he at least give us a cap, or is he asking us to write a blank cheque for his Bill?
Michael Moore
I am not asking for a blank cheque. I certainly accept that this House needs to take a view, in due course, on how much should be spent. [Interruption.] That will be a matter on which the House can reflect on Report and beyond. The important principle of scrutiny is one on which Government Ministers, shadow Ministers and others agree. I hope that it will not be difficult to come to an agreement in Committee that will respect the principle of scrutiny.
We have a huge responsibility to the developing world to ensure that we help them out of poverty and into a much more hopeful future. We also have a responsibility to taxpayers in this country to ensure that the effectiveness and efficiency of that development assistance is appropriate and that this House is scrutinising it. I hope that we will be able to deliver that in Committee and when we report to the House in due course.
Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
I did not expect to speak in this debate. To be honest, I did not expect the debate to go on for this long. During my time in the House, I have managed, as a result of coming high in the ballot for private Members’ Bills, to have the privilege—I am trying to keep in order, Madam Deputy Speaker—of introducing what are now two Acts of Parliament: the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 and the International Development (Reporting and Transparency) Act 2006.
Getting a private Member’s Bill through the House is no easy achievement, and I was able to do it thanks to wonderful support. There is also the challenge of getting enough Members here on a Friday—something that ought to change—so when we address the specific issue before the House tonight, let it be remembered that many, many Members turned up on a Friday to give their overwhelming support to this Bill.
Having referred to the two Acts with which I was associated, let me ask this: was it unusual for a money resolution of this kind to be introduced? No, it was not. When the first Act on disability went through the House, the Prime Minister was Mrs Thatcher. Mrs Thatcher was no spendthrift, but she was very obliging. Her Government introduced a similar money resolution.
Sir Edward Leigh
The right hon. Gentleman is a very valued and experienced Member of this House and a real parliamentarian, so will he confirm my understanding that it is absolutely unprecedented for a Government deliberately to block a money resolution for a private Member’s Bill? Therefore, really we are talking about double standards, and that is not fair to Back Benchers.
Mr Clarke
I seek to support the money resolution before the House. That is where I stand. As the Minister has said, it is not a great request; it is almost an administrative matter. We do not even know at this stage—it is subject to the discussions in Committee—whether the clause the resolution covers will be agreed between the right hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Michael Moore) and the Government. But are we so mean that we will not even allow discussions to take place? The raison d’être for supporting my International Development (Reporting and Transparency) Act 2006 was that we wanted to see more scrutiny. We did not want taxpayers’ money simply being thrown away. We wanted to address the very serious problems of world poverty, which this Bill does.
Stephen Doughty
My right hon. Friend is making some powerful points. Does he not agree that both the previous Government and the current one have seen tackling corruption and ensuring that effective aid is spent well as absolute priorities? The Department for International Development is regarded as one of the most successful Departments delivering development assistance globally. The very fact that some Government Members can cite concerns about some of the programmes is a testament to the fact that we are open and transparent and open to auditing, and that should be celebrated.
Mr Clarke
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. What this Bill seeks to do is build on the Act that I introduced. In reality, Members who introduce private Members’ Bills can only go as far as the Government of the day are prepared to go. I know that the right hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk will have been involved in all sorts of discussions with Ministers, and I know that that will continue. The Committee, which meets tomorrow, has a say in the matter as well. To give the Committee scope to deal with the principles that the House endorsed on Second Reading, the Minister has rightly judged that there is a requirement for this measure. Some people are extremely mean-minded; perhaps it is because they are opposed to the principle of 0.7%. I say to them with respect that the House has already decided on that matter, and it had the right to decide because each of the three major parties had that commitment in their manifestos.
Sir Edward Leigh
What we are saying is that the Government have to be consistent. If they are pushing this money resolution on the basis of a Back Bencher’s Bill passed by Back Benchers and the Government, then they cannot block another money resolution on another Bill. That is all we are saying. It is totally inconsistent and an attack on the rights of Back Benchers.
Mr Clarke
To be perfectly frank, I will not be drawn into the arguments about another Bill. I came to the House tonight to support the International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Bill money resolution. If there is a debate on other matters, then let that take place. The right hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk has made his case. I am appalled that we are having this discussion. Given that the principle has been decided, the major political parties have made their commitments and there was such a high level of support on a Friday for this Bill, this administrative necessity should be put before the House and approved. I might get even more angry if I say any more, so I will not. The case is made. I invite the House to do the decent thing and pass the money resolution.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
I will be brief because I know that there are other colleagues who wish to speak. We would be doing a disservice to the House and to members of the public if we did not point out that there are some serious concerns about the way that aid is used. We are not expecting people not to want to help the poor; we want to help the poor. I went through all the reports today, and I am sorry to say that, under the transparency of assessment of the programmes, so many of the programmes are failing to deliver aid because of problems with corruption and problems in those countries. Today, we owe it to people to scrutinise what is being spent on behalf of the British public.
Mrs Main
I am sorry but I will not give way, because the next speaker will be an Opposition Member and so many Government Members wish to speak.
On the work just in southern Africa, ICAI has said:
“The shortcomings that we saw in the programme and its serious deficiencies in governance; financial management; procurement; value for money; transparency of spending; delivery and impact, as well as its failure to use DFID’s body of knowledge in trade and poverty, have led to a marking of Red for the programme.”
The public expect us to be helping the poor and needy; they do not expect this. If Opposition Members have not been through the aid programmes, I would ask them to do so, because there are serious concerns about people lining their pockets and corruption. It is very difficult to get this sorted. Unfortunately, some of the reforms are not being put in place in some of the other countries. I suggest that before we start throwing more money at the problem, we help DFID by scrutinising these aid projects, and ensuring that the money we currently spend is well spent and getting to where it is supposed to go. I am pleased that DFID has dropped the innovative side of trying to find things to throw money at, because, unfortunately, “innovative” was not always in the best interests of the poor.
Philip Davies
Is it not worse than that, because the money resolution we are discussing is not about giving any more money to anybody in need or in any overseas development—it is about creating a whole new organisation of bureaucrats? That is what we are being asked to pass; it does not give any help to anybody in need.
Mrs Main
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about that. The report published on 31 October says:
DFID has not…developed an approach equal to the challenge, nor has it focussed its efforts sufficiently on the poor. While some programmes show limited achievements, there is little evidence of impact on corruption levels or in meeting the particular needs of the poor.”
Surely that is what all of us are interested in, rather than just throwing money at the matter. I will bring my remarks to a close, but I caution against rushing this through before we tackle the fact that we are not delivering money to the poor.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I rise to support the money resolution and the case made by the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Gavin Shuker) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke). I am disappointed listening to Conservative Back Benchers, because it seems that they are attempting to undermine the clearly expressed will in this House in a vote on a Friday and to use this debate to pursue other agendas. That is disappointing because DFID helps some of the poorest people in the world, who are suffering from diseases such as Ebola and so on—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) is waving her report at me. I have read many reports about DFID’s effectiveness over the years, and the fact that those reports are available, that they are read by Ministers and by the Opposition and that questions are asked is testament to DFID’s openness and transparency in its programme. It is very misleading to quote selectively from those reports and not refer to the vast majority of DFID’s programmes, which are extremely effective in delivering poverty eradication and tackling some of the big challenges in our world.
Philip Davies
The hon. Gentleman seems to be missing the point of the money resolution: the Government are already spending the amount of money that he wants spent on overseas aid. That is not at issue here; we are being asked to sign a blank cheque to create a new bureaucracy and organisation which does not give any money to poor people around the world.
Stephen Doughty
It is more bluff and bluster from the hon. Gentleman: the type of rhetoric about blank cheques and throwing money at problems. If that is the view, would these Conservative Members say we should not be supporting the efforts against Ebola in west Africa, or we should not be helping to immunise children across the world, to educate people or to strengthen the Governments who need to be in place and to be strong to tackle the very corruption these Members are talking about?
Mr Bone
The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech, but it is more like one for a Second Reading debate. The issue we are dealing with today is a money resolution. If the will of this House was expressed by 283 votes to nil, for example, would it not be right for the Government to introduce the money resolution measure? Is that not the approach that has been taken in this House in years gone by?
Stephen Doughty
You have given a clear direction already, Madam Deputy Speaker, that Members should not be drawn down other routes about other money resolutions. We are talking about the money resolution for the International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Bill, which was passed by a clear will of this House. I am extremely disappointed that some Conservative Members are attempting to frustrate that, insert other agendas and rhetoric, and create a misleading impression of a Department that is regarded—and has been, whichever party has been running it—as one of the leading Departments in the world for tackling poverty.
Corruption has been spoken about a lot, but both the previous Government and this one have spent significant time on strengthening anti-corruption activities. By ensuring development, growth and strong Governments, we create a virtuous circle that tackles the very corruption and problems these Conservative Members seem so exercised about. It is a shame they do not often turn up for more debates on international development to talk about some of these issues and engage constructively on them, rather than trying to bring in other agendas. As I said, we can look at plenty of reports about DFID. It would be misleading to suggest there is no corruption in the world—of course there is. Of course there are challenges in programmes and programmes that can be dealt with more effectively, but we ought to be proud of the fact that we have the systems in place to establish that, instead of suggesting that the whole development programme is a huge mess and none of it is making any difference—that is patently not the case. I want to stand firmly in support of this money resolution and stand against the nonsense, bluff and bluster we have been hearing from some Conservative Members.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I think that there is a lot of misunderstanding tonight. We seem to be hearing arguments for and against 0.7%—I happen to think that it is a bad idea—but that is not what we are discussing; we are discussing a specific money resolution. Nobody outside will understand the importance of what is happening here, which relates to the conventions of Parliament and the way that Parliament works.
The Bill should clearly have a money resolution, as should all private Members’ Bills that pass through this House—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) makes a good point, so I will correct that statement. In my view, there should be a debate on a money resolution for private Members’ Bills that receive a Second Reading. That is what we have tonight, and that is right. That does not mean that we have to vote for the money, but we have to be able to discuss it.
What people are up in arms about tonight is the fact that for a previous Bill that received a Second Reading the Government did not move a money resolution. When the House votes by 283 to zero, one might think that is a pretty clear indication of what it thinks. What we are saying is that if we let this procedure carry on unchallenged—
Business without Debate
Delegated Legislation
SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE (11 NOVEMBER)
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)
With the leave of the House, we will take motions 6, 7 and 8 together.
Defence
Ordered,
That Mr Julian Brazier and Mr Adam Holloway be discharged from the Defence Committee and Richard Benyon and Dr Julian Lewis be added.
Home Affairs
Ordered,
That Tim Loughton be a member of the Home Affairs Committee.
Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
Ordered,
That Mr Andrew Robathan be a member of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.—(Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)
Acocks Green Post Office (Birmingham)
John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)
The petition is from 573 residents of Acocks Green.
The petition states:
The Petition of residents of Acocks Green and customers of the Post Office in Acocks Green and others,
Declares that the Petitioners oppose the proposed move of Acocks Green’s Post Office branch from 1100 Warwick Road to 1131 Warwick Road; further that the proposed new location has fewer serving hatches, a significantly narrower pavement and, unlike the current location, no canopy above the pavement for when customers have to queue; and further that the Petitioners are concerned about the viability of the new host company and its store, and therefore the long term security of the branch.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to listen to calls for the Post Office to reject the current proposals for the movement of the Acocks Green Post Office and seek alternative, more appropriate proposals.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001394]
Blackpool Airport
(9 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to hold this Adjournment debate on the future of Blackpool airport, which is an extremely important issue facing my constituency and the Fylde coast. I know that all matters relating to the prosperity of Lancashire are of great interest to you, so it is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair this evening.
Blackpool’s first venture into aviation came more than a century ago, back in 1909, after which the airfield went on to play an important role in the UK’s early aviation history. In fact, the sister of aviation pioneer Amy Johnson lived in Stanley park in Blackpool, which resulted in her often paying a flying visit. It was in the 1930s that commercial flights first began operating from Blackpool, but following the outbreak of the second world war the airfield played a crucial role in the support of the Royal Air Force.
In the post-war years, the airport expanded rapidly, accommodating helicopter flights for gas rig workers and attracting scheduled flights from budget airlines, including Jet2.com, Monarch, Ryanair and smaller operators to Ireland and the Isle of Man.
Hon. Members may know that the airport was owned by Blackpool council until 2004, when it was sold to City Hopper Airports. During this time the airport grew rapidly, with passenger numbers rising from 266,000 in 2004 to more than 560,000 in 2007. In 2008, Balfour Beatty bought a 95% stake in the airport from City Hopper and gave a firm commitment to develop the airport as a commercial going concern.
The ensuing global position, however, saw most airports across the world experience a fall in passenger numbers. This saw Blackpool airport’s passenger numbers decline from just under 600,000 in 2007 to 262,000 last year. During that time the airport lost a number of flights from carriers such as Ryanair, with subsequent financial losses averaging approximately £2 million a year.
Blackpool airport has the ability to operate with extended flight times. During that period of downturn, the main passenger contract with Jet2.com required the airport to remain open for long hours and provide a certain level of safety and operational staff cover. The consequence was that the operational costs of the airport were in excess of £5 million a year, with little chance of recovering that sum from the number of passengers being put through the airport by Jet2.com.
Due to the significant losses being generated at the airport and the complications with the Jet2.com contract, Balfour Beatty announced in August 2014 that it had put the airport up for sale. Following a failure to find a buyer, it was announced that the airport would close on 15 October.
Many of my constituents have expressed to me their concerns that the airport’s closure seemed to proceed at breakneck speed, with insufficient time allowed to find suitable buyers. Although many of us in this House would have liked to see this situation handled differently, I want to concentrate on the next steps to secure the future of Blackpool airport.
Since the airport was put up for sale, I have been in regular contact with Mr Stewart Orrell, the managing director of infrastructure and investments for Balfour Beatty. In our meetings, I have impressed upon him the need for Balfour Beatty to work constructively to find a suitable buyer for the airport and to ensure that staff who have lost their jobs in the process receive the required support to find alternative work in the meantime.
I have also had conversations with potential buyers and investors, my fellow Fylde coast MPs, the Minister for Universities, Science and Cities, and the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill), who is in his place, to discuss ways to make the airport a more viable business.
I want to see what Government assistance might be on offer for those who wish to become involved in the airport’s future. I wrote to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Transport outlining a range of potential measures to save the airport, including a possible reduction in air passenger duty for regional airports. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) and I had a subsequent meeting with the Chancellor, at which we continued our discussions about the airport. The Chancellor listened intently to the points that we made and made clear his commitment to the Fylde coast. He said that he would work with me and my colleagues to find a solution that would increase the likelihood of aviation being retained on the Blackpool airport site.
In recent months, the Chancellor has outlined his vision for a northern powerhouse. If done correctly, that has the potential to make the north of England the engine that drives Britain’s economy once again and an area that competes not just with London, but with the great economic conurbations of Europe. For that to be achieved, connectivity and transport infrastructure will be crucial. Good transport links are at the heart of the proposed northern powerhouse. Although there has been much talk of HS3 and proposed road infrastructure improvements, viable regional airports will also have a vital role to play. It is for that reason that I feel passionately that Blackpool airport should be retained as a commercial airport. With the correct support from Government, it will remain a transport infrastructure asset for Lancashire and the north-west.
In order that that can happen, I have a number of requests to put to the Minister. While some of them will fall within his remit, others may fall within the portfolios of other Ministers. First, I appeal to those who are interested in operating a commercial airport to work with the liquidators, Zolfo Cooper, to ensure that the necessary equipment is retained on site so that the airport can continue to operate. That would include, for example, baggage-handling equipment, firefighting equipment and assets relating to air traffic control. When I spoke to Zolfo Cooper today, it informed me that it will be between six and eight weeks before a liquidation sale will proceed. It is important that interested parties contact the liquidators well before that deadline.
I have made it clear that I do not want Blackpool airport to go the same way as Manston airport in Kent, where there was a fire sale of assets that put the immediate future of the airport in doubt. May I take this opportunity to urge Blackpool Airport Properties Ltd, which is owned by Balfour Beatty, to give assurances that it will maintain the runway, taxiways and terminal buildings until an operator is found? I ask the Minister to work with colleagues across Government, in particular at the Home Office, to ensure that equipment relating to airport security and customs and immigration procedures is available to future operators as soon as they come forward.
A number of aviation businesses, such as flying schools, private jet service companies and helicopter operators, are currently working from the site and are facing uncertainty. It is crucial for the immediate future of the airport that those aviation businesses are retained. One of the largest operators is Bond Offshore Helicopters, which provides logistical support and personnel transport for the Morecombe bay and Irish sea gas rigs. I have been informed that it is temporarily operating out of BAE Systems’ Warton aerodrome, which is also in my constituency, while the future of Blackpool airport is decided. I understand that that is for a three-month period. I would not wish to see it go on any longer than that. I will speak to Bond Offshore Helicopters and BAE Systems to make my feelings clear: the company must remain at Blackpool airport.
Blackpool airport may be eligible to benefit from the regional airport connectivity fund. I would very much like the Government to offer that, should a suitable airline come forward to provide such a service to London.
Another source of Government assistance that I would like Ministers to explore is whether Blackpool airport could be considered for development capital through the regional growth fund. I believe that airport runways are strategic national assets that can only grow in importance, and they should be protected and supported by the Government to ensure their future viability.
Blackpool airport is about 400 acres, and I have been told that a viable airport business on that site would require only 220 acres to maintain an airport service. That leaves well over 100 acres that may be suitable for commercial development, and if done in a carefully planned way that would not only raise capital for the airport’s development, but it may also attract new businesses that seek to use the runway and hangerage facilities. Down the road in Warton we have an enterprise zone that sits adjacent to a runway and has been zoned for aviation, energy, and advanced manufacturing. May I suggest to the Government that the Warton enterprise zone be expanded to include excess Blackpool airport land that may be deemed suitable for commercial development?
Let me make it crystal clear, however, that if any developer is seeking to buy the airport, viewing it as a glorified brownfield site, simply to redevelop the land in its entirety for housing, retail or commercial use, I would find that completely unacceptable and fight it every step of the way. Such an act would be tantamount to economic vandalism, and would betray the hopes of local people and those across Lancashire who have supported the airport through thick and thin. To those developers thinking of going down that path, I say, “Don’t bother, and think again.”
Although the airport may be closed for now, I remain determined to work for its future and to keep the airfield working as it is a proud part of the Lancashire and Fylde economy. I feel the airport has the ability to be a successful commercial venture, and with the correct support and as Member of Parliament for Fylde, I will work with interested parties, including Blackpool and Fylde councils, the Lancashire enterprise partnership and any potential investors, to secure its future. I believe in Blackpool airport, and I ask us all to work together to secure its future because Lancashire deserves it.
Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies), my constituency neighbour, on securing this debate and on giving an excellent speech that summed up most, if not all, of the very strong arguments for why Blackpool should retain its airport in an operational state. He was right to draw attention to Blackpool airport’s long history and tradition, which goes back to 1909, as well as to its contribution during the second world war as the place where thousands of aircraft pilots were trained.
Today we must realise that the airport is of benefit not only to the people of Blackpool and the Fylde, or even to the tens of thousands of passengers who have used it every year for leisure and indeed business travel, and who now find themselves bereft of that opportunity because of what is—we hope—its temporary closure. The airport has the economic potential to be a crucial part of not only the sub-economy in the Fylde area but the economy of the whole of Lancashire, and I want to say a little more on that point.
The hon. Gentleman, quite rightly, referred to operations out of the airport, and at the time of closure the airport site was supporting 11 tenants, with important small businesses employing up to 200 people. That made up about a £20 million contribution to the sub-regional gross value added, and included, as the hon. Gentleman said, commercial passengers, offshore helicopters, general and corporate aviation, fuel sales and estates and commercial land development. Whatever problems there may have been, and whatever the disputes between Balfour Beatty—the owner of the airport—and Jet2.com, we must not lose sight of the fact that the businesses that were operating there were doing so in an expanding economic climate. We need only to look at the map of Liverpool bay—as I have done when wearing my hat as shadow maritime Minister—and at the sheer amount of activity going on to see that, so we must take that point into account. There are strong arguments and feelings among my constituents in Blackpool, not simply because of passenger usage or the airport’s heritage, but because of its economic value.
The issues raised in the debate are crucial. As the Minister knows, there are general problems with smaller airports in the regions. I will not stray from the topic of the debate, but I wrote to the Minister about the regional air connectivity fund. I was grateful for his positive response. As the hon. Member for Fylde has said, the Minister indicated that if new people come in with new flights, Blackpool could bid. However, it is not only a question of the air connectivity fund. It is also a question of what enabling mechanisms there might be for any new bidders to come in and take the airport on. The role of Lancashire enterprise partnership is potentially crucial in that, which is why I am glad that it is seriously considering what it can do with the support of the Fylde coast MPs to get that side of things moving.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the situation for anyone who wants to use the land for building or retail purposes. I entirely concur with his sentiments but, more importantly, so do the two councils—two thirds of the airport is in Fylde and the other is in my constituency, but Blackpool airport retains residual shares. I am glad that both councils have so far indicated that they would set their face against that form of development.
I shall conclude on one important point that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. There are bidders and potential discussions, but as you well know, Mr Deputy Speaker, it is one thing to have bidders and another to close the deal. One thing that might be needed to close the deal is the reuse and remodelling of that extra acreage to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Therefore, I would say both to him—I am sure he would agree—and to the Minister that that could be a crucial enabling facility for getting those potential bidders to sign up to the deal. I therefore ask the Minister to give an assurance that he will discuss the matter with the Minister for Universities, Science and Cities, or at least send the message to him.
Hon. Members are pulling together with Blackpool council and Fylde council. I pay tribute to the work of Blackpool council officers and John Jones, the transport cabinet member. We all want a successful future for Blackpool airport for the sake of the regional economy, and for the people of Blackpool and the Fylde coast, but we need that little bit of extra help and leverage from Ministers and the Government.
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) on securing the debate. I endorse everything he and the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Mr Marsden) have said. I will not repeat the points they have made but make one or two small observations.
The position has caused great concern on the Fylde coast for several weeks. It is right and proper that we debate it in the House of Commons. Many people in the aviation sector have told me that they are surprised that Blackpool lasted as long as it did. They say, “It was only the 29th busiest airport in the country. How could it possibly have had a long-term future?” Superficially, their point is attractive, but I should point out to the Blackpool naysayers that there is a profitable coastal airport over in Humberside—it is the 33rd busiest in the country and yet manages to turn a profit.
If we are thinking about the future of Blackpool airport, it is worth looking at what Humberside has achieved on limited means, and at how it has built a profitable business. First and foremost, Humberside has had good, strong growth in charter flights. We recognise that Balfour Beatty and Jet2.com have not had the easiest relationship. I urge Jet2.com to engage more constructively with any potential buyer about their possible future use of Blackpool. Jet2.com needs to show commitment and support to the airport. We should also recognise that many Jet2.com employees have lost their jobs at Blackpool airport as a consequence of the decision. They deserve a voice in the debate.
The hon. Member for Blackpool South (Mr Marsden) rightly pointed to the high degree of activity in the oil and gas sector in Liverpool bay at the moment. It is worth noting that Humberside has a major oil and gas operation that sustains what it is doing.
The third crucial leg of what makes Humberside profitable is that it is has a connection to Amsterdam. I am quite sure that the Treasury does not want to hear this, but links to Amsterdam are an excellent way for passengers to try to avoid paying air passenger duty. If one looks at passenger usage figures for Humberside, one sees that the flights to Amsterdam contribute the most passengers. It would be an excellent addition to Blackpool’s portfolio of routes if KLM or a similar operator were to introduce an operation to Amsterdam or, for that matter, Frankfurt.
Those three sets of circumstances could together make an airport like Blackpool profitable once again. Many constituents have written to me to say how distressed they are that one of the country’s first airports, with a fine proud heritage, has somehow fallen into obsolescence without anyone really seeming to take much notice, as though there was nothing that could be done. The local MPs here today have at least made the point that there is plenty that can be done, providing there is great optimism. If we can secure this precious enterprise zone, and if the local enterprise partnership steps up to the plate and delivers on its potential in terms of economic regeneration, Blackpool airport will once again reopen and have a profitable mix of routes that will make it sustainable in the long term. I urge all our constituents not to despair at this stage, but to hope that the many potential buyers out there can engage fruitfully with the other airlines and local councils.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) on securing this debate on the future of Blackpool airport. I commend him for his engagement with those who have been striving to secure a future for the airport.
In recent years, increasing demand for commercial air travel has heightened the need to improve the capacity and efficiency of UK airports. This is absolutely essential to meet the Government’s commitment to maintain the UK’s aviation hub status. In our aviation policy framework published last year, we recognised the crucial role that regional airports play in providing airport capacity and the vital contribution they can make to the growth of their local economies. Indeed, I like to refer to them as local international airports, rather than just regional airports. The Government are therefore determined that the UK continues to benefit from the services that regional airports offer. We welcome the ambition many of them are showing through investing in their infrastructure, increasing accessibility and facilitating more services to more destinations. I have also been impressed by the efforts many airports are making to diversify into different activities, such as aircraft maintenance, repair and overhaul, business aviation and other support services, and providing space for other, non-aviation businesses.
I am aware of Blackpool airport’s proud history, which goes back as far as 1909 when the UK’s first official public flying meeting took place there. In the 1930s, the pioneering Railway Air Services operated commercial schedules to the Isle of Man, Manchester and Liverpool, with connections to other UK destinations including London. As RAF Squires Gate, the aerodrome had an illustrious history. During the second world war it served as a base for operational RAF coastal command squadrons patrolling the Irish sea and eastern Atlantic, and for specialist reconnaissance and technical training schools. The Ministry of Aircraft Production set up a huge shadow aircraft factory close to the aerodrome for Vickers Armstrong to manufacture and test more than 3,500 Wellington bombers between 1940 and 1945. Airline services resumed from 1946 and the airport enjoyed relatively steady commercial air operations for many years, allowing a lot of people in the Lancashire area to experience their very first foreign holiday. However, services and passenger numbers declined steadily from the 1970s onwards, as charter operators moved to other, larger airports.
In recent years, Blackpool airport has struggled to attract and retain consistent air passenger services. However, like many other smaller airports, Blackpool airport has more strings to its bow, and also serves as an important base for a number of aviation-related support and maintenance businesses, as well as flying training schools and business and general aviation operators. In fact, Blackpool airport played a role in the 1983 general election campaign, when Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was spirited to the Fylde coast via the airport for one of her final election rallies. I was therefore very sorry to learn in August that Blackpool airport’s owner, Balfour Beatty, was putting the airport up for sale and that it would close in mid-October if no buyer came forward. Unfortunately, as we know, no buyer was forthcoming, and the airport’s owner issued a statement on 7 October confirming that the closure would go ahead on 15 October. The final commercial flight departed for the Isle of Man at 5 pm that day.
I fully recognise concerns in the area about the impact that the airport’s closure could have on the local and regional economy, and the reduction in travel choice and opportunity. However, in the first instance this is essentially a commercial matter for the airport’s owner. As hon. Members will understand, airports in the UK and the airlines that use them operate in a competitive, commercial environment. The UK’s aviation sector is overwhelmingly in the private sector, and this Government support competition as an effective way to meet the interests of air passengers and other users. It is for individual airports to take decisions on commercial matters, which will of course include questions of services and future viability. Equally, airlines take similar commercial decisions in regard to the routes that they operate and from which airports. It is not open to the Government to compel airports or airlines to operate services.
I know, however, that my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde and other parliamentary colleagues from the area, from whom we have heard tonight, are involved in ongoing discussions to secure the future of the site and retain an aviation presence there, as well as working with local partners, including Blackpool council, to explore the potential for turning the airport into an enterprise zone. The airport continues to work with general aviation businesses and others based on the airport site to discuss options for them to remain there in the longer term. I warmly commend all those collaborative efforts and very much hope that a resolution can be achieved that will maintain aviation activity at the airport.
Taking a wider view, the Government remain committed to rebalancing the economy and supporting regional development. Hon. Members will know that Lancashire’s local enterprise partnership was successful earlier this year in securing over £230 million from the Government’s local growth fund to support economic growth in the area. Let me restate our determination that the UK should continue to benefit from the contribution that regional airports can offer. The Chancellor recently announced that applications will now be allowed for start-up aid for new air routes from UK regional airports. To be eligible, airports must handle fewer than 5 million passengers per annum and meet new European Union state aid guidelines. The Department for Transport is working with the Treasury to determine how the funding process will operate in practice. We hope to be in a position to announce routes that can be funded in the new year.
As hon. Members will also be aware, the independent Airports Commission, chaired by Sir Howard Davies, has been established to identify and recommend options to maintain this country’s status as an international hub for aviation. In preparing its interim report, the commission undertook a detailed assessment of the UK’s future aviation demand and connectivity requirements. The interim report, published last December, details a shortlist of long-term options for further study to increase airport capacity, along with recommendations for the short term to make the best use of our existing infrastructure. The commission also recognised that, in the short and medium term, the Government do not have effective levers to redistribute traffic to less congested airports, even if it were desirable to do so. All the shortlisted long-term options are now the subject of more detailed analysis and consultation by the commission. To protect the integrity of the process, the Government will not comment on any of the shortlisted options.
I was asked a number of questions. First, I was asked what the Government can do to step in and prevent the liquidator from selling off the airport’s fixtures and fittings. I can report that the Insolvency Service has confirmed that Blackpool Airport Ltd entered creditors’ voluntary liquidation proceedings on 7 October and that a liquidator was appointed on 16 October. Matters concerning the disposal of the airport’s assets are for the airport’s owner and the appointed liquidator, and we heard that it would be six to eight weeks before a sale could proceed. The liquidator has a duty to ensure that the maximum levels of realisation from sales of assets are achieved to ensure the best returns to the creditors. In the meantime, there is an important window to explore other aviation-related options.
We heard about other forms of aviation, particularly helicopters. I can comment on the North West Air Ambulance helicopter operations from Blackpool airport. The North West Air Ambulance charity has confirmed that its service will not be affected by the airport’s closure. The charity has confirmed publicly that whatever happens, it has a number of measures in place and that emergency services will not be affected. The airport continues, too, to work with other aviation support businesses and general aviation operators based at the airport site to discuss options for them to operate from the site in the longer term. I know that Bond Offshore Helicopters was mentioned in the debate.
I appreciate that the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Mr Marsden) is the shadow aviation Minister, and I particularly value his contribution through correspondence. He is speaking as a Back Bencher in this debate, but I understand how important this issue is for him—not only locally as the local Member of Parliament, but nationally in respect of our overall regional airport policy. When it comes to bidders, it is important to make the best use of all the land on the site and to capitalise on the opportunity. The hon. Gentleman asked me to be a messenger to the Government, but I do not think he needs me to pass on the message, as I am sure his contribution to tonight’s debate will have gone out far and wide to all interested parties.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) rightly drew attention to the fact that passenger numbers, freight numbers and aircraft movements have declined and mentioned the success of Humberside in that regard. Yes, Humberside has opportunities for oil and gas, but one of the biggest problems for Blackpool by comparison with Humberside is that it is not quite so close to an airport that is as strong and competitive. My hon. Friend mentioned the fact that a KLM route from Schiphol will benefit to an extent from the distortion of air passenger duty, but I must point out that any questions about APD should properly be directed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is interesting to note that what precipitated the problems at Manston was in many cases due to the fact that the KLM service was withdrawn.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde once again for securing this debate. I underline the fact that the Government are committed to improving the capacity and the efficiency of UK airports to maintain the UK’s aviation hub status. Although fully aware of the importance of regional airports in this, the Government are unable to intervene directly in Blackpool’s case, as it is ultimately the responsibility of the airport’s owner to determine whether or not it is commercially viable.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Corrections
(9 years, 6 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Foreign and Commonwealth Office
(9 years, 6 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
I met 60 members of the Chagos community in my constituency on Friday—a faithful people but without the right to return they once again feel that will not adequately mourn their dead as they approach All Hallows next week. Their elders are passing away without having recorded their stories of displacement, and their young are finding it increasingly difficult to find salaried employment or to visit their friends in Crawley and other places across the country. They also worry about us ceding sovereignty. Does the Minister agree that we should be doing more for those people, rather than less?
Mr Swire
I assure the hon. Gentleman that there are no issues of any sort about ceding sovereignty—we should deal with that point straight away. The draft KPMG report, which we were not obliged to undertake, will be out on 17 November, and thereafter there will be time for all those who have been consulted to make such points before the final report early next year. That is why we have included the Chagossians in the testimony.
[Official Report, 28 October 2014, Vol. 587, c. 156.]
Letter of correction from Mr Swire:
An error has been identified in the response I gave to the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane) during questions to the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.
The correct response should have been:
Mr Swire
I assure the hon. Gentleman that there are no issues of any sort about ceding sovereignty—we should deal with that point straight away. The draft KPMG report, which we were not obliged to undertake, will be out in the week of 17 November, and thereafter there will be time for all those who have been consulted to make such points before the final report early next year. That is why we have included the Chagossians in the testimony.
EU Sanctions (Russia)
Jonathan Reynolds
What is the Foreign Secretary’s considered assessment of the relationship between the dependence of some of our European partners on Russian energy supplies, and the effectiveness and robustness of the sanctions that we have pursued against Russia?
Mr Hammond
The sanctions are robust. I think that the important relationship is between the dependence on Russian energy supplies and the robustness of the position of some of our partners on the question of maintaining those sanctions. Fortunately, the sanctions that are in place will last until March or May, depending on the type of sanction involved, before any opportunity arises to debate their renewal or otherwise. That means that, at the very least, we shall get through the winter with the sanctions in place.
[Official Report, 28 October 2014, Vol. 587, c. 164.]
Letter of correction from Mr Philip Hammond:
An error has been identified in the response I gave to the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) during questions to the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.
The correct response should have been:
Mr Hammond
The sanctions are robust. I think that the important relationship is between the dependence on Russian energy supplies and the robustness of the position of some of our partners on the question of maintaining those sanctions. Fortunately, the sanctions that are in place will last until March or July, depending on the type of sanction involved, before any opportunity arises to debate their renewal or otherwise. That means that, at the very least, we shall get through the winter with the sanctions in place.
Written Statements
(9 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
ECOFIN
(9 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
A meeting of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council was held in Luxembourg on 14 October 2014. Ministers discussed the following items:
Measures in support of investment
Ministers discussed measures in support of investment, including the Commission-European Investment Bank proposal for a new taskforce to identify significant European investments which are not being realised for economic, regulatory or other business reasons.
Research and innovation as sources of renewed growth
The Council briefly discussed a Commission communication on research and innovation.
Follow-up to the G20 Finance Ministers and Governors’ meeting and annual meetings of the IMF and World Bank Group in Washington
The Commission updated the Council on the outcome of the G20 Finance Ministers and governors’ meeting on 9-10 October 2014 and annual meetings of the IMF and World Bank Group on 10-12 October 2014 in Washington.
Banking union: single resolution fund contributions
The Commission updated the Council on progress towards laying the delegated act on contributions to the resolution financing arrangements under the bank recovery and resolution directive (BRRD) and the single resolution mechanism (SRM).
Payment appropriations
The Commission updated Ministers on the state of play on payment appropriations, specifically the draft amending budget 3.
Mandatory automatic exchange of information in the field of taxation
The Council reached political agreement to the revised directive for administrative co-operation (DAC2), which will implement the OECD’s global standard for automatic exchange of taxpayer information (AEOI) in the EU.
Energy taxation
The Council held an exchange of views on the energy taxation directive, which sets minimum rates of tax for energy products used as heating fuel, motor fuel and electricity.
Ministerial dialogue with EFTA countries
Ministers met with EEA European Free Trade Association states at this ECOFIN and agreed a set of Council conclusions on incorporation of the EU European supervisory authorities regulations into the EEA agreement.
Business taxation
Following agreement at June ECOFIN, Ministers signed on a joint statement between member states and Switzerland on business taxation.
Public Spending
(9 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne)
I am pleased to announce that Greater Manchester will be getting its own directly elected city-wide mayor with powers over transport, housing, planning and policing, as part of an agreement I have reached with the civic leaders from Greater Manchester.
This is a key part of our plan to create a northern powerhouse, to maximise the economic potential of the north and build a more balanced economy.
Under the agreement, Greater Manchester will see the first metro-wide elected mayor outside London and the Government will devolve a comprehensive set of powers to Greater Manchester. In addition to powers over transport, housing and planning, Manchester will also be given new powers to support business growth, skills, and help to join up health and social care budgets.
These mayoral proposals will create a powerful devolved administration with strong political leadership that can drive through policy to stimulate economic growth and plan strategically across the city, as well as representing the city nationally and internationally.
I hope that Manchester will be the first of many big cities to take advantage of greater devolution of powers. Any other city that wants to receive more powers and move to a new model of governance with an elected mayor should bring forward their proposals.
A new, directly elected mayor of Greater Manchester will receive the following powers:
Control of a £300 million housing investment fund.
Powers over strategic planning, including the power to create a statutory spatial framework for the city region. This will need to be approved by a unanimous vote of the mayor’s Cabinet.
Responsibility for a devolved and consolidated transport budget, with a multi-year settlement to be agreed at the next spending review, and responsibility for franchised bus services (subject to consultation by Greater Manchester) across the Greater Manchester region, and for integrating smart ticketing across all local modes of transport.
Control of a reformed earn back deal, within the current envelope of £30 million a year for 30 years, this gives Greater Manchester the certainty they need to extend the Metrolink to Trafford Park.
Take on the role currently covered by the police and crime commissioner.
The Greater Manchester combined authority will receive the following powers:
Responsibility for securing integrated business support services, including through the Growth Accelerator, Manufacturing Advisory Service and UK Trade & Investment (UKTI) export advice.
Control of the Apprenticeship Grant for Employers in Greater Manchester and power to re-shape and re-structure the Further Education (FE) provision within Greater Manchester.
Control of an expanded Working Well pilot, with central Government funding linked to good performance up to a fixed DEL limit in return for risk sharing.
Opportunity to be a joint commissioner with Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) for the next phase of the Work programme.
The GMCA and Greater Manchester clinical commissioning groups will be invited to develop a business plan for the integration of health and social care across Greater Manchester, based on control of existing health and social care budgets.
The Government will now prepare legislation to enable these changes with the potential for the mayoral election to take place in 2017.
Further powers may be agreed over time. The Government will keep Parliament fully informed.
British Business Bank
(9 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Vince Cable)
On 26 June 2014, I made a written statement to the House providing an update on progress in setting up a new British business bank to support the provision of finance to small and medium-sized businesses in the UK.
I am pleased that I am now able to tell the House that the bank began full operations as an independent entity on 1 November 2014.
The commencement of operations by the bank has been contingent on receiving state aid approval from the European Commission. On 15 October 2014 the European Commission gave its approval, relating to the bank’s funding, remit and operating model.
In advance of receiving state aid approval, the business bank team has achieved significant progress in supporting lending to small businesses while operating out of the Department. Eight hundred and twenty nine million pounds of new lending and investment to small UK firms was generated through the business bank programmes in the 12 months to June 2014, taking the total number of businesses benefiting from the bank’s programmes to over 35,000.
Given the breadth of the bank’s activities, the bank will operate through the following three subsidiaries, as set out in the terms of the state aid approval:
a ‘mandated’ subsidiary––British Business Finance Ltd––which will be able to offer funding and guarantees to banks and other financial intermediaries so incentivising them to offer more finance to small firms;
a ‘commercial’ subsidiary––British Business Bank Investments Ltd––whose remit is unfettered by state aid constraints, though in line with the state aid approval for the bank it must operate on fully commercial terms, including its funding, operations and investment activity; and
a ‘service’ subsidiary––British Business Financial Services Ltd––which will provide services to Government including managing specific programmes which remain on Government’s balance sheet.
The subsidiaries will operate under the British business bank brand, with the exception of the commercial subsidiary which will operate under the British business bank investments brand.
My Department has entered into a keep-well agreement with British Business Finance Ltd under which my Department will, subject to certain conditions being met, agree to provide funding to British Business Finance Ltd in circumstances where British Business Finance Ltd would not otherwise be able to meet its payment obligations.
This model will permit the bank, through the mandated arm, to make commercial or aided investments to firms eligible under the EU general block exemption regulations, as well as loans or investments to businesses within the specified de minimis limits. The bank will also gain significant extra flexibility through the commercial and service arms.
My Department has also been working to ensure that the company would be ready to begin operations soon after the receipt of state aid approval. On 30 October 2014, the board of British Business Bank plc resolved that the company would be ready to begin full operations as an independent entity on 1 November, having concluded that the necessary systems, processes and personnel would be in place. The assets which are transferring to the bank transferred on 1 November.
The Government will provide funding to the bank under section 228 of the Banking Act 2009.
Agency Workers Regulations (Review)
(9 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Jo Swinson)
As part of the red tape challenge, Government committed to examining the paperwork obligations of the agency workers regulations (AWR). The purpose of the review was to ensure that the practical arrangements for employers were as simple as possible. While the review was completed late last year, Government delayed an announcement of findings until after the publication of the European Commission’s review of the implementation of the agency workers directive. This was published on 21 March this year.
The review focused on the record-keeping requirements of the AWR. The AWR are not prescriptive as to what records should be kept by either a recruitment business or a hiring business––it is up to the businesses themselves to determine their own approach. However, in the course of the review it was clear that businesses needed to record information about agency workers in order to demonstrate compliance with the regulations.
Views were collected from temporary work agencies, business, and trade and employee representative organisations.
The review found that, while temporary work agencies reportedly invested much time and resource in updating their processes and systems to ensure they were compliant when the AWR were brought in, there was consensus that the AWR work relatively well.
The most significant obstacle experienced by temporary work agencies was obtaining information from hiring businesses about employment terms and conditions of comparable workers who are hired directly by the hirers. Without this information agencies found it difficult to ensure temporary agency workers receive the same basic working and employment conditions after completing the 12-week qualifying period.
But temporary work agencies were clear that they did not want the main guidance on the regulations to be changed. Amending the guidance would risk being perceived as changing the AWR, and thus create confusion among temporary work agencies and hiring businesses.
They did, however, suggest that additional guidance should be issued on the regulations specifically targeted at hirers to explain what information agencies would require from them and why. This will reduce the administrative burden on temporary work agencies which is brought about by having to make repeated requests to hirers.
Officials will now work with interested parties to simplify the existing guidance into three distinct sections––one for workers, one for temporary work agencies and additional guidance specifically targeted at hirers.
Wood Review
(9 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Mr Edward Davey)
In June 2013 I commissioned Sir Ian Wood to undertake a comprehensive review of the regulation and stewardship of the UK’s hydrocarbon reserves. Sir Ian published his report on 24 February which made clear that the size of the prize on offer is considerable. The review estimated that full and rapid implementation could deliver 3 billion to 4 billion barrels of oil equivalent more than would otherwise be recovered over the next 20 years. Today, the Government are publishing the Impact Assessment (IA) which accompanies the Phase 1 proposals to implement the Wood review recommendations - the powers to charge a levy and the establishment of the maximising economic recovery UK principles in statute, currently contained in the Infrastructure Bill. Without further secondary legislation these will not have a direct impact on business. The IA does however provide an estimate of the potential net benefit to business associated with the implementation of all the review’s recommendations of between £20.7 billion and £56.3 billion (net present value), primarily as a result of greater oil extraction from the North sea. This reconfirms the importance of ensuring the Wood Review recommendations are fully implemented as quickly as possible. I will be depositing a copy of the impact assessment in the Library of both Houses.
Language Controls (Healthcare Professionals)
(9 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr Daniel Poulter)
The Department of Health has been working with the General Dental Council (GDC), the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC), the General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) and the Pharmaceutical Society of Northern Ireland (PSNI), along with other stakeholders to look at ways to ensure that the English language capability of nurses, midwives, dentists, dental care professionals, pharmacists and pharmacy technicians working in the UK is sufficient. We greatly value the contributions that health care professionals from all over the world have contributed, and continue to contribute to our NHS, but it is essential that they have a sufficient knowledge of the English language, in order to provide safe patient care. Earlier this year, changes were introduced to strengthen the law around language controls for doctors, by introducing language controls for European economic area (EEA) doctors wishing to practise in the UK. Ministers from the four UK Health Departments are firmly committed to improving public protection by preventing health care professionals who do not have sufficient knowledge of English from working in the UK.
Today the Government launched their consultation “Language Controls for nurses, midwives, dentists, dental care professionals, pharmacists and pharmacy technicians—proposed changes to the Dentists Act 1984, the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001, the Pharmacy Order 2010 and the Pharmacy (Northern Ireland) order 1976”. The consultation document consults on proposals to amend the legislation governing the GDC, NMC, GPhC and PSNI so as to give them more explicit powers to satisfy themselves about the English language capability of EEA applicants for registration, as well as to take action where concerns arise about a registered professional’s ability to communicate adequately in English. The draft Health Care and Associated Professions (Knowledge of English) Order 2015 has also been published alongside the consultation document.
The consultation will close on 15 December 2014 and the Government welcome views on the proposals and invite comments through the consultation process.
“Language Controls for nurses, midwives, dentists, dental care professionals, pharmacists and pharmacy technicians––Proposed Changes to the Dentists Act 1984, the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001, the Pharmacy Order 2010 and the Pharmacy (Northern Ireland) order 1976” and the draft Health Care and Associated Professions (Knowledge of English) Order 2015 have been placed in the Library of the House. Copies are available to hon. Members from the Vote Office and to noble Lords from the Printed Paper Office.
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Skelmersdale) (Con)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes on the television clock.
Consumer Rights Bill
Baroness Drake
Baroness Drake (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 63AB I shall also speak to Amendment 63AC. The Government seek to ensure that markets function well by increasing the range of measures available to enforcers under the civil law enforcement regime, which is an initiative to be welcomed. Of course, good business needs safeguards as to how these powers will be used, and Schedule 7 sets out the conditions that enforcement bodies have to meet. However, if those safeguards are so extensive that they act as a deterrent to private enforcement bodies to use the enhanced enforcement measures, much of the value of the new powers will be lost.
Subsections (9) and (10) of proposed new Section 219C, which my amendment would delete, in Schedule 7, set a requirement that a private enforcement body, taking enforcement action, must act consistently with any advice or guidance that the relevant trading standards primary authority has given. Of course private enforcers should consult public enforcement bodies and take into account their views—that is not disputed—but in practice the unintended consequences of proposed new subsections (9) and (10) could mean that a private enforcer would be prevented or deterred from taking civil action that is inconsistent with advice that had been received by the defendant company from its primary authority. This greatly increases the risks involved in taking civil action, particularly on exposure to costs, and makes it much less likely that private enforcers will use the enhanced consumer measures.
If the defendant can satisfy the court that the private enforcer is acting inconsistently with primary authority guidance, the enforcer will automatically lose the action and be liable to pay the defendant’s legal costs. It will be simply irrelevant that the action would otherwise be correct as a matter of law and/or have considerable merit. This exposure to costs in these circumstances will act as a deterrent. No doubt the Government will argue that private enforcers can mitigate that risk by consulting the primary authority in advance of any action. However, that is easier said than done. For example, the primary authority may not have accurate records of all the advice and guidance that it has provided. It may be formal advice, written, oral, or the records may not be reliable. This may be particularly true in respect of any so-called informal assistance or oral advice. When the primary authority has changed, when a company switches authorities or when a company merges or is acquired, the relevant records may be confusing, imprecise or not readily identify all relevant guidance. The private enforcer may proceed in good faith on the basis that there is no advice, but if then later during proceedings information about advice comes to light, the case may be thrown out, whatever its merits, and costs awarded.
The claim may not align precisely with the scope of the subject matter covered by the advice from the primary authority. That may lead to legal arguments as to whether the private enforcer’s case is inconsistent with the authority’s guidance or whether it is elaborating on that guidance, thereby making its action permissible under Schedule 7. Win or lose, the private enforcer’s costs will go up. The court may give a very broad interpretation to the advice that a defendant company receives from the primary authority. This may be particularly so if the records of the authority are imprecise or inadequate. In such a situation, the private enforcer would lose the action and be exposed to costs, even if its arguments on consumer detriment had considerable merit. If a private enforcer seeks to identify such potential inconsistencies in pre-action discussions, the uncertainties created by the proposed safeguard as drafted may still deter it and inhibit effective consumer protection, which these extended civil powers were intended to provide.
If private enforcers are prevented or deterred from taking action that is seen as inconsistent with the advice given to a defendant company by its primary authority, this places a huge burden on that authority to get its advice, and the record of its advice, right. Why? Because it creates what I term a double lock: locking private enforcers out of taking action against the company but locking them into the advice already given. Yet the primary authority may not fully appreciate the implications of a company’s commercial practice over time, and it may not be apparent how a trading standards official could have reasonably reached the view that informed the guidance given to a company. Given that companies can take comfort from and rely heavily on assurances received from trading standards, and given the absolute protection afforded companies by the proposed safeguard, they would have a very strong incentive to argue for the broadest application of any primary authority guidance in their favour, so ensuring that the primary authority advice acts as a deterrent to the private enforcers actually using their civil powers. In her reply, could the Minister explain a little more about how the trading standards bodies will operate in the new civil enforcement regime, particularly given my understanding that the primary authority will be largely focused on criminal activity?
I believe that the safeguards in proposed new Section 219C(9) and (10) are unnecessary. Under the Enterprise Act 2002, private enforcers are already required to consult the Competition and Markets Authority before taking enforcement action, to ensure that their proposed action is neither duplicative nor detrimental to action being taken by others. Furthermore, if the Regulators’ Code is applicable to private enforcement bodies, as is intended under the Bill, any enforcement policy that a private enforcer develops under the code will include a requirement for it to consult other enforcement bodies—most notably the relevant primary authority—prior to taking enforcement action. This amendment would not prevent a private enforcer’s action from failing if the court is persuaded that it is inconsistent with previous advice from trading standards, but it would remove an automatic ruling against the private enforcer on such grounds and the exposure to consequential costs.
As drafted, proposed new subsections (9) and (10) pose a real risk that private enforcement bodies will be deterred from using the extended range of civil measures available to them because of the level of exposure to the risk of costs that the drafting of the schedule on safeguards gives rise to. My amendments on private enforcers, and that of the noble Lord, Lord Best, on public enforcers, raise real issues as to whether these civil enforcement powers are usable, or will indeed be used in practice, because of the way in which they will operate. Given the long lead-in to these civil enforcement powers being implemented, it would be helpful if the Minister, in her reply, could elaborate on the timetable for extending these powers to both public and private enforcers.
Amendment 63AB is a probing amendment to try to clarify how appropriately the Regulators’ Code will be applied to private enforcement bodies. Schedule 7 would make any use of the enhanced consumer measures by a private enforcer a relevant regulatory activity covered by the code. I understand that any regulator or enforcer needs to have an enforcement policy governing its enforcement activities, and that policy must adhere to the principles of the code. However, I am also aware that under the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006, the duties on any person exercising a relevant function are pretty extensive.
The code was introduced to govern the relationship between business and full-time regulators. It will now apply to private enforcers such as Which?—for whom the majority of its activity is not of a regulated nature, but rather involves campaigning, researching, and all the other things that we are all aware that it does. The issue here is that there is a rationale for the application of the code as regards the exercise of a private enforcer’s statutory functions, but it would not be at all desirable if the application of that code was then extended to enable the wider activities of the private enforcer to be challenged. To use Which? again as an example, if it were to name a poor-performing company in its magazine research, how could the Government give reassurances that this Bill will not allow the code to be used to challenge the publication of the findings of such research?
The language of the code is not always appropriate for private enforcers, and some duties are not limited to regulatory activity—for example, the general duty to support economic growth. I cannot believe that the Government are arguing that one can give a private consumer campaigning body a general duty to support economic growth. If one did, how would one interpret it? If a private enforcer took action against a company, the consequence of which was to reduce the company’s business, would it have failed in its duty or would it have supported economic growth because it had contributed to securing more functional markets? It would be helpful if the Minister could give assurances on how the code will apply in practice to private enforcement bodies.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 63B in this group is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best, and of myself, and I will speak mostly to that amendment.
Amendment 63B is key to the implementation of many of the powers that we much welcome in the Bill. The problem is that without this amendment, trading standards will think twice—or three or four times—before using the Government’s suggested route of taking civil rather than criminal action following infringements. At present, where criminal action is taken—which of course does not allow for redress for consumers—trading standards does not risk having to pay defence costs. However, should it use the new civil enforcement measures, which we welcome, it would then risk expensive legal costs, which will automatically make local authorities very risk averse. Indeed, a large case could cost as much as £250,000, which is a massive chunk of the annual budget of many local authorities’ trading standards services.
Trading standards, of course, have always had the option of injunctions, but that only puts an end to whatever sharp practice was going on—it neither penalises the trader nor compensates the customer. We therefore support the advances in the Bill, because they take that further. However, without this amendment, we fear that the risk of cost—as it would be a civil action—will undermine the new, enhanced measures in the Bill. If the Government prefer these to the criminal route, which is what we understand, they will have to reduce the disincentive which this threat of civil costs poses.
We realise that it is possible to apply to the courts for a protective costs order to limit the exposure if the case has been brought forward by a trading standards officer in the public interest. However, that is a pretty rarefied procedure, and it is much more likely that, in those circumstances, the case will be taken through the criminal courts—of course at considerable expense to the taxpayer—or else it may not be pursued at all.
Which? has strongly supported Amendment 63B, as has the Trading Standards Institute. I know that Which? wrote to the Minister in August—I think that it was to the Minister in this House but it could have been to the Minister in the other place—saying that the Bill should be amended to limit significantly the risk that enforcers taking action under Part 8 of the Enterprise Act 2002 would be liable for the defendant’s legal costs in the event that the action was unsuccessful. It is felt by them and by us that they should be liable only where the enforcer has acted unreasonably. Therefore, Which? feels that this amendment will be key to ensuring that the enhanced consumer measures are used in the way that the Bill intends. It is particularly important for trading standards, which will have to get a lot of sign-off from many committees before it takes civil action, and those requirements will be much higher with that risk of paying the defendant company’s costs, which has not been before it when it has taken criminal action.
Baroness Crawley (Lab)
My Lords, I remind noble Lords of my trading standards entry in the register of interests. I support the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lady Drake and I shall speak in particular to Amendment 63B in the name of my noble friend Lady Hayter and the noble Lord, Lord Best.
This amendment would amend the Enterprise Act 2002 so that an enforcer would be the subject of an order to pay the costs of and incidental to enforcement proceedings only if they had acted improperly, unreasonably or negligently. In the criminal courts, trading standards officers or enforcers can be liable for the defendant’s costs only in limited circumstances. However, in the civil courts, under the Enterprise Act, the loser generally pays the winner’s costs. As my noble friend said, this could act as a disincentive for enforcers such as trading standards who are acting in the public interest.
Amendment 63B would ensure that protections for enforcers in civil courts were equal to those in criminal courts. Unless such protections are in place, there will be a significant disincentive for enforcers to use the new legislation. As we all know, local government has very little spare cash these days to pay out for court costs, and trading standards officers will be hesitant, as my noble friend said, to bring important cases to court under the Bill in case things go against them and their authority is left with a hefty bill to pay.
While trading standards very much supports the new provisions in the Bill to give consumers redress and to help them make better choices, there is genuine concern among the enforcement community that there will be little take-up of such provision due to the complexity of the process—as set out by my noble friend—the costs and the risks to the enforcer.
There is also concern that the legislation places the onus on the enforcer in proving that the costs of redress measures do not exceed the cost of the harm. This adds an area of potential challenge and uncertainty, and could encourage enforcers to use the more reliable criminal route instead of the Enterprise Act. Enforcers would prefer a more balanced approach whereby the businesses bringing the case propose a package of measures to the enforcer or to the court, with this being negotiated as necessary. I call on the Minister to look favourably on these amendments.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, our debate on enhanced consumer measures has been really interesting. As noble Lords have said, the measures are limited to public enforcers only. The Government have included a power in the Bill to enable private enforcers such as Which?—which at the moment is the only private enforcer—to use the measures subject to certain safeguards. These safeguards are extremely important and it is two of them that the first two of these amendments seek to remove.
Amendment 63AB would remove the requirement for the Government to ensure that the private enforcer is subject to the Regulators’ Code. The code ensures targeted, transparent enforcement that is based on risk. It encourages regulators to carry out their activities in a way that supports business to comply and grow.
On Amendment 63AC, the primary authority scheme delivers assured advice to businesses, thereby delivering better regulation. Amendment 63AC would remove the requirement for the private enforcer to act consistently with advice or guidance given by a primary authority to a business. This safeguard ensures that we do not end up in a situation where a business is subject to the measures even though it has been advised by its primary authority that it is compliant with consumer law.
The Government’s Better Regulation Delivery Office administers both the Regulators’ Code and the primary authority scheme. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, asked what would happen if a private enforcer disagreed with advice issued by a primary authority but wished to enforce anyway. The scheme has been in operation since 2009 and the process has never been used. Disputes have been resolved informally through negotiation. But if a private enforcer wished to take enforcement action that was inconsistent with primary authority advice, they should discuss that with the primary authority. It will be a matter for the consultation as to whether a formal dispute resolution process would be suitable as a last resort measure in the event that a private enforcer disagreed with advice from a primary authority.
The Better Regulation Delivery Office has already opened a dialogue with Which? on these matters to reassure it that these safeguards will not prevent it from using the new measures. It has agreed to provide written reassurance to Which? that adherence to the Regulators’ Code will not impact on its non-statutory functions. In addition, it has agreed to provide practical support to Which? to enable it to access primary authority advice.
The noble Baroness, Lady Drake, asked when the use of the measures would be reviewed. The Government will review the use of the measures three to five years after they come into force. If we are presented with evidence that the measures are not being used or that consumers are not receiving redress, we will look at whether it is necessary to extend the use of the measures. In addition—to answer the query about advice received from the primary authority—before the power in the Bill is used, there will have to be a consultation. It will be during this consultation that the Government can ensure that there is a robust mechanism in place to enable the private enforcer to access primary authority advice.
Turning to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best, we want to encourage enforcers to take action where appropriate, but we do not believe that it is right to alter the costs rules in the way that is proposed in the amendment. As we have already heard in Committee, it is a fundamental principle of civil litigation that one side is generally at risk of having to pay the other side’s costs if they lose. This deters unmeritorious, weak and poorly prepared cases, and ensures that the winning party is not unfairly affected by the case.
Amendment 63B breaches that principle, shifting costs on to businesses even when they have been found to have done nothing wrong. Those legal costs can be significant. In some circumstances they could be thousands of pounds—enough to put a small firm out of business. The risk of not being able to recover its own costs could lead to a business choosing not to fight a case, even if it honestly believed that it had acted within the law.
Finally, it is important to note that the risk of adverse costs being awarded against an enforcer actually exists now. This has not stopped trading standards from using civil enforcement around 180 times every year. With these explanations, I hope the noble Baroness feels able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
Perhaps I may ask the Minister a question on one bit of that—two now. I think she will accept that 180 is a very small number. She seemed to think that there was a risk to companies that are eventually found to have done nothing wrong, if they face civil action. But surely she must accept that they face that with criminal action. There can still be criminal action and they will face all of that and they will have to pay their own and the other side’s costs. Perhaps the Minister could explain why it is a greater problem for a company to have to face a trading standards officer taking civil action than to face the same trading standards officer taking criminal action.
Baroness Jolly
My Lords, on the number of cases per year, those which I quoted were actually civil cases, but there are around 1,800 criminal cases each year. Criminal costs are taken out of central funds, and it is civil costs that the loser pays.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, on the first question, the Minister has made my point: there are far more criminal cases than civil cases. However, they still have to pay their own costs. If they are defending a case in the criminal court, the company has to pay its own costs whether the case is a civil or a criminal one. As she quite rightly said, these costs can be high.
Baroness Jolly
I have been advised that the criminal system and the civil system are significantly different. Probably the easiest thing to do would be to write to noble Lords who have taken part in this debate.
Baroness Drake
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Hayter for her remarks and the Minister for her responses. Perhaps I may deal first with some of the issues that have been raised in those responses. Reference was made to private enforcers having access to the primary authority’s advice, but the issue is that the Bill refers to all advice or guidance given by the primary authority. That is very broad and the parameters are not defined. I cannot ascertain from the Minister’s response the position as regards what happens when the advice is incomplete, what is the status of the advice in terms of whether it has to be formally documented, and the quality of the advice. It is a question of understanding. Will there be a definition of “primary authority advice” that is designed and designated to be fit for purpose as a consequence of the Bill? At the moment there is a great deal of ambiguity around what comes under the phrase “advice or guidance”, what will be “fit for purpose” and what will entail “records”, because these are pretty broad in the Bill and going against them would be pretty wide in its impact. There is still a lack of clarity around that point.
Given that extending these civil powers to private enforcers will not come about until the Government have satisfied themselves on how the civil powers for the public enforcers bed in, it would have been helpful to have been given greater clarity on the timetable. While something is desirable, if it is very far away, one must begin to question its desirability. It would be helpful if the noble Baroness felt able to elaborate a little more on this, at least in writing.
I turn to the amendment spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Best, and the arguments deployed by my noble friend Lady Hayter. Of course they are reflective in some ways, although not in all, of the concern about the problems public enforcers will face, as well as private enforcers, in that exposure to costs under the terms of these safeguards will make them reluctant to use their civil powers. There is a question around whether the deterrent effect can be reinforced using the restricted resources that we know trading standards will face. Equally, private enforcement bodies have limited resources so they cannot willy-nilly avoid the consequences of what is in the Bill. Yet we all know that consumer bodies make a significant contribution to consumer protection by challenging dysfunctional markets. The Government must have accepted that because they put these provisions in the Bill in the first place. However, if the safeguards become such a disincentive, and the implementation of these powers is so far into the future, one begins to question the progress that the Bill offers in extending the civil powers measures.
Finally, on the point about exposure to costs, I conceded in speaking to my amendment that nothing in it would prevent a court from, as now, deciding that a private enforcer’s action should fail because it was inconsistent with previous advice and that exposure to costs would remain. My amendment would remove the automaticity of a case failing and exposure to costs existing because something, for whatever reason, was inconsistent with advice given when, as I said earlier, I have no sense of the nature of the primary advice as it will be defined for the purposes of the schedule in the Bill.
I have rehearsed my points. If the noble Baroness can elaborate further in writing, certainly on the timetable, it would be helpful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness King of Bow
“(2) A year after the commencement of this section, the Secretary of State shall review the powers set out in Schedule 8 and report to Parliament on—
(a) the number of private actions commenced under this power,(b) the redress provided to consumers under these private actions, and(c) the scope and potential effect of expanding these private action powers to all areas of consumer protection law.”
Baroness King of Bow (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 63C calls on the Government to review how the new powers for collective legal redress are functioning and whether these powers should be expanded to other consumer protection law. It asks the Secretary of State to set out how many private actions have taken place, what redress consumers received and the scope and potential effect of expanding private action powers to cover other areas of consumer protection law.
We welcome the Government’s move to provide new powers for collective legal redress. We do not agree with the scaremongering we have heard on this issue but we are concerned that we get things right. I should stress that the amendment does not call for collective legal redress to be expanded beyond competition law; it simply asks for this issue to be reviewed in the light of the evidence and the efficacy or otherwise of the new powers. This modest request will help identify whether the legislation works as intended. The intention is to make it easier for groups of consumers who have been subject to unfair and anti-competitive practices to put forward a collective claim. The review would also consider the level of redress achieved through joint action, which is often too low to motivate consumers to challenge unfair practices.
Amendment 74A is a probing amendment which seeks to improve scrutiny. At the moment we are being asked to pass into law CMA-approved voluntary redress schemes. These are no doubt a good idea in theory but, in practice, we have no detail in the Bill about how these schemes will work. However, we know that BIS has written a scoping paper which states that a specially constituted board will work out how the CMA alternative dispute resolution procedure will work and how complaints will be handled.
The Minister will no doubt be aware of the concerns raised by Which?, which is looking for answers, as are we all, to some key questions. For example: how will the board be resourced; who will pay for the board; and how will the board assess evidence? Is the board a gatekeeper or an adviser? What will happen if board members disagree? Will the board’s recommendations be determined by a majority vote or unanimity? Will the infringer get to vote on its own proposals? The answers to these questions will determine whether CMA-approved voluntary redress schemes are a success or a failure.
It is entirely reasonable for Parliament to review the SI that will answer these questions and many others. I beg to move.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)
My Lords, with this amendment we turn our attention to Schedule 8 to the Bill and focus on competition law. Schedule 8 provides easier access to redress to businesses and to consumers for breaches of competition law. We believe that effective competition is good for the consumer and this part of the Bill reforms the regime for private actions to give businesses and consumers redress where they have been harmed by anti-competitive practices. I am sure that we will discuss this further when we reach the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson.
This amendment would require the Government to report to Parliament on the number of private action cases taken, the level of redress paid to consumers and the impact of expanding these provisions to all areas of consumer protection law after a year. The Competition Appeal Tribunal already publishes as a public record an annual review containing details of cases taken forward in the previous 12 months and a summary of the judgments made with the case names. These judgments contain details of any redress awarded. The last annual report, for the year ending 31 March 2014, was published in June 2014. The report revealed that there were no collective actions on behalf of consumers, and this is one of the reasons we are legislating.
The last part of the amendment—which the noble Baroness, Lady King, spoke about in some detail—seeks, by gathering information, to encourage redress for consumers for breaches of consumer law in the future. However, the substantive underlying issue here is whether to provide consumers with the right to come together and fund their own collective actions for breaches of consumer law as opposed to competition law. Ed Mayo’s report for the Opposition highlights the obvious downsides that can be experienced with this proposal: consumers sometimes receive little or no benefit; consumers are sometimes then bound to a low settlement; and legal fees mean that lawyers can benefit as much as consumers. This would be a significant expansion in consumer law, might not benefit consumers and could be a significant burden on business. I am sure that they would think so, and, as Ed Mayo has said, the lawyers could be the main beneficiaries.
As a result, the Government do not consider collective actions for breaches of consumer law to be appropriate and have instead adopted enhanced consumer measures. Perhaps I may pick up a point from the preceding debate. The enhanced consumer measures come into operation with the Bill on 1 October 2015.
Under the Bill’s enhanced consumer measures, not only will more consumers get more redress, but traders who have broken the law could also or instead have to put in place other innovative measures. They might have to advertise their breach and what they have done to put it right on their website or in the press, or they might have to change their internal processes to ensure that there is no repeat of the breach. These can be good remedies and a more appropriate approach for something like petrol stations where pumps are providing inaccurate readings. Indeed, once the measures have bedded in, we expect additional redress of £12 million per year for consumers.
On Amendment 74A, paragraph 12 of Schedule 8 introduces a new power for the Competition and Markets Authority to be able to approve a voluntary redress scheme offered by business, and proposes the affirmative rather than the negative resolution procedure for the reasons that the noble Baroness explained. Having looked at this we are happy that the key features of this power, including CMA enforcement and costs, are set out in the Bill. The remaining regulations that will govern the CMA power concern procedural and technical matters.
I should comment on the point that the noble Baroness raised about how the board will be set up, how cases will be assessed and so on. There are a range of views, as she hints, on how the CMA power will work. As Which? is aware, the Government are engaging with a range of stakeholders to answer these questions. As I have already said, the key parts of the power are in the Bill, including the CMA considering the level of redress on offer.
The approach taken here is similar to that which we have taken in other parts of Schedule 8, which is to create a framework that allows the relevant bodies to make assessments on a case-by-case basis. In the Government’s response to the private actions consultation, we highlighted what components might be included in the regulations. They included: the role of an independent panel, which can consider in detail the contents of the scheme and then make a recommendation to the CMA; how consumers would be notified of the existence of the scheme; and a complaints scheme to resolve disputes with possible claimants. The regulations will be procedural and technical in nature and the Government consider that the negative procedure is suitable. We will of course consult.
The noble Baroness, Lady King, also asked about the number of private actions. Between 2005 and 2008, there were 41 competition cases. Between 2000 and 2005, there were only 43 out-of-court settlements. I hope that that answer gives the noble Baroness the figures that she needs, but I am sure that she will tell me if she wants information on some other aspect. In the circumstances, I ask her to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness King of Bow
I thank the Minister for her reply. Obviously, we all agree that effective competition is good for the consumer. We would like the Government to report on this to Parliament, because, if the legislation works, there will be collective redress whereas, as the Minister pointed out, that has been lacking until now. Given that we hope that the legislation will work, we believe that the details of how it works are worthy of Parliament’s attention.
As I mentioned, Amendment 74A is a probing amendment. It is simply about Parliament being able to scrutinise the proposals in any detail. Will the Minister let us know when the key questions that she outlined regarding the board and the mechanism for the scheme will be answered? Perhaps she could write to us on that unless she has the timetable to hand. What will happen if the level of redress is too low? This seems to be an issue that could effectively undermine all the legislation. I would appreciate a response on those two aspects. In the mean time—
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Before the noble Baroness withdraws the amendment, I think that my noble friend Lady Jolly has already offered to write and will make sure that the letter also covers the question of timing, if that would be helpful.
Baroness King of Bow
I thank the Minister for those remarks. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Noakes
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, at the request of my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts and with the leave of the Committee, I shall move Amendment 64 and speak to the other amendments in this group. My noble friend Lord Hodgson had been hoping that the Committee would reach his amendments to Schedule 8 last week as unfortunately he is out of the country this week. I have to say, having agreed to be his understudy, that I shared his hopes. But it was not to be.
This is the first time that I have spoken on this Bill and I declare my interests as recorded in the register of interests. In particular, I am a non-executive director of the Royal Bank of Scotland, although I have absolutely no idea what the Royal Bank of Scotland’s view is on the Bill, and it has absolutely no idea that I am about to speak on it.
There are two distinct subgroups in this group of amendments. The first subgroup, led by Amendment 64 and including Amendments 67 and 68, deletes opt-out collective proceedings from Schedule 8. The second subgroup, comprising Amendments 65, 66, 69, 72 and 74, is more modest and seeks to ensure that some of the excesses of opt-out collective proceedings are avoided if the Government indeed wish to retain them in the Bill.
First, I will address why collective opt-out proceedings are an undesirable feature of the Bill and why I hope to persuade my noble friend the Minister to support Amendments 64, 67 and 68. The CBI does not support opt-out collective proceedings and gave evidence to that effect in Committee in another place. It believes that it is not the best way to deliver redress to consumers and that the overseas evidence is that most of the financial settlement gets absorbed in legal costs. BIS has itself recognised that these proposals create incentives for intermediaries and that a proliferation of cases could impose significant burdens on businesses. My noble friend the Minister has already referred to this in the previous group of amendments.
In practice, if there were a large number of collective opt-out proceedings, that could end up distracting businesses from what we need businesses to do—to focus on growth, jobs, profits and wealth creation. If we do not get businesses focused on those things, we lose our most secure route to escape from the deficit and debt that still overhang our economy and are still holding us back.
I expect that if we get collective opt-out proceedings, the first wave will be targeted at major corporates as they will have the deepest pockets. They may be reasonably well placed to deal with such actions without putting their businesses at risk. But I have genuine concerns that collective opt-out actions will then move on to mid-corporates and indeed smaller companies, which could well be flattened by the possibility of a collective opt-out action. This is where not only the defence costs but the sheer effort of defence will weigh most heavily and are most likely to distract those businesses from what they do best—wealth creation.
Either way, if collective opt-out actions are threatened, the implications for cost and effort for the business, large or small, may well weigh the scales in favour of settlement rather than defence. Whether collective opt-out actions are settled or defended, the costs that businesses bear will end up in prices. Therefore, consumers will pay for any additional redress—there is no net gain for consumers. If there are additional costs for businesses in dealing with the impact of collective actions, that will flow through into businesses’ costs and therefore prices.
So on one side of the equation we have burdens on businesses, which will undoubtedly come from a significant number of collective actions, with the costs, if there are any, passed on to consumers; but on the other side of the equation there is no evidence that consumers— as opposed to representative groups that claim to speak for consumers—think that this is a price worth paying.
The evidence from the US, which has, as we know, a highly litigious society and extensive use of class actions, is that opt-out class actions do not satisfy consumers. Only a minority report receiving meaningful value from such actions and consumers report that they want to retain control over whether or not they are included in such actions. But more importantly, as the Minister has already said, there is evidence that the real beneficiaries are not the consumers; they are the lawyers and the litigation funders who sometimes take hundreds of times more than the amount that was actually distributed to the consumers in the form of redress. So there are very real costs and somewhat illusory benefits at play here.
The European Commission is much more cautious about opt-out proceedings than our own Government. Commissioner Reding, who is not normally one of my favourite people, has described the Commission’s own proposals as a,
“balanced approach to improve access to justice for citizens while avoiding a US-style system of class actions and the risk of frivolous claims and abusive litigation”.
The Commission’s proposals include a general principle of opt-in rather than opt-out actions, and indeed stress the desirability of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms in preference to legal actions. This Bill could not be categorised as falling within Commissioner Reding’s balanced approach.
I am aware that the Government believe that sufficient safeguards have been set out in the Bill. The ban on exemplary damages and damages-based agreements, while welcome, will not remove the huge incentive for lawyers and litigation funders to make a handsome living out of exploiting these provisions. I expect that the Minister will also rely on the Competition Appeal Tribunal’s control over those who can act as representatives by virtue of subsection (8) of proposed new Section 47B, which will be inserted by paragraph 5 of Schedule 8. I have great admiration for the competence of the tribunal in competition matters, but I do have concerns that so much will depend on how the tribunal exercises its discretion in this area—territory with which it is unfamiliar. Whether we end up with a US-style litigation environment will not be determined by Parliament but by the tribunal. I hope that I am not alone in being uncomfortable about this. That is why my noble friend Lord Hodgson has tabled his amendments to remove the collective opt-out provisions from the Bill. They impose burdens on business and would seem to yield few benefits for consumers. They certainly seem to benefit litigation funders and lawyers, but not anyone else.
As I have already mentioned, my second set of amendments in this group is predicated on the Government remaining wedded to the opt-out principle. The amendments, including Amendment 65, are designed to mitigate dependence on the tribunal. Under subsection (8) of proposed new Section 47B, the tribunal must conclude that it is “just and reasonable” for a person to act as a representative in collective proceedings. The effect of Amendments 65, 66 and 69 would be to place quite specific restrictions on this so that lawyers, claims management organisations and others who gain from the litigation itself cannot themselves satisfy the just and reasonable test. In addition to the usual suspects of specialist legal firms, claims management companies and lookalikes, these amendments would rule out funds and other bodies which are established to promote collective proceedings and to gain from their pursuit.
Amendments 72 and 74 are variations on the same theme. Proposed new Section 47C of the Competition Act inserted by paragraph 6 of Schedule 8 makes damages-based agreements unenforceable in relation to opt-out proceedings. These amendments add third-party litigation funding agreements. Damages-based agreements are too narrow a concept. As I indicated earlier, the incentive may well not be damages and gaining access to those, but simply the ability to be able to siphon off legal and other fees related to the litigation.
My noble friend the Minister is aware that the Law Society has taken a keen interest in these proposals and I hope that, as a minimum, she will agree to meet it and interested members of your Lordships’ House, between Committee and Report, to discuss how best to deal with these very real concerns. I beg to move.
Viscount Eccles (Con)
My Lords, I too am speaking on this Bill for the first time. However, many years ago I tangled with—is it called Robinson-Patman?—and triple damages and all that. That has given me an abiding interest in consumer protection. It is clear from the back of the Bill, which says,
“to make provision about private actions in competition law”,
that this is a very important part of the Bill, consigned as it is to Schedule 8. As my noble friend Lady Noakes said, there are two issues. One is, what about opt-out per se? The second is, what about the safeguards? I would prefer that there were no opt-out arrangements in the Bill. However, I will concentrate on the safeguards.
None of us, I think, wants to see opt-out arrangements leading to excessive litigation—arguably we already have too much—and we do not want collective proceedings turned into a business, as opposed to the recognition and delivery of justice. There are dangers. As my noble friend said, the CBI has highlighted them. Others, too, have highlighted them. In the sixth report of 2013-14 from the House of Commons committee on the draft Consumer Rights Bill, paragraph 282 says:
“The Government has said that collective proceedings should not be brought by law firms, third party funders or special purpose vehicles. Under the draft Bill, any non-class member can be appointed as the representative in the collective proceedings, provided that the Tribunal considers it just and reasonable for that person to act as a representative. We conclude that this safeguard should be strengthened to reflect the Government’s stated intention”.
In paragraph 283 the committee goes a little further:
“We recommend that revised Tribunal Rules should clarify that collective proceedings cannot be brought by law firms, third party funders or special purpose vehicles”.
I ask the Minister: did it become the Government’s position, and is it still the position, that there should be a bar on law firms, third-party funders or special purpose vehicles? There is some reinforcement for thinking that this was, and I hope still is, the Government’s position: in the response to the private actions consultation, paragraph 2, headed “Introduce a limited opt-out collective actions regime, with safeguards”, reads:
“Recognising the concerns raised that this could lead to frivolous or unmeritorious litigation, the Government is introducing a set of strong safeguards, including: strict judicial certification of cases so that only meritorious cases are taken forward; no treble damages; no contingency fees for lawyers; maintaining the ‘loser-pays’ rule”—
which we have already heard about this afternoon—
“so that those who bring unsuccessful cases pay the full price. Claims will only be allowed to be brought by claimants or by genuine representatives of the claimants, such as trade associations or consumer associations, not by law firms, third party funders or special purpose vehicles”.
I may not be very good at interpreting draft Bills, but it does not seem to me—and certainly not to my noble friend Lord Hodgson—that the Bill meets that commitment, which was made by the Government in its response to the consultation.
Does the Bill, as drafted, fulfil that government response? If it does not, should we not have something on the face of the Bill—which is, after all, what my noble friend Lord Hodgson is really asking for in his extensive probing amendments? He is asking for something in the Bill as opposed to relying on the tribunal’s rules. As my noble friend said, the tribunal’s rules are absolutely key to the way that this regime will in fact work when it starts. The Bill is absolutely clear that the tribunal has a very great responsibility to draw up these rules, but of course the rules can only be drawn up in the light of the legislation. If the legislation is not complete, or is missing certain things, that of course makes the discretion granted to the tribunal very wide. I draw attention to one point in particular, which is about how the phrase “just and reasonable”, which appears in new Section 47B(8)(b), will be interpreted. I have two questions to ask my noble friend on the Front Bench. First, what does that actually mean, legally? Secondly, are there precedents for the use of “just and reasonable” and, if so, what are they?
Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the tribunal’s draft rules of March of this year look at the appointment of a representative. It is difficult to see that they go anywhere near meeting the points that were made by the Government’s response or by the House of Commons Select Committee. I do not find draft rules 6 and 7 very helpful, and I would welcome the Minister’s comments on the state of safeguards. I very much support my noble friend’s request for a meeting to discuss these matters, because the opt-out regime still looks very risky to me.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I start by declaring my interest as a partner for some time in the global commercial law firm DAC Beachcroft LLP. I welcome the important amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, which were spoken to so eloquently by my noble friend Lady Noakes. I also follow my noble friend Lord Eccles in saying that we have to be very careful indeed about how we proceed with this particular aspect of the legislation.
I welcome in particular Amendment 66, which to my mind has the effect of making sure that it is the consumer’s rights that are being advanced and that we are not simply creating a fresh breeding ground for claims management companies. We have to heed the lessons learnt in the United States, where actions are brought for consumer remedies in the name of consumers who know little or nothing of them. However, as I understand it, not even the United States has rules permitting such actions to be brought by someone who does not have some sort of direct interest. I strongly believe that we should be very cautious indeed with that concept. The current systems of funding litigation are riddled with risks of conflicting interests, between, on the one hand, those seeking compensation and, on the other hand, those promoting litigation. In this latter group I would include claims farmers who want their cut, and litigation funders who essentially see litigation as an investment opportunity—a way of generating a return on their capital. That return comes out of the damages otherwise payable to the claimants.
I cannot see any reason why people in this category of backers should be able to stand as representative claimant. It flies in the face of common sense. Even if we are to be told that these problems will be ironed out in regulations or draft rules, I for one would expect to see such prohibition controlled by Parliament on the face of the statute. Likewise, lawyers who stand to gain from running cases should not be allowed to represent the claimant group and then act for themselves—if nothing else to avoid the maxim that a lawyer who acts for himself often has a fool for a client. I do not want to go too far down that road, except to stress that the risks of allowing lawyers to be the representative claimant are obvious.
That is graphically illustrated by a current piece of legislation. Thousands of Nigerians are suing Shell over an oil spill in the Niger delta and have found themselves embroiled in a dispute in the High Court as to which firm of solicitors is representing them. Without going into too much detail, I refer my noble friend the Minister to that case. Action is being taken by one law firm, Leigh Day, against CW Law Solicitors, based in London. It warns us about the dangers of going down this road. If I am allowed to add another example: Leigh Day is now facing legal action in the Kenyan courts over claims that a number of the torture victims it represented were fictitious. I do not begin to know on whose side justice lies, but it is a fact that the Law Society of Kenya is taking that firm to court. That demonstrates the dangers of allowing this sort of legislation to take hold.
I hope that my noble friend will be able to give us a lot of reassuring words either now, before we conclude this debate, or in a subsequent meeting. I strongly support the case put forward by my noble friend Lady Noakes.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, this has been an interesting part of the Bill. The heart would be taken out of the Bill were we to listen to the very eloquent pleas made. When it was still a draft Bill I was visited by someone who flew all the way from America on behalf of the US Chamber Institute for Legal Reform who told us that we Brits did not know how to do our own law and should listen to them. I think they have been back a second time since then.
I will say only a couple of things. I have also had a response from the CBI which, again, cleverly managed to get a letter in the Times today. I would point to what I have seen as a draft response to the letter in the Times, which I hope will be published tomorrow, and which makes a couple of pertinent points. Before coming to that, I have to ask whether the CBI really wants businesses that have been proved guilty of running a cartel. All this kicks in once they have been proved of running a cartel or some other equally anti-competitive business and concerns whether they are able to keep the fruits of their crime. That is what those people who do not want an opt-out have to consider. We will otherwise continue with the case that the people who have been affected by the cartel do not get any compensation.
More than that, companies would have to pay back only what they gained by that breach of law, unlike in America, where damages can be three times the compensation owed to consumers. Not only are we not America—because, luckily, we are not America—but this provision does not even have the same basis as the American situation. Our Competition Appeal Tribunal, in which I perhaps have a little more confidence—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
My Lords, I hate to interrupt the noble Baroness in full flow, but I suspect that she might be going on for a few minutes longer, and therefore I must tell your Lordships that there is a Division in the Chamber and that we will not resume until 4.55 pm prompt.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, I think the point that I was making was partly that we did not live in America and partly that the claims about the opt-out provisions in the Bill leading to American-type action are derived from a misapprehension of the safeguards that have been built into this regime. In the States, law firms and litigation funders find collective actions particularly attractive because of factors over there which are not the same in our civil justice system. The ability of lawyers to claim contingency fees—a proportion of the damages pot before damages are distributed to consumers—is an obvious draw over there but not over here. As a result of an amendment introduced in the other place, any legal fees will be taken from the damages pot only after consumer claims have been satisfied.
Furthermore, law firms will be instructed by representatives that the tribunal has found to be properly placed to act on the consumers’ behalf. That filter is already in the hands of the Competition Appeal Tribunal. I therefore, perhaps, have a little more faith than the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. The Competition Appeal Tribunal will have the final say on whether a case can progress, and claims can only be brought by individuals who have been directly affected or by genuinely representative associations, and not by law firms or companies with a vested interest. This means that only the strongest cases will proceed and that there is no financial incentive to bring speculative cases.
Although the CBI has indeed given evidence to us and to others, the Federation of Small Businesses welcomes the fact that, as a trade association, it will be able to use this procedure. In many cases, small businesses will be more affected by competition cases and the ability to bring an action than individual consumers. Many countries—including Canada, Australia, Spain, Poland, Portugal and Norway—have implemented similar systems of opt-out without the dangers that we see in America.
It is important to reiterate that these cases will arise only where a company has been found guilty of breaking competition law, and so good businesses will have nothing to fear from these proposals. However, they are good for consumers, particularly small companies that may be affected by a big company exploiting its monopolistic position. In our view, these measures are good for the economy, and a competitive economy is to the benefit of all. I trust the noble Baroness will not accept these amendments on behalf of the Government.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, I am delighted to welcome my noble friend Lady Noakes to the Committee and commend the clarity with which she took us through the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson. I am sorry that he is not here because he sat patiently through many hours of our proceedings last week. I especially enjoyed my noble friend’s refreshing emphasis on growth and wealth creation. It was also good to hear from the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, who rightly emphasised the importance of this part of the Bill, and from my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral, who urged caution and warned us, honestly and graphically, about the role of the lawyers in some climes in this sort of area, which we are seeking to avoid.
An effective competition regime is built on public enforcement and the ability for consumers and businesses to take private actions and claim redress. The current collective actions regime is opt-in, which requires consumers to opt in to a court action. A key feature of the revised regime is the introduction of an opt-out regime, where consumers are automatically part of a court action unless they opt out. This change is being made as there has been only one collective action case in more than 10 years, so we feel that the current law is not working.
My noble friend’s amendments would remove opt-out collective actions. Of course, a collective action is not a new concept; a regime has existed since 2002. Under this regime, consumers have to sign up to an action before it commences in the Competition Appeal Tribunal. As I said, since the regime was created in 2002, there has been only one collective action case, and that had only 130 claimants—less than 0.1% of those eligible. Furthermore, SMEs are not permitted to use the existing regime to bring claims; for example, if a dominant manufacturer were to withhold supplies to drive up prices.
The Government have always been clear that an opt-out collective actions regime would require stringent safeguards to prevent vexatious claims and the US-style class actions that have been described this afternoon. I would also highlight the different legal culture and practice in the US, where significant financial incentives to bring claims, such as treble damages and damages-based agreements, are the order of the day and have led to a large number of claims. We have learnt from that experience and introduced three key safeguards, as the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, explained.
I will summarise the safeguards very briefly. The first is a requirement for the CAT to certify that the representative is suitable to bring the claim. Secondly, the Bill prohibits businesses paying too much redress by prohibiting exemplary damages. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, explained, they would have to pay back only the overcharge to the consumer, not multiple damages. Thirdly, law firms are prohibited from taking a percentage of the damages as a success fee—so-called damages-based agreements. Further requirements that have to be met before a representative can be approved will be set out in the CAT rules. These will include a representative’s ability to pay costs, whether there is a conflict of interest with the underlying claimants, and whether a representative would adequately act in the interests of the underlying claimants.
To assist in understanding, the Government published draft CAT rules on collective actions in March, and they are available in the House Library. I have a copy if anyone would like one. In the draft rules, the CAT would have to scrutinise the nature and function of the representative body. This would include whether or not the body is suitable to be a representative body, including whether the body had a pecuniary interest; for example, whether an underlying claimant wishing to act as a representative had a conflict of interest because they had a financial interest in the outcome of the case.
Viscount Eccles
I have read the draft rules; I brought them with me. I do not think it is all that easy, if you have a pecuniary interest, to define whether or not it is a conflict. If it has been entered into freely as an agreement that in certain circumstances the people being represented will pay fees of a certain size and they have signed up to that, that is not a conflict of interest.
I emphasise that I do not think that the draft rules anywhere near meet the undertakings given by the Government in their response to the consultation and in respect of the advice received from the House of Commons Select Committee.
Perhaps I may just say that I made no reference to the United States in what I said; none at all. I think that the situation is completely non-comparable, so I agree entirely with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, about that. However, I do not think that the safeguard regime is anything like adequate in the Bill as it is drafted.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I thank my noble friend for his clarification. He is right to say that the draft rules were constructed by a specialist working group. They will be subject to full public consultation in order to ensure that they strike the right balance, and that will obviously be undertaken well before these provisions come into effect on 1 October next year. Perhaps I may also say at this point that I have talked to the CBI and corresponded with the Law Society, with which I am extremely happy to have a meeting, as I think my noble friend suggested, so that we can go through some of the points that I am making in more detail.
A key safeguard in the Bill is that the CAT must certify that a representative is suitable to bring a collective action. This means, as has been said, a law firm, a claims management firm or a special purpose vehicle. These will not automatically be able to bring a claim, and the draft CAT rules provide for even more scrutiny of a proposed representative. It is appropriate for these requirements to be in the CAT rules so that they can be modified more easily or be made even more stringent if that is necessary. This will ensure an effective regime which promotes the interests of consumers. The Government also believe that the CAT, a specialist competition court which I know from my own experience, has a strong track record in dealing with consumer detriment in competition law, and is well placed to scrutinise each and every body that seeks to act as a representative. I do not share my noble friend’s concern, given my knowledge of the court and its specialist nature.
Baroness Noakes
Perhaps I may intervene on my noble friend on that one point. As I understand it, the CAT does not normally carry out this function, so as I have said, while I have the greatest respect for the work of the CAT and what it does in relation to competition law, I do not think that it has experience of establishing whether or not particular claimants for the action are representative. We are going into uncharted territory here, and that is why it is so important to get this absolutely right.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I thank my noble friend. She is absolutely right to say that we need to get this right. We will reflect further on the point, and of course we do have a fair amount of time to ensure that the right mix of expertise is in place. However, the Government have decided, I think for the right reasons, that the CAT is the place to house this function. The rules and regulations surrounding that are clearly important and will be, as I have just said, subject to public consultation.
The point has been made that it would be better to put all the eligibility requirements into the primary legislation, but of course no two cases will be the same. We are concerned that companies might seek out loopholes to avoid the restrictions, and therefore it feels appropriate for the CAT to have the discretion to consider each representative on a case-by-case basis. But, again, we can discuss this further.
These amendments would also prohibit the use of third-party litigation in collective action cases. It is appropriate for the CAT to scrutinise any funding arrangements that exist in a case to ensure that the claimant has sufficient funds to meet the defendant’s costs.
My noble friend Lady Noakes talked about the approach of the European Union to this subject. I believe that it has issued a recommendation for opt-in in collective redress. The recommendation suggested the adoption of an opt-in regime, but it accepted that for reasons of sound administration of justice, member states might want to introduce a different regime. Following our consultation and the evidence that we gathered, the Government believe that the present opt-in regime is—as I have said a number of times—not delivering effective redress. We therefore propose in the Bill to introduce an opt-out regime with safeguards.
My noble friend raised many understandable concerns. We have thought carefully about this. The Bill already contains restrictions on the financing of claims as it prohibits damages-based agreements and does not provide for a claimant to be able to recover any uplift in a conditional fee agreement. Therefore there is a need for claimants to have the option of accessing third-party funding so as to allow those who do not have a large reserve of funds or those who cannot persuade a law firm to act pro bono to be able to bring a collective action case in order to ensure redress for consumers.
Blocking access to such funding would result in a collective actions regime that is less effective. This would bar many organisations, including reputable consumer organisations such as Which?, from bringing cases as Parliament hoped in 2002. Restricting finance could also create a regime which was only accessible to large businesses. This would weaken private enforcement in competition law, which is of course not the Government’s wish or intention.
To return to the point made by my noble friend Lady Noakes on the CAT, its staff obviously includes High Court judges, who are used to dealing with a range of representatives and complex case management. However, I take the points she made and look forward perhaps to discussing those with the Law Society or with any others who wish to be involved in a meeting between now and Report.
I hope that my noble friend is reassured that we are aware of the concerns around introducing an opt-out regime. I look forward to further discussions, but I also ask that my noble friend withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Noakes
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this brief debate on these very important provisions in the Bill. I am thankful in particular for the support that I received from my noble friends Lord Eccles and Lord Hunt on the amendments that I moved.
I say in passing that I find it curious that having an opt-in provision which resulted in only one action should be grounds for more legislation. It seems to me that there is very little consumer demand for that, although there may well be demand from representative bodies. I worry about whether we get the right balance in the law when we make law for representative bodies rather than ultimate consumers.
The issue comes down to what should be in the Bill. I understand what the Minister is saying about needing to have flexibility in due course and to leave discretion. My noble friend Lord Hodgson’s amendments did not change that; they merely proscribed certain categories of people from being authorised as representatives. It would still leave discretion with the tribunal, but would say, “In these circumstances you cannot do it”—so if you are a law firm involved in it, you cannot do it—rather than leave it to the discretion of the tribunal to work its way through whatever rules exist at the time. The draft rules, as my noble friend Lord Eccles said, are not very clear on that. They have rules about conflict of interest, but they are not absolutely clear what they are directing themselves at. They may well end up with precisely the right answers, but, equally, they could build their own precedence system which will end up with the wrong answer. That is the concern: that unless we are quite clear about prohibiting what we have observed elsewhere and do not wish to come here, we may end up with what we do not want.
However, I will not take up more of the Committee’s time today. Obviously, I need to revert to my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, who will certainly be looking forward to reading Hansard when he returns from abroad. I thank the Minister in particular for agreeing to a meeting with the Law Society and others who might be interested. There are genuine concerns about the nature of the provisions that are being introduced under Schedule 8, and we owe it to all to get those right. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
Lord Phillips of Sudbury (LD)
My Lords, I will speak also to Amendments 76 and 79 in this group. I declare an interest as president of the Solicitors Pro Bono Group, or LawWorks as it is more normally known. I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is prevented from being here today because he is abroad, but we strongly support the collective action provisions in the Bill, which represent a big increase in access to justice for people in situations where, but for a collective action allowance, there would be no real prospect of them getting redress.
Amendments 70, 76 and 79 are relatively technical and, I am afraid, somewhat complex, but we believe that they would represent a significant improvement in the workings of the arrangements in the Bill for pro bono action, and that they are non-contentious. I am grateful to the Access to Justice Foundation, which has been extremely helpful in framing these amendments.
On 11 March, the Minister in the other place, when introducing the amendments to the Bill of which my amendments are a refinement, ended by saying:
“The amendments are integral to ensuring that consumer bodies and bodies for small and medium-sized enterprises will be able to fund collective action cases. Without them, it would be difficult for consumer bodies to bring a case”.—[Official Report, Commons, Consumer Rights Bill Committee, 11/3/14; col. 588.]
In brief, Amendment 70 provides for the charity that was created in the Legal Services Act to make representations in hearings by the Competition Appeal Tribunal. I will say a word or two more about that in a minute.
Amendment 76 seeks to bring these limited advances in the Bill under the regime established by Section 194 of the Legal Services Act 2007. The whole gist of these three amendments is to make the present arrangements more practical and more consistent. I will just give a little more detail on that, although I hope not to labour the point with the Committee. Section 194 of the Legal Services Act 2007—which, incidentally, comes under the headings, “Miscellaneous provisions about lawyers etc” and “Pro bono representation”—takes up two pages of that Act and, in our view, is eminently suitable to regulate the arrangements which should prevail with regard to this small but important extension of pro bono rights under the Bill.
Amendment 79 is very straightforward. It would include the Competition Appeal Tribunal under the Section 194 regime for reasons, as I say, of consistency, clarity and simplicity. Secondly, it would extend the benefits of this part of the Bill to Scotland and Northern Ireland.
I shall say a word or two more because I recognise that these are not simple matters. The Legal Services Act 2007 allowed pro bono costs to be recovered, not for the benefit of pro bono lawyers but to be paid to a charity. The law, not surprisingly, provides that if you are acting for nowt you cannot get costs because you are not charging. That was thought to be unreasonable, so the 2007 Act provided that the costs that would have been recoverable had the advocate not been acting pro bono but normally should be payable to a charity nominated by the Lord Chancellor. Indeed, the Lord Chancellor nominated the Access to Justice Foundation, the four members of which, it is worth repeating, are the Law Society, the Bar Council, the Advice Services Alliance and the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives. Those four bodies govern the foundation, which is a charity. The funds that it receives from the 2007 Act and other sources go towards the alleviation of legal advice needs, which are more intense than they used to be by dint of cutbacks in the legal aid scheme.
The Bill allows damages paid under collective actions, which are themselves confined to issues of competition law, that are not claimed by those for whom the collective action is brought to be paid to the charity—the Access to Justice Foundation. It may be surprising that anybody would not claim damages but by the nature of collective actions it is not always possible to tell exactly who is or is not within the circumference of the collectivity. It is commonplace—the United States has had this arrangement for a long time—for substantial damages to be left in the pot, so to speak. As I say, this part of the Bill will allow the unclaimed damages to be passed on to the charity.
Amendment 70 is an amendment to subsection (6) of new Section 47C, which is headed,
“Collective proceedings: damages and costs”.
That new subsection was added in the other place. It was a government amendment and there was no opposition to it. It fills out new subsection (5), which stipulates that,
“where the Tribunal makes an award of damages in opt-out collective proceedings, any damages not claimed by the represented persons within a specified period must be paid to the charity”,
which is the one I mentioned—the Access to Justice Foundation. In our view, new subsection (6) could be more clearly defined. At present it states:
“In a case within subsection (5) the Tribunal may order that all or part of any damages not claimed by the represented persons within a specified period is instead to be paid to the representative”—
that is, the lawyer—
“in respect of all or part of the costs or expenses incurred by the representative in connection with the proceedings”.
Amendment 70 inserts,
“after giving the charity referred to in subsection (5) an opportunity to make representations”.
The issue of damages in these actions can be contentious and highly sensitive. I hesitate to say that it would often be, and indeed any lawyer acting pro bono is ipso facto likely to be extremely public-spirited and so on, but situations can arise where certain expenses—I am thinking particularly of after-the-event costs insurance premiums—and success fees, where it is a success fee case, mean that the representatives of either or both parties could be, let us say, lax in pursuing the full remedies so as to recover the costs and expenses where they are recoverable from the losing party, the defendant, which is usually a large company that has perverted the competition laws to the disadvantage of often thousands of individual citizen small claimants. We believe that the sorts of conflicts that can arise, including the clash of personal interests with the public interest, could be overcome or at least countered effectively by giving the charity that is to be the recipient of any unclaimed net sums the power to make representations at the tribunal hearing in order to test the rigour with which matters have been pursued up to that point.
For example, no action may have been commenced to recover costs from the losing defendant if that action could long-winded, expensive and, conceivably, uncertain, although that is unlikely. Because of the interests of those concerned, the money would simply be taken out of the unclaimed damages, thus reducing the sum that will eventually go to the claimant consumers. There are a number of scenarios which one can paint that would make the need for this amendment obvious. It does not require the charity to make representations other than in circumstances where it thinks or it is told that such a conflict or difficulty could arise. That is Amendment 70.
Baroness King of Bow
My Lords, I support this group of amendments. I am pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, who I once spent a night with in a metal freight container in the jungle in the Congo. That, however, is most definitely another story.
I return to consumer rights in the UK. As we have seen, Amendment 70 allows money not claimed in opt-out collective proceedings to be paid to charity, and permits any money remaining after that to go to pro bono lawyers. That is also the substance of several of the amendments tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Phillips, which, as we have heard, would allow lawyers who have worked for free in successful cases on behalf of consumers to get paid.
I realise that politicians like to put lawyers into that select group of social pariahs that includes politicians, second-hand car dealers, bankers and estate agents. However, when lawyers are ready to shoulder all the risk on behalf of consumers facing anti-competitive practices and they succeed and increase consumer protection for all of us, the least they should expect is payment—where that is supported by some of the damages raised.
Therefore, we support these amendments, which will, we hope, increase the resources available for legal charities distributed by the Access to Justice Foundation. This in turn will enhance access to justice across the piece, and we support the principle of tribunals being able to direct payments towards lawyers providing pro bono services on behalf of consumers.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Phillips for his support for this part of the Bill and for taking us so carefully through his various amendments. This is an unusual grouping in that it includes government amendments which meet some of the views expressed by noble Lords during the passage of the Bill.
In addressing my noble friend’s amendments, I emphasise that the Government recognise the important work undertaken by the Access to Justice Foundation. We are not against the Access to Justice Foundation receiving unclaimed damages for its good work. Indeed, pro bono costs are already awarded to the foundation in the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. Accordingly, the Bill makes provision for the CAT to award unclaimed damages to the Access to Justice Foundation.
However, we are trying to ensure that unclaimed funds are allocated in the most appropriate way and that certain contingencies are provided for. The Government want consumers to obtain redress for breaches of competition law, which, as my noble friend explained, is all that is at issue here. These cases may be costly. Accordingly, the Government consider that representative bodies which successfully represent consumers should have the opportunity of having some or all of their costs paid out of unclaimed damages so as to ensure that they bring actions on behalf of consumers. Therefore, the Bill grants the CAT discretion to award some or all of the unclaimed damages to the representative so that it may recoup some of its costs—on a case-by-case basis, obviously—and, at the same time, the CAT may also award unclaimed damages to the Access to Justice Foundation.
Similarly, with regard to Amendments 76 and 79, the Government wish to encourage consumers to seek redress for breaches of competition law. Consumers will require someone to represent them. Accordingly, the Government wish to encourage representatives—including, of course, those who act on a pro bono basis—and therefore the Bill provides that the CAT may sometimes award costs to a representative who acted on such a basis. The Government believe that if the opportunity for unclaimed damages to go to representatives who act on a pro bono basis is restricted, there could be negative consequences for the consumer. However, given this debate, I will look in Hansard at the detail that has been fully set out, and reflect on our discussions. I hope that my noble friend and the noble Baroness opposite will do the same.
I am moving five government amendments. Briefly, Amendment 71 commits that the body to receive unclaimed damages is a charity. We have accepted the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s recommendation and so the exercising power will be amended to be affirmative. Our third amendment allows underlying claimants to incur costs if they make an application to have the representative removed and lose the application. This has two benefits: first, it aligns the costs with the wider “loser pays” principle that exists in domestic law; and, secondly, it should deter vexatious applications. The final amendment is minor and technical and follows an earlier government amendment.
I ask the noble Lord to withdraw Amendments 70, 76 and 79 and beg to move government Amendments 71, 73, 75, 77 and 78.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, for what she has said. I will willingly—indeed, avidly—take up her suggestion that we have a word about my three amendments outside this place because I do not think they in any way impinge upon the agreed objective of this part of the Bill of making access to justice better. I may be able to persuade her that there are matters that the Government should back and, on that basis, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
(za) “charity” means a body, or the trustees of a trust, established for charitable purposes only;”
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“(ba) after sub-paragraph (2) insert—“(2A) Rules under sub-paragraph (1)(h) may provide for costs or expenses to be awarded to or against a person on whose behalf a claim is made or continued in proceedings under section 47B of the 1998 Act in respect of an application in the proceedings made by that person (where that application is not made by the representative in the proceedings on that person’s behalf).”;”
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
ScheduleDuty of letting agents to publicise fees: financial penaltiesNotice of intent1 (1) Before imposing a financial penalty on a letting agent for a breach of a duty imposed by or under section 81, a local weights and measures authority must serve a notice on the agent of its proposal to do so (a “notice of intent”).
(2) The notice of intent must be served before the end of the period of 6 months beginning with the first day on which the authority has sufficient evidence of the agent’s breach, subject to sub-paragraph (3).
(3) If the agent is in breach of the duty on that day, and the breach continues beyond the end of that day, the notice of intent may be served—
(a) at any time when the breach is continuing, or(b) within the period of 6 months beginning with the last day on which the breach occurs.(4) The notice of intent must set out—
(a) the amount of the proposed financial penalty,(b) the reasons for proposing to impose the penalty, and(c) information about the right to make representations under paragraph 2.Right to make representations2 The letting agent may, within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice of intent was sent, make written representations to the local weights and measures authority about the proposal to impose a financial penalty on the agent.
Final notice3 (1) After the end of the period mentioned in paragraph 2 the local weights and measures authority must—
(a) decide whether to impose a financial penalty on the letting agent, and(b) if it decides to do so, decide the amount of the penalty.(2) If the authority decides to impose a financial penalty on the agent, it must serve a notice on the agent (a “final notice”) imposing that penalty.
(3) The final notice must require the penalty to be paid within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice was sent.
(4) The final notice must set out—
(a) the amount of the financial penalty,(b) the reasons for imposing the penalty,(c) information about how to pay the penalty,(d) the period for payment of the penalty,(e) information about rights of appeal, and(f) the consequences of failure to comply with the notice.Withdrawal or amendment of notice4 (1) A local weights and measures authority may at any time—
(a) withdraw a notice of intent or final notice, or(b) reduce the amount specified in a notice of intent or final notice.(2) The power in sub-paragraph (1) is to be exercised by giving notice in writing to the letting agent on whom the notice was served.
Appeals5 (1) A letting agent on whom a final notice is served may appeal against that notice to—
(a) the First-tier Tribunal, in the case of a notice served by a local weights and measures authority in England, or(b) the residential property tribunal, in the case of a notice served by a local weights and measures authority in Wales.(2) The grounds for an appeal under this paragraph are that—
(a) the decision to impose a financial penalty was based on an error of fact,(b) the decision was wrong in law,(c) the amount of the financial penalty is unreasonable, or(d) the decision was unreasonable for any other reason.(3) An appeal under this paragraph to the residential property tribunal must be brought within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the final notice was sent.
(4) If a letting agent appeals under this paragraph, the final notice is suspended until the appeal is finally determined or withdrawn.
(5) On an appeal under this paragraph the First-tier Tribunal or (as the case may be) the residential property tribunal may quash, confirm or vary the final notice.
(6) The final notice may not be varied under sub-paragraph (5) so as to make it impose a financial penalty of more than £5,000.
Recovery of financial penalty6 (1) This paragraph applies if a letting agent does not pay the whole or any part of a financial penalty which, in accordance with this Schedule, the agent is liable to pay.
(2) The local weights and measures authority which imposed the financial penalty may recover the penalty or part on the order of the county court as if it were payable under an order of that court.
(3) In proceedings before the county court for the recovery of a financial penalty or part of a financial penalty, a certificate which is—
(a) signed by the chief finance officer of the local weights and measures authority which imposed the penalty, and(b) states that the amount due has not been received by a date specified in the certificate,is conclusive evidence of that fact.(4) A certificate to that effect and purporting to be so signed is to be treated as being so signed unless the contrary is proved.
(5) A local weights and measures authority may use the proceeds of a financial penalty for the purposes of any of its functions (whether or not the function is expressed to be a function of a local weights and measures authority).
(6) In this paragraph “chief finance officer” has the same meaning as in section 5 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989.”
“Prohibition of fees in contracts for services: letting of residential accommodation
(1) The provisions in this section apply to a contract for a trader to supply a service in connection with the letting of residential premises.
(2) Subject to the provisions of this section, any person who demands or accepts payment of any sum of money from a person (“P”) for services in connection with a contract for the letting of residential premises shall be guilty of an offence.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2), P is any person—
(a) who seeks to enter a contract to let residential accommodation, or(b) who has a tenancy of, or other right or permission to occupy, residential premises.(4) For the purposes of subsection (2)—
“letting” shall include any service provided in connection with the advertisement or marketing of residential accommodation or with the grant or renewal of a tenancy;
“services” shall—
(a) include, and are not limited to—(a) the registration of persons seeking accommodation,(b) the selection of prospective occupiers, and(c) any work associated with the production or completion of written agreements or other relevant documents,(b) not include credit checks of persons seeking accommodation.(5) Where a person unlawfully demands or accepts payment under this section in the course of his employment, the employer or principal of that person shall also be guilty of an offence.
(6) A person shall not be guilty of an offence under this section by reason of his demanding or accepting payment of rent or a tenancy deposit within the meaning of section 212(8) of the Housing Act 2004 (tenancy deposit schemes).
(7) A person shall not be guilty of an offence under this section by reason of his demanding or accepting a holding deposit.
(8) A “holding deposit” for the purposes of subsection (7) is—
(a) a sum of money demanded of or accepted from a person, in good faith for the purpose of giving priority to that person in relation to the letting of a specific property, which is to be credited towards the tenancy deposit or rent upon the grant of the tenancy of that property, and(b) not greater than two weeks rent for the accommodation in question.(9) Costs incurred by persons seeking accommodation for the undertaking of credit checks shall be reimbursed upon the signing of a tenancy agreement.
(10) In this section, any reference to the grant or renewal of a tenancy shall include the grant or renewal or continuance of a lease or licence of, or other right or permission to occupy, residential premises.
(11) In this section “rent” shall include any occupation charge under a licence.”
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, it is good to rise today to move this amendment in what is National Consumer Week—as I am sure your Lordships know. I shall speak also to the other amendments in the group, which between them would help tenants and landlords in their relationships with the intermediaries who often bring the two parties together and often continue as the conduit for money and other services between them.
The amendments address four different issues, so I trust that the Committee will bear with me as I try to romp through them. First, Amendment 81B would ban letting agents from taking “finder’s fees” from tenants, which is a rather rotten new practice that has grown up. Letting agents are chosen by and work for landlords who are seeking tenants. The client is therefore the landlord, to whom by contract and, I think, by law, obligations and duties are owed. The letting agency is paid by the landlord to find a tenant, although he can then carry out other services for the landlord such as obtaining and securing the deposit, handing over keys, collecting rent and so forth. These tasks are done on behalf of the landlord, who pays for the service.
However, we are now seeing in parts of London, especially where young people are desperate to find somewhere to live, prospective tenants being charged by the letting agent to show them a flat. As Alex Hilton, director of Generation Rent, said in welcoming our amendment to end what he calls “the abusive practice” of charging fees to tenants, a ban is long overdue. He stated:
“Tenants are being milked by gluttonous agents taking advantage of a housing market that’s failing to provide enough homes”.
Scotland has led on this, with all letting agents’ charges to tenants other than rent and a refundable deposit being illegal since 2012. The practice that has grown up exploits the potential tenant, but it also means that letting agents are being paid twice for the same bit of work. Furthermore, when we are keen to encourage landlords to enter this market and to provide more accommodation, and where tenants effectively have a fixed amount of money to spend on their housing, this practice is leeching out of such available money a chunk which is neither going to the landlord nor being kept by the tenant, but is going off for a non-housing use. This is bad for tenants, as they have less to spend on rent, and it is bad for landlords, as there is less rental money around. Furthermore, it is bad business where one person has a duty of care to both sides of a contract. Whose interests, we may ask, are they representing? Traditionally, it has been clear that it is those of the landlord, but once they take money from a potential tenant, for whom then are they working? There is no written contractual relationship between the potential tenant and the agent, but I wonder whether there is not one by dint of the payment of money. The conflict of interest is obvious: it is non-professional and will lead to bad practice.
We have no problems with letting agents charging tenants for an individual service for the particular tenant; for example, obtaining the credit reference needed in order for the landlord to accept them. However, that is wholly different from showing flats only to those willing to pay the letting agent—I almost said “to bribe” the letting agent. That should be outlawed, along with letting agents charging two parties for the same bit of work.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux)
We stand adjourned for 10 minutes. I am sorry about that.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, Amendment 81D would require letting agents to have appropriate client money protection in place, which in itself would mean that they would need to have established client account audits and proper procedures. About £2.7 billion is held by letting agents at any one time, so this would be a rather important consumer protection.
Finally, Amendment 81C would extend the existing consumer protection measures for estate agents to letting agents. Most importantly, it would empower the CMA to close letting or managing agents that have acted improperly. It would therefore stop the present, rather stupid situation in which an estate agent banned today can set up as a letting agent tomorrow. This was something that the CLG Select Committee recommended. It wanted letting and managing agents to be subject to the same regulation as estate agents, and that is what this amendment would do.
I know that Ministers have suggested that there is in effect a sort of back-door banning at the moment, in that now that every letting agent must be a member of a redress scheme and if a poorly performing letting agent was turned down by all three recognised schemes, that would effectively debar the letting agent from operating. However, this misses two important facts. One is that the three redress schemes, though they will co-operate by not taking on an agent debarred by another of the three, can only act on complaints brought to them by landlords or tenants. As we know, many people dissatisfied with the service never complain. So these redress schemes only see the tip of the iceberg, as both the two established ones acknowledge. The third one is really yet to get going. So the intelligence for their veto on a business is pretty minimal. They do not have access to information from the police, trading standards or insolvency practitioners, so they are working on a tiny aspect of the whole scene.
There is a second problem. The state is effectively contracting out this enforcement to three private companies with no requirement that they abide by the regulator’s code, are properly qualified for this role or have ever been authorised to be front-line enforcers. They have been authorised by the CLG simply as adjudicators, not as law enforcement officers. Yet without this amendment they are the only organisations able to stop a rogue letting agent from trading. I beg to move.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I will talk to Amendment 81D and in doing so I declare an interest as a director of the Property Redress Scheme Advisory Council. I support what the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, said, and want to add briefly to her detailed comments.
The noble Baroness spoke about the £2.7 billion estimated to be held in clients’ funds. I might add that this was calculated by the industry as the amount that letting agents will be holding in tenants’ deposits and one month’s rent. That was how it was calculated; it seems a fairly sensible estimate. So, there is £2.7 billion in clients’ funds, some of which is at risk. There are already clients’ money protection schemes run by some of the organisations described by the noble Baroness. However, if the letting agent is not covered for client money protection both the landlords and the tenants stand to lose their money. If it is not one of the estate agents or one of these big organisation schemes, which are not compulsory other than for the members of that organisation, these tenants and landlords—it is both—would lose their money. The amendment is designed to protect both parties in the event that an agent goes bust or misappropriates the clients’ funds, as it covers any losses through the actions of the letting agent.
The consumer protection offered by this amendment would be financed by the industry itself and would not need the financial backing that the Government currently provide—I am not sure that the noble Baroness mentioned that point but I thought I should highlight it. At the moment it is a voluntary protection, and it works for a lot of the industry. There are forces in play which could protect the moneys owed to the landlord or tenant if something goes wrong with the letting agent. However, there are many letting agents which are not a part of such an organisation. There are two voluntary schemes that I know of, one of which was mentioned by the noble Baroness. All this amendment seeks to do is to protect the very people who are most at risk: a landlord or tenant using a letting agent which is not part of a larger organisation. This would turn a voluntary scheme into a compulsory scheme overseen in the way the noble Baroness described. If we ever got to a vote on this, I would support it.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I repeat my declaration of interests as chair of the National Trading Standards Board. Of particular relevance here is that we fund the National Trading Standards Estate Agency Team, which is responsible for issuing individual banning or warning orders under the Estate Agents Act 1979, maintaining a public register of such banning or warning orders, and approving and monitoring consumer redress schemes. Of course, those activities apply specifically to estate agents; they do not cover letting agents. As my noble friend Lady Hayter said when she introduced the amendment, it is noticeable that there are occasions when estate agents are banned under the Estate Agents Act and then reopen as letting agents. As far as many members of the public are concerned, there is not much difference between them.
The purpose of the amendments is extremely helpful. First, they address the problem that is becoming increasingly an issue for estate agents of trying to charge both the seller and the buyer for the same transaction. I have to say, I find this an extraordinary process because my understanding of the word “agent” is that you are acting on behalf of somebody. How can you act on behalf of both the seller and the purchaser? There is clearly a conflict of interest. It is not clear that anyone benefits from this arrangement, apart from those estate agents that claim fees from both sides of the transaction.
It is an anomaly that letting agents are treated differently from estate agents. I would have thought that that is something it would be sensible to address as part of this process. I know that the Government are keen to avoid duplication and so on, so why are they not moving towards treating estate agents and letting agents in the same way and by the same regulation process?
The point that has been made about the consumer protection of clients’ money by letting agencies is, again, unanswerable. I find it extraordinary that with this particular type of transaction there is not the sort of protection that you would expect in most other instances where a professional or so-called professional body is holding money on your behalf. I hope that the Minister will be positive about the themes in these amendments and try to ensure that we can incorporate those principles somewhere in the Bill before it goes much further.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, I remind the Committee that we have also tabled amendments to put the enforcement provisions on the face of the statute, which means that our provisions on lettings will take effect on the common commencement date of 6 April next year. I will try to address the noble Baroness’s points in turn, without talking at too great a length. I will say upfront that my colleagues in DCLG are frequently in discussions with the organisations that she mentioned. It was good to have the intervention of my noble friend Lord Palmer of Childs Hill on Amendment 81D, and to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Harris.
Turning to Amendment 81B and fees, most letting agents offer a good service, as I think has been acknowledged, so a blanket ban cannot be the answer to tackle a minority of irresponsible agents. We are not convinced that banning fees will make renting cheaper for tenants. An outright ban would mean that agents would either absorb the charges or pass them to landlords. Many small letting agencies have small profit margins and if they were unable to pass the charges on to landlords, they could struggle to remain in business. Given the high demand for rental properties, it is extremely likely that any increase in costs to landlords will simply get handed down to tenants through higher rents.
That is what has happened in Scotland, where fees to tenants are banned. The Office for National Statistics has confirmed that average rents have been rising faster in Scotland than in England. In fact, average monthly rents in Scotland before fees were banned in November 2012 were around £508 and had been stable since 2010. In July 2014, average monthly rents had risen to £534, which is 2.7% higher than in the previous July. This suggests that tenants in Scotland have been paying perhaps an extra £26 a month in rent on average than they paid before the legislation was introduced. That is £312 over a year.
We believe that the course we have adopted—transparency of fees—is a better answer than banning them. Forcing agents to publicise their fees will mean that while every business remains free to set its own fees, competition, which is strong in this area, will ensure that the fees are justified.
Lord Harris of Haringey
Before the noble Baroness leaves that point, I think she said that if you move towards a system of regulation of letting agencies it would be necessary to set up a new system for banning and warning orders. Why is it not possible to graft that on to the existing system for estate agents?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
The noble Lord makes the fair point that a precedent exists. However, if you are going to introduce provisions into a new area, it is necessary to look at the detail, to consult and so on.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill
When I took up a position in this industry on an advisory board, the question I asked immediately was: what happens if the letting agent goes bust or into liquidation? The three redress schemes mentioned by my noble friend, starting on 1 October, are jolly good but do not provide any monetary redress if anyone goes bust or is fraudulent. This Bill is about consumer protection and it seems that there is a need to protect consumers’ money as well as anything else. The redress schemes do not help any individual whose money has gone astray, be they landlord or tenant.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I thank my noble friend for his intervention, and perhaps I may return to the mandatory client money protection proposals.
Mandating insurance cover for money received or held by letting agencies in the course of business would introduce additional costs for the agencies, and these could simply be passed on to landlords and thus to tenants in the form of higher rents. I am sure that I do not need to remind the Committee that tenants’ deposits, which are an important aspect, are already protected as a result of separate legislation. I know this from a problem one of my children had, and I was able to offer him advice thanks to the debates we have had in this Room. That is a crucial element of tenant protection which is already in place, so we are not talking about deposits here, but other aspects. This amendment seeks to protect other funds but, I fear, at a potentially higher cost to tenants.
I can reassure noble Lords that the Government already encourage agents to join client money protection schemes via the Safe Agent kitemark, which denotes that the participating agent is a member of a client money protection scheme. Our How to Rent guide encourages landlords and tenants to choose agents with client money protection. Ensuring that tenants know their rights and landlords their responsibilities will empower consumers to make the right choices and, if things go wrong, to find appropriate redress. Yet further regulation could deter letting agents and make it difficult to encourage landlords to invest in properties. This investment is much needed to expand the overall supply of housing and help meet the country’s urgent housing needs. I am sure that that is an objective we all share. However, we have had an interesting debate and I will reflect on the detailed points that have been made by my noble friend Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter.
Turning to Amendment 105R, I share the concerns raised about the practice of “double charging” by estate agents. In the lettings sector I can understand that an agent is providing a service to both parties and therefore may in some cases charge both. I can see that there are some justifications in other consumer markets. However, in the case of estate agents, I share the concerns of noble Lords. Estate agents have to be transparent in their dealings. Under the existing legislation that this amendment would affect—the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008—as well as their own self-regulatory industry codes, estate agents must already make fees and charges clear for both buyers and sellers. This means that fees and charges must be transparent. While I have serious concerns about the practice, I believe there is a danger that if we were to rush into further legislative measures, we could impose unjustified new burdens and risk damaging this important industry.
We believe—and I think that we have said this elsewhere—that a better way of addressing the rise of double charging is through estate agent redress schemes. My predecessor, my noble friend Lord Younger of Leckie, and my colleague Jenny Willott met with the Property Ombudsman and Ombudsman Services: Property earlier this year to draw their attention to issues around double charging and sale by tender. They told us that while they had not yet received complaints about double charging, they shared our view that this was not a practice that should be encouraged. As a result, the Property Ombudsman committed to addressing the matter with the industry to ensure that its code of practice is properly adhered to and high standards of behaviour are followed. I can today confirm for the Committee that positive discussions with the industry have taken place and updated guidance is being finalised. The aim is to have updated guidance ready to come into effect early in December.
This guidance will ensure that agents recognise their obligations under the Property Ombudsman Code of Practice in respect of transparency, disclosure and avoidance of conflicts of interest. If the guidance is not complied with, agents will be in breach of that code. Breach of the code could result in removal from the redress scheme. This would effectively prevent them from operating as an estate agent, as membership of one of the redress schemes is a legal requirement for estate agencies.
Given this ongoing work, I do not believe that it is currently necessary to legislate against double charging by estate agents. However, I reassure the Committee that action is being taken to protect consumers from the worrying and emerging trend of double charging, and we will monitor developments. In the circumstances, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, I regret that answer, particularly on client money protection. The only case made against the amendment seems to be that it would cost the industry money. It is not clear which industry—the only industry that it would cost money is bad letting agents, because good letting agents do it. Landlords support compulsory client money protection, tenants’ groups support it, estate agents support it, the British Property Federation supports it; and I have not read out—because I was trying to save time earlier—a submission from SAFEagent, to which the Minister referred. It stated that it supported the amendment and that it was excellent to see so many organisations supporting what it has been campaigning for over several years; that is, protection of consumer money through a requirement for all letting agents to be part of a client money protection scheme. Therefore, even those who used to support the Minister’s case are now saying, “No, this needs to be written in law”.
I think that the Minister also said that the amendment would in some way discourage landlords from entering the market, but it is exactly the fear of letting agents walking off with their rent that may discourage them. The amendment is the security that a landlord needs, particularly if they are raising money to enter the market. Anyone who has tried to raise money to put into property knows that a bank will ask, “What is the security of your income?”. If you can say, “Well, I know it’s secure because it’ll be coming through a letting agent and that money has been secured by law and an insurance service”, you are more likely to get a bank loan to be able to become a landlord and a slightly cheaper rate of interest for it. This amendment is therefore good for the housing market and I hope that, before we come to Report—because it is an amendment that we will re-table—the Minister will think about this.
On banning letting agents from charging tenants fees other than for security checks, the Minister’s figures on Scotland and what has happened since it banned fees to agents are very different from those that I have seen. Two independent reports were done, one by Rettie & Co, the property specialists, and one by BDRC Continental, which is another independent specialist, looking at the impact of clarification of letting agent fees in Scotland. On the impact of the 2012 change in Scotland, they state:
“Any negative side-effects … have been minimal for letting agencies, landlords and renters, and the sector remains healthy … landlords in Scotland were no more likely to have increased rents since 2012 than landlords elsewhere in the UK … Renters in Scotland were no more likely to report a recent increase in their rent than those in other comparable parts of the UK … Less than one in five … letting agency managers said they had increased fees to landlords”.
They went on to say that 70% of landlords had not noticed any increase. Our figures from Scotland are therefore clearly rather different, and those were from independent reports.
One of the arguments advanced is that transparency of fees is very good for driving competition, but, in the case of estate agents, the people who pick agents are the sellers of houses and, in the case of letting agents, they are the landlords. In both cases, the buyer of the property cannot shop around for an estate agent, nor can a tenant shop around for a letting agent. They have to go to the one who is handling the property they need. Transparency does nothing to drive the market. If our amendments are refused, two lots of people will be affected: buyers who are being charged by somebody who is already charging the vendor; and tenants who are being charged by the landlord. Neither of those groups is in any position to argue about the fees because they are not the people going to the agencies.
I hope that the Government will look at this again. We are clearly going to bring it back. The client money protection is widely supported. As for taking fees from both sides, the Minister herself said that she has serious concerns. I hope that she does something to deal with this issue.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
As I have said, I will reflect on the points that have been raised this afternoon, particularly on Amendment 81D. On the point about Scotland, there is not a lot to be achieved by having a war of facts, but my facts came from the Office for National Statistics, and showed what they showed. I do not think that I can leave the debate without saying that there is value to transparency in this sector. I honestly believe that having transparent fees helps the consumer and competition. The truth is that often houses are listed with more than one agency.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
They are, because there is an agreement for a half-charge but the buyers still cannot choose between them. Having made the case and having forewarned the Government that we will return to it on Report, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“Enforcement of the duty
(1) It is the duty of every local weights and measures authority in England and Wales to enforce the provisions of this Chapter in its area.
(2) If a letting agent breaches the duty in section 81(3) (duty to publish list of fees on agent’s website), that breach is taken to have occurred in each area of a local weights and measures authority in England and Wales in which a dwelling-house to which the fees relate is located.
(3) Where a local weights and measures authority in England and Wales is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that a letting agent has breached a duty imposed by or under section 81, the authority may impose a financial penalty on the agent in respect of that breach.
(4) A local weights and measures authority in England and Wales may impose a penalty under this section in respect of a breach which occurs in England and Wales but outside that authority’s area (as well as in respect of a breach which occurs within that area).
(5) But a local weight and measures authority in England and Wales may impose a penalty in respect of a breach which occurs outside its area and in the area of a local weights and measures authority in Wales only if it has obtained the consent of that authority.
(6) Only one penalty under this section may be imposed on the same letting agent in respect of the same breach.
(7) The amount of a financial penalty imposed under this section—
(a) may be such as the authority imposing it determines, but(b) must not exceed £5,000.(8) Schedule (Duty of letting agents to publicise fees: financial penalties) (procedure for and appeals against financial penalties) has effect.
(9) A local weights and measures authority in England must have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State about—
(a) compliance by letting agents with duties imposed by or under section 81;(b) the exercise of its functions under this section or Schedule (Duty of letting agents to publicise fees: financial penalties).(10) A local weights and measures authority in Wales must have regard to any guidance issued by the Welsh Ministers about—
(a) compliance by letting agents with duties imposed by or under section 81;(b) the exercise of its functions under this section or Schedule (Duty of letting agents to publicise fees: financial penalties).(11) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument—
(a) amend any of the provisions of this section or Schedule (Duty of letting agents to publicise fees: financial penalties) in their application in relation to local weights and measures authorities in England;(b) make consequential amendments to Schedule 5 in its application in relation to such authorities.(12) The Welsh Ministers may by regulations made by statutory instrument—
(a) amend any of the provisions of this section or Schedule (Duty of letting agents to publicise fees: financial penalties) in their application in relation to local weights and measures authorities in Wales;(b) make consequential amendments to Schedule 5 in its application in relation to such authorities.”
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
““the appropriate national authority” means—
(a) in relation to England, the Secretary of State, and(b) in relation to Wales, the Welsh Ministers;”
(i) ”
“(ii) a registered social landlord, or(iii) a fully mutual housing association,”
““fully mutual housing association” has the same meaning as in Part 1 of the Housing Associations Act 1985 (see section 1(1) and (2) of that Act);”
““registered social landlord” means a body registered as a social landlord under Chapter 1 of Part 1 of the Housing Act 1996;”
“(aa) a county borough council,”
“(6) A statutory instrument containing (whether alone or with other provision) regulations made by the Secretary of State under section (Enforcement of the duty)(11) is not to be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
(6A) A statutory instrument containing (whether alone or with other provision) regulations made by the Welsh Ministers under section (Enforcement of the duty)(12) is not to be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, the National Assembly for Wales.”
“(7A) A statutory instrument containing regulations made by the Welsh Ministers under this Chapter other than one to which subsection (6A) applies is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of the National Assembly for Wales.”
Lord Alton of Liverpool
Promotional activities by sellers in the high cost consumer credit marketPromotional activities by sellers in the high cost consumer credit market
Where a lender in the high cost consumer credit market is selling a service which may only be purchased by a consumer aged 18 years or more, public communications about that service, including promotional material and any promotional activities, shall not be targeted at people below the age of 18.”
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 102 I am returning to an issue which I raised at Second Reading. I tabled this amendment just before the Summer Recess, which seems a long time ago, but it has lost none of its topicality or, I would argue, its importance.
Amendment 102 is designed to address promotional activities by sellers in the high cost consumer credit market, an issue that I know is of widespread concern in your Lordships’ House and outside it. My amendment complements those which follow in this group and which I also support. It requires anyone selling their services in the high cost consumer credit market to behave in a specific way: that is, they must ensure that if their service is only purchasable by a consumer aged 18 years or over, it must be communicated in a responsible way such that any promotional material or activity is not targeted at people below the age of 18. In simple terms, the aim of my amendment is to ensure that children are protected from advertising for high cost loans which is both ill suited for children and corrosive in the impact it has upon parents and families as a whole.
This amendment should be seen as part of a suite of measures, alongside Amendments 105B and 105C, to protect vulnerable consumers, although I find the term “consumer” sometimes makes it easier for us to forget that these consumers are families, many of whom are struggling already without the added pressure of intrusive and inappropriate advertising. Debt is an awful blight on families and communities that often are struggling to survive. Certainly in neighbourhoods in the city I once had the privilege to represent in another place—the City of Liverpool—I encountered this frequently over the years. Debt destroys relationships and it can trap large numbers of people.
Sad to say, we are not doing enough, or anything like enough, to educate the generations who will follow us about the management of money. When payday loans are increasingly seen as a normal means of money management then we have a serious problem. This is not scaremongering. In September, the Children’s Society published a report entitled Playday not Payday, which I commend to all noble Lords. Among the headline findings from the report, which I am sure many other noble Lords will refer to in supporting amendments, it states that 61% of parents surveyed believe that seeing payday loan advertisements makes children assume that these are a normal way to manage money. In addition, 72% of children aged 13 to 17 said that they had seen at least one payday loan advertisement in the preceding week; more than two-thirds—68%—said that they had seen at least one on television.
The Children’s Society and the StepChange Debt Charity have provided some very useful information for today’s debate. For instance, in a note circulated to noble Lords, they make the point that 80% of payday loan ads are shown before the watershed. Their research found that more than half of children said that they had seen payday loan ads often or all the time, with 21% saying their school taught them about debt and money management—but therefore that four out of five do not. Playday not Payday discovered that more than half of children aged 13 to 17 recognised at least three payday loan companies, with 93% recognising at least one such company. Some 74% of parents thought that payday loan ads should be banned from television and radio before the watershed, and one-third of children aged 13 to 17 described payday loan ads as fun, tempting or exciting; those children were considerably more likely to say that they would use a payday loan. The Children’s Society says:
“Far from being an inevitable knock-on effect of successful marketing to adults, there is evidence to suggest that children exposed to particularly suggestive loan adverts are then asking and pressuring their parents to take out a loan to pay for things which they have not been allowed”.
Its polling found that parents who had used a payday loan in the past were significantly more likely to say that their children had suggested that they take out a payday loan.
Another organisation, Christians Against Poverty—CAP—a national charity seeking to lift people out of debt and poverty by providing debt help and money management courses, found in a 2013 survey that 20% of its clients had taken out payday loans. When taking out the loan, 61% were asked nothing about their income, 85% nothing about expenditure and 63% nothing about their work status; 77% used their payday loan to buy food.
At Second Reading I referred to The Debt Trap: Exposing the Impact of Problem Debt on Children, another Children’s Society report, published in May this year. I want to remind noble Lords of some of the report’s findings. Families trapped in problem debt are more than twice as likely to argue about money problems, leading to stress on family relationships and causing emotional distress for children. Evidence suggests that problem debt can lead to children facing difficulty in school. Problem debt can also have a profound impact on children’s ability to engage in social activities.
I am not trying to browbeat the Committee but to drive home how important it is that we do something about the current situation. Children—who certainly consume what they see even if they are not able to purchase the service—are not an acceptable market for payday loan advertising. Additionally, these children will one day be consumers in the sense that they will be able to purchase the services they have been exposed to, once they reach the age of 18. The recent Children’s Society report to which I referred earlier would seem to indicate that the normalisation of payday loans as a means of borrowing is already beginning to happen, with 30% of parents aged 18 to 24 describing them as an acceptable means of managing day-to-day expenses—significantly more than older parents.
Developing responsible attitudes towards money must begin at an early age but this becomes much more difficult when a rising generation of younger parents are already influenced by the lure of high-cost credit. My amendment aims to begin the process of nullifying that problem by requiring a greater degree of responsibility from high-cost credit lenders to advertise conscientiously, ensuring that their service is not targeted at those aged 18 or under.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich
My Lords, I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and to speak to Amendment 105B, in the name of my colleague the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Truro, on the advertising of payday loans. He cannot be here today but has been working very closely with the Children’s Society on this issue. Amendment 105B seeks to make provisions to restrict the times at which payday loan advertisements are shown, most specifically in relation to the watershed.
It surprised me to discover that, according to Ofcom, no less than 80% of all payday loan advertisements are shown before the watershed. It is therefore no surprise—to pick up on some of the statistics that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, mentioned—that the Children’s Society found in its survey that over half of all children aged 10 to 17 reckon that they see payday loan advertisements either “often” or “all the time”. It is the sheer quantity of these advertisements that normalises payday loans for children and young people. The research shows that one-third of all teenagers think that the payday loan adverts themselves are tempting and exciting—they are very well designed. Those teenagers are much more likely than their counterparts to say that they would consider taking out a payday loan in the future.
It is sometimes argued that these advertisements are not aimed at young people. However, we can see from the surveys how much they have affected the way that young parents in particular manage their money. The report, Playday Not Payday, showed that 40% of parents aged 18 to 24 polled by the Children’s Society said that they had used a payday loan—no less than four in 10. It is interesting that the number halves for those in the next 10-year age category and halves again for those aged 35 to 44. So the younger an adult is, the more likely they are to have taken out a payday loan. That makes me think that these loans are not being taken seriously by young people, serious though they are. We have allowed them to take over our televisions and radios, normalising them to the point where their use is seen as casual. Just this morning I was told the story of a young woman who took out a payday loan to pay for a Domino’s pizza. That could prove to be a very expensive pizza indeed. Of course it is a small amount used for an everyday purchase that becomes ever larger in terms of the debt that you incur. So I ask the Minister what steps we can take to ensure that payday loans are always portrayed as a serious form of credit with very high risks. The current advertisements do not present them as a serious form of credit with high risks.
Action is being taken: the noble Lord, Lord Alton, mentioned the Broadcast Committee of Advertising Practice and its consultation. However, it is disappointing that that only relates to the content of these adverts and not to their scheduling. So it will not help the 72% of teenagers who see a payday loan advert more than once a week. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will understand that this amendment seeks specifically to reduce the frequency and volume of payday loan adverts on television and radio.
In that regard, it would do something to counter the rather poor money management education that most children say they receive. Only one in five children aged between 10 and 17 feels that their school teaches them anything about money management. Not many more feel that their parents have taught them much about management, and yet half of them are seeing adverts often or all the time.
This year, 2014, marks the 50th anniversary of the watershed. It was put in place to assure parents that their children were watching only television that was appropriate. That is why we should use the watershed to cover payday loan advertisements. We have an opportunity here, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote (CB)
My Lords, I welcome and support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Alton of Liverpool, and particularly the point he made, echoed so eloquently by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich, about the importance of the pre-watershed period. There needs to be a time when all the things that we have heard about are not available to be seen by children. It is hugely important that we all stress this, and I am certain the Government will be firmly behind it all.
The frequency and volume of adverts for payday loan companies and things like that concern me—I cannot remember the last time I turned on the radio or the TV without seeing a dancing puppet or a singing satsuma offering me a quick and easy loan. It must be tackled any way that we can. The pre-watershed period is vital. The Government must take and act on the serious point being made about this, and I hope that all colleagues here, including the Government, will support the amendment.
Lord Mitchell (Lab)
My Lords, I have not previously spoken on this Bill. I support Amendment 105B. If I never do anything else in your Lordships’ House, I must do that, because this payday loan issue has been quite beyond my comprehension. Starting three years ago, when nobody was paying any attention to it, and the Government, frankly, were quite indifferent, we have moved the debate on. I give the Government credit for changing their mind on this and being highly supportive, enabling us to get to the point that we have reached today.
I never expected the FCA to be so strong and definitive, and to introduce controls which have had the effect they have. Frankly, I thought that the authority would roll over, and I am really pleased that it has been successful. It is saying that within a year or so perhaps 95% of these payday lending companies will be withdrawing their services.
But the outstanding issue is the one of advertising. When I talk to people about payday lending, I will sometimes say something to them that they do not quite understand. It is that I have more regard for people who go into the pub to borrow 50 quid from some really nasty characters, knowing that if they do not pay it back, they are going to lose a kneecap or something like that. At least they know the name of the game. I am not backing it, but I am saying that that is how it was. What has happened is that today this kind of lending has become cool and sophisticated. You can have an app on your iPhone and suddenly it is part of the way of living for many people. There is no shame associated with it; it is just something that can easily be done, and the advertising element of it is quite important.
We have to understand that companies like Wonga have phenomenal sums of money to spend and they use the most sophisticated advertising they can to get to the people out there. I remember being told in correspondence I had with the trade association—and indeed I have heard Wonga say this—that the industry does not target children. It makes sure that there are no advertisements around children’s programmes. That is a typical approach on the part of Wonga, but it is a total lie. It is a lie because many families in this country have the television on all the time. I believe that the average family watches television for six hours a day. The TV is on when the kids come home from school and it is on in the holidays. They do not really pay attention to every programme, whether it is a children’s programme or not. If it is not a children’s programme, that is when the advertisements are aired, and children can see them. They see the puppets, as the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, mentioned, and they can sing the ditties. They think that it is tremendous fun. What children then do is put huge pressure on their parents, so that when a parent says, “You can’t have a new pair of trainers”, the answer is, “Wonga will give you the money for them”. That is the sort of pressure which continues to be exerted and it is why it is easy for people to get into this loan situation.
I have a Private Member’s Bill before your Lordships’ House. It is two pages long. This particular amendment is summarised in five lines. I think that it is probably as good as we can get—I think that it is really good in fact. I am very keen to support it and I encourage noble Lords to do the same.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak in favour of Amendment 105B and the other amendments in this group. I spoke about this issue at Second Reading and I have not changed my mind about it, but I will try not to repeat the arguments and the statistics that other noble Lords have cited.
The quality of childhood is under attack from all sides: the sexualisation of childhood through scantily clad pop stars deliberately targeting the younger generation; the fear of paedophiles making parents reluctant to allow children the freedom that I enjoyed as a child when roaming over nearby fields with my friends; the intrusion of digital games and equipment, forcing out healthier childhood pursuits; and, unfortunately, cyberbullying via smartphones. All these conspire to put pressure on children so that what should be a carefree childhood is often turned into a race and a competition for the latest gadget or fashion garment.
During my children’s younger years, one of the more enjoyable activities during a busy day was to sit down with them and watch the children’s programmes that were on at lunchtime and again at their tea time. Many of these, especially the lunchtime ones, were cartoons and puppets. I am sure that many of us can remember the delights of “Postman Pat”, “Camberwick Green” or “Pigeon Street”—but I fear I show my age. While watching their favourite television programme, children should not be subjected to propaganda from high-cost consumer short-term credit companies or, as they are known, payday loan companies. As has been said, these adverts give the impression that applying for such a loan is commonplace, and that it will solve all your problems and be easy to repay. Alcohol and gambling are not advertised during children’s prime-time TV, so why are payday loans?
Baroness Crawley
My Lords, I, too, support the amendments in this group. This is a vital issue for us all. The language of children’s protection has to be modernised. We rightly rail against pornography and violence and the abusive exposure of young children to those things, but the insidious manipulation of children when it comes to the payday lending industry can no longer be overlooked or seen as a lesser evil. Those puppets are built like children’s grandmothers and grandfathers. They are authority figures that kids look up to—certainly the ones I have seen. We all know that the misuse of money, as the noble Baroness has said, can lead to terrible family misery, and we harm children—often for the rest of their lives, as noble Lords have said—if we make popular for them the notion that money can be procured cheaply, and dress it up to sound like fun or a solution to their family’s pain.
The Advertising Standards Authority, speaking about advertising rules on this subject, states that:
“The protection of young people is at the heart of the rules”.
It goes on to say that advertising “must be socially responsible”. I fail to see what could be socially responsible when it comes to payday loan advertising at usurious rates, as the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury put it. Member states of the European Community—which I believe we still are at present—are urged by Article 27 of the audiovisual media services directive to,
“take appropriate measures to ensure that television broadcasts by broadcasters under their jurisdiction do not include any programmes which might seriously impair the physical, mental or moral development of minors”.
I suggest to the Minister that the Bill’s inclusion of this group of amendments would be an appropriate measure.
In conclusion, I read recently that the world’s top 10 PR companies, including UK companies, have said that they will not represent clients that deny climate change. What a powerful signal it would be if those PR firms and their advertisers took a similar course of action when it came to their industry being approached to procure payday loan advertisements. I urge the noble Baroness to use the opportunity of the Bill to stop this practice.
Lord Harris of Haringey
My Lords, I rise briefly to support Amendment 105B, and perhaps I may tender some advice to the Minister. I suspect that this is one of those issues that, were it to be put to a vote in the House at Report stage, it would not be a happy moment for the Government, who would oppose it. However, I am sure that the Minister supports the objectives here.
We are all clear about how wrong it is for companies to be targeting advertising material at children and to rely on pester power to deliver what they want. My reason for speaking is because I agree with everything that has been said in this debate bar about two sentences. Those two sentences were spoken by my noble friend Lord Mitchell. Although he did not mean it, he gave the impression that somehow the cuddly illegal money lender, the loan shark operating in the pub who threatens to kneecap you if you do not pay up, is somehow preferable. I do not regard the payday loans companies as necessarily preferable, but we have to be conscious that one of the consequences of tightening up on the payday loan market will be that more people will seek recourse to illegal money lenders.
I chair the National Trading Standards Board, and one of the things we fund is the Illegal Money Lending Team for England and the Illegal Money Lending Team for Wales. Those teams are only scratching the surface of the problems that exist around illegal money lenders. They are very nasty individuals who are quite happy to squeeze money out of individuals in perhaps the same way as these corporate entities do—except that they do so using violence and all sorts of intimidation. Some of the cases that have been pursued by the illegal money lending teams are horrifying. Illegal money lenders use their power and strength to intimidate vulnerable people and families, including rape of the women concerned, beatings and other attacks. These are organised criminals who sometimes operate in small groups and sometimes as part of bigger networks. We have to be extremely cautious. When the Government accept these amendments or something similar to them either now or at the Report stage, I hope that they will look at what else needs to be done to protect the public from illegal operators as opposed to the legal ones we are talking about in this group of amendments.
Baroness Drake
My Lords, I support all of the amendments in the group, but I want particularly to speak to Amendment 105P. The mere existence of the payday loans, high-cost consumer credit market is to me a consumer detriment, particularly for vulnerable consumers who access it, but of course that is not an issue which is up for debate under these amendments. The FCA remit is to regulate markets, not to outlaw or to ban these companies. Only the Government can drive the policy needed to secure for not-for-profit affordable lenders sufficient capital liquidity to provide an alternative source of credit. Amendment 105P seeks to address the issue, because notwithstanding the regulation of payday lenders, the need for affordable credit still remains for a particularly vulnerable group of people. As I say, only the Government can drive the policy to address this issue. In the mean time, given that the payday loan market exists, the demand side has certain key characteristics with which we are all familiar. A high proportion of borrowers experience financial distress. Many will come from less well-off socioeconomic groups and will have few assets. A significant number of borrowers will have two or more loans, exposing them to unsustainable and spiralling debt.
Many borrowers get payday loans to cover basic needs, including the needs of their children, yet many are in acute repayment difficulties. According to the CMA, more than one-third of loans were not repaid on time or at all, often bringing considerable consumer harm relative to the amounts that were borrowed in the first instance. That is a demographic crying out for intrusion by the Government to create a sustainable market for affordable credit, as these people will still be vulnerable to the need for that credit. Amendment 105P turns its attention to the fact that the standing need for affordable credit for this vulnerable demographic has to be addressed by the Government.
Amendment 105P also captures the argument that the introduction of a broader levy funding base should not be a lost opportunity to significantly expand the availability of a free debt advice service. That is a compelling argument. By comparison, the new pension freedoms and choice agenda due in April 2015 comes with a guaranteed guidance service on the assumption—quite rightly—that the position of pension savers and consumers in the marketplace will be more vulnerable to poor decision-making without such guaranteed guidance. A levy is being raised from among the relevant providers of financial services which is to be dedicated to funding that guaranteed guidance.
No doubt the argument will be made that significant numbers who would benefit do not seek debt advice and that the allocation of funding to a debt advice service has to be proportionate to the demand for such guidance. My response to that is to say that the Government should take the lead in stimulating or creating the demand and the take-up for that debt advice service. I am sure that the proposed pension guarantee guidance would not be deemed a great policy success if few people took advantage of it—even more so with vulnerable people exposed to unsustainable debt and high-cost consumer credit, missing the opportunity to expand the availability and the take-up of a free debt advice service would not be a policy success. Amendment 105 in particular says that we are dealing with a particular manifestation of the need for credit. However, even in addressing the payday loan companies, the systemic problem will still need to be solved: how people can get access to affordable credit and how they can get access to and use a free debt advice service.
I should perhaps declare an interest in that I am a member of the TPAS board which is currently involved in delivering the pension guidance guarantee. Hopefully, that will not detract from the merits of my argument.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interest as the retiring chair of StepChange, the leading debt advice and solutions charity, which has already been mentioned this evening.
This has become a rather wide group of rather disparate amendments, and I worry that some of the important points that need to be made in this area might get lost. As well as dealing with the very important issues about the impact on children of payday loan advertising, the amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Hayter propose measures, as we have just heard from my noble friend Lady Drake, to ensure a further clearing up of the payday lending sector as a whole. There are other amendments still to come which deal with elements that go together as part of this overall policy.
This is rather a dense set of amendments, and I apologise in advance for spending some time on the two amendments to which my name is attached, Amendments 105P and 105Q, but I think they are important. However, I do not want to lose the very good speeches that we have already heard. Somebody asked what the state of play is now in childhood. My noble friend Lady Crawley said that we have to think quite inventively about how the language of children’s protection needs to be modernised when we are dealing with issues such as advertising more generally. Even to talk about restricting adverts in a system which is 50 years old—the watershed—is to ignore the complete change in viewing habits that we are currently living through, with people watching individual programmes in a variety of different information-gathering machines, such as tablets and iPads.
Baroness Jolly
My Lords, I am truly grateful to noble Lords for raising the thorny issue of payday lenders and for the informed debate that ensued. I will first discuss the amendments in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Truro. I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich for speaking in his stead.
The Government share the concerns of noble Lords that this market has caused serious problems for consumers, with unscrupulous lenders taking advantage of vulnerable consumers. The Government have acted decisively to fundamentally reform regulation of the payday market. The Financial Conduct Authority’s new, more robust regulatory system is already tackling sources of consumer detriment in this market. The Government have legislated to require the FCA to introduce a cap on the cost of payday loans to protect consumers from unfair costs, which will be in place by 2 January.
We are committed to tackling abuse in the payday market wherever it occurs, including in the marketing of these loans. The Government strongly agree with noble Lords that it is unacceptable for payday lenders deliberately to target vulnerable consumers with their advertising material. However, it is clear that a robust set of measures are now in place to protect the vulnerable from such practices. Payday loan adverts are subject to the Advertising Standards Authority’s strict content rules. The ASA enforces the rules set out by the UK Code of Broadcast Advertising, or the BCAP Code. The BCAP Code requires that all adverts are socially responsible and that young people are protected from harm.
These rules specifically prohibit payday loan adverts from encouraging under-18s either to take out a loan or pester others to do so for them, and the social responsibility requirement of the rules prohibits lenders from deliberately targeting vulnerable people such as problem gamblers. The ASA has powers to ban adverts which do not meet its rules and has a strong track record of doing so: since May of this year the ASA has banned 11 payday loan adverts, including action against adverts which the ASA adjudged to trivialise payday loans. In addition to this, the FCA has introduced tough new rules for payday adverts, including the introduction of mandatory risk warnings and a requirement to signpost free debt advice. The FCA also has powers to ban misleading adverts which breach its rules.
It is important to understand the scale of this issue, and that any action is informed by evidence. Ofcom research found that payday adverts comprise a relatively small 0.6% of TV adverts seen by children aged four to 15—around one a week. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, mentioned, the Broadcast Committee of Advertising Practice is currently reviewing how its advertising rules relating to the protection of children are applied to payday loan advertising on TV. The Government look forward to the findings of the review, which we expect to be published before the end of the year.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, I hope the noble Baroness is not falling into a mode of argument which suggests that since you cannot stop children watching programmes all the time, it is not worth the candle to try to prevent these things happening.
Baroness Jolly
Nobody wants young children to grow up thinking that payday loans are the right way to go but we believe that currently there is a tough package of measures in place to ensure that vulnerable consumers are protected from inappropriate practices. I hope that the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mitchell
I just want to make the point again that there is a difference between advertising that is directed at children and advertising that they just happen to see, but that really they are the same thing none the less. Children see them.
Baroness Jolly
Indeed. However, advertising of payday loans is less targeted towards children currently than it may have been in times past. There is also a larger issue here around parents helping children to understand. These adverts are shown in all houses, whether or not the parents have a problem with payday loans. There is an issue for parents to teach their children that this is not the way to go, even though for the majority of parents, that is not the case. However, the Government believe that regulation rather than statutory legislation is the way to move forward in these particular cases.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, for her response to what has been, as she rightly said, a really excellent debate and one which I think has united opinion on many sides of the Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, was right when he said earlier on that if this matter could not be successfully resolved in Committee today, it would undoubtedly be returned to on Report. I get the sense, having just heard the concluding remarks from the Minister, that we will want to bring these amendments back on Report, because many of us do not think that regulation will be sufficient to deal with something that needs to be put on a firm statutory basis.
The thing that I will take away from the debate this afternoon is that, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich said earlier, four out of five children are not receiving money management education. I was particularly struck by the graphic example that he gave of people taking out a loan in order to pay for a pizza. That underlines where we are and why we have to do something about this situation.
Positive points have come out of the debate as well. The noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, touched on the issue of credit unions. I intended to do precisely that. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, is right to say that once we dispose of the usurious rates of interest that are being charged by payday loan sharks, that will be replaced by the sort of people described by the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, offering all sorts of forms of violence. Organised crime may well move into this slot if we do not take preventive measures. We need a fundamental decision on how to give additional support to the welcome support given by the noble Baroness to credit unions, as well as dealing with pester power, dancing puppets and the watershed issue—all the sorts of things raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, my noble friend Lady Howe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, who, rightly with the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, reminded us of the importance of free debt advice services.
I was also struck by what the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, said, about the destruction of the age of innocence, and what was said elsewhere about the importance of updating the language of children’s protection. I made the point in my opening remarks that if we can do these things on a statutory basis for alcohol and gambling, there is no reason why we cannot do it for payday loan advertising targeted at children as well. I hope that in the period now elapsing between Committee and Report the Government will think again about this and perhaps have discussions across the Chamber to see what can be done to reach consensus. I get the sense that we all want to reach the same conclusion. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
House of Lords
Death of a Member: Lord Barnett
The Lord Speaker (Baroness D'Souza)
My Lords, I regret to inform the House of the death of the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, on 1 November. On behalf of the House, I extend our deepest condolences to the noble Lord’s family and friends.
Air Pollution
(9 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Whitty
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to reduce air pollution.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare a non-pecuniary interest as vice-president of Environmental Protection UK, which is campaigning on this issue.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, the Government have invested billions of pounds in measures to reduce air pollution, including incentives for low-emission vehicles and sustainable transport. Local authorities are also required to review and assess air quality under the local air quality management system. We support them in seeking to deliver local measures to meet national air quality objectives. We also work with the devolved Administrations to improve air quality across the United Kingdom.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply, but does she recognise that there are still 29,000 people whose deaths are attributable to air pollution, mainly induced by traffic? Does she also recognise that the UK is in clear breach of EU limits in large parts of the country, particularly urban areas; that the WHO found a lot of the assessed areas were at dangerous levels, particularly for nitrogen dioxide; and that the Government’s own forecasts suggest we will not reach EU limits for London, Yorkshire and the West Midlands until 2030, 15 years after the deadline?
Does the Minister accept that the Government have virtually abandoned previous local and national air quality strategies and the development of low-emission zones, and have ignored the Environmental Audit Committee’s recommendations? When are we going to see a proper government strategy on air quality?
Baroness Northover
My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that we take this extremely seriously and I would refute the latter part of his question. He will know that we have managed to limit most pollutants and these are now below the legally binding EU limit values. The outstanding one is nitrogen dioxide, which has been a challenge not only for the United Kingdom but for 17 of the 27 EU states. We are working very hard to combat this.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, many local authorities are starting to introduce low emission zones to tackle air pollution. If they are led locally, these will have different criteria and be introduced at different times. What are the Government doing to ensure an effective network of low-emission zones, right around the country?
Baroness Northover
We work very closely with local authorities to provide support when they seek to introduce low-emission zones. One factor here is that there may be different reasons for air pollution in different areas, and it is therefore important that decisions on how to identify and then tackle it are taken on a local basis. However, we are working very hard to support local areas in introducing appropriate measures.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, how much thought has been given to democratising our understanding of air quality by developing a “citizen science” approach, whereby ordinary people might be encouraged to monitor their own air quality using measuring kits in their home and back garden? Air quality is about many things, including chemical fertilisers, natural allergens and so on, which will affect individual people’s day-to-day quality of life.
Baroness Northover
The more we involve and educate people of every age the better as far as tackling this is concerned. As the noble Earl will know, local authorities monitor locally. We have 273 sites, but if his suggestion brings many more sites on stream, maybe it is a very good idea.
Lord Framlingham (Con)
My Lords, bearing in mind that trees take in carbon dioxide and give out oxygen, will the Government do all they possibly can to encourage the planting of trees, particularly in inner-city areas?
Baroness Northover
My noble friend makes a very good proposal. I am sure that he will have seen the report today which, in terms of tackling climate change, puts a great deal of emphasis on planting trees.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, the Mayor of London abandoned plans to introduce congestion charging in west London. Did that help to reduce air pollution or cause more trouble?
Baroness Northover
The noble Lord had better refer his question directly to the mayor. He will know that the mayor has introduced a wide range of measures and is consulting on a number that are in the pipeline. We are also constantly reviewing the effects of the various proposals, and I am sure that the point that the noble Lord has made will be looked at as well.
Lord Borwick (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a trustee of the British Lung Foundation. Does the Minister agree that there is a regrettable lack of research into the detailed effects of air pollution on the lungs of Londoners?
Baroness Northover
My noble friend makes a good point, and this is something that Public Health England is taking up. We work very closely with the Department of Health and Public Health England. It is extremely important that we encourage research into the effect of pollutants.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton (Lab)
My Lords, what is the Government’s policy on diesel engines? Defra has now realised that they are in fact a dangerous source of pollution, as does the Mayor of London. Japan has for many years discouraged diesel engines. What is the Government’s policy in this direction?
Baroness Northover
We are looking very closely at this. The noble Lord will know that, in the past, it was thought that diesel engines would be less polluting and that studies of diesel engines in factories indicated that that was so. However, it did not prove to be the case when the engines were used out on the road, and that has serious implications.
Baroness Worthington (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness may have sought to refute my noble friend’s Question but the truth is that, because the Government’s strategy for tackling air quality involved reducing the number of monitoring stations, they have been forced to go back to the drawing board. There is no strategy. Given the great interest in this issue on all sides of the House, perhaps we should have a debate on it so that we can help them form a strategy.
Baroness Northover
Again, I refute what the noble Baroness says. It is extremely important that local authorities work out in their own areas where the key spots are. They are best placed to monitor and identify them, and it is their responsibility. Defra takes an overarching responsibility, working with the local authorities.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I am concerned that the Minister does not understand the concept of an overall plan for the whole of Britain. The problem is Britain-wide. The Mayor of London is planning an ultra-low emission zone, which is fantastic, but it is still too small and too limited, and that will be the problem every time if the Government do not take the lead.
Baroness Northover
As I have just answered, it is important that Defra takes an overall strategic approach —which it is doing—and that the local authorities look at the situation—it may be a road junction—in their area. It is important to work on a local, national, European and international scale.
Health: Pneumococcal Disease
(9 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Avebury
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the progress of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation in its review of the adult pneumococcal disease programme.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe) (Con)
The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation concluded a review of the adult pneumococcal vaccination programme in 2012. The committee will begin the next review in early 2015, taking into account the latest information on the epidemiology, cost effectiveness and impact of adult pneumococcal vaccination. It is anticipated that the review will take six months to complete, subject to the availability of the necessary evidence.
Lord Avebury (LD)
My Lords, the JCVI looked at the situation in its June meeting and said that it would like to see the results of recent trials on the effectiveness of PPV in adults, but the subject was not on the agenda for the October meeting. Why are those trials not in the public domain? Since it is likely that the vaccination would be effective against the 5,000 cases diagnosed in adults every year in England, with some savings to the National Health Service, what steps are being taken to accelerate the introduction of the PPV vaccine?
Earl Howe
My noble friend is right to highlight the burden of disease caused by pneumonia in particular in the elderly. As I said in my Answer, what happened at the October meeting of the JVCI was an agreement that a pneumococcal sub-committee should be formed to fully consider the latest evidence on adult pneumococcal vaccination, including the evolving epidemiology of pneumococcal disease in the UK following the introduction of the conjugate vaccine into the childhood vaccination programme. In addition, the review will consider the latest data on the use of the conjugate vaccine in adults. This was discussed at the October meeting, the minutes of which are due to be published next week.
Lord Walton of Detchant (CB)
My Lords, as a young doctor, I saw many cases of pneumococcal meningitis in childhood. This disease caused about a 15% mortality, and 25% of those who recovered were left with serious disabilities such as blindness, deafness and other forms of abnormality. The disease in adults is much less devastating. Vaccination in children has been enormously successful in almost completely eradicating pneumococcal meningitis. Pneumonia in elderly adults, caused by the pneumococcus, is a very serious disease. May we express the hope that the committee will come up with very positive recommendations for a wider vaccination programme with a different group of vaccines for adults?
Earl Howe
My Lords, the noble Lord summarised the position extremely well. I share his hope that we will see an outcome from the sub-committee’s work in which everyone can take satisfaction. He is right that rates of pneumococcal disease in children have fallen dramatically, but it is interesting that the knock-on effect of that has been to reduce the rate in adults as well.
Baroness Wall of New Barnet (Lab)
My Lords, I am sure that the noble Earl would agree that, not only for this disease, effective vaccination and immunisation lead to fewer people being in hospital and rates of infection being reduced. It also means that we have a much better patient flow coming through. Surely, to be successful, immunisation and vaccination need to be encouraged.
Earl Howe
The noble Baroness is of course quite right. It is important to emphasise that part of the benefit of the seasonal flu vaccination campaign is to reduce the risk in adults and children of pneumococcal disease. That is another good reason to get the flu vaccination.
Chilcot Inquiry
(9 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Dykes
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to expedite the publication of the report by the Chilcot Inquiry.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, the inquiry is completely independent of government. However, Sir John Chilcot has said that it is the inquiry’s intention to submit its report to the Prime Minister as soon as possible. I very much hope that its conclusions will shortly be available for all to read.
Lord Dykes (LD)
I express sympathy to my noble friend that HMG appear to be at the mercy of pressures from outside to connive in a delay in this report possibly to help Mr Bush and Mr Blair. Will he please come back to the Prime Minister’s exhortation in May that the report should be published by the end of this year at the latest and say when the date will be?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I refute that there is in any sense a conspiracy connected to the former Prime Minister or the former American president. It has taken a good deal longer than was anticipated to clear the many thousands of documents that have been examined and which will be published on the website with a number of redactions. That process is now virtually complete. The Maxwellisation letters, which were sent out as a warning last year, should now be going out and we hope that that process will be completed. As soon as those who are to be criticised in the report have responded, the report will be ready for submission to the Prime Minister.
Lord Morgan (Lab)
My Lords, is this not a scandal following on a scandal? Is it not a public disgrace? In other countries—for example, the Netherlands—there were far more competent professional inquiries, full of lawyers who could comment on international law, which replied very swiftly. We have had this endless delay. Does it not indicate that perhaps the Government as well as the Civil Service have ceased to believe in open government?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
No, my Lords, I do not think that it does. It has taken longer than we had hoped or expected. This is an entirely new sort of inquiry. I suppose it is comparable to the Savile inquiry, which also took a great deal longer than we had anticipated. We underestimated the complexity before we started, but we are encouraging the committee as rapidly as possible to complete and we are anxious to have the report published.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich
My Lords, does the Minister accept that repeated press reports of rows between the Cabinet Office and the inquiry over the declassification of documents are deeply hurtful to the families most affected by the Iraq conflict? Does he agree that until the inquiry is completed, many bereaved and grieving families will not be able to move on?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I appreciate that many have been affected by the issues studied by this inquiry. I am not aware of any rows between the Cabinet Office and the inquiry. I am aware of a long series of complex discussions within the British Government, between the British Government and our allies and with the inquiry about the exact nature of what should be published. I am conscious that what will be published includes notes from more than 200 Cabinet meetings, for example, including some extracts from Cabinet minutes.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend remember that, before the war broke out, 1 million ordinary people marched in the streets of London telling us not to go to war, yet we politicians did a pretty miserable job in waving that war on willy-nilly? While no one underestimates the difficulties that Sir John Chilcot faces, does my noble friend not accept that any further delay, after all this time, can only increase the sense of injustice that so many people feel about that war?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I remember that march very well: I was one of the marchers. We are very conscious that we now need to bring this to a close. I deeply regret that it has taken three years since the end of the interview phase of the inquiry to get as far as we have. We are all anxious to complete the next stage which, as I stress, is showing to those who will be criticised in the report what it says about them and giving them a chance to reply. As soon as that is completed—so we are a little dependent on them, I am afraid to say, and on their lawyers—the report will be submitted to the Prime Minister and published.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister regard “as soon as possible” as nearer or further off than “in due course”?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I very much hope nearer. In the debate in the House of Commons last week, my colleague the Minister for Civil Society commented that they very much hoped to have this published before the end of February. We are all conscious that we do not want to have this published in the middle of an election campaign.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon (Ind Lab)
My Lords, could we have the report as a Christmas present?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
There are many things that the noble Lord might like as a Christmas present. I am not sure that I would prefer to read this report, with all its appendices, rather than the novels that I hope my wife will give me for Christmas.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne (LD)
Does the Minister agree that sometimes in these enormous investigations it might be wise to set a time limit with an understanding that there are some things that simply can never be found out?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I think one of the lessons we will have learnt from this inquiry is that time limits are highly desirable. I stress again that the review of thousands of documents, which were at high levels of classification, was unprecedented and did unavoidably take a great deal of time.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, how much has the Chilcot inquiry cost so far? Is it rather like building work in one’s own house that “as soon as possible” ends up costing an awful lot more?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, the inquiry has cost £9 million so far. We estimate that by the time it is completed it will have cost £10 million. By comparison, the Savile inquiry cost £100 million.
Lord Avebury (LD)
My Lords, how far will the extra £1 million take us? Can my noble friend give an assurance that it will not be within the pre-election period before the next general election when silence is observed?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, that is the assurance that the Minister for Civil Society gave last week. We are all anxious that if it is not published by the end of February it would be inappropriate to publish it during the campaign period.
Lord Mawhinney (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as I had the privilege of working very closely with Sir John Chilcot when he was the Permanent Secretary in Northern Ireland. Is my noble friend concerned that the backstage manoeuvring and perhaps even bickering going on as people allegedly seek to protect their reputations could over time start to have a damaging effect on the reputation of Sir John Chilcot? It would be a disgrace were that to be allowed to happen.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I am not sure about backstairs manoeuvring. I would say that the members of the Chilcot inquiry would not pass the necessary test as all being members of the establishment. Indeed, one of the members of the Chilcot inquiry disrupted the first lecture I gave as a university teacher when he was himself a rebellious student. The inquiry does have to consult those whom it will criticise and allow them to provide a defence. That is the process that now remains to be completed before we publish. We all have to accept that in natural justice that has to be allowed to go ahead even if there are lawyers involved.
Lord Richard (Lab)
My Lords, the process referred to by the noble Lord could take months. It could take a very long time. If criticisms are made in the report they then have to go to the people who have been criticised. They have the right to comment. It then comes back to Sir John Chilcot. He has to consider those representations and then, if necessary, reflect them by amending the report. That is a recipe for a delay that will go on and on and on.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I hope that will not be the case, but I am sure the noble Lord will accept that this is a necessary part of the process. There will be criticisms of people who served in the previous Labour Government and they are entitled to see them before publication.
Lord Woolf (CB)
My Lords, the question of what happens in the course of inquiries was reported on by the committee, of which I have the privilege to be a member, headed by the noble Lord, Lord Shutt. One of its recommendations was that we should look again at the process of writing to those who may be affected. Many of those who have conducted inquiries said that it led to additional expense and waste of time. The Government were not sympathetic to what we recommended. Does the noble Lord think that the Government should look at the matter again?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, when the inquiry is complete and published, it might well be appropriate for some body of government or House of Parliament to look at that question again.
Barnett Formula
(9 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wigley
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what representations they have received from the Welsh Government in relation to the replacement of the Barnett formula as far as its application to Wales is concerned.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I begin by expressing my personal condolences to the family and friends of the noble Lord, Lord Barnett. Lord Barnett was a delight to have as a sparring partner, and I will certainly miss his presence in your Lordships’ Chamber very much.
The Government are aware of the Welsh Government’s views on continuing the Barnett formula. Although there are no changes to Barnett in prospect, we have agreed with the Welsh Government to revisit the arrangements for jointly considering relative funding in advance of each spending review. The Prime Minister has been clear that Wales will be at the heart of the debate on how to make the United Kingdom work for all its constituent parts.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I, too, pay tribute to Lord Barnett: a lovely, gentle, intelligent colleague who was among the first to recognise that the funding formula bearing his name by now needs radical reform. Does the Minister accept that if Wales were to receive the same level of funding as does Scotland, relative to population and the portfolios devolved, Wales would now get a staggering £1.2 billion a year more than is currently the case? On what possible basis of equity can Wales be denied parity with Scotland in regard to such funding? Would it not now be a fitting tribute to Lord Barnett if the Government today pledged to revise the formula to deliver for Wales parity with Scotland in funding matters?
Lord Newby
My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, a very significant review of funding in Wales was undertaken by Gerry Holtham, which suggested that Wales would be getting a fair degree of funding if it was approximately 114% of that in England or more—I believe that that is the right figure. I believe that, certainly this year and next year, that figure will be met.
Lord Peston (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his Question, with which I know for a fact that my noble friend Lord Barnett was in total agreement. I also thank the Minister for his kind remarks, because he might be forgiven for thinking that one of Lord Barnett’s missions in life was to make his life a total misery. Lord Barnett will be remembered for his formula, but those of us in this House will surely remember that he contributed to a vast number of other topics and therefore deserves to be remembered for all that as well. I think we all agree that he will be missed much more than, perhaps, some of us when our time comes.
Lord Newby
My Lords, I absolutely agree with the noble Lord that Lord Barnett was a formidable parliamentarian across a range of subjects.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, I associate myself with the remarks about Lord Barnett, who was a good friend and a great person in this House.
Can my noble friend explain to me how the vow made by all three party leaders in the concluding days of the Scottish referendum, which states that they are committed to,
“sharing our resources equitably across all four nations”,
is consistent with keeping the Barnett formula?
Lord Newby
My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that the system for funding across the nations will change as we move to a greater degree of devolution in Scotland and that, when a greater degree of taxation powers is devolved to Scotland, the importance of the Barnett formula will be proportionately diminished. Therefore, it is not as though we are standing still on this; we are making a move in a direction that I hope the noble Lord will support.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, I would like to associate these Benches with the tributes that have been paid to Lord Barnett. I used occasionally to share a taxi with him from Euston and he was a delightful person.
Do the Government agree that the cost of providing services to people in Wales on an equal basis is greater than that in England, having regard to relative levels of ill health, poverty and sparsity of population? If so, is not the basic premise of the Barnett formula utterly and fatally flawed?
Lord Newby
My Lords, I think that we need to remember that Wales receives greater per capita expenditure support than England; in 2012-13, while in England as a whole the level was just over £6,000, in Wales it was just shy of £7,000.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Barnett was an extraordinary man, as an MP, a Minister, a colleague and a friend to all Benches in this House. He diligently held the Government to account and did his utmost to ensure the best for the people of this country until just a few weeks ago. He believed, as we all do, that government should be a force for making life better for the people of this country. I have just been joined by my noble friend Lord Davies of Oldham, who used to be a PPS for my noble friend Lord Barnett.
Can the Minister confirm that the Government will agree to the all-party request from the Welsh Assembly for bilateral talks between the UK and Welsh Governments on fair funding, and to rapid implementation of a funding floor, which the Welsh Government suggest should be completed by January 2015?
Lord Newby
My Lords, as I said in my initial Answer, we have agreed that we will revisit the arrangements for funding in Wales in advance of each spending review. We will do the next review next year in conjunction with the Welsh Government.
Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)
Does the Minister recollect that our late splendid friend Lord Barnett often said that his formula was intended to be of only very short duration, and that he accepted, particularly in relation to Wales, that it was wholly inequitable for it to be perpetuated from year to year?
Lord Newby
Yes, my Lords, but the Barnett formula is the opposite of most government policies, which do not survive very long. His has survived a lot longer than anybody ever envisaged.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, I join the tributes to my noble friend Lord Barnett.
Does the Minister agree that the problem is not in the formula itself? The grievance, as seen in Wales, is the lack of fair funding. When the Government look at the totality of relations with Wales, perhaps avoiding the straitjacket of the formula, would they consider a multitude of matters, including for example helping Wales by abolishing the tolls on the Severn bridges, which amount now to a tax on the people of Wales?
Lord Newby
My Lords, the Barnett formula is a bit like the Schleswig-Holstein problem. Virtually nobody understands how we got to where we are today. The key question is how much money makes its way to Wales. As I said earlier, for the period ahead Wales will receive a figure in line with most definitions, I believe, of what people think is fair.
Infrastructure Bill [HL]
(9 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:44 - Division on Amendment 2A - Ayes: 192 / Noes: 229 - Amendment 2A disagreed.
17:53 - Division on Amendment 15 - Ayes: 165 / Noes: 235 - Amendment 15 disagreed.
Lord Whitty
“Duties of the Secretary of State
Duties of the Secretary of State shall include—(a) drawing up and granting of a licence to a strategic highways company as provided for in section 1, but this duty may be delegated to the Office of Rail Regulation,(b) drawing up and presenting from time to time, and at least every five years, to Parliament for approval a Roads Investment Strategy as provided for in section 3,(c) issuing from time to time directions and guidance under section 4 both to the Office of Rail Regulation and to the licensed strategic highways company,(d) reporting periodically to Parliament on the performance of the strategic highways network.”
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, In moving Amendment 1, I will also speak to the other amendments in my name in this group and comment on some of the others too.
I had hoped that after a lengthy discussion in Committee the Government would have come up with their own draft to address the deficiencies of this part of the Bill, and to clarify the relationship between and responsibilities of the Secretary of State and the various bodies covered by it. Regrettably they have failed to do so. However, they have produced a lot of new documents, many of which are very informative. I thank the Minister for that and for the various briefing sessions that she and her officials have held since that date. However, I have to tell her that, in relation to the issues I am about to raise they have, if anything, confused the situation.
For the benefit of newcomers to this debate, this part of the Bill is intended to place roads investment in a new context by creating a road investment strategy for England and by hiving off the Highways Agency into rather more arm’s-length companies—the strategic highways companies. I very much approve of the first aim but I am not at all sure that the second aim concerning the companies is right.
Noble Lords who are long in the tooth will remember that, going back a bit, I was a roads Minister. It is a pretty dreadful job and is always subject to representations by Members of Parliament and others on which roads should take priority, how much more should be spent and so forth. I would welcome a consistent road investment plan with a strategic direction sustained over a number of years as part of a wider sustainable transport policy. The key point for the Government appears to be that the road investment strategy in the Bill will be somehow free from short-term changes, albeit that some of the documentation that the Minister has provided us with, including the draft licence to which I shall return, says that the Secretary of State can vary the strategy at any time, and, of course, the Treasury still decides the funding—so good luck with that.
In principle, I support the road investment strategy but am unclear why it is absolutely necessary for it to be delivered by new strategic highways companies, and why a corporatised Highways Agency would do the job so much better than the present system of delivery, especially since the Government seem to have denied themselves ways of making a company more effective than the Highways Agency. I do not particularly support all these issues but the Government have clearly said that this is not a stage towards privatisation. Indeed, the Bill makes that clear, and I agree. However, they have also said that the company cannot raise its own capital, with which I disagree as that could smooth out any predations by the Chancellor. The Government also say that it is not allowed to engage in anything approaching road charging, although I note that that part is not yet included in the draft licence to which I referred, so watch that space.
Therefore, the benefits of having a separate company are a little unclear. Nevertheless, I recognise that there could be significant advantages in establishing a company, such as coherence of approach, an ability to engage in contractual innovations and possibly less direct pressure from MPs and other vested interests, although I am sure that the Minister will not be entirely free of that. Such a company could develop a long-term strategy on road safety, to which I will return on later amendments, and on issues such as telemetrics in traffic control, traffic management, road design and meeting environmental standards. However, it will deliver only if that company is itself set in a coherent institutional framework, which is normally the case for any large state-owned company. We need clarity of accountability, including the accountability of Parliament. Regrettably, the Bill does not provide for that.
The Bill refers to the possible appointment of a number of companies as strategic highways companies. The Government have made it clear that they are in reality talking about only one company. However, the Bill talks about the possibility of more than one. When questioned, the Minister and officials rather darkly referred to legal advice from counsel, even though it is clearly contrary to the policy and intention of the Government to have more than one company involved. Amendments 3 to 7 in this group, the first of which is mine, seek to ensure that the Bill makes the intention absolutely clear, and therefore we will be able to judge the Government against that.
More profoundly in the long term, the operation of a new set-up has a lack of clarity about the relationship between the Secretary of State, the company and the monitor or regulator. There is going to be an enhanced Office of Rail Regulation, in which presumably some changes will be made, and there is the matter of accountability to Parliament. The Bill refers to appointment of a company, but during the proceedings in Committee, the Minister, on many occasions, when questioned about the relationship between the Secretary of State and the company, referred us to the licence, which was then already in its sixth draft, and is now a lot longer at 35 pages.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I support my noble friend and will briefly speak to some of the amendments in this group, namely Amendments 2, 2B, 5, 6, 6A, 7 and 7A. I will not repeat all that my noble friend has said, because the various amendments that we have tabled between us provide the basis for the proper link between primary legislation and the licence, which, as my noble friend said, is so lacking in the Bill.
I started off by looking at the relevant clauses of the Railways Act 1993 and the Railways Act 2005, which we discussed in Committee and in some helpful meetings with the Minister and officials, for which I am grateful. It was remarkably easy, at this comparatively high level, to cross out “rail” and put in “road”; they are very similar. If, as my noble friend said, we are to have a company that looks after the strategic roads in a way that is similar to what Network Rail became in September by becoming fully government-owned, it would seem logical that the legislation under which this happens would be similar.
I will not go through all the amendments in detail; my noble friend has done that very well. However, I have two questions for the Minister when she comes to reply. First, under the Bill, will it still be possible for Members of Parliament and of this House to table Written Questions and ask questions of Ministers, as we currently can with the Highways Agency? Noble Lords will know that we cannot do that for Network Rail, because if you table a question about it the answer comes back, “Write to the chief executive”. I am sure one gets good answers from the chief executive, but one does not see the answers that other noble Lords get to the questions that they ask the chief executive. I hope that the same thing will not happen with the strategic highways company and that we will still be able to table questions about its operations and the company generally, and to get a proper Written Answer or be able to have an Oral Question or debate on it as the circumstances demand.
I also hope that when Network Rail becomes subject to the Freedom of Information Act on 1 April next year, that situation will apply to it. Clearly, we would not want to ask whether a motorway sign or signal had been moved; that would be a ridiculous waste of ministerial time. On the other hand, there are many things that it would be useful to ask such questions about for the purposes of parliamentary scrutiny.
My second question for the Minister concerns my Amendment 7A which relates to Section 48 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. This exempts Crown-owned companies, or officers or companies of the Crown, from being taken to court by the Health and Safety Executive if it believes that they have contravened the Act. I know that the Highways Agency itself is exempt, being a Crown agency. It would be nice to know whether any change was planned in this relationship, and therefore the exemption, when the strategic highways company comes into existence. I believe that Network Rail does not have an exemption, because the Health and Safety Executive, through the Office of Rail Regulation, has taken action against it on several occasions. There should be a balance between the two and as much transparency as possible. I am very much looking forward to what the Minister has to say in response and fully support the amendments of my noble friend.
Lord Bradshaw (LD)
I shall say just three things. The Government are mistaken. The Office of Rail Regulation should, under that title, oversee roads as well. In spite of all the arguments, if it were signalled, it could change its name at some future date. It could be planned for and there would not be a lot of expense. It would be much more understandable to motorists and everybody else who the regulator was, whether it was a railway regulator or a transport regulator.
I also endorse the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, about safety. One thing that the Office of Rail Regulation has done is to drive up safety standards on the railways. Although the Government keep saying the safety standards on the roads are the best in Europe, these are really quite deplorable, as we see with the continued deaths of cyclists in London, for example.
Lastly—I know I am reaching for the moon here—would it not be better to be honest and say that we have to adopt road pricing some time and, to make it acceptable, to say that the money raised from it would be used for roads and motoring purposes? If you explain what the money is for, people are much more likely to embrace the idea. A recent opinion poll in one of the national papers showed that people were against raising taxes, but if they were specifically asked whether they would pay more tax to improve the health service, they said yes. The same applies to road pricing.
Lord Jenkin of Roding (Con)
My Lords, I yield entirely to the noble Lords, Lord Whitty and Lord Berkeley, for their huge expertise in this field. I have not attempted to master all the details. However, there was one point made by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, which I am not sure I correctly understood. It was about the licence. My attention was drawn to the Written Statement that was issued by the Government. Indeed, my noble friend on the Front Bench repeated a Statement made by her colleague, the right honourable John Hayes. He was talking about the draft licence, which is a new document that was issued six days ago. I shall come back to that point in a moment. It states that the licence,
“indicates the manner in which the Secretary of State proposes to issue binding statutory directions and guidance to the new company, setting objectives and conditions around how the company must act”.—[Official Report, Commons, 28/10/14; col. 18WS.]
I do not think that there is anything obscure about that; it is perfectly clear that the licence is issued by the Secretary of State. In those circumstances, the Secretary of State can clearly be held responsible if it does not work properly. But it may be that I misunderstood the noble Lord, Lord Whitty.
The Statement from which I quoted was issued less than a week ago and announces the publication of several substantial new documents which bear on Part 1 of the Infrastructure Bill. I fear that the Government have got themselves into rather a bad habit of publishing documents very shortly before Parliament has to consider them, leaving those of us who perhaps do not have the resources behind us that some may have to find it very difficult to catch up with it all. The most recent example—I do not hold my noble friend Lady Kramer responsible for this—is something that we will debate on Wednesday: the community electricity scheme. A task force looking at exactly that issue has been sitting for a year, but its report was made available only this morning. When I first came into the House, it was not even available in the Printed Paper Office, so I am afraid that I rang up the department concerned and expressed my displeasure, if I may put it in neutral language.
I have to say to my noble friend on the Front Bench that that is no way to treat Parliament. If the Government get into difficulties on some of these issues, it is because officials have been allowed to drag their feet to the point when things are issued only a matter of days before they have to be debated. I leave my noble friend with that thought.
Finally, I should say how much I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. I am sure that we have to come to some form of road pricing in future, if we are to make sense of this. There has been a huge increase in road traffic and no sign of it declining. The fact of the matter is that, while people of course pay the petrol duty, the licence and other taxes, that is in no way related to the amount of use that they make of the roads. I am quite sure that we will have to come back to that at some stage, and it may be something that emerges from the revised structure being set up in this Bill. As I said at Second Reading, I totally support it, and think it a very good move, but the revised structure may well bring these questions of how it is to be paid for much more to the fore. Then we may have the sort of reform that my noble friend Lord Bradshaw advocated.
Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)
My Lords, I can keep my own contribution relatively brief because my noble friends Lord Whitty and Lord Berkeley have presented the case with great clarity. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, for pointing out that we are dealing today with a position that is only six days old—the latest change from the Government to this crucial part of the proposals in the Bill. That is to say nothing of the fact that the fracking aspect of the Bill came months after we had considered it in Committee, which was then held up until the Government had concluded their consultation in the summer. So this is not a Bill distinguished by forward planning from the Government, or by a clear rationale of what they are about. However, I suppose I should thank them for having another shot at improving the Bill.
We are pleased to see changes reflective of the representations made in Committee from this side of the House, but we are no clearer on why delivering long-term certainty for roads investment requires a top-down reorganisation of the Highways Agency. The Cook report told us that it is stop-start funding problems that are leading to inefficiencies of between 15% and 20%. Is there any real evidence proving that changing the legal structure of the Highways Agency will, in itself, improve efficiency? Perhaps top-down reorganisation is the metier of this Government in challenging areas. The Minister will be aware of the strength of the concern on our side that this looks like the first step to privatisation. We continue to have that anxiety. Why is the section on the company’s licence for commercial activity and charging for services still unfinished?
We are concerned about the cost implications. There is still no clarity on whether the SHC will be able to reclaim VAT in the same way that the Highways Agency does at present. In Committee, the Minister said that the SHC would not be required to pay VAT, which is exactly the case with the Highways Agency now. That soon cleared up the issue. However, it did not clear up the issue at the other end, because the Minister in the Treasury, David Gauke, in answer to a Question from my honourable friend in the other place, Richard Burden MP, said:
“New bodies are not automatically covered by the … provisions. However, the Department for Transport and HM Treasury are considering this issue”.
HMT is quite important, here, with regard to revenue and dispensations to other departments. It does not seem to be as clear on the matter as the Department for Transport is maintaining that it is. If the new strategic highways authority is no longer able to recover VAT in the same way, that could lead to losses of a considerable amount—as much as £400 million annually. That would be £4 billion over 10 years, which would dwarf the figure of efficiency gains of £2.6 billion that it is proposed will come from the legislation. If the VAT issue is not resolved, therefore, the justification for this reorganisation is even less substantiated.
Turning to Amendment 4, which is in my name, the Minister used two arguments in Committee to reject our attempts to clarify whether the Government envision having more than one company. One argument was that this is only standard legal drafting and there should be no cause for concern. The Minister went on to say that it might be necessary if one wanted a more regional structure for the equivalent of the strategic highways company. Can she not confirm that the Highways Agency is already structured regionally? There appears to be confused thinking within the Government about how many companies there will be, which is why many are concerned that the Government are not being entirely open about their plans for the future.
It is clear that our main reservations about the major government proposal in the Bill have not been assuaged. As my noble friends have indicated, there are other questions, too, to which the Minister needs to respond to convince us that this proposal is acceptable.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Kramer)
My Lords, this is obviously a very wide and long group of amendments, which cover quite a range of issues. I do not want to put words in noble Lords’ mouths. but I think that we have progressed to the point at which at least we have a common goal in terms of setting up a structure that will ensure certainty of funding for highways in the way that we have managed to enjoy, and benefited from, with the railways.
Clause 1 allows the Secretary of State to appoint a strategic highways company, thereby conferring duties and functions on it to operate as a highway authority. If we were to drop this clause—there is a stand part debate in this group of amendments—it would be a fundamental change to the model and we would lose many of the key benefits of certainty over funding and plans which, as we have heard today, has been widely supported.
Our aim is to create a different model to deliver road infrastructure. Crucial to this is having a legal body separate from government responsible for our strategic road network and delivering a road investment strategy in the most cost-effective way. We consider the most effective model is a company created under the Companies Act 2006. Let me explain the rationale. We have decades of experience of the fact that the current arrangements—I point this out to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, who will remember the history of the department—have not encouraged a long-term approach to planning infrastructure or provided secure funding. Stop-start has indeed been a definition of a large part of their history and has come with high costs in terms of the efficiency and quality of our infrastructure. For long-term funding certainty and planning, it is crucial for the Secretary of State to be able to have a transparent and binding relationship with a separate legal entity. If the delivery body were to remain the Highways Agency and remain within the DfT, inevitably it would be easy to change funding and plans.
Setting up a strategic highways company as a new company operating under company law with a well established governance and financial framework will reinforce the clarity and robustness of the relationship. We have seen from international experience, for example in the Netherlands and Sweden, that where road delivery bodies have been given long-term funding certainty and a more independent relationship setting out requirements, large efficiency savings have been possible. A company would be constrained to one that is limited by shares and wholly owned by the Secretary of State, ensuring that any company is 100% owned by the Government and remains in the public sector. We have not only no intent but no interest in turning this into a privatisation. That is not part of our agenda and does not achieve the goals that we want.
Let me again take this opportunity to explain that we have no plans to appoint more than one company. We have already made clear that the Highways Agency, in its new legal status as a Government-owned company, will be the only company appointed. The use of plural “companies” in legislation was to allow flexibility for further companies in the future, including how companies would work together: and that is what Amendment 11 seeks to remove. Subsequent provisions in the Bill which refer to a company could therefore refer only to the strategic highways company or to each such company.
We are doing this in part because we recognise that future Governments may want flexibility to create more companies: for example, to give more accountability, to allow a company to look after a specific cluster of roads or area of roads or to promote comparisons and efficiency. Those are not our goals, but they might be those of a future Government. Reference to more than one company would prevent future Governments making change as needed. However, it is not something that we are seeking, so if noble Lords feel strongly on this issue and do not want to give that flexibility to future Governments—even though it is standard in virtually every piece of legislation that this House has seen referring to “companies” and “company” because, as I explained, in law the singular is the plural and the plural is the singular—I could offer a compromise that might reassure noble Lords.
I would be very happy to return at Third Reading with an amendment that would require any Government to seek parliamentary approval to establish additional companies beyond the initial one. I wonder whether this would satisfy noble Lords. It would certainly meet our intent. We see no future Government related to us who would wish to run this in a different way, and this would allow Parliament to have the voice that perhaps noble Lords are seeking.
Turning to the requirement for a licensing regime, we have been and are clear that we do not want to privatise the strategic highway network. Therefore, given that licensing regimes in the traditional sense, which is reflected in quite a number of these amendments, apply to commercial operators, we have been trying to avoid precisely that kind of licence. I find it strange that your Lordships are now pressing for amendments that follow that commercial model. Since we do not intend to privatise, the commercial model is not relevant to our proposals for this company.
In sectors such as rail, aviation, energy and water, the licence is a means of access to an economic activity where there are potentially multiple operators in a commercial market that may seek to apply. Our strategic highways company is funded by government, with no option for a separate revenue income. All its powers and duties to operate as a highways authority already exist in legislation and it is by virtue of their appointment that these powers are switched on.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, I thank the Minister very much for dealing with these issues so comprehensively. We all share the frustration of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, but we recognise the efforts which the Minister and her officials have put in to keeping us informed. The problem is that so much relies on what is in the draft licence and it is confusing for many of us if that document is constantly changing as we are going through this Bill. If the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, has expressed displeasure, the powers that be should be trembling in their shoes and take notice.
The first bit of good news is that the Minister very clearly indicated that the Government have no plans to appoint more than one company and that, whatever it says in the Bill, she was prepared to come forward—I think she said at Third Reading—on the issue of a separate vote of Parliament being required if more than one company were to be appointed in the future. That would go some way to clarifying the position. I still do not totally understand why it is expressed in this way, given the Government’s clear intention in any case. However, I thank the Minister as it partly deals with an issue which is troubling a number of people. The present view is that a single English road network company would be the most effective way of delivering improved roads and transport systems. If a subsequent Government decided that it should be regionalised, a whole lot of other issues then arise. A parliamentary brake on them doing that at least goes some way to meeting that point and I thank the Minister for that.
I am partially reassured by what the Minister said on parliamentary accountability, but I am still not clear whether that means that the Secretary of State can be asked in Parliament about the same range of things that he or she can currently be asked about. In other words, is there any change? That important issue will undoubtedly be raised by MPs of all parties when the Bill reaches the Commons.
The central issue of why my noble friends and I felt we had to raise the whole context in which the company was being set up, and the relationship between it and the Secretary of State, is the use of the term “licence” and the use of the content of the licence to explain everything about how the Government intend to conduct the new structure. I think that the Minister came as close as she dared in saying, “Well maybe we should never have called it a licence in the first place”. I think that if she took that further step, we could all sit down and applaud. However, it is very confusing because the Bill refers to “appointment”, which in some cases is the granting of a licence. Therefore, although it is a single state company and not a commercial company in the normal sense, and although there are examples of licences being given to state-owned companies, I think that using the term “licence” in one place and “appointment” in another without describing the process through which the Minister has to go or how the regulator is to enforce the terms of that licence is wrong.
Lord Davies of Oldham
“Public sector rail operators
Within 6 months of the passing of this Act the Secretary of State shall publish a report on allowing a public sector rail operator to take on lines and challenge the train operators in the public interest.”
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, this amendment requires the Secretary of State to publish a report on allowing a public sector rail operator to take on lines and challenge the train operators on a genuinely level playing field in the public interest, securing value for money for passengers and taxpayers.
Many noble Lords will no doubt recall the exchanges that we had at Question Time last week on the future of east coast rail. I congratulate the Minister on her performance then in defending the Government’s position, which I regarded then, and still do regard, as indefensible, but I hope that today her response will be somewhat different. We should learn the lessons of east coast rail, where we have seen the benefits of a not-for-dividend operator running a rail line.
East coast rail was brought back into public ownership in 2009 after the private operator reneged on its commitments. It is efficient, it has returned more than £600 million to the taxpayer and it invests every penny of that profit back into the company. It provides a quality service, achieving record levels of passenger satisfaction and punctuality. The new timetable that it introduced in 2011 allows it to operate 7,000 more trains each year, and it now has 500,000 more passengers. It has also delivered for passengers. This year’s fare rise was in fact a real-terms cut—something that no private franchise was able to do. In fact, elsewhere, season tickets have risen in price by 30% since 2010—a stark contrast.
Despite that, the Government appear intent on pressing ahead with the privatisation of intercity east coast services. Will the Minister confirm that the cost to the taxpayer of reprivatising the east coast could run to £6 million? It is important that the Minister responds to this question and says what steps the Government are otherwise taking to improve the functioning of the railways. It is unacceptable that our rail lines are, according to the 2011 McNulty review, up to 40% less efficient than the best-performing European networks.
We know that the Conservative Party is unwilling to take a pragmatic approach on this issue. Its Railways Act 1993 effectively prohibits a public sector operator, except in the most restrictive circumstances. But the public do not feel this way. Only 28% of those polled support the sell-off of east coast. Can the Minister say on which side of this divide her own party finds itself? Many will recall her party’s support for a public sector operator while it was in opposition. It is time to put an end to this rigid ideological approach, which also sees the Government trying to rush through a sell-off of the 40% public stake in Eurostar before we have even seen the conclusion of my noble friend Lord Myners’s inquiry into the Royal Mail privatisation.
This amendment would give the Government the opportunity to reflect and to alter their stance. It is time to learn the lessons of east coast and legislate to allow a public sector operator to take on lines. It should be able to challenge the train operators in the public interest on a level playing field. That is the way to secure the best deal for passengers and for taxpayers. I hope that the Minister will accept this amendment so that we can move in that direction. I beg to move.
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, it is worth reminding the House that we already have public sector operators in this country; we have lines owned by Dutch railways, French railways and German railways. They are not called that in this country—they have different names—but they are owned by those countries. On the continent, some of them operate effective, positive and well liked services; some of them are pretty awful. When you hear that Eurostar, which is still 40% owned by the British Government—although it is for sale—is allowed to bid for the east coast, but a company that is perhaps 100% owned by the British Government would not be allowed, it does seem a bit odd. I am sure that the Minister has an answer to that, but it seems to me that we are selling off our crown jewels in the shape of a piece of Eurostar and allowing the companies that buy them—perhaps from the continent, perhaps from elsewhere—to come back and provide a good service on certain occasions, but to compete a little unfairly against what our own companies might do if they existed.
Lord Snape (Lab)
My Lords, I have followed this debate over the years with some interest and have a number of questions arising from this amendment that I would like to put to the Minister; perhaps my noble friend on the Opposition Front Bench would also like to consider them. I have no interest to declare in this debate other than the fact that I worked for the railway industry, as did my father. The romantic view, perhaps, of British Rail that some of my colleagues occasionally expressed was one that neither my father nor I shared.
Working for a nationalised railway industry, as I did before being elected to the other place and before being appointed to this House, was a massively depressing experience. Year after year, the amount of finance available to the railway industry was the subject of debate. It was quite often cut back. Short-termism was the only way to describe the finances of BR. Although I am no great supporter of the form of privatisation that the Government have inflicted on us, at least it has provided some degree of long-term continuity so far as railway finances are concerned—a continuity that did not exist when the railways were nationalised. Indeed, some of those in my own party used to mock what they called the concept of Morrisonian nationalisation. They said that it was not nationalisation at all and that the railways were being run by the civil servants. That view was widely shared by many of us who worked in the industry at the time.
I speak to this amendment not from any romantic attachment to a nationalised railway but as a confused supporter of the railway industry who wonders how we got into this particular mess in the first place as far as franchising is concerned. I have said in previous debates that what we have at the present is neither one thing nor the other. It is certainly not franchising. If we look at the new trains that are in the process of being ordered and built, it appears that they were designed by civil servants. The Government or civil servants set the fares as far as companies are concerned. The Japanese build the trains and the rest of us ride around the country in what remains of the whole industry. It is a confused picture, to say the least, but I do not feel that the amendment would help to clarify matters particularly.
I have one or two questions I want to put specifically to the Minister about the current process, before we look at whether or not directly operated railways should be allowed to bid for franchises. How are these decisions actually taken? The whole thing is shrouded in mystery. Various companies, we understand, put forward bids for the franchises, and a process of evaluation takes place behind the scenes. Perhaps the Minister can tell us how this process is conducted and who is involved in it.
If this amendment were to be accepted, would it mean that one desk in the Department for Transport would put together a bid and its merits or otherwise would then be decided by another desk in the Department for Transport? I hope that I am second to none in my admiration of the legal profession, which does not go unrepresented in your Lordships’ House, but if the answer is yes, one can imagine a bonanza for lawyers in the event of an appeal. Indeed, the taxpayer has just paid heavily for the mess that was the west coast main line franchise. Perhaps the Minister could tell us in passing exactly how much that cost.
If the amendment were accepted, how much does she envisage it would cost the taxpayer to fund legal inquiries or complaints if DOR’s bid—an internal departmental bid in some ways—were accepted over and above a private sector bid: or, as my noble friend Lord Berkeley rightly reminded us, a bid from a nationalised railway industry in Germany, France or Holland, to name but three? I hesitate to sound critical, but one can imagine the legal profession rubbing its hands at the prospect of such a financial fracas taking place behind the scenes.
Allowing DOR to bid is not particularly revolutionary. In the debate on privatising the railway industry in 1993, your Lordships’ House accepted an amendment moved by that well known left-winger Lord Peyton of Yeovil to allow the British Railways Board, as it then was, to bid for franchises. That amendment was struck out in the other place and we have the system of privatisation, franchising or whatever you like to call it that we have now. I do not wish to add to the difficulties of the Minister if, as I suspect, she rejects this amendment, but some clarification is long overdue before she does so as to exactly how this process works at present and how it would be affected if the amendment were accepted.
Lord Palmer (CB)
My Lords, I fully support this amendment. The happiest moments of my week are when I get a kiss from all the onboard staff on the east coast line on Thursday lunchtime. It is incredibly important to realise that we have had two failed privatisations on the east coast line. Even at this last stage, very late in the day, I hope and pray the Government will not denationalise the east coast line. In my view—and I spend an enormous amount of my life on the east coast line—it would be absolutely mad, especially bearing in mind the two failed franchise bids.
Lord Judd (Lab)
My Lords, I spend a great deal of my time on the west coast line. All I can say is that when for one reason or other I use the east coast, I look at it with some envy. It is a very successful operation. I cannot believe that this is happening for any reason other than ideological commitment. That is a daft way to run an essential national public service. Pragmatism is the order of the day.
My noble friend Lord Berkeley referred to what is happening with Eurostar. I find it extraordinarily irresponsible that a railway system of that kind, which is so basic to the strength of our economy and well-being—the European market, whether we are in the Common Market or not, is so crucial to our economic success—should be handed away from public accountability and control. That is a basic lifeline. Of course this is happening in other industries as well. When I read of the Chinese coming in on certain strategic areas, I begin to wonder where on earth our economic policies tie up with our strategic analysis of the world in which we live.
The great thing to remember—my noble friend Lord Berkeley referred to this too—is that when public companies on the European mainland take the opportunity to provide public services in this country, they do so in a context in which in their own countries this is not seen as an ideological test of purity but a matter of pragmatism: what makes sense to be practically and pragmatically in the public sector and what makes sense in the private sector. In that context, they have been highly successful.
I personally favour—and I find myself cheered to realise that the majority of public opinion seems to be in that direction—a completely publicly owned rail system within this country because it is so crucial to our economy and every other matter. I also think it has a good deal to do with the morale of those working on it. If they feel they are actually providing a public service, and get a professional pride from providing a public service rather that simply providing profits, that has an impact and some significance.
If we are not to have that in the Bill—I hope we may have it at some stage—then it seems that this is a very effective damage limitation exercise. Nobody could accuse it of being doctrinaire politics because it accepts that the private sector will be there; it just says, is it not sensible? If the opportunity occurs, it makes pragmatic good sense and there is a rational way to undertake it, the public sector should be running part of the railway system. It would be a very good test of the comparative merits of both. I find the present situation ridiculous and I am alarmed that this kind of oversimplified thinking can dictate policy on something as vital to our economy as this.
Lord Bradshaw
My Lords, I ask the Minister to consider what will happen if the bids received under the franchise competition actually give less money—or are worth less to the taxpayer—than the present east coast trains. If the bids are lower than that being achieved by the present operator, that really does sound like the economics of the madhouse. Those who are bidding have the sword of Damocles hanging over them, because open access operators are allowed access to the track at a much lower price than the franchised operator. It appears that the open access operators are massing for an attack on the east coast line.
Lastly, I recommend to the Minister an article in Passenger Transport, a rather specialist magazine. There is a good two-page article about customer service and its effect on staff morale and how the present franchising system does not allow operators to go strong on customer service. If they do so, they risk losing the next bid because customer service, among other things, cannot be put into a financial evaluation.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
Does the noble Lord agree that it is the height of nonsense to allow the state operators of France, the Netherlands and Germany to bid for franchises in this country, but not the existing public operator of the east coast line?
Lord Bradshaw
It amazes me that we as a country permit so many foreigners to run our water industry, our gas industry and our electricity industry. They are vital basic services and I think it is rather foolish to leave them in the hands of foreign operators. We have seen what has happened with prices for water, for example, which have gone through the roof. I am sure that in the public sector, such increases would not have been allowed.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon (Ind Lab)
My Lords, I have intervened on this Bill only once, and I probably will not do so again, but I support the amendment. I do so as someone who, first, has worked on the railways—a very long time ago, I have to say: in the late 1940s, when I worked for the Southern Railway. I became not expert but knowledgeable about lock and block signalling, which has now of course been overtaken by electronic signalling.
I also represented Swindon, which was a great railway town. In those days, I spent most of my time trying to save the railway workshops, which were highly efficient and had a good history, from being closed by British Rail. When we talk about public ownership, people appear to believe that we want to go back to British Rail. There are all sorts of ways in which you can introduce public ownership, which have been mentioned. As the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, and others have pointed out, we allow foreign nationalised industries to take over our industries, but we will not allow our public services to take them over.
I was very interested to listen to the Chancellor of the Exchequer talking about city regions. There is every reason why, if we are to have city regions, we should allow them, or conglomerates of city regions, to be able to bid for a rail franchise. After all, they are there to serve their electors and probably know better than any railway company what their electors want. Local government has a great history of providing public services. Our water services would not be what they are but for local government and the power given to it under the Local Government Act 1888.
That applies to transport as well. So many local authorities have a background in and knowledge of transport. Up and down the country they are providing high-quality local transport. These things really ought to be considered by the Government: there is room for public enterprise within the railways. The railways should be allowed to bid for franchises; it is not a question of undercutting but of providing decent services at reasonable cost and perhaps more cheaply than is provided by the private companies.
I was pleased to see this amendment on the Marshalled List. I well remember opposing, from those Benches—I do not know whether I was doing so from the Front Bench at the time—the privatisation of the railways as a result, of course, of a European directive, which said that the infrastructure should be separated from the operation of the services themselves. If this simple and easy amendment is put to the vote, I hope that the Minister will accept it. It does not commit the Government to anything other than considering giving public authorities the opportunity to think about franchises in what, after all, are our railway services.
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, the temptation is to get into a major discussion about nationalisation of industries, but I shall try to resist and focus on railways and this amendment.
I spend a lot of my time out on the road, talking with the industry at rail conferences and also with users. Our railway is a great success. Virtually every event to which I go now deals with the challenge of a successful railway. Your Lordships will know many of the figures. We have doubled the number of passengers since privatisation. Even outside London over the past few months we have seen passenger numbers going up by something between 9% and 11%. People really want to use the railways. I talk with my continental colleagues who say that they do not have any idea how we do it. They ask how we manage to run so many trains, with such frequency, and engage with so many passengers and build the kind of ridership that we have. They certainly are not finding the same kind of thing where they are. There is a deep admiration of how we run our trains.
There is much more to do. We are catching up with at least of couple of generations of serious underinvestment in the railways, and not just in new lines anywhere north of London—that has been a major absence—as well as with upgrading the railways. We are dealing with a huge challenge at the same time that we have passengers coming on to the lines. To ignore the fact that the privatisation process and the franchises that have come out of that have played a huge part is frankly to fail to recognise what this has contributed.
In terms of the number of people who are being carried on the quantity of trains that we are running, and the range of services that we are offering, we have a model that has been delivering what our ancestors would only have dreamt of. But there is so much more ambition now to go way beyond that. We have done a lot of it by tapping into private sector know-how. We need even more of that as we go forward, because the challenges are increasing dramatically.
I would like to comment on the east coast line. I have great respect for all the people who have run the Directly Operated Railway. Their job is to come in and take over where there has been failure and to stabilise and deliver. They have done a fantastic job. However, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, that everyone must be conscious that part of the reason they have turned to the taxpayer is because we have not invested in the new equipment that is desperately needed on that line. New trains are coming and, as we are negotiating that, I do not want to say anything that could compromise that franchise. However, does the noble Lord think for one moment that we would come up with the figures that we have for that franchise if the franchising company had to pay for the new trains that are desperately needed on the east coast line?
The west coast line is in a different situation. One of the things about franchising is that franchises are not identical: every franchise is customised. If one looks at frequency of service, the newness of equipment and the whole series of features that shape each franchise, one will see that one franchise is in a position to return premiums whereas another will require subsidy. As I say, a franchise will vary depending on the relevant market conditions and whether its equipment and track have been upgraded. Franchises are not identical “cookie cutters”, as the Americans would say; they are customised. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, that I would be shocked if we were to run the east coast line at a standstill. The customers of that line need an increased service and far better trains. That has to be part of the future.
Lord Adonis
The noble Baroness has to address the fundamental issue: why will she not allow a public operator even to bid against the private sector?
Baroness Kramer
I will address that point. However, I want to set the context for the discussion because sometimes there is a great deal of confusion around it.
Lord Bradshaw
I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness but the new rolling stock that is to be included in the east coast franchise is something that every bidder will have to take into account in the bid that they make. If passengers do not think that the rolling stock, which has been virtually designed in Marsham Street, is set at a reasonable price, that will indicate that a bad decision was made over here. There is no doubt whatever that if the present east coast line company runs the franchise with the new trains its returns will go up, but perhaps by only as much as the extra trains will cost. The extra trains are a burden. It is a fallacy to say that the present east coast operator would be worse than any other because the £600 million has not been invested in the track and many other operators have not invested in new rolling stock. They wait for the rolling stock companies to do it and consider that investment in the track and stations is a matter for Network Rail. Therefore, I think that the Minister’s argument is a bit faulty.
Baroness Kramer
I am sorry but, as the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, will know, these things will be built into the charges. Of course, the addition of new equipment completely changes the profile as it has to be paid for and that money comes from only two places—the fare box or the taxpayer. As I say, that completely changes the profile and I think that many noble Lords will be aware of that reality.
As regards franchising, I agree that the demands we are placing on franchisees to upgrade equipment are far more significant than has been the case in the past. I think the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, said that customer service was not rolled into the franchise. I can tell him that it is now and that a significant number of issues concern customer service. We are building on that because the customer absolutely has to be at the centre of the railway industry. It is true that this has not been done historically and that franchises have been engineering-driven, but that is changing dramatically. The noble Lord will start to see the impact of that coming through with the new franchises.
We are also undertaking a complete technical upgrade as we move from an early 20th century railway to a fully 21st century railway. A digital electronic railway will make huge demands on franchise providers in all kinds of ways. This is a very exciting time. There was a question about British companies’ engagement in the railway. We have some of the most innovative companies now—I speak regularly to the supply chains—who are engaged in this cutting-edge research and cutting-edge supply, which will completely change the nature of the trains running on the track. We are coming much closer to engaging with aerospace technology and other areas. Do not think of the railways as an old, staid industry any more. It is a driving, cutting-edge industry, and that change has to come through for us to meet passengers’ demands. I could go on a great deal longer, but I will come back, because you can tell I am an enthusiast about getting these changes driven all the way through.
One of the questions is, “Why don’t we set up a company and let it bid against the others?”. Let us think about that process. If we are to have any other bidders, they have to know that there is a level playing field and that absolutely no advantage is given to the public bidder. This point was, I think, raised earlier. You may be able to set up enough Chinese walls for us to say that we believe this is being done with integrity, but we would have to convince every other bidder. Think about how the railways are financed. That makes it extremely difficult. Would we be providing government-sourced money to our own public company? Obviously, the private companies go out into the capital markets. Or would it be going out into the capital markets and therefore, in a sense, be as far distant from us as virtually any company that we already describe as being a franchisee?
We would have to be absolutely certain that our assumptions on profit, tax, cost and capital in no way advantaged the public body, or we would lose every other bidder on every bid. If we go back and think carefully about what we would have to set up, we would have to set up the company in order to do this. The salaries alone would, I think, be eye-watering.
Lord Adonis
I hate to point this out to the noble Baroness, but the company already exists. It is called East Coast.
Baroness Kramer
That company, as the noble Lord probably knows, will presumably be TUPE-ed—or not TUPE-ed, because it is a share sale. Essentially, that company will be absorbed into whatever is the new bidder on the east coast. Also, we have people running the company who can run it under its current circumstances. But take a look, if you are putting together a bidding group. The noble Lord will know how expensive it is to put together an effective bid team, particularly with those kinds of salaries. Let us, however, not just look at the salaries for putting together the kind of senior management you would need for an effective bid team, which are probably way beyond anything that we would consider paying. If we did, however, each bid would be a minimum of—what?—£10 million. That is probably about right for each individual bid. Fourteen franchises would be £140 million, without even the assurance of winning a single franchise. I simply point out that there are a lot of complexities in this matter that are not reasonably obvious. We had a system that was broken, we had two bids that did not work and we brought in a company that restored it. We are now going out with an effective franchise and we expect a very good bid. Two of the bidders are essentially British and one is not; we have a wide range.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Snape, that it seems that there is still a romance with the old British Rail, without recognising many of its underlying problems and the limited advantages that could be available under another scenario.
There is one other issue that is often raised. It is said that if we ran one company, we would have a comparator against which to look at the others. That takes us back my original point, which is that every franchise is so different that you cannot carry over from one into the other. If you doubt me on that, look at the pattern of bidders: specific companies that feel they can specialise in the needs of particular franchises bid on those. We do not find every bidder coming in on every franchise. They pick and choose the areas where they have particular knowledge and skills that apply to that franchise. Franchises are not generic and should not be viewed that way, so the comparators essentially do not work.
Lord Snape
I apologise for interrupting the Minister. Can she name any bidders for any franchises that are not British-owned bus companies or foreign-owned railways?
Baroness Kramer
I will just pick up on a point about “foreign-owned”. There is obviously scope for any country to decide that it is going to own an industry. We have certainly done that in the past: we have owned airports, steel companies and railways; you can go on through the list. We made a decision, as a country, that that could be done better by the private sector, but it is still entirely open to any country that it wants to own a series of businesses.
We have made a decision that that is not where we need to put our money. I have plenty of other places where I would much rather put the £140 million that I have just described than on the franchise bids alone, never mind all the overhead costs that would go with them. As I have said, this business, even when it is done well, is also a high-risk, thinly margined business. If one were to decide to go in for buying shares or into commercial ventures with taxpayers’ money, I suggest that one could choose many other businesses with higher returns, or other ways to spend the money. I would put money into services for the public rather than into owning shares in a company that would go out and compete with the private sector. That is the argument that I am making in all this.
We have a successful railway. It is delivering for the British people. We intend to place more and more demands on it. We have private sector companies that can deliver what we need, provided that we negotiate effectively and hard. It seems to me that that is where our energy has to go: delivering for the British people rather than being caught up in an idea of who owns what.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her considered and lengthy reply. She will have noticed that she was acting alone in the House, as there was not a supporting voice anywhere—expect that my noble friend Lord Snape, with his considerable knowledge of railways, asked a few questions and expressed anxieties about not returning to the days of nationalised railways, when losses were made and low investment was the order of the day. There is nothing in the amendment or in any proposal conceivable to the Opposition which suggests that.
We have had the illustration of two private companies failing on the east coast main line, and one successful directly operated railway under public auspices producing considerable degrees of success which match the achievements of any on other lines. All we seek is for the Government to think about the possibility of that continuing. That is all that the amendment involves: recognition of ready and conspicuous success under the formula and an eagerness to see that it should persist. It is only dogma on the other side that leads them to indicate that there are so many complexities about running a private railway that one could not anticipate the expertise existing anywhere in any state-operated organisation—except, perhaps, in the German, French and Dutch states, which make successful bids and operate.
I merely ask the House to recognise that this is a modest amendment to keep the ball in play for the huge success in recent events on the railway. The Minister has addressed herself to every issue except that success, which we want to confer. Accordingly, I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Berkeley
“Strategic highways company licences
(1) A licence under section 1 may include—
(a) such conditions (whether or not relating to the licence holder’s being responsible for assets under the authorisation of the licence) as appear to the grantor to be requisite or expedient having regard to the duties imposed by section 4; and(b) conditions requiring the rendering to—of a payment on the grant of the licence, or payments during the currency of the licence, or both, of such amounts or amounts as may be determined by or under the licence.(i) the Secretary of State,(ii) the Office of Rail Regulation, or(iii) any other person, or any other person of a class or description, specified in the licence, except a Minister of the Crown or Government department,of a payment on the grant of the licence, or payments during the currency of the licence, or both, of such amounts or amounts as may be determined by or under the licence.(2) Conditions included in a licence under subsection (1)(a)—
(a) may require the licence holder to enter into any agreement with any person for such purposes as may be specified in the conditions; and(b) may include provision for determining the terms on which such agreements are to be entered into. (3) Conditions included in a licence under subsection (1)(a) may require the licence holder—
(a) to comply with any requirements from time to time imposed by a qualified person with respect to such matters as are specified in the licence or are of a description so specified;(b) except in so far as a qualified person consents to his doing or not doing them, not to do or to do such things as are specified in the licence or are of a description so specified;(c) to refer for determination by a qualified person such questions arising under the licence as are specified in the licence or are of a description so specified;(d) to refer for approval by a qualified person such things falling to be done under the licence as are specified in the licence or are of a description so specified;(e) to furnish to a qualified person such documents or other information as he may require for the purpose of exercising any functions conferred or imposed on him under or by virtue of the licence;(f) to furnish to the Secretary of State or the Office of Rail Regulation such documents or other information as he may require for the purpose of exercising the functions assigned or transferred to him or it under or by virtue of this Act.(4) Conditions included in a licence may contain provision for the conditions to cease to have effect or be modified at such times, in such manner and in such circumstances as may be specified in or determined by or under the conditions; and any provision included by virtue of this subsection in a licence shall have effect in addition to the provision made by this Part with respect to the modification of the conditions of a licence.
(5) Subsections (2) and (4) are without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1)(a).
(6) Any reference in subsection (3) to a “qualified person” is a reference to—
(a) a person specified in the licence in question for the purpose in question, or(b) a person of a description so specified,and includes a reference to a person nominated for that purpose by such a person pursuant to the licence.(7) Any sums received by the Secretary of State or the Office of Rail Regulation in consequence of the provisions of any condition of a licence shall be paid into the Consolidated Fund.
Lord Berkeley
I shall be brief in speaking to this group of amendments because we have discussed at some length the licence for the strategic highways company. My Amendment 9 is a provision similar to what Network Rail now has. I was interested in the Minister’s comment that it is a licence for a commercial model and that the strategic highways company is not going to be commercial. I do not know whether Network Rail was ever commercial in her definition of the word, but it certainly is not now and I notice that the Government have not tried to change the licence to reflect any alteration. Perhaps she has a quick view on that. The draft licence that we received on 3 November was certainly an improvement on the previous version, for which I am very grateful.
The only other thing I wish to comment on in this group is my Amendment 17, which is to do with the duties of the strategic highways company. Whether they should go in a licence or in some other document, I do not know, but the draft licence from the Department for Transport is a licence to build roads, to take into account environmental concerns and to do it reasonably efficiently. Given experience of legislation over the years, there is a need to have in the Bill, for preference, or in a licence, if it must be that way, a wider role and wider responsibilities for this company to go cross-modal. That includes looking at road and rail—I declare an interest as chairman of the Rail Freight Group—passenger as well as freight, efficiencies, travel choices, developments in sustainable locations, as sustainability is very important in all this, and different modes to secure the economic, social and environmental gains jointly and severally. I do not think that these are in the draft licence at the moment. If the Minister would look at this again and see whether some—preferably all—these issues could go into a licence, I would be much happier that the strategic highways company was going to be part of a wider transport and environmental structure, taking into account the needs of customers, the environmental needs, roads, railways and developments in local transport. With that short introduction, I beg to move.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, I have Amendment 10 in this group. Again, as in the previous debate, my noble friend Lord Berkeley has put his finger on another lacuna in the Bill. Nowhere does the Bill spell out the functions and duties of the proposed strategic highways company. There is a whole schedule, 26 pages long, which largely consists of adding,
“or a strategic highways company”,
but does not actually say what that company should do. I find this extraordinary and not consistent with earlier circumstances in which we have set up public bodies or corporations to do a particular job, some of which are still doing it, where there was clarity in the legislation as to those functions. Those functions have to be economic, social and environmental these days. The Government should at least consider making sure, at later stages, that the Bill spells out the central duties of the companies. I hope that the Minister will take that away.
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, again we have a wide range of amendments in this group. I shall focus on the issues that have been raised by the noble Lords, Lord Berkeley and Lord Whitty. We derive from these amendments that they see advantage in the company being issued with a licence: we covered that discussion a few minutes ago. I want to be clear that safety and other duties are being transferred to the company by virtue of its appointment as the highways authority for the strategic road network. These, together with essential environmental duties in existing legislation, will apply to the company. I also make it clear that the new company will be bound by the network management duty in the Traffic Management Act 2004, a duty which would be difficult to perform without co-operating with other local highways authorities.
Sustainable travel, though, is a different kettle of fish. It is an issue of wider transport strategy and policy, which is a matter for the Secretary of State to determine. However, many issues raised in these amendments that may not currently be covered in legislation to the extent proposed—for example, sustainable development, engaging communities or conducting research and development—will be the subject of binding statutory directions and guidance, which is the long title that we have given the licence issued to the company by the Secretary of State. I am sure that noble Lords will have looked at the recently published drafts.
I have the advantage of a marked-up copy, so I can see how extensively all those issues have now been written into the licence, in very significant detail. For example, on the environment the licence holder must:
“Seek to minimise carbon emissions and other greenhouse gases from its operations; adapt to operate its network in a changing climate; and, where relevant, assist the Government in meeting its wider greenhouse gas emission reduction targets and climate change commitments”.
We can see, in each area, that there is very substantial language. On safety, there is language focusing in great detail on these issues, so that they are deeply embedded, as there is, in other places, on collaboration. So it is there in the licence, or, as we are calling it now, the statutory directions and guidance. To me, it is crucial that they are in that document because, of all the documents, it would be the living document that most impacted the company on a regular basis. We want to make sure that those issues are to the fore and centre, right in the eyeline of the new strategic highways company. Directions issued by the Government have legal force and, together with the independent scrutiny of the monitor, which is there to enforce, will ensure that the company is accountable for what it does.
In listening to your Lordships, I understand that there would be a measure of comfort in echoing some of these key issues in the Bill. To me, it is important that they are in the licence because that is where they will drive behaviour and the enforcement capacity is genuinely there. I can see an argument for making sure that these issues are being given the attention that noble Lords wish, particularly for public reassurance. Two stand out—road safety and the environment—as well as co-operation. I can therefore make a commitment to your Lordships that I could come back before Third Reading with an amendment that would impose those provisions as high-level duties on the company in respect of these fundamental matters. As I say, my personal view is that they are where they need to be to have effect but, if it will provide reassurance to the public in general and your Lordships in particular that they are being sufficiently recognised, this is the way in which to tackle them with a great deal more detail, direction and energy within the content of the statutory directions. We could work a way to put those three high-level duties into the Bill.
In this group are Amendments 22 and 24, which relate to setting the road investment strategy and removing subsection (6), which may provide an element of confusion. However, given that it has not been raised, I will not pursue the matter but would be glad to explain to anyone why we think that those amendments miss the point.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My noble friend has just said that the matter has not been raised. I have been looking through the licence and the Bill, and the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, made the point that there does not seem to be a positive statement that under the licence the strategic highways company must comply with the road investment strategy. Will she consider whether something of that sort could be specifically included? Such a provision may be there; maybe I have missed it, but I cannot see it in the licence.
Baroness Kramer
At this point, I cannot remember the exact location of each item, but I will go back. However, we now have the monitor there to enforce the RIS or the strategic highways company’s compliance with it, as well as with the contents of the draft licence or statutory guidance.
Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)
I very much support the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. The Minister is right; we have not spoken to Amendment 24, so I do not expect her to comment on it in great detail. However, I hope that she will indicate in her response to this group of amendments—it has been helpful thus far—that she will meet our point: that there is such great complexity about this interrelationship that things will not be rushed. It would be sad if, in pushing things hard to get the Bill on to the statute book and to be acted upon, we pre-empted in a rush what ought to be a long-term perspective on the road investment strategy. We expect the SHC very much to be involved in that new role.
Baroness Kramer
I now have a reply, thanks to that helpful intervention and the time associated with it. Clause 3(5) places a duty on the strategic highways company and the Secretary of State to comply with the RIS. So we have that covered. Our concern about removing subsection (6) of Clause 3 is that, without it, the Secretary of State could actually pick and choose when to set a strategy. Frankly, we do not want to give that scope to the Secretary of State—and I am sure that your Lordships do not either.
Your Lordships also propose that the first strategy be set in accordance with the process we have set out in Schedule 2. We have been clear that this time around we are following a compressed timetable. Indeed, we all want to have a strategy in place for day 1 of the company’s operations—but a company that does not yet exist cannot participate in the way that Schedule 2 envisages. If we were to wait until the passage of the Act, we would be in the position of forcing the company to operate without a strategy, delaying much-needed investment in the network. I hope your Lordships will not press that amendment. This is just to deal with the fact that we are pushing ahead with the strategy that I expect your Lordships will see very shortly. However, the assent to the Bill and the creation of the company will come afterwards so it would not be possible the first time around to pursue the proposals in that amendment.
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her response. We must recognise that she has moved a long way on these discussions in the last month or so and I very much welcome her commitment to come back at Third Reading with some of these issues—particularly those in my Amendment 17—in the Bill. As she says, some of the things are in the draft licence but, as many noble Lords have said, we would like to see it strengthened a little more. I hope that we will be pleased with the result at Third Reading in a week or two. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Kramer
“Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 (c. 13)67A In Schedule 2 to the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967, at the appropriate place insert “A strategic highways company for the time being appointed under Part 1 of the Infrastructure Act 2014.””
“Transport Act 1985 (c. 67)98A In section 112G of the Transport Act 1985 (representations following an investigation by the Passengers’ Council), in subsection (1), for paragraph (d) substitute—
“(d) a strategic highways company for the time being appointed under Part 1 of the Infrastructure Act 2014;”.Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Act 1988 (c. 20)98B In the Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Act 1988, after section 46 (interpretation) insert—
“46A Appointment of a strategic highways company
(1) This section applies in any period in which, by virtue of an appointment under section 1 of the Infrastructure Act 2014, a strategic highways company is the highway authority for the highways comprised in the tunnel crossing or the bridge.
(2) The reference to the Secretary of State in section 12(4) (crossing operator) is to be read as a reference to the strategic highways company.
(3) References to the Secretary of State in the following provisions are to be read as references to the strategic highways company—
(a) section 24(1)(a) and (b) (special traffic restrictions);(b) section 27(1) and (2) (bicycles);(c) section 37 (powers in relation to River Thames);(d) section 38 (restriction on works on crossing);(e) Schedule 7 (protective provisions), except—(i) paragraph 2 of Part 1, and(ii) paragraph 2 of Part 3.””
Lord Whitty
“( ) The strategic highways company shall be responsible for the road safety performance of the network and the improvement of the network’s road infrastructure safety rating, which shall be overseen by the Office of Rail Regulation.”
Lord Whitty
My Lords, I shall speak also to the other amendments standing in my name in this group. In doing so, I need to declare a non-pecuniary interest as the chair of the Road Safety Foundation, which today—if I may make a quick advertisement—published a couple of reports on making road safety pay and the state of British roads. I commend them to the Minister, as I am sure that she will learn from them, and perhaps she would pass on my thanks to her colleague, Robert Goodwill, for attending their launch.
Although some good work on road safety is being done in the department and despite the slightly more encouraging words in response to the previous group of amendments, the problem is that safety does not feature in the Bill. However, the creation of a strategic highways company ought to provide an opportunity for a step change in road safety on the strategic network.
It is often said—and rightly so—that our motorways and most, although not all, of our trunk roads are very safe. In relative terms that is true and it is certainly true in terms of passenger miles. However, it is also true that, because of the intensity of traffic on the motorway system in particular and the severity of the incidents that occur, the number of accidents constitutes nearly 40% of all those killed or seriously injured on our roads. The foundation has calculated that that costs the economy of the country the equivalent of £0.7 billion a year in terms of Highways Agency roads alone. The number of dead and seriously injured on the roads exceeds the total number of people killed in all workplaces in the country in a year. That is a very important fact and it is one that the new highways company is going to have to face up to.
There are essentially four elements of road safety improvement: driver behaviour, vehicle design, traffic management and road design. The last two are clearly the responsibility of the strategic highways company, and so they should be. They also influence behaviour and can interact with the better design of cars. The Highways Agency needs to carry over into the new company the responsibilities that it already has for road safety but it needs to give them an additional boost by making it clear that one of the objectives of investing in roads—in design engineering, in traffic management, in the telemetrics that it deploys and in the design of protection barriers and so forth—needs to be maximising improvements in road safety. That is not clear in the Bill.
As I said, there is a big opportunity to make a step change here, but the step change and the need to make this clear also have a down side. If, as I have just said, a single, quasi-independent, separately incorporated company is responsible—on its premises and with its assets—for more deaths than every workplace in the land, there are issues of liability and litigation to be faced up to. In the Bill, the responsibility for that should clearly rest with the company but there needs to be some oversight of it. As with the ORR, which plays a very important role in enforcing rail safety, the monitor/regulator on the road side needs to enforce the safety requirements on the company.
It is also true that all other businesses where safety is an issue are covered by the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act, as my noble friend Lord Berkeley said earlier. If the new company is not a Crown company, the exemption does not apply. It is therefore even more crucial that the issue of safety is written and embedded in everything that the company does, and that is reflected in the Bill.
The Minister referred to high-level duties for the company, which she could perhaps at a later stage write into the Bill. That would include, in the context in which she made those remarks, references to safety. Not only does safety investment need to be seen as part of every investment decision, but the investments have to be right, because the rate of return on safety investment is much higher than that on other road improvements in many cases.
My amendments are fourfold. The key amendment, Amendment 15, would put the responsibility for safety clearly and squarely on the company. Amendment 20 would ensure that the standards being set by the Government for the company to perform to include road safety and the setting of effective benchmarks and targets. Amendment 23 would ensure that safety projects for investment in the road investment strategy are appraised on their own merits and not just subsumed into larger projects. My noble friend Lord Berkeley will speak to Amendment 44, which deals with the safety role of the regulator. Amendment 50, in my name, would include road safety in the functions explicitly to be transferred to the strategic highways company. That combination of amendments should achieve the high-level duties to which the Minister referred.
The Government have at least taken some note of the discussion on road safety issues in Committee. They have brought forward Amendment 19 in this group, which refers not to the central role of road safety in the operation of the company but to the investment strategy—not directly to the company itself. It states that the Secretary of State must,
“have regard, in particular, to the effect of the Strategy on … the environment, and … the safety of users of highways”.
The phrase “have regard to” is probably the meekest legislative obligation that could be written into the Bill. This is repeated in Part 5.9 of the draft licence, which states that the licence holder,
“must have due regard to the need to protect and improve the safety of the network as a whole”.
It then goes into a bit more detail, which sounds slightly firmer, but the phrase “have due regard to” makes it sound as if safety issues are not an objective of the strategy but a constraint on the strategy. It needs to be clearly written and embedded in the decision-making of the body all the way through. Some things that the Minister said and some things reflected in the draft licence suggest that that is the Government’s intention, but that needs to be clear in the Bill. Amendment 15, leaving aside the others, would make it clear so that none could gainsay it.
It would be sensible for the House and the Government to accept that road safety is a big issue in our strategic network and will continue to be so. There is an opportunity for the new company, with a coherent, consistent and inviolate road investment strategy, to give due priority to road safety in a much more substantial way. The phrase “have regard to” is very weak; my amendment is much stronger. If the Minister is not prepared to accept it, I hope that the House—or Parliament, at some stage, will accept that formulation. I beg to move.
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, I support my noble friend on this group of amendments. I will briefly develop his theme by looking at the amendments in the group that relate to the monitor. I have proposed that the name of the Office of Rail Regulation should be changed, but that does not matter very much.
In Clause 9, the Government have introduced Amendments 41 and 43, both of which are welcome. They are a step forward from our discussions and I am certainly pleased to see them there. I have one or two amendments to those two amendments on the Marshalled List, which are complicated to go through and I am not going to attempt to go into any great detail now. Their purpose is twofold. One relates to safety and the other efficiency.
On the railways, one of the two tasks of the Office of Rail Regulation is to ensure that the network is operated as safely as possible under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act, which is slightly modified for railways. As my noble friend Lord Whitty said, the approach of the amendments is to do the same for the roads. Let us not forget that, as my noble friend said, just under 2,000 people were killed on the roads in the past year compared with none on the railways—no passengers, very few rail workers and I am not sure about the road workers. Sadly, suicides are a separate issue. The difference between 2,000 on the roads and none on the railways indicates that the structure of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act is working very well on the railways. In these amendments, I propose that a similar thing should be done on the roads, supervised by the Office of Rail Regulation.
The other relevant matter in this group is that, as we discussed briefly in Committee, the monitor should not only have the ability to check on the efficiency of the strategic highways company, but have powers of enforcement if it felt that the efficiency was not as it should be. Again, that is contained in the amendments. One thing worries me about the Government’s amendments. There is a constraint on the independence of the monitor, which is serious. The rail regulator is totally independent. He cannot be sacked except under extreme circumstances that we do not need to go into. But in Amendment 43 on general duties that the monitor should act under, the Government say that the principles are that:
“(b) regulatory activities should be targeted only at cases in which action is needed”.
Who decides when that takes place? Who decides which actions are needed? Surely it must be the regulator who decides. If that is the case, then proposed new subparagraph (b) in Amendment 43 is superfluous. If it is the Government, I suggest that they would be interfering in the independence of the regulator.
In Amendment 48, the guidance that the monitor would receive in proposed new subsection (2) includes:
“The Secretary of State and the Treasury, acting jointly, must give the Office”,
of Rail Regulation,
“guidance as to the circumstances in which the payment of a fine under [this] section … should be required”.
Whereas the ORR can fine Network Rail whenever it likes if it has due cause, when it comes to the strategic highways authority it has to ask the Treasury’s permission first. That sends completely the wrong message. It would be good if the Minister could agree to look at those two things and the general safety outline as to how it will be implemented under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act as part of the discussions between now and Third Reading.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, I have listened to the argument with interest and some incredulity. Seeking to compare the number of deaths on the railways with the number of deaths on the roads ignores major differences between the two forms of transport. The roads are essentially a matter for individual drivers and many accidents and deaths are caused by serious driver error. It can be because the vehicles have not been properly inspected. Older vehicles always have to have annual road testing. Of course, there are many other causes, such as the terrible bonfire that swept smoke right across the motorway and caused serious accidents. But none of those can conceivably be laid at the door of the highways authority.
The design of the roads, signposting, warning signs and a whole range of things are the responsibility of the highways authority and would be the responsibility of the strategic road company, but a great many of the issues for which the strategic highways authority would be made directly responsible—the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, talked about legal liability—cannot conceivably be laid at the door of that authority. The language that he has used in his various amendments simply does not draw the distinction between issues that are clearly the responsibility of other authorities, notably the whole question of licensing, inspection and testing of vehicles and the question of skills of drivers and so forth. I do not see how the highways authority could be made responsible for all that.
I studied the noble Lord’s amendment and listened to his eloquent speech in which he made it clear that he has a very real interest, although non-pecuniary, in road safety, but it is overstepping the mark to try to lay the liability for that sort of thing at the doors of the strategic highways authority. I will listen to what my noble friend says having studied her amendments on this issue with interest. For the moment, I am not persuaded on this occasion by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, I pay tribute to the Government for having listened carefully to what was said in Committee, where pressure was exerted from this side of the House for greater clarity of the functions of the highway company. We are grateful for the progress that has been made in the indications from the Government that they accept some of these arguments. But Amendment 15, to which the Opposition are also committed, does not offend in any way in the manner that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, indicated. What it says is that the highways company shall be responsible for the road safety performance of the network. We are talking about the strategic network and it is essential that we recognise that we want enhanced performance over road safety, because in recent years there have been anxieties about the decline in safety for our fellow citizens on the roads.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, said that the same criteria as for railways were being applied. What is indicated in the amendment is that the Office of Rail Regulation will be concerned with the monitoring role, and that is where the overlap occurs. It is not contended on this side of the House, as he will recognise, that there could be any anticipation that the same degree of security could be achieved on roads as on a carefully regulated railway. We are very proud in this country of the excellent safety figures of the railway network, leaving aside level crossings, which, as we know, are a perennial problem for the railway. Regarding roads, it is clear that we want all the factors—a fact which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, enumerated—and we want enhanced performance in those areas. Clearly the strategic highways company has a very important role to play. That is why we support Amendment 15.
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, on the previous grouping, I was pleased to make it clear that the Government have taken on board the thoughts of this House in putting, basically, the duties around road safety, the environment and co-operation in the Bill. While safety is obviously always at the forefront of our minds, it now seems that given the language in the statutory directions and guidance and what will go in the Bill, we have both belt and braces. If we were to follow the amendments recommended by the noble Lords, Lord Whitty and Lord Berkeley, we would put on constraints which, frankly, would remove flexibility on how to approach these issues and make the strategic highways company somehow responsible for issues that it could not possibly control. My noble friend, Lord Jenkin, was eloquent in describing that.
One of the principles of the entire roads reform programme is to give the company operational freedom to achieve its objectives. Amendment 15 runs entirely counter to that, and could lock out potential benefits by forcing the company to focus on an important but narrow aspect of road safety; namely, road infrastructure safety ratings. That is a restraint on effective management for the purposes of safety, not a support to it. Both those issues—the constraints that this would impose and the fact that a significant number of these issues are simply not under the control of the SHC—seem to argue for the withdrawal of the amendment and for the use of the belt and braces which we have already agreed will be in place. There is no need to seek a legal requirement to appraise different types of intervention on the basis that some of the amendments propose, because they are already in the Bill. The company will continue to use the department’s transport appraisal guidance, which ensures that interventions are considered on a consistent and proportionate basis.
I come now to the duties of the monitor. In Committee, and just now, your Lordships were persuasive about the need to help improve road safety and the environment. As noble Lords know, we have said that we will move an amendment on that, and your Lordships have been able to see the much stronger and detailed language now in the guidance and direction. Therefore, this amendment should be seen as not only requiring the Secretary of State to have regard to safety and the environment when setting or varying the strategy, but also indirectly generating objectives on those areas that the company would be bound to pursue—thus subject to the independent scrutiny of the watchdog and the monitor.
In Committee, your Lordships made it very clear that consultation over and above the work carried out by the company through the route strategies and the engagement that the Government will carry out as they set or vary the strategy is needed. To provide reassurance that we will engage with the public and shareholders, we are happy to include this requirement in the Bill as well. Government Amendments 28 to 31, if accepted, would add this requirement and some of the necessary consequential changes.
New powers for the monitor contained in other amendments, which we will discuss later—I believe reference was made to Amendment 48 in a later group—would place the ORR in a different role in relation to the new company. In our original drafts of the Bill it was an advisory body; it is now able to act in the manner of an independent regulator. A regulator has formal duties, which it must work within when carrying out its activities. The ORR’s role on the roads demands the same approach. The ORR itself has asked for a set of duties to be included in the Bill, so it has a firm basis from which to act.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, I shall not reply on the wider issues of the role of the monitor, in which debate on this group has become engaged. I will concentrate simply on the issue of road safety. The Minister, who I thought in her response to the previous group was moving in my direction, has greatly disappointed me in her reply to this one. That belies the good work that her department is doing and has done for many years on road safety and the opportunity that the new company would have to improve it.
I am also sorry that I am falling out with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, on the issue of liability. The point I am making is that in certain aspects of road safety—design of roads, traffic management, use of telemetrics and speed controls, information and signing—there is a vital role to be played by the highways authorities, in particular one with the resources, level of responsibility and intensity of traffic which the strategic highways company will have.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
I do not disagree with a single word of what the noble Lord has just said about what should be the responsibilities of the strategic highways company. My fear earlier was that he was extending it to matters which are really the responsibility of other bodies.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, in all areas of safety and liability, there may be contributions by many factors. Frequently there is contribution to negligence by people in other areas. That may apply to drivers as well, but there are some firm responsibilities on those who are responsible for the design, management and control of the roads. That area of improvement in road safety has been the least developed until relatively recently. The improvements which have been made have been made largely as a result of general improvements to the roads rather than by a focus on road safety improvements, except on a few issues.
As I said, the creation of the company gives us the opportunity of a step change in delivery of road safety on our strategic network. That means giving as clear a signal as possible that this is indeed, to use the Minister’s words earlier, a high duty on the new company. That needs to be expressed unambiguously in the Bill. The words “have due regard to” safety are neither belt nor braces. It is not an objective of the company; nor is it embedding and inculcating that through everything that the company does. If we want to do that, we need to write safety large in the responsibility of the company. If the Minister goes back to her previous remarks about looking at higher duties to be written into the Bill, leaving aside all the other amendments in the group, her adoption of my Amendment 15 would achieve just that. As she has made it clear that she is not prepared to accept it, to try to ensure that road safety is a major function of the new organisation, I need to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Whitty
“( ) Before establishing a strategic highways company, the Secretary of State must consult all highways authorities in the area specified under subsection (1)(a) responsible for roads in that area other than the roads specified under subsection (1)(b), and this consultation must cover—
(a) the structure of the new organisation,(b) the appointment of at least one non-executive director representing those authorities to the board of the new company, and(c) any other matter which the Secretary of State deems relevant.”
Lord Whitty
My Lords, Amendment 16 is about the relationship between the new company and the other highways authorities—essentially the local authorities. It is clear that for the effective operation of the new strategic highways company there will need to be close co-operation with those authorities. I should declare an interest, again non-pecuniary, as a vice-president of the LGA, which supports this amendment. Highways authorities feel that they have not been effectively consulted hitherto. Although they do not oppose the Government’s proposal in the Bill, they consider that Ministers should discuss with them how the company will operate as there will need to be co-operation between the strategic highways company and highways authorities on traffic management and new road schemes. The structure of the new organisation needs to be broadly agreed. There also needs to be some representation on the board of the new structure of those authorities that manage and oversee the other roads in England.
The amendment provides for consultation on the structure of the new company and the appointment of a local authority non-executive director on the board. That would be the minimum that we would need to see for a good and effective co-operative arrangement between the new company and the other highways and traffic authorities. I hope that the Government will accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, I should like to speak briefly in support of this amendment, to which I have lent my name. The Government list the “major challenges” facing the strategic road network: stop-start funding, underinvestment, inefficiencies and growing pressure from congestion. If these challenges are so severe, why are more than 90% of our people fairly happy with the condition of the strategic road network and only 30% happy with the condition of local roads?
On the evidence that the DfT is citing to justify its obsession with strategic roads, figure 1 in the summary of reform states that spending on major projects fell sharply in the 1990s and has remained low since, while overall traffic has risen. The figure completely ignores the previous Labour Government’s investment in local roads and tackling traffic in our towns and cities. That is where congestion is obviously most frequently experienced. We spent more than £4.5 billion annually on local roads between 2005 and 2010. That was cut by one-third for 2011-12 by the present coalition Administration. If the DfT wants to talk only about strategic roads, we suggest that it compares the spending on strategic roads with the amount of traffic on them.
Ministers continue to stress that their reforms will deliver a world-class roads network, but throughout the extensive documents that they have published there remains scant mention of the major challenges for local roads, which face a pothole epidemic. Any Member of Parliament will tell you that the transport problem in his area is bound to be represented by potholes in roads. The potholes do not just cause damage to vehicles but affect the pace at which they can travel.
The Government claim that they will deliver more reliable journeys, reduced congestion and less delay and disruption. However, they cannot be listening to local government, which is warning that the new two-tier road system threatens to speed up vehicles travelling significant distances but will lead to greater delays on local roads. I have no doubt that the Minister will say that the department has committed unprecedented funding for local road maintenance—£9.8 billion over the next Parliament and £975 million a year to councils. However, both those figures represent a real decline and more than one-third of the money will be topsliced for the Challenge Fund dreamt up by the department, which means that local authorities spend time and, of course, scarce money on bidding rather than actually fixing the roads.
There is no point in building a world-class strategic road network if 98% of local roads that people use every day are clogged with congestion or are falling apart. That is why this amendment seeks to ensure that the Bill gets the strategic and local road networks working better together and makes a real and tangible difference to tackling congestion. That is why we want to see local representation on the strategic highways company board, which will ensure that the company delivers and complies with its obligations. Local authorities must be actively involved in the creation of the strategic road network.
This issue is of the greatest importance. I understand entirely, of course, why the Bill concentrates on the strategic network but it must not ignore the needs of local road networks. They have to be recognised in the Bill as partners in ensuring that journeys are carried out in the most effective way.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, I have a feeling that the noble Lords who have spoken have not taken account of what is in the draft licence document. Paragraph 5.11, which is headed “Cooperation”, states that,
“the Licence holder must cooperate with other persons or organisations in order to … Take account of local needs, priorities and plans in planning for the operation, maintenance and long-term development of the network”.
Sub-paragraph (d) states:
“Provide reasonable support to local authorities in their planning and the management of their own networks”.
This raises the question of what should be in the Bill and what can be left to the guidance and direction in the licence document. My feeling is that if the final licence document contains those provisions, that should go a very long way to satisfy the objectives which the two noble Lords opposite have put before the House. No doubt my noble friend on the Front Bench will confirm that that is the Government’s view.
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, appreciates that we are pouring unprecedented amounts of money into the local road network and that a significant amount of it is allocated on a competitive basis, as it were, to make sure that the projects which yield the most improvements get priority. I thank my noble friend Lord Jenkin for making the case so clearly as that enables me to shorten my remarks.
The noble Lords, Lord Whitty and Lord Davies, have proposed amendments—the amendments also stand in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie—which suggest that local highways authorities are involved with setting up the strategic highways company, that these bodies are consulted when setting the road investment strategy, and that the strategy accounts for potential impacts on local and other networks. I fully accept that these are well intentioned amendments but I contend that they are not needed.
Let me be clear: we want the company to work closely with other highway and traffic authorities to achieve the objectives determined by the Secretary of State. Without close co-operation, both the company and the local highways authorities would not be able to deliver their network management duty as set out in the Traffic Management Act 2004. However, it is important to recognise that the company will not be responsible for the management of local authority roads, and local authorities would be furious if it attempted to do so.
We consulted publicly in October 2013 on the proposals to create the new company and the future governance arrangements, taking into account the views of local highway authorities in our response. That response, published on 30 April this year, formed the foundation of the proposed legislation. It is hard to see what value an additional consultation would bring.
With regard to board representation, we are creating a limited company with a fully functioning board to guide and hold the company’s executive to account. Therefore, involving local authorities in the detailed running of the company would undermine that effective management and oversight of the company and the strengthened arrangements that we intend to put in place.
Our analysis of investment proposals for the strategy will necessarily account for overall transport impacts due to the close links between the strategic road network and other networks, including local highways. Requiring the strategy to include a detailed analysis of the impact on the condition or overall funding arrangements for local roads, or other networks, is unnecessary. Much of this work is already required, while some of the more detailed implications would be a burden and risk causing confusion by making central government take action on issues which are within the purview of local government to deal with. We are very conscious of devolution issues in this regard. Requiring us to consider the condition of the strategic road network as part of setting the strategy is unnecessary because we have considered the state of the network. We reached the decision to invest more money in maintenance and renewals at the last spending round
I turn to the issue of consultation. Given that we have tabled a set of amendments which require consultation to take place as part of setting and varying the strategy, and combined with the requirements on co-operation and the fact that the company would be fully engaged with local highways authorities, there is no need to specify that the company must consult them. It is already embedded.
I hope I have been clear. I have reflected on the amendments about the involvement of local highways authorities in the running of the company and the road investment strategy. I believe that the objectives of the amendments are achieved already within the Bill and the accompanying documents. I hope very much that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, I think, whatever the realities and wherever they are reflected, they are not reflected in the Bill. The local authorities themselves have drawn this to our attention and no doubt to the Government’s attention, which is why they are supporting most of these amendments. The reality is that most journeys on the strategic network start and finish on the local network. Any new schemes, any maintenance, any accidents, any new traffic management systems on the strategic network have an impact on the local network.
For those reasons, very good co-operation is needed. I am glad that there is a reference, to which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, referred, in the draft licence. I am glad that the Minister recognises the need for such co-operation. I would, of course, be more impressed by its being in the licence, if the licence was reflected in the main part of the Bill, and therefore had some at least indirect legislative recognition. The key issue here is co-operation and understanding between the new company and the local highways authorities.
In other pieces of legislation a duty to co-operate has appeared in the Bill, not in any subordinate legislation or subordinate documents. I think there is a strong case for that to be included here. On the structure of the company, I understand the Government’s reluctance to specify who should be on the board, but if the board of the new company does not include somebody who understands the role of local highways authorities, whether or not that is prescribed in the legislation—
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, I will not be able to speak again on this amendment. I may not have been very clear but when I talked about the issues I would bring back to put as duties, co-operation was one of the three, along with environment and road safety.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, I appreciate that aspect of it. I hope, therefore, that what the noble Baroness comes forward with at a later stage meets the general requirement of co-operation. I was commenting also on the structure of the company, and I understand the reluctance to specify that in the Bill, but some engagement between the governance of the new company and local highways authorities is needed, and that objective was reflected in this amendment.
I sincerely hope that the Government’s amendment on co-operation does the job to the satisfaction of the local highways authorities and that the reality is that the relationship between the new company and the local highways authorities is better than the relationship of the Highways Agency has sometimes been and indeed better than what the department’s relationship with local authorities has sometimes been, despite the amount of money, to which both Front Benches have referred, which is now going to local highway schemes.
I will withdraw this amendment at this stage and look forward to the Government’s proposition later. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Kramer
“(4A) In setting or varying a Road Investment Strategy, the Secretary of State must have regard, in particular, to the effect of the Strategy on—
(a) the environment, and(b) the safety of users of highways.”
Lord Berkeley
“Formation of route strategies: consultation and co-operation1AA (1) The strategic highways company shall produce route strategies for all highways under its control (“specified highways”) and shall ensure such strategies remain up to date.
(2) In deciding how to divide up specified highways into route strategies, the strategic highways company shall have due regard to local government boundaries and travel to work areas.
(3) Route strategies shall consider—
(a) other transport modes, including railways and port facilities, that are served by specified highways or run parallel to them;(b) the interaction between specified highways and other highways;(c) opportunities to secure the expeditious movement of people and freight;(d) opportunities to reduce environmental impacts.(4) The strategic highways company must—
(a) carry out such consultation, and arrange for such publicity, as the strategic highways company thinks appropriate in relation to a route strategy;(b) consult such persons, and such descriptions of persons, as may be prescribed;(c) have regard to the responses to the consultation and publicity in deciding whether to proceed with a route strategy.(5) In setting or varying a roads investment strategy, the Secretary of State shall have due regard to route strategies.
(6) The Secretary of State may make regulations about route strategies.”
Lord Berkeley
I speak briefly on this amendment. We are in Schedule 2, Part 1 now. It suggests that there need to be route strategies before the Secretary of State can really put forward investment strategies. We have discussed this before—in route strategies it seeks to ensure full consultation. The Minister has been very forthright in her commitment to consultation, which of course I welcome very much. It is, however, another way of saying how important it is, when one is considering route strategies, to look at all different modes, including not only the local government travel to work areas, how to move people around and ensure consultation.
The proposal is a very useful precursor to an investment strategy, and I hope it will give the impression outside, as it is designed to, that transport, surface transport, road, rail and other means of transport are being looked at in the round rather than just having an investment strategy in which we are investing in roads willy-nilly. I beg to move.
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, I will speak briefly to the amendment. We recognise that what the noble Lord is seeking to do is to remove some ambiguity, but we are not comfortable with his amendment because we think it would prevent the company from adapting the route strategy process to meet changing needs and circumstances. That would make it somewhat undesirable. We recognise what is driving this. It seems that it is being driven by a desire for greater clarity, so I am happy to commit to him to include a requirement in the final version of the statutory directions and guidance along the lines that the company will agree the process with the Secretary of State and publish it. That should provide the combination we are seeking, both of clarity and of flexibility. I hope that on that basis the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Berkeley
I am grateful to the Minister for that short reply. I shall read it with interest, but it sounds good. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Kramer
“(1A) The Secretary of State may only publish proposals under sub-paragraph (1) if satisfied that appropriate consultation has taken place.”
“(1A) The Secretary of State may only publish proposals under sub-paragraph (1)(b) if satisfied that appropriate consultation has taken place.”
Baroness Kramer
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, in Committee my noble friend Lord Bradshaw raised the question of the power to fine the new company. As originally proposed, this power would have belonged to the Secretary of State. Under our proposed removal of Clause 5 and its replacement following Clause 9—I draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, to that, because I know there can be confusion—which will be covered by Amendment 41, this power will be transferred to the independent monitor.
We have consistently stressed the importance of independent accountability to the strength of the new model for managing highways. The creation of the watchdog and monitor creates a powerful team that can scrutinise performance of the company and can represent the interests both of its users and of wider taxpayers. I am not aware of any country in the world which operates an equivalent model of accountability. This will give England’s road users a powerful voice.
On reflection, however, I can also see the value of going further. We have designed a system that ensures that the Secretary of State is well advised when planning the future of the network and judging the quality of its current management. By introducing this amendment, we will also give the roads monitor the power to directly influence the behaviour of the company, in the manner of a true regulator. The monitor will be given two statutory powers under this system. It will have the power to issue an improvement notice, which will require the company to take specific action to correct a failure in its performance. It will also have the power to issue fines, should matters become particularly serious. This matches the regime in rail, and will make the new highways company accountable in the same way as Network Rail is at present.
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, I will speak to one or two of the other amendments in the group, and hope that the Minister will be able to respond under the slightly odd arrangement we have.
In Clause 8, on my Amendment 33A, the Government have moved a long way in changing the name and activities of the Rail Passengers Council. The point of the amendment is to emphasise the need for them to consider not just the users of the network, but also those who do not currently use it or who cross over the network. In other words, they must look at the people who are not using it, at the potential for modal shift and at reducing the need for travel. They must look at the thing in the round before they come up with their excellent data, which I am sure they will do on the roads as they currently do for railways and, of course, buses.
Moving quickly, I raised a question about Amendment 48 in a previous grouping—I got it wrong—and the Secretary of State giving the Office of the Rail Regulator guidance as to the circumstances in which payments were defined. I hear what the Minister said. My question is whether that is the same guidance and instruction that the ORR currently has with the railways. If not, why not?
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, I speak to Amendment 33, which asks the watchdog to look after the interests of cyclists and pedestrians. As we know, and as the department has recognised, a strategic road network can often be a barrier for pedestrians and cyclists. That means that there are many potential users of the network who may wish to use it to cycle to work but currently cannot.
The legislation would not allow Passenger Focus to consider their views. The chief executive, Anthony Smith, has been quoted as making clear his view that, given the legislation, Passenger Focus could focus only on actual users of the strategic network along with, perhaps, a second tier of fleet managers marshalling its use. While he quite understood the concerns around the remit, any change must be a matter for government and the legislative process. This is therefore our chance to effect that change, against a background in which the Government continue to respond to the increasing pressure for the use of cycles by saying that they are very much in favour of such growth.
Of course, the greatest deterrent to cycle use in our towns and cities and on connecting roads of any significance is danger. Because we do not set out to protect cyclists adequately, our present figures are dreadful in comparison to many other European countries. In the UK, 2% of journeys are made by bike, compared with 10% in Austria, 19% in Denmark and 27% in the Netherlands. Some 22% of all journeys in the UK are of less than a mile, but a fifth of these are in a car. Some people are, of course, obliged to use a car for a journey of less than a mile. However, the great deterrent to using the far more efficient and effective cycle is that people consider cycling to be dangerous.
The Government promised to support cycling but, of course, Cycling England, the pressure group for cyclists, was shut down; the body which co-ordinated policy and action on cycling, which had a £60 million annual budget, was shut down; and the Government also abandoned the cycling towns and cities initiative which we, as the previous Administration, had initiated—and it was delivering results. The proportion of people cycling at least once a month in England dropped from 15.3% to 14.7% in the year to October 2013. No one is going to say that that is a dramatic drop, but it is movement in the wrong direction when there are calls on all sides, to which the Government subscribe, for cycling to be encouraged. There was a decline in all regions in the United Kingdom.
I am therefore seeking with this amendment for the Government, who alone can take the legislative initiative on this—that is quite clear—to give a voice to cyclists and pedestrians, and to ensure that we make some progress on the aim of improving the use of cycling, and even walking over short distances. In order to achieve that, certainly with cycling, we must overcome the anxiety of the public that cycling on so many of our roads is just not safe enough.
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, I begin by addressing Amendment 49, which relates back to my original amendments on changing the powers to fine. As I said earlier, the ability to provide overarching governance is a necessary part of a regime in which the ORR is undertaking independent enforcement activity. This is especially true on fines. We want fines to be independent and fair, but we also want to make certain that they do not jeopardise the ability of the company to deliver what it has promised under the RIS. In future, it may also be helpful to have a mechanism to clarify the rules around fines. In the Railways Act these are subject to very detailed instructions, and without the subsection that this amendment removes there would be no way to do this if it were judged necessary.
I now turn to the watchdog. I am aware that the House recognises the value of that role. I am keen that we keep sight of what is important about the creation of the watchdog: the establishment of an organisation that will represent the interests of road users, whose voice must be listened to by those in government. That is something that will make the roads operator publicly accountable in a way that it never has been seen before.
I would like to make a distinction between what the new system of road governance achieves overall, and what role the watchdog plays within that system. Overall, we agree wholeheartedly that the impacts on communities around the network, and on those who walk and cycle in the vicinity, are very important. Environmental enhancements and measures to improve conditions for walkers and cyclists will be important parts of the road investment strategy when it comes into force. I will be discussing a number of issues around cycling in a later group, where a number of cycling-related investments are clustered. That may well answer some of the questions that have been raised at this point.
We expect that the policing of this will belong to the monitor and not to the watchdog. The ORR has monitored Network Rail’s environmental improvements for many years and has the necessary expertise to do the job well. By contrast, looking at the watchdog, Passenger Focus is an organisation focused firmly on gathering, understanding and promoting the views of transport users. It is not an expert in examining environmental impacts or issues, and while it is expanding its remit it does not plan to do so at the expense of its widely praised focus on users’ interests. The purpose of this organisation, whether now or in its new guise as Transport Focus, should be to put forward the views of the people who use the network. Anything else would dilute its ability to do the job well.
I should stress that users include both walkers and cyclists, as Amendment 52 ensures that the definition of “users of highways” includes cyclists and pedestrians, although I must make it clear it is not limited to them. Those who might use the network but do not feel able to are already being heard through the work that Passenger Focus is doing to engage with walking and cycling groups and find out what they feel to be the main barriers to using the network. I can assure your Lordships that this will remain an important part of Transport Focus’s remit. The same is true of potential freight users and potential motorists. All users, of every kind, will contribute to the route strategies that determine the priorities for future investment plans.
I am pleased that we are creating an organisation dedicated to listening to road users’ views, but I would be less happy creating an organisation that tells road users what their views should be. Transport Focus must be free to say what users actually think, and not what we might like them to, otherwise it will not have any credibility with the travelling public. That means we must catch the other issues that your Lordships have raised—including modal shift and environmental impact—elsewhere in the governance system. We have already discussed the new environmental duties on the monitor, and I hope our road investment strategy will do even more.
The proposal to widen the scope of voluntary agreements between the watchdog and local highways authorities is an interesting one. In practice, I believe that the existing wording, “protecting and promoting” the interests of users, is already broad enough to cover anything that a local authority might want the watchdog to do, and more clearly matches their remit as specified in subsection (1).
I therefore hope that your Lordships will feel able to support the government amendments and not to press the others.
Child Abuse Inquiry
(9 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to make a Statement made by my right honourable friend Theresa May, the Home Secretary, in another place, earlier today.
“Mr Speaker, I should like to make a Statement on the independent panel inquiry into child abuse, which has been established to consider whether institutions in England and Wales have taken seriously their duty of care to protect children from sexual abuse.
The House will remember that in July, I made a Statement in which I announced my intention to establish the panel inquiry. I did so because of the growing evidence of organised child sexual abuse, conducted over many years, and serious allegations about the failure of some of our most important institutions to protect children from this disgusting crime. I established a panel of inquiry because it is the best way of making sure that we have an inquiry which is conducted by a team of experts with empathy and sensitivity to the feelings of the survivors of child abuse. The fact that it is a panel consisting of several people means that within it is able to cover more expertise than one person could offer. And importantly, the public can have extra confidence in the integrity of its work, because no one individual can take important decisions or come to judgments alone.
The members of the panel—Sharon Evans, Ivor Frank, Dame Moira Gibb, Barbara Hearn, Professor Jenny Pearce, Dru Sharpling, Professor Terence Stephenson and Graham Wilmer—are in place, and they are supported by Ben Emmerson QC, who is counsel to the inquiry, and Professor Alexis Jay, who is the panel’s expert adviser. The panel therefore consists of members with a broad range of experience and skills. They have backgrounds in social care, academia, law enforcement, healthcare, the media and the voluntary sector, and some have experienced sexual abuse themselves as children. I believe that the panel can command the confidence of the public and, most importantly, of the survivors of child abuse.
The House will know, however, that on Friday, the panel’s chairman, Fiona Woolf, announced her intention to resign. She did so because, as she wrote in her letter to me,
‘it has become clear that the inquiry’,
if she continued to chair it,
‘would not have the widespread victim support it so desperately deserves and needs’.
Fiona Woolf’s resignation of course follows the resignation of the panel’s first chairman, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. Both women had strong credentials to chair the inquiry. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, was the first female Lord Justice of Appeal, she was the President of the Family Division of the High Court, and she chaired the Cleveland child abuse inquiry. Fiona Woolf is a leading lawyer and a former president of the Law Society. But for different—and to this end, understandable—reasons, both the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and Fiona Woolf concluded that they did not command the confidence of survivors.
Almost four months after I announced my intention to establish a panel inquiry, it is obviously very disappointing that that we do not yet have a panel chairman in place, and for that I want to tell survivors that I am sorry. To put it bluntly, it will not be straightforward to find a chairman who has both the expertise to do this hugely important work and has had no contact at all with an institution or an individual about whom people have concerns. I still believe, however, that it is possible to find somebody who is suitably qualified and can win the confidence of survivors, so I want to turn now to what I plan to do to recruit a new chairman.
I will hold meetings with representatives of the survivors of child abuse, starting next week. I have already had a number of discussions with the Members of Parliament who have campaigned for an inquiry into child abuse—the honourable Members for Birmingham Yardley, Brighton Pavilion, East Worthing and Shoreham, Richmond Park, Rochdale, Wells, and West Bromwich East—and I will continue to have discussions with them. I will also discuss the appointment of the new panel chairman with the shadow Home Secretary and the right honourable Member for Leicester East. I have already agreed with him that the nominated panel chairman will attend a pre-confirmation hearing before the Home Affairs Select Committee.
In the mean time, the panel will go about its important work. So I can tell the House that the panel will hold its first meeting on Wednesday 12 November, and will meet every Wednesday thereafter until Christmas. The panel will organise other meetings that will discuss the different themes and issues covered by the inquiry, and attendance for these meetings—for both panel members and expert witnesses—will be set accordingly. In addition, the panel secretariat is planning two regional events that will be held before Christmas and another four that will be held early in the new year. These regional events will provide an early opportunity for survivors to give their views about how the panel should go about its work.
One matter that I know has been raised by some campaigners is whether the inquiry should become a statutory inquiry. The inquiry as it is constituted at present, like the inquiries into Hillsborough and the murder of Daniel Morgan, is on a non-statutory inquiry basis. I have already said that the panel will have access to all government papers, reviews and reports that it requests and, subject to the constraints imposed by any criminal investigations, it will be free to call witnesses from any organisation that it deems appropriate. But, as I said to the House in July, I want to make it clear that, if the panel chairman deems it necessary, the Government are prepared to convert it into a full statutory inquiry, in line with the Inquiries Act.
Another matter that has been raised is the terms of reference for the inquiry. Some say that the terms are too broad, while others say the terms are too narrow. I do not propose to narrow the terms of reference because to do so would risk missing out, in a fairly arbitrary manner, some important institutions. Likewise, I do not propose to extend the terms of reference to include Northern Ireland, Scotland or the Crown dependencies. I will, however, discuss with the new panel chairman how we can make sure that the Hart inquiry in Northern Ireland and the Oldham inquiry in Jersey feed into the panel to make sure that no information, and no institutions or individuals with a case to answer, can fall through the cracks.
I can also tell the House that the Government are considering ways of trying to make the experience of giving evidence less traumatic for survivors. The panel will therefore take evidence not just in public and private meetings but also remotely, with witnesses able to speak to panel members from their homes. The secretariat to the inquiry is also in discussions with officials in the Department of Health and other organisations to make sure that counselling and support are available to survivors before and after they provide evidence to the inquiry. To make sure there is an open channel of communication between survivors, the panel and the Government, I will establish a survivor liaison group, which will meet on a regular basis as long as the inquiry continues.
I know that some Members of the House have suggested that the Government should publish today the Wanless report about the Home Office Permanent Secretary’s investigation into the so-called Dickens dossier. I can tell the House that the Wanless report will be published next week. This is because it is about a separate but related matter to the work of the panel inquiry, and I want members of the public and the media to have time to scrutinise both this Statement and the Wanless review properly.
In the midst of debate about names, structures and legal powers, we must always keep in mind the survivors of child abuse themselves. Let us remember the events that prompted me to announce this historic inquiry into child abuse in the first place. There was systematic abuse of vulnerable young girls in Derby, Rochdale, Oxford, and other towns and cities across the country; examples of celebrities abusing minors and getting away with it, apparently because of their fame; and evidence that some of the most important institutions in the country, from the BBC to the NHS, failed in their duty of care towards children. Since I made my Statement in July, the evidence has only mounted. We have seen the Alexis Jay report into abuse in Rotherham and the report by the honourable Member for Stockport, which was commissioned by Tony Lloyd, the police and crime commissioner for Greater Manchester. Both reports exposed serious failings among the police, social services, schools and other institutions, and the obvious conclusion is that, if only we had learned from these appalling cases earlier, we could have ensured that there were fewer victims of abuse today. I believe the whole House will agree with me that we owe it to the victims in all these cases to work together, to let the panel inquiry do its job as quickly as possible, and to start to learn the lessons of the many cases where, undoubtedly, too many things went horribly wrong.
I want to end my Statement by issuing a direct message to the many survivors of child abuse and their representatives. I know that you have experienced terrible things. I know that we cannot imagine what that must be like. I know, perhaps because of the identity of your abusers or the way you were treated when you needed help, that many of you have lost trust in the authorities. I know that some of you have questioned the legitimacy of this process, and you are disappointed that the panel has no chairman. I understand that. I am listening—and to you, I say this. I am as determined as you are to get to the truth. That is why I set up this inquiry. We have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to do something that is hugely important. Together we can expose what has gone wrong in the past, and we can prevent it going wrong in the future. We can make sure that people who thought they were beyond the reach of the law face justice. We can do everything possible to save vulnerable young people from the appalling abuse that you endured. Let us come together to make this process work and finally deliver justice for what you, and too many others, have suffered”.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Home Secretary’s Statement. We called for an overarching inquiry and we are obviously bitterly disappointed at the delays and problems. But the position of the person to chair the inquiry is, of course, of the utmost importance. It is not just a question of integrity and ability; whoever chairs this inquiry must have the confidence of the victims and those from whom they must take evidence. We are grateful for and welcome the fact that the Home Secretary has apologised and for her recognition that she now needs to do more and be proactive in ensuring that confidence by committing to meet survivors of abuse.
I shall ask a couple of questions on that matter. Can the Minister confirm that, when the Home Secretary meets survivors of abuse, it will not be just a meeting but she will undertake to consult those survivors on the terms of reference of the inquiry and the issues that the inquiry and the panel should focus on? Given that this is now considered, rightly, to be necessary, can he tell us why it was not deemed essential before that the Home Secretary consulted survivors in this way? Can he tell us when the new chair of the panel will be in place? When panel meetings take place in the mean time, who will chair those meetings? I notice that, of the people whom the Home Secretary has consulted, a number of Members of the other place who have raised these issues are listed, but no Members of your Lordships’ House. I hope that the Home Secretary will be able to speak to Members of your Lordships’ House who have some experience in these issues and will be happy to be of assistance.
I welcome the announcement that the Wanless review will be published next week. Many survivors of abuse were too scared to report the abuse and, when they did, they were let down and betrayed by authorities. Such horrendous crimes must be properly investigated and action taken against perpetrators. But children are being abused now. Last week in your Lordships’ House, I raised why it had taken more than two years to question an individual with evidence of online child abuse. Can the Minister assure your Lordships’ House that, at the same time as we are rightly investigating historical child abuse, we will ensure that mistakes do not get repeated and that those who are suffering abuse today are protected—that we do not let down today’s children? It should be a priority to investigate child abuse, whether online or otherwise, that is happening today in the UK.
Lord Bates
I thank the noble Baroness, first, for her welcome of the approach that is being proposed. The added layers of consulting the shadow Home Secretary and the consultation that will take place in a kind of pre-confirmation hearing with the Home Affairs Select Committee will go some way to allaying concerns about the process. There was always a difficult balance for the Home Secretary in establishing the inquiry, but it was not her intention that she was going to undertake the inquiry. Therefore, it is for the panel members to decide on the direction of inquiries and the direction in which they set up their meetings. It was the panel that sent out the invitations for the meetings for survivors’ groups, which began last Friday and which will continue, so panel members can continue their work—and it is absolutely essential that they do so.
The noble Baroness mentioned a very sensible point—the wealth of expertise in your Lordships’ House. Of course, the Home Secretary or certainly myself will be available to meet, and will try to seek meetings with, all those people with relevant expertise to ensure that that knowledge and expertise is fed into the process that we have. The Wanless report is in the Home Office at present. As we know from the comments made, the process is twofold. The Home Secretary has questions to ask to ensure that the questions in the terms of reference have been answered. We also want to separate the two issues so that people get an opportunity to look at those very serious allegations and a response to them by Peter Wanless next week.
The noble Baroness referred to an investigation that was carried out by CEOP under Project Spade. They referred themselves to the Independent Police Complaints Commission. Of course, that was before CEOP had become part of the National Crime Agency. I urge the noble Baroness to think about the fact that there is now an ongoing inquiry called Operation Notarise which has had much more success.
We are lifting stones all over the place and discovering the scale of something that we never could have imagined was going on in our society. That goes to the heart of what we are talking about. It is tough and it is harsh, but we have got to go through it, not only for the victims in the past but to protect children in the future.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I very much welcome the elements in it that refer to how the victims will be treated in the future. There will be liaison with them; their support will be sought; and measures will be put in place to ensure that the experience of giving evidence to the inquiry will cause them as little pain as possible, though inevitably it will cause them some pain.
As well as hearing from the victims, there are many thousands of well meaning, good people who have never done any wrong, working in the organisations that deal with children all over the country. I hope that the inquiry panel will listen to some of those people. In my experience, if you want to know what is going wrong in an organisation, you can do little better than talk to the staff. Of course, there are people who have things to hide; but the vast majority of people who work with children do so because they care about children and want the best for them.
On the appointment of the new chairman, I hope that the Government will look north of Watford before they look abroad—Newcastle rather than New Zealand, Carlisle before Canada. Many reputable members of the judiciary would be very well qualified to do this job. Although we can learn lessons from abroad, I do not think that it is necessary to find someone from abroad to chair this. Will the Minister confirm that the terms of reference will allow the committee to look at the experience in other countries and see whether there are lessons to be learnt that might be applicable to our situation in the UK, to help to protect children better than we have in the past?
Finally, I ask the Minister about the status of the inquiry. It has been said by the Government, several times and very clearly, that if the chairman feels the inquiry should be made a statutory inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005, that will happen. I am most concerned that, if that happens, the inquiry will be able to call in evidence and files from whoever it feels will benefit the inquiry and can compel those people, under threat of legal action—in other words, put them in contempt of court if they fail to co-operate with the organisation. Will my noble friend ensure that that happens?
Lord Bates
I appreciate that question from my noble friend. That comes to one of the reasons the inquiry was set up on a non-statutory footing at the start. Because one is dealing with really sensitive cases and a lot of young people who are very damaged, one wants to give them maximum freedom to approach the inquiry rather than be in a courtroom setting, which has its own set of intimidations—although, necessarily, legal advice is there. This inquiry was meant to be accessible to people. We are not anticipating that the inquiry will change to a statutory footing under the Inquiries Act, but that option remains open. The Home Secretary has of course made it clear that, to assist the speed of the review, it is very important that we do not reinvent the wheel and that we draw upon the vast literature and evidence already there in a way that can inform the decisions quickly, whether that be from this country or other countries.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland (CB)
My Lords, of course we all welcome the inquiry. However, I was very relieved when the Minister said that we are not going to look just at historic abuse; we will be worrying about what is happening to children in the here and now. We could wait to learn lessons, but we already have numerous inquiries that stretch back, which have lessons that we know about. We know that co-operation between different statutory agencies will make a difference. Has the Minister read the report from the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Children on co-operation with the police and the way that children have talked about the need for co-operation between agencies in looking at the police? I am sure that he has looked at it. I hope that we are not going to wait until the report comes through, given that we already know about some of the lessons. Has the Minister considered that the pressures on social workers, police and health workers are so great that they are likely to make mistakes? I spent time today with the representative of the independent reviewing officers, who are supposed to look at the plans for children to ensure that they are being protected. They say that the patchiness across the country is so great that some areas are still dangerous for children.
Will the Minister assure me that, while we are spending time and a great deal of money on historical abuse—which I welcome, because I know the victims and know how much it means to them—he will be sure to think about children here and now and the stresses on services that put them in danger today?
Lord Bates
I certainly can give that assurance. The terms of reference are from a 44-year period, which runs from 1970 to the present day, so some of those lessons will be there. I was familiar with the all-party group’s report, which noble Lords debated under the Serious Crime Bill. We are introducing a number of amendments under the Serious Crime Bill that do not talk just about the future. They are saying simply that we have the evidence but there are gaps that need to be tackled so that we can act. These are very important issues. Once the Government see an issue highlighted, they want to act as soon as possible to protect those in need.
Lord Borrie (Lab)
I will resist the temptation that there must be, not only to myself but to many in the Chamber, to criticise the Home Office and Ministers for the pretty pass we find ourselves in. On the basis of what the Minister said when repeating the Statement made in the other place, I look to the future. The key point seems to be to have a timetable that one will have some faith in, unlike that of the Chilcot inquiry. I was concerned when, during the course of the Statement, the Minister said that although the first few meetings of the panel might be without a chairman, it will have a chairman, and will meet every Wednesday from next Wednesday. I can imagine that in many cases that is perfectly reasonable, especially when one engages people who are busy on other matters. It may be that the timetable of once a week arises in part because of the commitments of the existing panel members, who will continue to be panel members. I wonder whether there should be some flexibility, at least so that the panel, preferably with the new chairman in place, can amend that and if possible arrange for further meetings so as to bring the inquiry to some sort of conclusion. We have had some reassurance from the Minister about the beginning of the inquiry, even without the chairman, but there has been no reassurance about how long it will take. Perhaps in all honesty the Government cannot give that and will not be able to give that. At least there should be some flexibility so that the panel could determine a lengthier time.
As to the appointment of the chairman, there are plenty of choices, as has been discussed today and in the media. I shall not go into that. I may not have trusted the Government on the first appointments, but surely we must trust the Government now, having had so many difficulties, to make a good choice.
Lord Bates
I shall clarify the position: in the terms of reference of the inquiry, the aim, approach and methodology of the panel is to solicit opinions, views and evidence from organisations and individuals involved in this, so at this stage it is simply going out to solicit that information. As in some inquiries or a Select Committee inquiry in our own House, we might find that the frequency of meetings will increase once that evidence has been collated and needs to be assessed.
I shall add one more thing which I hope is useful. It is the intention, and it was the intention when Fiona Woolf was the chairman, that there should be an interim report in March. It is still the intention that there should be an interim statement, perhaps on methodology, by then and that information will not be built up for one final release, but will be released as a clear segment of work is completed with recommendations so that it can be debated, discussed and acted upon.
Lord Finkelstein (Con)
I thank my noble friend for the excellent Statement and wish him good fortune in choosing a new chairman because I fear that good fortune will be required. Given the terms of reference of the inquiry, to find someone who has had no connection with state or non-state actors over a period of 50 years will be very difficult to crown with success. This is a very important inquiry and clearly the matters that it will discuss are vast. It took the Saville inquiry more than a decade to inquire into the events of a single afternoon. Would it not be more sensible to divide the inquiry, and therefore to divide the number of chairmen, into a series dealing with different areas rather than to look for somebody, who may be impossible to find, to deal with the entire area of child abuse over 50 years?
Lord Bates
My noble friend makes an excellent point. Sometimes in the debate we have had it has been said that we need somebody who knows everything about everyone to head the inquiry. The person who is to chair the inquiry has a specific responsibility to manage the body of expertise which is already on the panel and to direct it in an efficient manner to complete the work in accordance with the terms of reference. We are looking for a different skill set in the chairman than in the members of the panel. Therefore I think it might be possible to find somebody who is able to satisfy the survivors and give them confidence in the process.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, I hope the Minister and your Lordships’ House will accept my apology for missing the first two paragraphs of the Statement. I want to ask a question on the very important issue of Scotland. Given that a number of these allegations pre-date devolution and that a number of the institutions referred to cover the whole of the United Kingdom, not just England and Wales, including, for example, the BBC, there is dismay in Scotland among the historic survivors of child abuse that this inquiry will not cover Scotland. Therefore, I ask the Minister, as I asked his predecessors, why is this inquiry not including Scotland? Has the Home Secretary discussed this issue with the Justice Secretary in the Scottish Cabinet? If the new First Minister in Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon, who is expected to be in post before the end of this month, were to agree to include Scotland in the inquiry, would the Government be willing to reconsider this position?
Lord Bates
The inquiry is being set up now, and now it is a devolved matter in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is undertaking its own inquiry under Sir Anthony Hart into some matters which happened there. Scotland is free to undertake that process. Of course, as part of this process which we are now embarking upon, we remain open to approaches and suggestions from wherever they come, including from the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish First Minister.
CEPOL Regulation: United Kingdom Opt-in
(9 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Prashar
That this House agrees the recommendation of the European Union Committee that Her Majesty’s Government should exercise their right, in accordance with the Protocol on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice, to take part in the adoption and application of the proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a European Union agency for law enforcement training (CEPOL), repealing and replacing the Council Decision 2005/681/JHA (document 12013/14) (3rd Report, HL Paper 52).
Baroness Prashar (CB)
My Lords, I move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper as chairman of the European Union Committee sub-committee on Home Affairs, Health and Education which prepared the report on the UK opt-in to the draft CEPOL regulation to which this Motion relates.
As your Lordships know, when the House considers reports of the European Union Committee, it is normally on a Motion that the House takes note of the report. In this case, the Motion invites the House to agree to the committee’s recommendation. The reason is that this report deals with a draft measure falling within the area of justice and home affairs which will apply to the United Kingdom only if the Government exercise their right under a protocol to the EU treaties to participate in its negotiation, adoption and implementation: in other words, to opt in to it. They have to do this within three months of the proposal being presented to the Council, which means before 24 November. The committee believes that the Government should opt in now, and the Motion invites the House to endorse that view. The Government have undertaken that time will be found to debate opt-in reports well before the expiry of the three-month period. I am therefore grateful that they have made time available for this report early enough for them to be able to take the views of the House into account.
CEPOL is the European police college. It brings together senior police officers from across the EU and aims to encourage cross-border co-operation in the fight against crime and the maintenance of public security and law and order through training and exchange programmes and the sharing of research and best practice. Until September this year, it was located at Bramshill in Hampshire; in September, it moved to Budapest.
Despite its important role, CEPOL is less well known than Europol, which is a much larger EU agency for co-operation in law enforcement and whose aim is to achieve a more secure Europe by supporting member states in their fight against serious organised crime and terrorism. CEPOL and Europol are separate bodies set up under different Council decisions. In March 2013, the Commission put forward a new regulation for Europol, one of whose objects was to merge CEPOL with Europol. That regulation, too, was subject to the United Kingdom opt-in. Some of your Lordships were present on 1 July 2013 when the committee’s report on that regulation was debated. Those who spoke shared the committee’s doubts about the desirability of such a merger. The Government too had concerns, and so did the director of Europol. The director of CEPOL also opposed the merger, and it was rejected by the European Parliament. Finally, in March this year, the Council decided against the merger. The provision relating to CEPOL was therefore deleted from the Europol regulation.
The Commission has now brought forward a separate regulation dealing only with CEPOL, and it is this separate regulation which we are considering tonight. It is the Government’s practice in their Explanatory Memoranda dealing with measures subject to the UK opt-in to give no indication of whether they are inclined to opt in. Instead, they say simply that they consider such measures on a case-by-case basis. That is what they said last year in relation to Europol. Two months after the debate they said that they would not opt in to the Europol regulation—and by then it was, in any case, too late for them to do so.
In the case of CEPOL regulation we have at present no indication from the Government of what their intentions are, unless the Minister can tell us when he responds. There are, in the Committee’s view, very good reasons why the Government should opt in now to the CEPOL regulation. Cross-border co-operation in the fight against crime and the maintenance of public security and law and order have never been more important. Senior UK officers have much to learn from their colleagues in other member states—and perhaps even more to contribute.
The Government have concerns about the Commission’s proposals to widen CEPOL’s remit: these are listed in paragraphs 16 to 18 of the report. We have some sympathy with some of these concerns, but the committee is of the view that the Government should opt in now, as this will give the message that the Government intend to continue to support and be part of CEPOL. It will also give the Government a formal place at the negotiating table when attempts are made to amend the Commission’s draft. In other words, the Government would be better placed to make their views and concerns known in the course of negotiations if they have opted in.
Opting in to CEPOL regulation is important, but opting in to the Europol regulation is critical. Europol is a vital weapon for co-ordinating the European fight against serious organised crime, drug trafficking, money laundering, cybercrime and terrorism. Yet, as I said, the Government declined to opt in to the Europol regulation during the three-month window, preferring to say that they would wait until after the regulation was adopted and consider again whether to opt in. In the case of both CEPOL and Europol, if the Government do not ultimately opt in to the relevant regulations, the consequences will be serious. We explain the reasons in paragraphs 20 to 23 of our report and these reasons have been accepted by the Government.
Not opting in would thus initially result in the UK remaining bound by the decision giving CEPOL its existing powers while other member states will be bound by a regulation with a different constitution and wider powers. This would mean that the other member states would have the power to decide that the measures setting up these agencies will cease to apply to this country. There is every likelihood that they will do so. The United Kingdom would, in effect, be expelled from both agencies.
Two years ago, Rob Wainwright, the highly regarded British director of Europol, told my committee that if the UK stopped participating in Europol:
“It would increase the risk of serious crimes, therefore, going undetected or not prevented in the UK”,
and that, as the UK is a common destination for drug and people trafficking,
“any diminution of the UK’s capability to deal with those problems would clearly increase public safety risk”.
The consequences if the UK were to leave Europol would, in his words, be “pretty disastrous”.
I seek three assurances from the Minister. First, that the Government will opt in to the CEPOL regulation; secondly, that they will do so within the three-month period, before 24 November; and, thirdly, that they will opt in to the Europol regulation as soon as possible after it is adopted, and, in any case, before it comes into force.
I also take this opportunity to put another matter before your Lordships. Four weeks from today is 1 December, the fifth anniversary of the entry into force of the Lisbon treaty, and the day on which the Government’s decision to opt out of all justice and home affairs measures takes effect. It is also the day on which the Government would like to opt back in to 35 of those measures. This, I need hardly remind your Lordships, is a matter of great importance, and the Government have undertaken that this House will debate it well in advance. On 27 September the Commission published the final list of those 35 measures, annexed to a draft decision which will enter into force on 30 November and extend the application of those measures by a week.
We should have received, by 16 October at the latest, the Government’s memorandum explaining the meaning and purpose of this proposal and their attitude to it. Had we done so, we would have considered it at our meeting on 22 October. We were unable to look at it then, or on 29 October. We received the memorandum less than three hours ago, so there is little prospect of our scrutinising the draft decision on 5 November, which is our last meeting before the Recess. We are frequently told how seriously Ministers take their scrutiny obligations. Therefore, I should be glad to have the Minister’s explanation of why, in a matter of such great importance and urgency, the Government have, despite repeated reminders, failed in their duty to the committee and to this House. I beg to move.
Lord Patten (Con)
My Lords, I am something of a neophyte in debates on Europe at any level, let alone among the swamps, pitfalls and complexities of regulations such as these, which the noble Baroness understands so well. So anyone such as me, coming brand, spanking new to such issues, is bound to look first at the matters we are considering at a general level. It is good to stand back sometimes, to ask questions such as whether, in its present European police college role, CEPOL can be judged to be a success in its task of developing the talents of our UK senior police officers and their ability to co-operate well with our European partners.
I have not stumbled on much evidence or evaluation so far that would help answer the key question: if CEPOL did not exist, would we seek to invent it now? Yet via these regulations, which I have flirted with—the detail is, indeed, challenging in parts—we are being asked to be party to the invention of a much expanded operation; no longer just in relation, as now, to senior police in the UK and in Europe, but leaping into a new world, as the Commission proposed on 16 July this year, with, to quote from the leaden language,
“learning activities for law enforcement officials of all ranks, as well as customs officers and other authorities”.
Apart from anything else, these “other authorities” are ill defined. The open invitation to mission creep and incremental extension of activity and powers in border matters is obvious, and all at a time when cross-border issues and immigration changes are of much concern, as we read and heard today, to my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. My other right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer insisted this morning on the BBC that David Cameron and the Conservative Party always put the national interest first.
Needless to say, I agree with that, to reassure the Minister. But is it in the UK interest to opt in to a proposal from the Commission for a brand-new law enforcement training scheme—LETS, as it is known—which is already deeply embedded in Article 3 of the draft CEPOL regulations? It strikes at the very core of the UK’s present right to decide how senior police officer training should be delivered and introduces the idea of training at all levels of police and for all those at our customs and immigration controls. The phrase, “other authorities” is, as far as I can see, absolutely wide open to embrace our different security services, for which there seems to be no clear carve-out in the regulations. If there is not, that would be a very serious matter indeed.
Any opt-in will, I believe, automatically apply to Gibraltar, which is all too often under siege from Spanish customs officers and their other border officials, which is a European scandal of the first order: the Spanish should be ashamed of themselves. So, in strongly supporting the Prime Minister and the Chancellor, it is clear to me that if we opt in now, we will get full-bore LETS by the back door. That is something that I sense the Home Office would not wish to see. I seek some reassurance from the Minister on that, as well as on the fact that these new regulations would leave the proposed new body, with its inbuilt mission creep capabilities, absolutely free of any scrutiny by national Parliaments such as ours—scrutiny that I think is highly desirable.
I strongly believe in practical co-operation across borders in law enforcement. I want to reassure the noble Baroness that I would be daft not to do so. I strongly support that, but collaboration should not be extended to clash head-on with subsidiarity—the subsidiarity that presently, and quite rightly, allows the UK to decide how the training of police, customs and other border enforcers should be delivered. We should not therefore exercise our right to opt in on these issues until they are sorted out.
Lord Judd (Lab)
My Lords, first, I thank—I am sure not only on my behalf but on behalf of other members of the committee—our chair for having led us through the discussions that produced this report. We have been fortunate in this committee in the calibre of our chairs. When the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, completed his service, there was too big a pair of shoes for anyone to fill. All that I can say is that he can rest assured that the shoes are very fully filled, but of course with a different emphasis. We all appreciate in the committee the extraordinary skills and chairmanship that our present chair exercises. There is a real feeling that we all belong and matter in the committee, and that is something very special.
I start with what the noble Baroness referred to in terms of late information. This is not the first time that this has occurred. We have had reassurances from the Government Front Bench that things would be put right and that in the Home Office this kind of behaviour would stop. There really is no point in having Select Committees unless Governments make it the highest priority to ensure that those Select Committees have all the information that they need to conduct their scrutiny appropriately. It is to make a mockery of the system to have information arriving late or too late to be properly considered. I am very glad that the noble Baroness emphasised this point. It is exasperating.
I belong to those who realise that the first reality of existence is that we live in a totally interdependent world. Very few significant issues that face us and our children can be resolved in the context of national policy alone. This is sometimes brought home more dramatically than at other times. It is true, of course, in strategic and defence terms. We are discovering in the anxiety about Ebola that it is certainly true of health. Here, we are seeing how important it is in the context of Home Office affairs.
The noble Lord, Lord Patten, said that he believed in cross-border co-operation. I am very glad to hear him say that; it is reassuring. As he said himself, it would be mad to take any other position. However, what I ask him to consider is that this cannot be just a matter of the interrelationships of institutions. The police are an institution working with other police forces. Essential to the success of operations of this kind is a culture of, to use the Government’s phrase, “We are all in this together”. We will be as strong only as our weakest link, and we have to think about this together. We must instinctively see the international dimension of what we are involved in and want to be working alongside people whom we increasingly know personally, professionally and the rest. It would be wantonly irresponsible to forgo the chance of strengthening that. The culture of mutual dependency for success is terribly important.
To substantiate that argument, it is interesting to listen to witnesses because, increasingly, those whom we charge with responsibility in this sphere are saying how important these institutions are to them. Certainly, on Europol, the evidence was extraordinary. The professionals to whom we listened were saying, one after the other—perhaps I will not use the colloquial term I was going to use; but perhaps I can say—that we really would have lost our marbles if we had pulled out of Europol because it was so indispensable for the reasons that I have been trying to outline.
We cannot separate this issue from our whole attitude towards the European Union. If we are to succeed in the EU, see the things that we regard as important being strengthened, and change successfully the things that we regard as having been overtaken in time, irrelevant or less significant than they originally were, surely this depends on our being seen to be committed, second to nobody, to the success of the mutual operation. That is how one influences people. If, all the time, one is stamping one’s foot on the margins and saying, “We won’t do this and can’t accept that”, one does not, in the end, have any influence at all.
Noble Lords will know that for most of my life I have been involved in international work. It would be completely to misrepresent what I encounter across not only Europe but the world, but people are beginning to be rather exasperated with Britain. They say, “Do you belong to the world and Europe, or don’t you? If you don’t, well, float off into the Atlantic and do things on your own”. However, how will we look in respect of the security of the British people if we take that sort of course? It matters that we are engaged and using our influence as strongly as possible. As the noble Baroness argued very well, on this issue, if we are going to shape the institution in the way we would like to see it shaped, and the rest, it is terribly important to be in before we have to react and accept what has been negotiated by others. Therefore, the urgency of what we are trying to achieve is tremendously important.
I was rather sad when CEPOL moved from this country because I thought, “This is an example of cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face because if it is here in this country, we will, in a host of ways, have maximum influence on how it operates”. We took the course that we took and it went away. Let us not reinforce the mistake we made then. Let us be second to nobody in getting in there early, at a time when we can influence, and demonstrate that we want this thing to be not only effective but effective in the right way.
Lord Sharkey (LD)
My Lords, CEPOL is a good thing and our membership of it benefits the United Kingdom. Your Lordships’ EU Select Committee believes that to be the case for the reasons set out so clearly by our chair, the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar. The Government believe this also. It would be a bad thing if the UK were to cease to be a member of CEPOL. It would be completely absurd for the UK to be the only member state not to be part of CEPOL. As things stand, that is precisely what will happen if we do not opt into the new CEPOL regulation.
I know that the Government have some reservations about the current draft of this new regulation, and so does the committee. I think we share the view that the proposed regulation goes beyond the scope of the existing regulation in ways that are not desirable. In particular, the Government are rightly concerned that the new, broader mandate would extend CEPOL’s training function to police officers of all ranks, to Customs officers and to other, unspecified, agencies dealing with cross-border issues. There are other concerns as well, to do with the contribution to CEPOL’s work programmes and the establishing of a CEPOL scientific committee. However, these concerns are not ship-sinkers. They are eminently resolvable by the usual processes of negotiation. There is no reason to believe that the Government would find it unusually difficult to have their concerns addressed, nor to believe that, in the unlikely event that these concerns were not addressed, that would merit leaving CEPOL.
The fact is that there is, as there has always been, a very strong case for UK membership of CEPOL. The details of the draft regulation, amended though we would like them to be, do not change that position. I think the Government will accept, as the committee’s report suggests, that we will opt in to this new regulation at some stage. The question we are really debating is the not unfamiliar one of whether we should opt in now or after adoption and before entry into force. It does seem rather perverse to deny ourselves a position at the formal negotiating table when it is certain that we will opt in to a final regulation anyway. What is the benefit to the UK of doing that? What are the dangers to the UK in the new draft that cannot be negotiated away? What are the dangers that outweigh exclusion from CEPOL? If the Minister disagrees with opting in to the proposed regulation now, perhaps he can say why it is better to be outside formal negotiation if we will opt in later, as we surely must.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, has already mentioned, the committee’s report also notes that the Government have chosen not to opt in to the proposed new Europol regulation. The Government have excluded themselves from formal negotiations over the text and we see no benefit in this. Of course, if we eventually failed to opt in we would almost certainly find ourselves excluded from Europol, which is surely an entirely unthinkable outcome. The deadline for opting in to the proposed CEPOL regulation is in 21 days’ time, on November 24. The UK should, and would, benefit from being at the negotiating table while the text is being finalised. Since it is unthinkable, I hope, that we will not opt in eventually, that is where we should be now: at the negotiating table.
Of course, I accept that the whole topic of opting in—or not—to JHA measures has not been a simple one for the Government. The Government have, on occasion, been very slow in providing the House and its committees with the information necessary for proper scrutiny. In fact, they seem to have got into the habit of providing information very late and, sometimes, on the day of a debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, has already noted the latest example of this. I believe the Government provided, three hours ago, the explanatory memoranda—due on October 16—of the two draft Council decisions to do with the block opt-out and rejoins which need to be adopted before the end of this month. Will the Minister say why there has been such a delay?
All in all, the Government’s handling of the Protocol 36 block opt-outs and rejoins has generated very much more heat than light. However, I hope the Government will not allow their past, and perhaps present, difficulties in this area to colour their attitude to the Motion before us. In particular, I hope that the controversy over the European arrest warrant among some Tory Back-Bench MPs will have no influence on the Government’s decision on the CEPOL or Europol opt-ins. I wholeheartedly agree with the Home Secretary that the European arrest warrant is a vital and necessary law enforcement tool, but so is our participation in Europol and so is our participation in CEPOL. I urge the Government to accept today’s Motion. More than that, I urge the Government to opt in to the proposed CEPOL regulation without delay.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, since I am no longer a member of the EU Select Committee—nor chair of its sub-committee on home affairs—which published the excellent report on the draft CEPOL regulation which we are debating this evening, I can give unstinting praise for the crispness and clarity of that report, which bears witness to the effective chairmanship of my noble friend Lady Prashar, who has just introduced it. I can do so without being thought to be purely self-serving. I support its analysis of the Commission’s draft regulation and its conclusion that the United Kingdom should opt in to its further negotiation before the three-month deadline expires on 24 November. I very much hope that the Government will reach the same conclusion and that the Minister will say so when he responds to the debate.
The complexities of the opt-in, opt-out system are mind-boggling, but before we take the easy way out of blaming that on Brussels, I suggest we recognise that these complexities are totally and entirely of our own making. No other member state faces the same complexities to the same extent when negotiating justice and home affairs legislation. No other member state has a substantial proportion of its own supporters in Parliament who will denounce any decision to opt in, even when the Government consider it in the national interest to do so, as a surrender to Brussels and an abdication of national sovereignty. “Oh what a tangled web we weave” could well be our motto when discussing these matters.
As to the CEPOL draft regulation itself, there are, I see, some points with which the Government are not entirely happy and which they seek to change in negotiations now taking place. That is quite normal and it would be unusual indeed if the Government were ready to agree to every word of every Commission draft. In fact, our track record on shaping justice and home affairs legislation has been good, ever since qualified majority voting was introduced in 2009. We support CEPOL: we welcomed its establishment in Budapest, so we surely need to get stuck in to these negotiations as a full participant and without delay. I was slightly baffled by the noble Lord, Lord Patten, who spoke about CEPOL in terms which led me to suppose that, in the brief time since I chaired the sub-committee, it had metamorphosed into one of those dragons which the shining knights of Euroscepticism ride out every day to slay. I was a bit puzzled by references to mission creep in a training organisation which has no executive authority and by the reference to subsidiarity which we, presumably, decided was fulfilled many years ago when we established CEPOL in Bramshill.
Perhaps the Minister will simply confirm that it is entirely a matter for Britain’s police forces to decide whether or not their officers and others in law enforcement agencies go to CEPOL. You cannot be ordered to send your officers to CEPOL: you decide whether they go. Some of those concerns were, therefore, a little wide of the mark. I say that because the binary choice of not joining the new CEPOL, with its new regulation, seems to me a totally disproportionate response to a few relatively minor and detailed blemishes in a draft which has not yet been negotiated. Can we seriously believe that Britain’s national interest would be served by standing outside CEPOL at a time when the international dimension of crime, whether you are talking about drugs, human trafficking, cybercrime, terrorism or many other forms of crime, is on the increase and the need for closer international co-operation is unchallenged? Therefore, the need for officers who understand how other people in the 28-member European Union are operating their procedures is very important. Do we want to deprive our law enforcement officers of the chance to build up their skills and to build up the networks that they will achieve by attending CEPOL courses? That would seem to be, frankly, aberrant.
However, the other part of the binary choice—the idea that we might perhaps rejoin the old CEPOL, as the Government intend to do under their package of 35 justice and home affairs measures, while not participating in the new CEPOL regulation—is, as the report says, hardly likely to be sustainable any more than it will be for Europol or Eurojust. If these judgments are correct, we should stop pretending that the binary choices really exist. Let us face it: we need to be in CEPOL.
Later this month, we shall have the opportunity to debate and to vote on the justice and home affairs measures that the Government believe to be in the national interest to rejoin after triggering the block opt-out. I will support the Government in that debate and will vote for that package. When I listen to the views of the Government’s own supporters who will oppose that course of action and to those of UKIP, which are identical to those of many of the Government’s supporters, I sometimes feel slight despair. They say that their position is a principled one. It is perhaps more accurately described as an ideological one. I suggest that we need to avoid these polarisations. We used to pride ourselves on our pragmatism and our preference for practical solutions. What on earth has become of that pragmatism when we see the mountain of evidence given to your Lordships’ House by lawyers, prosecutors, senior police officers and indeed by the Home Secretary herself about the value of those 35 measures to our own internal security?
That is a debate for another day. Today, I hope that we will hear that the Government intend to opt in to the CEPOL regulation before 24 November.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, yet again we are grateful to the European Union Committee for its service to your Lordships’ House and for, again, providing an informative and helpful report so that we can fully debate these European issues. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, for the helpful way in which she introduced the debate and the report. In the report we have a comprehensive assessment of the issues involved in the current opt-in proposals. Although there is a very specific issue here, I think that other noble Lords will agree that there is a sense of déjà vu about this debate.
The Government’s approach to EU criminal justice and home affairs matters has been—I use the term with some generosity—clumsy. It has more to do with narrow internal party-political fractures than it does with tackling crime, particularly serious organised crime, which does not know any borders: people being trafficked into slavery and prostitution, drug trafficking, kidnapping, abduction, cybercrime, fraud and money laundering. All of those are crimes that cannot be resolved or be dealt with by one country alone. With the political equivalent of the hokey-cokey that we have had in various debates, we have never been able to get a straight answer from the Government on how many of the measures that they have chosen to opt out of permanently have any value or even any application to the UK. I am always willing to receive an answer on this, and I shall be grateful if the noble Lord is able to enlighten me today. I have asked a number of Ministers over the past couple of years and am still seeking an answer. If he cannot answer me today, perhaps he can do so when we debate the opt back in again measures, to which the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, referred. It would be very helpful in informing that debate and would certainly be much appreciated after about a dozen times of asking.
The Minister will recall that it was the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, in the previous opt-out debate on Europol who advised that we could not discuss these issues in a vacuum. We had to set them in the context of the Government’s announcement to opt out of all policing and criminal justice measures and then seek to opt back in again to some of them. While we are still waiting for those final proposals to be debated, it is clear that the Government, if not all of their MPs, now recognise the value of the European arrest warrant in seeking justice for victims and ensuring that criminals face justice.
However, the importance of these issues means that each and every one must be considered on its merits and on its contributions to public security and safety. The implications from today’s debate in terms of training, education, science and research are extremely important. These reports are valuable because the rhetoric—the internal party-political issues—are stripped away and we are left with facts and reasoned debate. I know that when we discuss Europe the political climate can make it difficult to have the kind of evidence-based debate that we need, but if we are to do justice to the issues and to provide justice for victims of cross-border crime, then we have to have that kind of evidence-based debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, referred to the UKIP Members of the House. I look at where they normally sit and, again, see empty Benches. We all understand that the issues of most importance to UKIP are immigration and the EU. I have taken part in a number of these debates in your Lordships’ House but yet again, when there is an opportunity for a debate, to challenge the Government or indeed to challenge the committee report, it is disappointing but not surprising that not one Member of UKIP is present. I can think of just one debate, when we discussed the European arrest warrant, to which UKIP made a contribution, so they are hardly the shining lights of Euroscepticism referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay.
The matter before us today is central to European-wide co-operation on the issues that strike at the heart of our community. A Government’s first duty to their citizens is to ensure that they are safe and secure. Today, it is absolutely impossible to do that within narrow national confines. Even the noble Lord, Lord Patten, recognised that. Our police and law enforcement bodies have to co-operate and work together, and that has to be reflected in their education and training and in the skills that are needed. They must co-operate and share science and research. The old-fashioned “Dixon of Dock Green” approach cannot be relied on to tackle complex international crime.
The report refers to our previous debate on the proposed merger of Europol and CEPOL, when doubts were expressed across your Lordships’ House about the implications of such a move. In the end, as the noble Baroness said, the provisions of the proposed regulations relating to CEPOL were removed. In that debate, issues relating to training were discussed and it was emphasised that the quality of, and priority given to, training have to be guaranteed—that was one of the concerns about a complete merger with Europol. We also raised the value of having an EU training centre here in the UK with CEPOL at Bramshill. Unfortunately, that is no longer the case, as the Government’s restructuring of police institutions and the selling off of Bramshill means that the centre has relocated to Budapest.
At that time, even though the Government had to make a decision within just a few days of that debate, the then Minister was not able to tell your Lordships’ House what the Government’s position was going to be. Today’s debate has a slightly longer timescale in that the Government have, as the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, said, 21 days in which to make a decision—that is, before 24 November. I hope that that scheduling will not in any way be influenced by any events taking place on 20 November with the by-election in Rochester and Strood.
In recommending that the Government should opt in, the report recognises the problems with Protocol 21 in that, when established in 2005, CEPOL was a third pillar measure which required unanimity and was not subject to a UK opt-in. However, as was explained very helpfully, new measures are subject to the opt-in, and that creates a curious anomaly, as if the UK does not opt in it remains bound by the 2005 decision but not by the new regulation that would apply only to member states that had opted in.
All these issues raise serious matters that we need to be clear have been fully understood and considered by the Government. Therefore, I have four questions for the Minister and I should be grateful if he could give clear answers to them. I understand that the Government have concerns about the current draft and that they can choose to opt in at a later date—that is, after 24 November but before the measure comes into force. However, as has already been mentioned, can he confirm that, if that is the case, it would mean that the UK was excluded from any negotiations or discussions or from having any influence on what the final draft would say? By choosing not to opt in now, we lose the opportunity to influence or have any impact on the final content. I believe that means—but I would like some clarity from the Minister—that if we fail to opt in, CEPOL in effect will become inoperable, like a twin-track or two-speed organisation. What are the implications for training, for science and research and for sharing that research and training across the EU, and the implications for the training and detection of serious cross-border crime?
Can the Minister assist your Lordships’ House in this debate by telling us what the Government’s position is going to be? We know that the Government have concerns, but can he explain how he best seeks to address these? Deciding not to opt in now but seeking to opt in later, having had no influence on the final content, seems to suggest we get the worst of all worlds.
This has been a very helpful debate. Again, I am grateful for these reports. I keep them all. As we have more debates on this issue, even if our UKIP Members are unable to take part in them, I think those of us who do find these reports extremely useful in giving an explanation and an opportunity to fully debate them. I hope that the Minister can give some substantive answers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bates) (Con)
I join your Lordships in paying tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, for introducing this debate, for the way in which she introduced it and for the excellent report prepared by the committee, and I pay tribute to the members of that committee. This is part of the process that we agreed, that your Lordships’ House would have a say on these measures, when they come forward, and that there should be a report. We have a report, which is very clear in its recommendations, and I will turn to those in my remarks. It was also agreed that your Lordships should have an opportunity to debate, which is what is happening now. Of course, all that should happen before Her Majesty’s Government have actually reached a decision on whether to opt in at this stage. No decision has been made, so the comments that would be made in your Lordships’ House are pertinent, relevant and will be taken very seriously into consideration.
Before I turn to some of the specific points that have been raised, part of the system for considering these matters involves a formal government response to the report and requires the Government to update the House on their position. So while not losing track of the questions that have been raised from around the House, I will just put these remarks on the record.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, and her committee for calling this debate and I am pleased that we have had such a wide-ranging discussion. The Government have not yet decided whether to opt in to this measure at this stage. The arguments are finely balanced. We recognise the work of CEPOL and its current mission to bring together senior police officers from across Europe to encourage cross-border co-operation in the fight against crime. However, we also need to retain national control over the training of our law enforcement agencies, and there are elements of the draft measures that cause us some concerns. We therefore need to decide whether it would be better to opt in at this stage and use our vote in the negotiations to try to improve the proposal or to stay out for now and reconsider our position once the final text is agreed. Both options are open to us at this stage. I should say, of course, that they are open to us at this stage because the previous Government negotiated the justice and home affairs opt-out, so we are simply exercising an opt-out that they provided for us.
I want to be clear that we support CEPOL as it currently operates. CEPOL courses help the UK and UK law enforcement officers to build contacts across Europe, as has been mentioned by a number of noble Lords, and to exchange best practice in fighting crime. The training also provides personal development, strengthens partnerships and develops networks and co-operation, as well as providing the opportunity to share experiences. However, we are worried that some aspects of the new proposals would go beyond that and allow CEPOL and the wider EU to dictate aspects of our police training programmes. That is a very different thing.
The professionalism and training of the police and other law enforcement agencies should be led and developed by those organisations themselves, at a national or local level, and not by the EU. We believe that the focus of an EU-wide law enforcement training strategy should be to encourage member states to collaborate on matters that are mutually beneficial but to avoid telling us how to train our police. Provisions within the existing CEPOL Council decision are more than adequate to encourage member states to work together where appropriate. I am pleased that the committee chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, sympathises with our concerns, including her proposals for a national unit and scientific committee. The commission’s proposals give CEPOL a much broader role than it currently has in law enforcement training, significantly expanding the EU’s responsibilities.
The Government believe that it should be for member states to define and determine which law enforcement officers may benefit from CEPOL’s activities. We are not at present convinced of the need for the law enforcement training scheme—known as LETS—and are concerned about the reference to this regulation in the text, which would make LETS legally binding on member states—this addresses the point that the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, made about outlining the nature of our concerns. I know that several member states agree with us that all references to LETS within the regulation should be removed for this very reason.
Therefore, the question is whether we should opt in and use the vote—we would then have to help negotiate the proposals that concern us—or whether we should stay out for now, still participate in the negotiations, although without a vote, and consider applying to opt in post-adoption. Of course, the proposal is subject to qualified majority voting and co-decision with the European Parliament, so if we did opt in, we could still be outvoted and would then be bound by the outcome even if we did not get the changes that we were seeking.
A decision to stay out at this stage would not necessarily exclude us from CEPOL for ever. We would remain involved in the negotiations and would have another chance to take part once the measure had been adopted. That would give us the advantage of knowing exactly what the regulation would require of us before we signed up to it—which was precisely the point that was negotiated by the previous Government when they included that opt-out provision in the JHA. However, the disadvantage of having no vote in the negotiations is one which we are very mindful of, which is the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, raised in her remarks. Even if we were not to opt in, I can assure the House that the UK’s voice will still be heard and listened to in the negotiations. Those negotiations are ongoing; we have officials attending Council working groups on the text as we speak, as they have been doing during this week and last week. That is very clear from Europol, a measure to which the committee of the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, rightly attaches great importance. There we did not opt in pre-adoption but have secured some quite significant improvements to the text on Europol’s power to request investigation and to the duty of member states to supply it with information. So there are arguments either way. The Government have not yet decided at this stage which option they will propose.
The noble Baroness’s committee has argued that it is inevitable that we must adopt the regulation at some stage. In its view, it would be unworkable for the UK to be bound by the current Council decision, while other member states would be working with the provisions of the new regulation. The committee feels that this would in turn be likely to trigger the procedure under Article 4(a) of Protocol 21 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union, resulting in the UK’s ejection from CEPOL. This regulation would repeal the existing 2005 CEPOL Council decision, to which the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, referred, for those member states participating in the regulation. In accordance with the opt-in procedure under Protocol 21, if the UK does not opt in to the proposal, and if it is subsequently adopted by the rest of the EU, the UK will remain bound by the underlying CEPOL Council decision, as the repeal aspect of the regulation would not apply to the UK.
The UK would be working with CEPOL according to the old Council decision while all other member states work according to the new regulation. Practically speaking, which was the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, this may not be impossible, especially if the new regulation does not significantly alter the focus of CEPOL. However, if the Commission considers—
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but I wanted to get in before he sat down. I did not suggest that it might not be impossible: I suggested that it might not be possible, which is the exact opposite.
Will the Minister also answer a question that disturbs me? This is not the first time that Home Office Ministers have taken refuge in not declaring their hand at the time of the debate in this House: it is about the third time, in fact. This demonstrates very clearly the ingenuity that Ministers and civil servants are able to put into turning into a meaningless matter the undertakings given by the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, and by Mr Lidington from another place. The Government manage miraculously to remain poised on the horns of their dilemma until a couple of days after this House has expressed an opinion and then equally miraculously the light shines down from heaven and the Government take a decision, and they are not subject to any scrutiny in this House whatever.
Before he finishes, will the Minister undertake that when the light has shone down from above and the Government have reached a decision, he will come and tell the House what the Government have decided so that we can consider that? This is not a good way of dealing with these matters and the previous examples show just how badly the Lidington/Ashton undertakings are being implemented.
Lord Bates
I hear what the noble Lord says, but the advantage of having a debate at the present time is that the committee’s report and your Lordships’ contributions inform the Government’s position. That is beneficial, rather than coming to the House after a decision has been taken by Her Majesty's Government.
I also accept the noble Lord’s point about what is possible and what is impossible. I readily acknowledge that. It is not for us to decide whether it is possible or impossible: it is for the Commission and the other member states to determine whether they are willing to tolerate that or whether they wish to eject us from the process. That is further down the route.
Lord Sharkey
I am sorry, but I am not quite clear about whether the Government will bring back the issue to this House once they have made a decision on whether to opt in or not.
Lord Bates
The decisions that are made on these matters are ordinarily communicated by Written Ministerial Statement. If, through the usual channels, the business managers and the committee, there is scope for something more than that, of course we stand willing to comply with what the House requires and to show it due respect. But that is the normal course through which information is communicated on decisions of this nature.
However, if the Commission considers that UK non-participation makes CEPOL inoperable, it could seek to have us ejected from CEPOL, from the 2005 decision. The provisions in Article 4a(2) of the protocol clearly set this out. Clearly, this depends on a number of questions that are currently hypothetical: whether we opt in before 24 November; whether, if we do not opt in then, we do so post-adoption; and whether, if we do not, the Commission tries to trigger the ejection mechanism. But if things got that far, it would be important to note that the protocol sets what seems to be a very high threshold for ejection. It requires the measure to be “inoperable”, not merely inconvenient or difficult to operate, and it must be inoperable for the other member states, not just for the UK. These are tough tests for the Commission to meet. However, that is an argument to be had if and when we get to that stage. We are a long way from there at the moment.
With reference to the draft Europol regulation, as the committee is aware, we decided not to opt in at the outset, but committed to opting in post-adoption if certain conditions are met. I must stress that, at this stage, no decision to opt in has been made and no such decision will be made until negotiations are complete and the regulation is adopted. At that point, the full process for considering a post-adoption opt-in will be followed, which, as the committee is aware, can take several months. However, as mentioned above, and without pre-judging the final outcome, I can say that I am pleased with the current progress of the negotiations.
I realise that time is running out. I will deal with some of the matters raised and if I cannot deal with them all, I will of course respond in writing to the noble Baroness in the first instance and copy that letter to all other noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. Some specific points were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, and my noble friend Lord Patten. My noble friend brings immense expertise to this having, in another place and in another guise, been a particularly fine Policing Minister in the Home Office. The particular issue of concern is the proposal for CEPOL to assess the impact of existing law enforcement training policies and initiatives and to promote the mutual recognition of law enforcement training in member states and related existing European quality standards.
We have a particular problem with this because, from the time between Bramshill closing and the CEPOL negotiations, we now have an excellent College of Policing, which is doing tremendous work among police forces in this country. To keep it in context—noble Lords asked about this—the attendance at CEPOL courses was typically around 100 officers per year at Bramshill. That has now gone. We are talking about the College of Policing, but also recognise that in Bramshill we have an asset, and there were associated running costs. That is going to front-line law enforcement in this country.
Other issues that were raised related to the timeliness of communications. The noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, and the noble Lord, Lord Judd, raised this in very serious terms. I will take it away and reflect on it. It is not always within our hands as to when we get documents and how to pass them on. However, I should like to sit down with the committee to understand how we can improve our performance, between officials at the Home Office, Ministers, and the committees, to ensure that committees are able to do their job of scrutiny in a proper way. I accept the reprimand, apologise and promise to look at that more closely.
Some Members, including the noble Lord, Lord Judd, referred to the Lisbon justice and home affairs opt-out. As I have said, that is an opt-out of the previous Government’s making. We are simply exercising our right to do it. It does not seem necessarily a bad thing that if you have a piece of regulation before you and you are not entirely happy with it, then you can undertake the genuine, sincere and vigorous negotiations happening at the present, and reserve judgment on whether you choose to opt into the final draft until you have seen the final text.
The noble Lord, Lord Patten, also referred to the fact that we need to work much better at cross-border co-operation in policing and serious crime. We recognise that that is a very important area. That is why we have taken the approach that we have towards Europol and the arrest warrant. We recognise, as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, said in her remarks, that ensuring the safety and security of the people in this country is the first priority of every Government. We should do that, but we can do so not necessarily by signing up to everything, but by being discerning because we have been given the opportunity to do that.
I covered interdependence. We accept that we need to co-operate and that is an ongoing thing. I very much accept that we are in this together and that, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said, we need to co-operate. However, we can have meaningful input into the negotiations ongoing in Brussels with our position as it is. I do not think it is an ideological position. It is one that looks at different issues and treats them in different ways, raising legitimate concerns about CEPOL while recognising its very good work, taking a slightly different approach with Europol, and a different approach to the European arrest warrant. That is a balanced and broad approach. However, I assure your Lordships that we will take into account and re-read all the contributions made in the debate. Again, I thank the committee for the work it has prepared, which we can draw upon.
Baroness Prashar
My Lords, I thank all Members of the House for their contribution to the debate and for their positive comments about the report and the work of the EU Select Committee, for which I am very grateful. I have listened very carefully to the Minister and welcome the fact that he is willing to discuss the timetable to ensure that there is better engagement with the committees on timing. I also listened carefully to what the Minister said about the pros and cons of opting in now or later and the process. I must say that I find that unsatisfactory. I am disappointed that we have not had a clear answer on the Government’s intention. I urge the Minister to think about that, because the committee weighed the pros and cons and recommended that it would be wiser to opt into the regulation now rather than later.
Having said that, what is clear from the tone of the debate is that there is disappointment about the process, but we also have to take account of the context within which opt-ins are being discussed. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, talked about the culture and the importance of working together. It is important also to register the broader point within which the debate about opt-ins is taking place.
I thank the Minister for his response and I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
Is the noble Baroness withdrawing the Motion?
Infrastructure Bill [HL]
(9 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Berkeley
“( ) The Office of Rail Regulation is renamed as the Office of Rail and Road Regulation.”
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, in this grouping I have five small amendments, Amendments 36 to 40. They really suggest that perhaps the Office of Rail Regulation needs renaming, whether as the Office of Rail and Road Regulation, the Office of Road and Rail Regulation, the Office of Surface Transport or something like that. Given that the Government and Passenger Focus have agreed to change that organisation’s name, I wondered whether the Minister had any proposals to make this change.
Amendment 39 tries to link in with the licence and other things about which we were talking. Probably the most important amendment in this group of five is Amendment 40. Can the Minister explain why Clause 9(5) is there? Basically, the strategic roads authority would not have to provide any documentation to the monitor or office of road regulation if it was confidential. It could not be compelled to produce such information.
I do not believe that that is the case for the Office of Rail Regulation or Network Rail. Network Rail should provide every bit of information that is required. I know from discussions in Germany with the German rail regulator that the German railway, Deutsche Bahn, succeeds in preventing the regulator from investigating some sections too thoroughly because it was not given the information. It is a bad precedent. Would the Minister consider whether this paragraph is necessary or could be changed?
The final two amendments in this grouping are Amendments 41 and 42. Perhaps I should speak to Amendment 42 and the Minister could answer. She should then speak to Amendment 41, which is a very good amendment that I welcome. It concerns compliance and fines, and I am sure that the Minister will talk about fines. Look at new subsection (1)(a) and (1)(b) on a road investment strategy and directions and guidance, proposed in government Amendment 41; it would be rather good to have in addition two paragraphs (c) and (d) that referred to compliance with safety and efficiency requirements. It seems to me that that would tie up the role of the ORR and make sure that it had to investigate all these issues such as safety and efficiencies and, if necessary, levy fines or impose any other penalties that it felt should be imposed. I beg to move.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Kramer) (LD)
My Lords, I have previously discussed the rationale behind a number of government amendments which will further define the duties of the monitor. Amendment 41, which I have already described but will move shortly, if I understand it correctly, makes it clear that if the company fails to comply with its statutory directions or have regard to guidance, the monitor may issue fines. We have covered Amendment 43, which will give the monitor a duty to drive performance in a number of areas.
Amendments 38 and 39 propose an alternative to the Government’s definition of the monitor’s function. However, as I have mentioned, the Government’s amendments to the Bill already describe what the monitor should have regard to when monitoring the strategic highways company. With those in place, the distinction between “monitoring” and “ensuring” should become academic.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has also proposed that we remove subsection (5), which prevents the ORR requiring the company to provide it with information that it would not be compelled to produce during civil proceedings. Our legislation already grants the Office of Rail Regulation strong legal powers to require the strategic highways company to disclose data. However, I reassure noble Lords that this does not mean that the monitor has carte blanche to access every file held by the company. For example, the company should not be obliged to disclose particularly sensitive documents—for example, legal advice. This is a perfectly reasonable proposition.
In assessing the performance and efficiency of the company, there is little information that the company would not be compelled to disclose during civil proceedings that would help inform the monitor’s analysis. In addition, pitching this at the level of civil proceedings has a precedent. The provisions in subsection (5) mirror those in Section 58 of the Railways Act 1993.
As for the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, to the government amendment, I agree that the company must comply with its health and safety obligations and have due regard to maximising efficiency. It is also important that the monitor has the power to sanction the company if its performance and efficiency have been insufficient, as the Government’s amendments have set out. However, as we have already discussed, I do not believe that it follows from this that the monitor needs further powers to issue sanctions for health and safety. The Health and Safety Executive is responsible for policing this area and every company has an obligation to comply with the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, regardless of what our monitor is empowered to do. As there is already an effective and respected body in this area, I feel that it should be left to continue with its good work.
Turning to the second addition, once more I agree that maximising efficiency on the design, construction and operation of the highways is important. When we discussed Amendment 43, we made it clear that the monitor has critical responsibilities in assessing the key themes of performance and efficiency; and it will need to use its powers of sanction accordingly. The Government’s amendments ensure that these issues are given appropriate regard. The monitor will have the power to sanction the company if it is satisfied that the commitments of the road investment strategy, which will include commitments on construction and on efficiency, have been contravened.
This leaves the issue of design, which is currently the remit of existing planning authorities. Planning authorities operate effectively and judiciously all across the country. They currently have the responsibility for approving the design of any highways and are well placed to consider local issues. This system works well, and I believe that matters of design should remain in their capable hands. They need not be duplicated by the monitor.
Finally, I turn to the first amendment in this group. This proposes that the Office of Rail Regulation be renamed the Office of Rail and Road Regulation. As your Lordships may be aware, following discussions in Committee we have announced that we plan to change the legal name of the watchdog from the Passengers’ Council to Transport Focus. I can understand why the noble Lord proposes this change for the monitor. This case, however, is less straightforward.
There is the issue of the proposed name. While it may appear that we are indeed talking about an office dealing with road and rail issues, I urge caution around “regulation”. The monitor will not be a regulator of roads, at least in the market-setting sense in which the ORR currently regulates the railways. It will not control the direct costs on individual motorists for using the network, as it does on the rail side, because for the vast majority of roads such costs do not exist. In fact, the tools available within a hypothetical office of rail and road regulation would be very different, depending on which side of the road or rail fence it was acting.
We have discussed this question with the ORR itself. It is very alert to the new challenges of its role, and to the value of handling road and rail policy in one organisation. It does not, however, think that a name change is appropriate at this time.
Unlike Passenger Focus, the ORR has to manage a relationship with its levy payers in the rail sector and has a formal role in making sure the rail market functions well. Given that this is a substantially different role to roads, it would rather carry out the road work under a strong free-standing brand—the strategic road network monitor—while retaining its current statutory name for its existing work. This will ensure that any confusion is avoided and that, in the eyes of the public, roads monitoring is clearly differentiated from rail regulation. This will make it clear that neither road nor rail users risk having their interests eclipsed by the other.
There is also a practical issue with the noble Lord’s approach to renaming the Office of Rail Regulation. Considering the varied legislation in which the name “the Office of Rail Regulation” appears, the proposed amendment would not be in itself sufficient to make the change. There would also need to be significant tidying up. That is why we are renaming Passenger Focus, through secondary legislation, in which these implications can be worked through. If we were changing the name of the ORR, we would want to follow the same approach.
The amendment that I propose is an important safeguard in ensuring appropriate monitoring of the strategic highways company, and I hope that your Lordships will support it. Conversely, I believe there is a strong argument against each of the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and ask that he withdraw this one.
Lord Berkeley
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her full answers to those questions. I shall not push the ORR issue again. It is not something that has to be top of the priorities, but I am grateful to her for her explanations, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Kramer
“Monitor: compliance and fines
(1) If the Office of Rail Regulation is satisfied that a strategic highways company has contravened or is contravening—
(a) section 3(5) (compliance with the Road Investment Strategy), or(b) section 4(3) (compliance with directions and regard to guidance),the Office may take one or more of the steps mentioned in subsection (2).(2) The Office may—
(a) give notice to the company as to the contravention and the steps the company must take in order to remedy it;(b) require the company to pay a fine to the Secretary of State.”
Baroness Kramer
“Monitor: general duties
(1) The Office of Rail Regulation must exercise its functions under sections 9and (Monitor: compliance and fines) in the way that it considers most likely to promote—
(a) the performance, and(b) the efficiency,of the strategic highways company.(2) The Office must also, in exercising those functions, have regard to—
(a) the interests of users of highways,(b) the safety of users of highways,(c) the economic impact of the way in which the strategic highways company achieves its objectives,(d) the environmental impact of the way in which the strategic highways company achieves its objectives,(e) the long-term maintenance and management of highways, and(f) the principles in subsection (3).(3) The principles are that—
(a) regulatory activities should be carried out in a way which is transparent, accountable, proportionate and consistent, and(b) regulatory activities should be targeted only at cases in which action is needed.”
Baroness Kramer
“Monitor: guidance
(1) The Secretary of State may from time to time give the Office of Rail Regulation guidance as to the manner in which it is to carry out its activities under section 9.
(2) The Secretary of State and the Treasury, acting jointly, must give the Office guidance as to the circumstances in which the payment of a fine under section (Monitor: compliance and fines) should be required.
(3) The Office must have regard to guidance given to it under this section.
(4) Guidance under this section must be published by the Secretary of State in such manner as he or she considers appropriate.”
Baroness Kramer
““users of highways” includes cyclists and pedestrians.”
Baroness Kramer
Your Lordships have previously asked if cyclists and walkers are included in the definition of road users of the strategic road network and other highways. The answer remains emphatically yes, and I have moved an amendment to make this absolutely clear for the provisions of the Bill where we use the phrase “users of highways”. I should also point out that this definition—I have double-checked this with the lawyers—absolutely does not exclude any other users who may not be mentioned.
Lord Berkeley
The House should congratulate the Minister on the amendment. We have discussed it so often. We have been told on many previous occasions that Governments do not like lists; you can understand that. I shall not table an amendment saying, “Please add Segways and horses” or anything else. I take what the Minister says: this covers everything.
In that vein of thanks, the two other amendments in this group are to do with cycling and walking strategy. Some noble Lords have already spoken on cycling and walking. It may seem odd that on strategic highway routes there is not much cycling and walking. I suggest that there should be. It is important that, as part of the strategies that the strategic highway company will have to look at, it should have a separate cycling and walking investment strategy.
In this House we have debated cycling on many occasions. The pressure is on from many areas, not just from the cycling and walking organisations but also from those who believe that they are pretty healthy forms of transport, to get the Government to commit to a long-term strategy with some long-term funding. So far, Ministers have not been able to make any commitment to funding, but the recommendations from the All-Party Parliamentary Cycling Group’s report last year suggested that £10 per head of population per year—which is about half the figure in many continental countries, such as Belgium, Holland and Denmark—could be allocated on a long-term basis to improving cycling facilities, infrastructure and other things,
I know that Ministers have in the past said that this is a local problem and that it should therefore be funded locally. The problem is that local funding does not usually stretch to such things. Many people believe that, combined with a draft strategy, something like what is in Amendment 55 and the proposed new schedule in Amendment 96 should be done for the benefit of health, and for cyclists and walkers, and to reduce road congestion, pollution and the other things that we talked about earlier.
I look forward to the Minister’s response, and take into account that this is only the small tip of an iceberg. As my noble friend Lord Davies of Oldham said, most journeys take place on local roads. Still, it is a start, and if it could happen on the trunk road network, I suspect that the other roads would soon follow.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I, too, very much welcome the Minister’s amendment. It offers clarity and shows that the Government are quite clear that cyclists and walkers are important on the highway network. I admit that I could not resist backing the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, because, although I am not an absolutely regular cyclist, I get my bike out quite frequently in Cornwall, which is not the easiest of terrain to cycle.
I was in continental Europe over the weekend, and it was astounding to see how important cycling can be in terms of an alternative transport means and strategy. If it is one that is generally safe, and one that is accepted among families, then it becomes a normal way of getting to school, of getting to work and moving around. Indeed, I remember doing it as a child back in the 1950s and 1960s. I always used to cycle to school, save the bus fare and spend it elsewhere. That was my disposable income for the week.
Given the excellent work that, in particular, my right honourable friend Norman Baker has done in the other place in the past, and the Local Sustainable Transport Fund, this is something that we need to build on. That is why I was very pleased to support this amendment. It would be good to move to a proper formal government strategy in this area. It is also all part of our commitment to reduce carbon emissions in the transport sector, and a very important way of doing that. Having said that, I also understand the argument that—hopefully—as we devolve more fiscal powers to cities and non-metropolitan areas as well, this should be a major part of their focus of work, too.
It would be a sign that the Government is looking at this area and has some strategy that they see as a framework. It would also give a signal that the Government think that this is important, and would get them ahead of the curve on this important change that is gradually happening. It would be so much better for all of us: for emissions, for physical exercise and for congestion. It would have big pluses for all those points of view. That is why I am pleased that the Minister has proposed the amendment that she has, but I hope that the Government can consider this and take it forward in some way or another.
Baroness Kramer
I thank noble Lords for that brief but very interesting debate. I suspect that everyone in this House recognises the importance of cycling. I will use the opportunity to name some of the coalition Government’s successes in this area. Government spending on cycling overall since 2010 has more than doubled compared to the previous four years: £374 million has been committed between 2011 and 2015. Cycling spend is currently around £5 per person each year across England, and over £10 per person in London and our eight cycling ambition cities across England: Birmingham, Bristol, Cambridge, Leeds, Manchester, Newcastle, Norwich and Oxford. Since that £10 is an important marker number, I draw attention to it.
Our recent investment in bike and rail has been the major enabler in doubling cycle parking spaces at railway stations since 2009. I announced a further £15 million of bike and rail funding in July 2014, to triple the number of cycle parking spaces at railway stations. Cycle journeys are often local in nature, however, and it is right that many of the decisions about the level of investment in cycling are made locally. With unprecedented levels of long-term funding available in the Local Growth Fund, this means that all local areas that wish to can invest £10 per head in cycling. The Local Growth Fund has made £3 billion available for local transport schemes, and that is just so far. This long-term funding is from a total package of £12 billion, which will run until 2020-21, and includes £700 million for packages of schemes that include cycling and walking.
In order to meet our ambition to make the UK a cycling nation, there are other important measures needed as well as providing funding to deliver high-quality cycling infrastructure. We need that commitment from local government leaders to recognise cycling and walking as crucial to the health of the economy, of their local areas, and of individuals. But we have to tackle safety issues, including perceptions of safety. There is no point in funding infrastructure if people are afraid to use it.
As many noble Lords are no doubt aware, we have recently published our draft cycling delivery plan. This 10-year plan sets out our proposals on how the Prime Minister’s ambition—an ambition shared across the coalition—to achieve a cycling revolution is to be delivered. As part of that, it sets out how government, with local government and businesses, can work together to collectively achieve a long-term vision for cycling. It includes ambitions to double cycling levels by 2025 and increase the percentage of school children aged five to 10 walking to school to 55% by 2025.
It also has aspirations to explore with local government and business how we can achieve a minimum funding packet equivalent to £10 per person each year by 2020-21, and sooner if possible. By inviting local authorities to form strategic partnerships with government, it is our intention to build a better picture of the infrastructure, funding structures and capacity that each partner authority needs to really deliver transformational levels of cycling and walking in their areas. I hope very much that your Lordships will contribute during the consultation phase that follows the publication of the report, which also addresses the All-Party Parliamentary Cycling Group’s recommendations in its Get Britain Cycling report and some of the recommendations in the All-Party Parliamentary Commission on Physical Activity report, Tackling Physical Inactivity: A Coordinated Approach, setting out how cycling and walking will contribute to the Government’s work to ensure a physical activity legacy from the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games.
Rail and strategic roads are national networks; local roads are just that—local. Of course, where cycling and walking is integrated with these national networks, such as through station parking or providing safer cycling facilities on the strategic road network, I would expect the Government to be involved. I believe that through the cycle rail programme, and the programme to cycle-proof the strategic road network, the Government are already making major inroads in this area. But surely a national cycling and walking imposition would go against the principles of localism, whereby we believe councils are best placed to know what their local communities need.
Of course there is a role for government to explore how we can best support local authorities and local businesses to deliver their ambitions for cycling and walking, and we have set out how we propose to do that in the draft cycling delivery plan, as we seek to create strategic partnerships with local government. I hope that the approach, which is reinforced by further announcements this week on devolution, has set out and demonstrated that we are committed to cycling and walking in addition to all other forms of transport. On that basis, I hope that the reassurance provided to your Lordships will enable them not to press the amendment with the new clause.
Baroness Kramer
“Part 1APowers of British Transport Police ForcePowers of British Transport Police Force
(1) In section 100 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (jurisdiction of transport police)—
(a) in subsection (2)(b), after “personal injury” insert “or damage to property”, and(b) omit subsection (3)(a).(2) In section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (duty to give information as to identity of driver etc in certain circumstances), in subsection (2)(a), after “chief officer of police” insert “or the Chief Constable of the British Transport Police Force”.”
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, this amendment concerns the powers of the British Transport Police and is tabled by the Government after further consideration of the amendments suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, to Section 100 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 and to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. We have accepted the broad principles behind the noble Lord’s amendments, but have made certain technical and drafting changes.
The first subsection of the proposed new clause concerns extending the British Transport Police’s jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. Since Committee, we have reflected further on the noble Lord’s suggestion and are persuaded that some of the current limitations set out in Section 100 of the 2001 Act may indeed compromise the British Transport Police’s effectiveness and impact on interoperability with the territorial police forces. As a result, we agree that there is merit in removing the requirement for BTP officers to either be in uniform or able to produce a warrant card in order to be able to act beyond their core railway jurisdiction where there is an immediate need to do so and they are acting on their own initiative.
That would permit BTP officers to act on their own initiative in any police area in England and Wales when in plain clothes and without producing a warrant card, subject to any limitations placed on them under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, where they have reasonable grounds to suspect a person of having committed an offence, being in the course of committing or being about to commit an offence, or where they have reasonable grounds to believe that they need to act in order to save a life or to prevent or minimise personal injury. In other words, it would ensure that a BTP officer is able to act whenever immediate intervention is required, whether on duty or not, and regardless of the officer’s regular jurisdiction.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 53A, which is in my name and the names of the noble Lords, Lord Ramsbotham, Lord Bradshaw and Lord Jenkin of Roding, whom I am delighted to see in his place at this late hour, I shall speak also to the other amendments in this group, which were tabled by the Minister and by the same group of four of us.
I start by expressing my very genuine thanks to the Minister for listening so closely to the arguments which were put forward in Grand Committee and for accepting the principle that the Infrastructure Bill is an appropriate vehicle to put right the anomalies surrounding the jurisdiction and powers of the British Transport Police. That is why I was happy to add my name to her Amendment 53. I shall not repeat the arguments that I made in Committee on 8 July, not least because the Minister has accepted many of those points.
However, there remains the one unresolved issue, to which the Minister referred, and that concerns Section 100(3)(b) of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. The Minister said that she wants to keep that in being and the purpose of our amendment is to take it out. In effect, subsection (3)(b) states that when a BTP officer is off-jurisdiction he or she has to decide whether to act and use the power of arrest. That involves a judgment call—indeed, the Minister used those words. This aspect has been addressed very directly by the chair of the British Transport Police Authority, Millie Banerjee, who wrote to the Minister about subsection (3)(b) last Friday. She wrote:
“This subsection requires BTP officers to work through a complex legal test, often in quick time, which can result in uncertainty, challenge and delays in responding to the public.
I illustrate the problem with subsection (3)(b) with a practical example on metal theft. BTP is the ACPO Lead Force for metal theft and officers regularly conduct visits to scrap metal dealers’ yards, which are outwith BTP jurisdiction, to inspect their record keeping. This enforcement activity has a proven deterrent and detection function which has been a critical factor in the substantial reductions in metal theft crime on the railways and other sectors across the UK.
Although BTP officers exploit intelligence to target their visits, there will often be an absence of specific grounds to suspect that stolen railway metal will be at the yard. In the strictest sense of the current legislation, under subsection (3)(b), BTP officers should arguably call upon local Home Office colleagues to attend the yard and exercise any relevant powers. This would be duplication of effort and is hard to justify to a public who understand the pressure on police resources. In reality BTP officers exercise the relevant powers but are having to make their action fit the complex provisions of this subsection. This is not in the view of the Authority satisfactory and introduces risk of legal challenge where none should exist. It is to the detriment of the fight against metal theft”.
The Minister is apparently concerned that if this provision were removed the BTP would go off-piste, as it were, and not dedicate their time to railway duties. That is simply not true. Indeed, Ms Banerjee answers that point directly:
“Should you feel able to support the removal of subsection (3)(b) I can allay any fears that BTP will stray from its clear focus on the railways. Chief Constable Paul Crowther has committed to reducing crime and disruption on the railways by 20% by 2019. This focus, reinforced by the oversight of the Authority and the requirement to satisfy BTP stakeholders, will ensure that strong control will be exercised with regard to any wider jurisdictional power granted for BTP”.
Very similar points have been made in letters and e-mails to me from Dame Shirley Pearce and Chief Constable Alex Marshall, the chair and chief executive officer respectively of the College of Policing, and by Roger Randall, the general secretary of the British Transport Police Federation. They all say that our original amendment should be supported because it removes the whole of Section 100(3) of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. Dame Shirley Pearce, in her letter to me, says:
“The general public expect the police to act and behave consistently and to work to consistently high standards. It is in the public interest that a parity is sought in the way in which police officers are able to discharge their duties and that, wherever practical, obstacles to consistency are identified and removed”.
We know that legal challenges are occasionally made on the issue of jurisdiction. I shall share with your Lordships an extraordinary case from Scotland. On 21 May 2011, there was a disturbance—a fight—at a car boot sale in the car park of a primary school in Glasgow. A BTP sergeant, who was off-duty and not carrying his warrant card, happened to be there and made an arrest for breach of the peace. The arrested person made a legal challenge stating that it was an unlawful arrest because the officer did not have his warrant card on him. BTP had to pay £1,000 in damages and £240 in costs—not a good use of public money when all the officer was doing was acting in the public interest and conscientiously doing his duty when not on jurisdiction.
In conclusion, I am genuinely grateful to the Minister for moving such a long distance since we debated this in Grand Committee. Indeed, her amendment relating to level crossings in Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act is an improvement on ours, since it does not restrict the wording to railway offences. This is good news because road traffic offences occur on service roads and railway property and it is important for the BTP to deal with offences such as drink-driving or dangerous driving on those roads. Our only area of disagreement is subsection (3). I urge the Minister, please, to take account of the views of Members in all parts of this House, of the chair of the British Transport Police Authority, of the chair and chief executive officer of the College of Policing and of the general secretary of the BTP Federation, and agree with our amendment to remove it. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding (Con)
I echo the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, in my thanks to the Minister for having gone so far to meet the case made very forcefully in Committee last July. As I said briefly then—I shall not be any longer tonight, I assure the House—I found the arguments that the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, advanced on that occasion to be absolutely incontrovertible. Like him, I am disappointed that the Minister has not gone the whole way.
I listened with great care to what the Minister said about why the Government have found it necessary to retain those restrictions, as they indeed are, on the British Transport Police’s activities in Section 100(3)(b) of the 2001 Act. Frankly, I find the suggestion that a British Transport Police officer will somehow be distracted from his primary duty of policing the railways because he finds it more exciting to do things, as it were, off his main beat to be a frivolous argument. I am sorry to sound a bit condemnatory, but I simply cannot see how it could conceivably happen.
I have not seen any of the correspondence that the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, has had and from which he quoted a few moments ago. However, one of those letters made it absolutely clear that the writer, a very senior officer in the British Transport Police, regarded this as so unlikely that it ought not to be seriously considered. That is exactly my view and I am very sorry to hear my noble friend advance that as an argument.
One knows that behind this is the long-standing argument between my noble friend’s department and the Home Office, which is responsible for the constables in the rest of the country, except of course in London. However, to try to compromise with that department on this issue is something that no noble Lord in this House or Member of Parliament in another place would feel was reasonable. For that reason, I very much hope that my noble friend—I recognise that we are not going to vote tonight; it would be a slightly weird Division—will reconsider this between now and Third Reading and bring forward another amendment, or, as the Bill was first introduced in this House, consider with her colleagues whether she might put this nonsense right in another place. Having got this far with something for which Parliament has argued and waited over many years, falling at the last fence would be very sad indeed. I beg my noble friend to recognise that her argument does not carry much weight and she should face up to the Home Secretary and say, “I’m sorry, we are going the whole way. We are going to repeal paragraph (b) also”.
Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)
My Lords, I will be brief because the two speeches from my noble friend Lord Faulkner and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, on the noble Baroness’s own Benches have established a strong case. Of course we all appreciate the strenuous efforts that have been made to meet the points made so forcefully in Committee, but it seems clear that the Government’s reservation is ill founded and the Minister ought to give an undertaking to the House that she will make every effort prior to Third Reading to ensure that we finally wrap this matter up.
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, I point out to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, that his Government failed to change any of these clauses and we are now getting to grips with a long-standing issue.
I first pick up on the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, who described a case that obviously outraged the House. That is exactly a situation that can no longer stand, given the amendments that the Government are bringing forward. An officer would not be in the position in which, in the absence of a warrant card, he would be vulnerable. The amendments that we have brought forward would precisely deal with that issue for an officer in plain clothes using a warrant card who was attempting to prevent an injury. That incident is clearly covered.
I suppose that I have been in the department for only a year, but I am conscious of the constant attempts to raid the BTP for many other services, and the view of a lot of the forces across the country that the BTP ought to be an available resource. We are absolutely clear that changing the language in the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, suggested would make this a far easier task. It is crucial for the future of rail transport that there is a genuinely dedicated force. I point out again that it is paid for by the railway industry, which adds to its concern that its force would be available to operate in any neighbourhood on any issue. I ask it to make a judgment; police forces make judgments the whole time, and the judgment that we are asking the force to make is well within the scope of its competence on the few such occasions that arise, without the general change that has been requested. I think we have gone as far as we can on this and I also ask your Lordships to rethink the position they are taking, because it is genuinely important that we keep the British Transport Police dedicated to the railways in the way that it is at present.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester
My Lords, I naturally accept the Minister’s point. Nobody is a greater defender of the BTP’s role in policing our railways than I am. For her to say that none of this was undertaken during the years of the previous Government is a bit unfair to those of us who have been raising the issue of the role and jurisdiction of the BTP since, in my case, 2001. Putting that to one side, the officer in the punch-up in the school playground would still have had to make the judgment call required in subsection (3)(b). A clever lawyer could easily say he acted without thinking properly. That would not have applied to any other officer and subsection (3)(b) is unacceptable because it treats BTP officers differently from civil police officers and puts them on a different level. As public policy, that is not in anybody’s interest.
I am obviously not going to invite the House to come to a decision on this tonight and I will ask permission to withdraw the amendment to the Government’s amendment. However, I very much reinforce the arguments made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding—I thank him for them—which were very persuasive, particularly in suggesting to the Minister that she might use the few weeks between now and Third Reading to consider whether the Government can come back.
There is one other matter to which I did not refer in my speech because I was a little taken aback by what the Minister said in hers in relation to Scotland and its attitude to the Bill. Will she be kind enough to write to me about that decision, which I had not heard about before and which came as a bit of a bombshell tonight? Could she explain what that piece of legislation means in terms of BTP operation in Scotland? Obviously, the law relating to level crossings is fine and we have no disagreement on that. However, it strikes me as very odd indeed that Scotland may not be willing to accept such a simple change as the one we are proposing.
In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Kramer
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, this group of government amendments addresses concerns expressed in Grand Committee and by stakeholders regarding the scope of these provisions and the definitions used in the new Schedule 9A. Concern was expressed that the scope of these provisions extended beyond non-native species to include eight native species that are listed in Part 1 of Schedule 9 to the existing Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, as well as former native species such as the wolf, lynx, brown bear or beaver. There was also concern expressed around the definitions used in the new schedule, which would have categorised those eight native species and former native species as non-native.
In response to these concerns, we have decided to make a number of changes to clarify the scope and definitions. First, we are proposing to remove entirely from the scope of the new provisions the eight native species listed in Part 1 of Schedule 9 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Although it was never our intention to use these provisions for these species, these changes will make this clear. Secondly, our proposed changes will clarify that former native species—species which were once present in this country but which are or have been absent for a period—should be categorised differently from non-native species for the purposes of these provisions. We are, therefore, making structural changes to the new schedule to make it clear that these species are distinct from non-native species.
Thirdly, we are limiting the scope of the provisions so that the powers can be applied to these former native species only when they have been reintroduced into the wild unlawfully, without the appropriate licence from Natural England or Natural Resources Wales. We recognise that in some circumstances reintroductions can be merited and desirable. Our amendments will mean that where these animals have been reintroduced lawfully following full consideration of their likely impacts by the licensing authority, those animals are out of scope of these powers.
To achieve these aims, we have had to table a number of government amendments. I hope that your Lordships recognise that these changes result from our desire to respond positively to issues raised during Grand Committee and by stakeholders. We have been working closely and constructively with stakeholders to refine the provisions.
I turn to the amendments themselves. The purpose of Amendment 56 is to remove references in the overview section of Schedule 9A that suggest that these measures relate only to invasive non-native species. This and later amendments clarify that these provisions extend to former natives where they have been unlawfully introduced. Amendment 57 clarifies in the overview section that these provisions apply to two distinct groups—invasive non-native species and former natives.
We are describing former natives in the schedule—I am using plain English but we are being very careful with the wording in the document—as,
“a species of animal that is no longer normally present in Great Britain”.
This is in response to stakeholder concerns that the term “former native” might send out an unhelpful signal about the status of native species that have been lost to Great Britain, particularly given international obligations requiring us to consider the reintroduction of these species.
Amendment 58 removes the current definition of “non-native” in the new schedule based on Section 14 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. It replaces it with one which clarifies that a non-native species is one whose natural range does not include Great Britain or such a species which is present here only having been introduced by human activity. This clarifies that former native species are not caught by this definition as their natural range includes Great Britain, even though they may have ceased to be normally present.
Amendment 61 provides the definition of a former native, which is a species either listed in Part 1B of Schedule 9 or whose natural range includes Great Britain, although the species has ceased to be ordinarily resident. Part 1B is a new part of Schedule 9 and will include reintroduced former natives now considered to be resident whose release into the wild still requires consideration and regulation. Only wild boar currently falls into this category, although it is possible that other species could be added to this list in the future, such as the European beaver.
Amendments 62, 63, 64 and 77 are consequential amendments. For simplicity, the new schedule would now refer to “species” rather than copying out the definitions of the two categories of species—non-native and former native.
Amendments 65 and 67 clarify that species control agreements and orders can be entered into where an environmental authority considers that either an invasive non-native species or an unlawfully released former native is present on the premises. As currently drafted, the schedule refers only to invasive non-native species.
Amendments 66 and 71 limit the making of an agreement or order in relation to former native animals to those which are present on premises without the appropriate licence from Natural England or Natural Resources Wales. This means that, where former natives have been reintroduced lawfully following full consideration of their likely impacts by the licensing authority, those animals are out of scope of these powers.
These amendments also introduce an additional requirement that the environmental authority must satisfy before seeking to enter into an agreement or order in relation to former natives. This is that the environmental authority must be satisfied that there is no appropriate alternative way of addressing the adverse impact from the animals. This will provide an additional check on the use of these powers in regard to this category of species.
Amendment 84 separates Part 1 of Schedule 9 into three distinct categories of species—native, former native and non-native. This allows us to remove all native species entirely from these provisions and ensures that they may be applied to former natives only where they are present on premises without the necessary licence. Section 14 of the 1981 Act will continue to apply to all these species and therefore a licence will still be required for their release into the wild.
Amendment 86 serves two purposes. First, it makes consequential changes to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 by amending Sections 14 and 22 so that they both now additionally refer to the new Parts 1A and 1B of Schedule 9. Secondly, Amendment 86 addresses an anomaly in the titles to the already existing Sections 14ZA and 14ZB of the 1981 Act, which deal with the ban on the sale of certain species and codes of practice respectively. Both titles currently refer only to “invasive non-native species”, but technically the scope of both sections already extends beyond this category of species to both former natives and those native species on Schedule 9. The changes that we propose to the titles clarify this point.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, I speak to Amendments 59 and 60, and to indicate to the Minister that we support the clause but that there are a few issues that we wish to take further. We recognise the extent to which the Minister has responded to the contributions that were made in Committee about these issues. The Bill is much better drafted as a result of her amendments—or will have been better drafted after her amendments have been accepted—than it was when we saw it in Committee. We acknowledge the changes in the Government’s position on the meaning of “native” and “non-native”, and we thank the Minister for taking our comments in Committee on board on this important issue.
The current language in the Bill could have significant adverse effects on biodiversity. We recognise the necessity to protect against invasive and non-native species, but it is also important that we see the extent to which biodiversity is protected in a world where there are many restrictions and anxieties about the reduction in biodiversity. I am particularly concerned about the omission of certain species from the Bill and the fact that the Bill, as it stands, takes no account of the protection afforded to native species such as the beaver.
The habitats directive, which is an EU directive adopted in 1992 and is one of the EU’s two directives relating to wildlife and nature conservation, aims to protect some 220 habitats and approximately 1,000 species listed in the directive’s annexes. These are species and habitats considered to be of European interest, following criteria given in the directive. Article 12 of the directive states that all the species listed in its Annexe IV require strict protection in their natural range, and the species listed in this annexe include the European beaver. We are concerned that the Minister appears to give no recognition to this fact. There are growing concerns around the UK and Europe that the habitats directive is being undermined or is not being fully or properly implemented. Therefore, it is important to highlight the legal protection that it provides for particular species.
The amendments that the Government have put down are, of course, welcome, and I appreciate the extent to which the Minister has listened to the work of the Committee. However, they introduce a possibility that native species can be placed on a list of difficult animals and so can receive species control orders. For example, the absence of native species such as the beaver from Part 1A is worrying, as is the inclusion of the wild boar in Part 1B. Wild boar is clearly now being re-established as a significant species in the United Kingdom, and I want to make the case with regard to the beaver. Amendment 85 adds beavers to the list of native animals. We are aware that some consider the beaver to be recently introduced, but archaeologists have discovered remains of beavers that go back over a considerable period of time. It is true that they largely died out 500 years ago, although the most recent known reference is in the late 18th century. Within Great Britain, there are currently several populations of beavers, one in Devon and two separate populations in Scotland. One of those, in Argyll, is an official trial reintroduction, which is due to conclude in 2015. The other two are made up of beavers that have likely escaped from wildlife centres and begun to breed.
In 2011, Scottish Natural Heritage estimated that there were at least 39 groups of beavers in the River Tay area and they are reportedly spreading into other river systems. It is therefore clear that beavers are already living wild in the UK in significant numbers and are well established in this country. To date, there have been 157 beaver reintroductions throughout Europe and there are now free-living populations in around 30 European countries, including our neighbours the Netherlands, Belgium, France and Denmark.
As it currently stands, the Bill would classify beavers are “not ordinarily resident” and would allow them to be controlled by techniques aimed at invasive species. This takes no account of the fact that beavers are a native component of British wildlife, as I have sought to demonstrate, and I hope that the Minister will respond to those points when she comes to sum up.
Finally, on our Amendment 80, we are concerned about,
“the standards of animal welfare required when carrying out species control agreements and orders”.
We recognise that the Minister has moved a great way to accepting that definition and I record our appreciation of that point at this late juncture.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Davies, I thank the Government for the large number of amendments and the movement that has been secured by the Minister and civil servants since we met in Grand Committee. We are all in support of the Government’s intention to deal with the problem of non-native invasive species, but we were concerned about some of the possibly unintended but nevertheless serious consequences of some of the wording around non-native. I will not repeat the arguments because the time is late, but I am particularly pleased that the Government have, through these amendments, addressed those particular issues of definition and that the native species that were wrongly classified as non-natives have been moved into a separate section.
However, another area of concern was the potential for this legislation to impact on future reintroductions of formerly native species that could have important benefits for biodiversity targets and people’s experience and appreciation of nature. We are all opposed to unlicensed reintroductions but question marks still remain over the ability of control orders to apply, for example, to formerly extinct animals that naturally recolonise here. I accept that getting definitions to cover all these potentialities is extremely difficult and it may be asking too much for the Bill to cope with that. Therefore, it was extremely reassuring in Committee to hear the Minister say that control orders would be looked at on a case-by-case basis. However, it is equally key that the code of practice is used to set out the intent of the limited use of control orders. I am therefore pleased that the Government have moved to ensure full public consultation on the code of practice. The opportunity to give further reassurances about the use of control orders could be done by more expansively setting out their proposed limited use therein.
I have a question about Amendments 84 and 85, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham. Proposed new Part 1B amends Schedule 9 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act to include animals no longer normally present. The addition by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, of the beaver prompts me to ask the Minister, like him, what criteria the department are using to select just wild boar to be included in the proposed new Part 1B. I invite the Minister to say a few more words in her summing up about the criteria that would be used to assess any other species that might be added. As she said, the beaver might be one of those. It is important that we are clear about the criteria before we move forward.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I add my thanks to the Minister for her amendments, which have removed some of the anomalies that resulted from the original drafting. I commend the Government for the principle of tackling in legislation, at long last, the issue of invasive non-native species—something that has been called for for many years. We are nearly there but it does need some further improvement. However, I join the barn owls, red kites and corncrakes in thanking the Minister for the progress made so far.
However, in common with many other noble Lords tonight, I am rather unclear about the Government’s intentions as other changes created by the new drafting seem to have some adverse aspects. They stem, for the most part, from the move from the original intention of this clause in the Bill as it was first drafted, which was to address the problem of invasive non-native species. That was very much stressed in the Explanatory Notes. However, the debate in Committee and the amendments as they have come forward seem to indicate that the clause is now seen as being wider than its original intent of simply addressing invasive non-native species, and that it could include the control of some species that I would regard as de facto native. The crux of this is the tricky new category of “no longer normally present”.
If I understand it correctly, the effect of the amendment would mean that it would still be possible to apply control orders to native species. This might be appropriate for those unlicensed reintroductions that have proven problematic in some circumstances, but the clause rather goes beyond that. It specifically introduces, in new Part 1B of Schedule 9 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act, the category of species not normally present, into which boar has been placed. I agree with other noble Lords that we need some clarity about why boar was selected, and what criteria would be used were other species to be added to this part of the schedule in the future.
We also have to be mindful of EU legislation. It is important to understand how this provision would sit with Article 12 of the habitats directive, which gives special protections to species within their natural range, listed in Annex IV, regardless of how they arrive there. I ask whether it is really the Government’s wish to apply control orders to animals that have formerly been present in Great Britain and have naturally recolonised this country. A consequence of the “no longer normally present” definition could be that an animal that has been extinct in Great Britain but starts to recolonise the country could be subject to a species control order.
Even though it is this time of night, I will briefly commend the spirited support for the beaver by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham. The beaver is an excellent creature, which one could have said was no longer normally present for a while, but it appears to be very much present and breeding like beavers at the moment. I will correct some of the misapprehensions that arose in discussions about the beaver in Committee. The European beaver is extremely different from the North American beaver. It does not build whacking great dams and it does not create floods. In fact, it is one of the most perfect managers of mosaics and beautiful habitats that I have ever seen. If noble Lords get a chance to go and see a habitat as managed by a European beaver in Scotland or, indeed, any of the other places where it is popping up and breeding well, do go. It is a delight. Certainly, I cannot imagine the circumstances in which a vegetarian animal, which creates no damage, could possibly ever be subject to a control order.
To conclude, I am grateful that the clause is now better, but a little extra push could get us all the way. In particular, I urge the Minister, as well as answering my points, to tell the House why the Government want to extend the purpose of the clause beyond invasive non-native species and what they are trying to achieve through the definition of “no longer normally present”.
I hope that the Government will address those issues; if not now, when the Bill proceeds to the other place.
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, I have a fairly lengthy note here, so I will try to abbreviate it by cutting to the chase. The issue that seems to be at the heart of the various comments made is whether there should be no constraint at all on the reintroduction of species that are—let us use the plain English—formerly native. We are careful in the Bill to use a term that works better at international level, but it is two sentences long.
Our concern here is that such species should be reintroduced, if they are, in an orderly way, through the process established by Natural England and Natural Resources Wales, which provides for a licensing system. One reason why our wild boar are the only creature on Schedule 9 is that, although obviously they once lived extensively across these islands, they disappeared due to hunting and were re-established in the wild as a result of unlawful releases. They did not come by themselves, so we are putting them into the category of formerly native.
They are a good example, because there are places where wild boar may be entirely appropriate, and Natural England can make that judgment. There will be other parts of the country where there might be a decision that it is not appropriate to reintroduce them for a whole variety of reasons. Beaver falls into the same category in many ways. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, described the beaver as an entirely amiable creature. Unfortunately, some beavers carry a potentially deadly zoonotic disease known as EM. Those Members of this House who have seen what that can do to other animals and to people will recognise that it is important to have an assurance that we are not bringing that disease into this country.
There is a proper process for lawful reintroduction. An application for their reintroduction into the River Otter in Devon has just been submitted to Natural England by the Devon Wildlife Trust. That is awaiting a decision. There was mention of the trial reintroduction currently under way in Scotland. There is a mechanism that ensures that we can bring creatures back in such a way that we are sure that it is appropriate.
I just point out that if I were to follow through with the generic language that has been requested, there would be no limit on bringing back lynx, bear and wolves. Those creatures might be appropriately brought back under certain circumstances, but I would think that to be able to bring them back freely would strike terror into the hearts of most ordinary people. There is an appropriate place for control orders, used in conjunction with the existing structure for licensing reintroduction. That is what we have attempted to do through all the various juggling of schedules: to ensure that we distinguish invasive non-native species. I think that there is no dispute that the control order should apply there. Where we have a species that is formerly native, it should go through the appropriate process where bodies can make the appropriate judgment for reintroduction. Brought in lawfully, control orders would not apply. That is the thinking behind the provision. I think that it has now being broadly accepted that that is a rational way to proceed.
For those reasons, I ask that your Lordships support the government amendments and do not press the other amendments.
Baroness Kramer
“( ) A species control agreement or species control order may relate to—
(a) an invasive non-native species of animal or plant, or(b) a species of animal that is no longer normally present in Great Britain.This is subject to the other provisions of this Schedule.”
The Lord Speaker (Baroness D'Souza)
I should perhaps warn your Lordships that if Amendment 58 is agreed to I cannot call Amendment 59 by reason of pre-emption.
Amendment 58
Baroness Kramer
(i) whose natural range does not include any part of Great Britain, and
(ii) which has been introduced into Great Britain or is present in Great Britain because of other human activity.”
Baroness Kramer
“Species that are no longer normally present in Great Britain2A A species of animal is “no longer normally present in Great Britain” if—
(a) it is a species listed in Part 1B of Schedule 9, or(b) it is a species—(i) whose natural range includes all or any part of Great Britain, and(ii) which has ceased to be ordinarily resident in, or a regular visitor to, Great Britain in a wild state.”
(a) an invasive non-native species, or(b) a species of animal that is no longer normally present in Great Britain.”
“( ) Before entering into a species control agreement relating to animals of a species that is no longer normally present in Great Britain, the environmental authority must also be satisfied that—
(a) the animals are present on the premises otherwise than under and in accordance with the terms of a licence under section 16(4)(c),(b) the animals on the premises are having a significant adverse impact on—(i) biodiversity,(ii) other environmental interests, or(iii) social or economic interests, and(c) there is no appropriate alternative way of obviating that impact.”
(i) an invasive non-native species, or(ii) a species of animal that is no longer normally present in Great Britain, and”
“( ) Before making a species control order relating to animals of a species that is no longer normally present in Great Britain, the environmental authority must also be satisfied that—
(a) the animals are present on the premises otherwise than under and in accordance with the terms of a licence under section 16(4)(c),(b) the animals on the premises are having a significant adverse impact on—(i) biodiversity,(ii) other environmental interests, or (iii) social or economic interests, and(c) there is no appropriate alternative way of obviating that impact.”
Baroness Kramer
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, I apologise. The late hour is completely turning my brain to pulp and it was not that great to begin with.
To address the issues raised in Grand Committee we have tabled four amendments in respect of the English and Welsh codes of practice that accompany the provisions. Amendments 79 and 82 ensure that the codes of practice must set out standards of animal welfare to be applied in respect of species control operations under agreements or orders. Amendments 81 and 83 ensure that a public consultation on the codes of practice will be carried out before they are issued. As currently drafted, only the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers are required to consult the environmental authorities.
Additionally, we wish to make four minor and technical amendments. As currently drafted, where an owner appeals against an order, they are not required to carry out any operations specified in that order until the appeal is finally determined by the tribunal. Amendment 72 clarifies that where appeals are brought, the period of suspension of the need to carry out operations will come to an end when the appeal is determined by the tribunal, or the owner withdraws the appeal. As currently drafted, there is no reference to withdrawing an appeal.
Amendment 73 removes the time limit for making an appeal to the First-tier Tribunal, against an order, from this legislation. Time limits are governed by the tribunal’s statutory procedure rules, so it is not appropriate for these to be duplicated in these provisions. We can, however, set out the time limit that applies in the codes of practice to provide clarification for owners.
The financial penalty for offences under these provisions was drafted on the assumption that Section 85 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, which provides for an unlimited fine, would come into force before these provisions would be commenced. It is now uncertain that this will be case. Amendment 76 therefore clarifies that where an offence has been committed, the current penalty, a fine not exceeding £40,000, will apply until Section 85 is commenced. Amendment 78 clarifies that the Secretary of State and the Welsh Ministers may make joint or separate arrangements for the payment of compensation to an owner. This is to ensure clarity on this issue, should it arise.
Baroness Parminter
My Lords, on behalf of the House, though there is almost no one here to hear it, I thank the Minister and civil servants for listening to those of us in Grand Committee who argued particularly on two issues. First, this is a controversial subject. As I said earlier, we all agree that we need to control non-native invasive species, but the range of views among stakeholders is controversial. That the code of practice will be open to full public consultation, which was not in the original Bill, is a very welcome initiative. Equally, I am grateful that Peers had the opportunity to see the draft of those codes of practice before Report. That was extremely helpful.
Secondly, the other issue to which the noble Lord, Lord Davies, referred earlier is the fact that the Bill now rightly includes humane standards of dispatch for any animals which are subject to control orders. That was a large oversight which has been rightly rectified. If animals are going to be controlled, as some will have to be, it should be done with minimum suffering, pain and distress. It is to the credit of this coalition Government that that has been included.
Lord Teverson
I add my congratulations. I contributed to this debate in Grand Committee. It is good to see that a great deal of listening has taken place and some practical action has occurred. I am impressed that the Minister is also such an expert on areas such as non-native invasive species. The fact that a lot of these issues have been resolved is a good example of how government can work with the House to resolve important issues such as this one. Given globalisation, this area will grow in importance as the years go on. It is important that we get it right now. I congratulate the Minister on what she has managed to achieve.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, the Minister might have expected the odd congratulation from her own supportive Benches, although whether she would get the same commendation after Christmas as we get closer to the general election is a different matter altogether. However, from these Benches I also congratulate the Minister on the extent to which she listened and responded to the points made in Committee. This is one of the few occasions on which I have tabled an amendment and then seen the Government table an amendment which is as close to being identical as one could have. Therefore, talk about taking the wind out of my sails—I was actually breathless and unable to carry on with my comments. I end on that, I hope, helpful point.
Lord Teverson
We on these Benches have great admiration for the work that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, has done on this part of the Bill. He made excellent speeches in Grand Committee.
Baroness Kramer
“Notice of compliance15A Where an environmental authority considers that an owner of premises has complied with all the requirements in a species control order to carry out species control operations, the authority must give the owner notice to that effect.”
“(1B) Sub-paragraphs (2) to (4) apply if, after a week after giving notice under sub-paragraph (1A), the authority considers that the owner has still not carried out the species control operation in the way specified in the order.”
( ) standards of animal welfare to be met in connection with species control agreements and orders.”
Baroness Kramer
( ) standards of animal welfare to be met in connection with species control agreements and orders.”
Baroness Kramer
“Native and non-native species etc
(1) Schedule 9 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (animals and plants to which section 14 of that Act applies) is amended as follows.
(2) In the heading to Part 1, at the beginning insert “Non-native”.
(3) In Part 1, omit the entries relating to the wild boar, capercaillie, chough, corncrake, common crane, white-tailed eagle, goshawk, red kite and barn owl.
(4) After Part 1 insert—
“Part IANative animals
Common name | Scientific name |
|---|---|
Capercaillie | Tetrao urogallus |
Chough | Pyrrhocorax pyrrhocorax |
Corncrake | Crex crex |
Crane, Common | Grus grus |
Eagle, White-tailed | Haliaetus albicilla |
Goshawk | Accipiter gentilis |
Kite, Red | Milvus milvus |
Owl, Barn | Tyto alba”. |
“Part IBAnimals no longer normally present
Common name | Scientific name |
|---|---|
Boar, Wild | Sus Scrofa.”” |
Baroness Kramer
“Species control agreements and orders: supplementary
(1) The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 14 (introduction of new species etc), in subsection (1)(b), after “Part I” insert “, IA or IB”.
(3) In the heading to section 14ZA (sale etc of invasive non-native species), for “invasive non-native species” substitute “certain animals and plants included in Schedule 9”.
(4) In the heading to section 14ZB (codes of practice in connection with invasive non-native species), for “invasive non-native species” substitute “species which are non-native or included in Schedule 9”.
(5) In section 22 (power to vary Schedules), in subsection (5)(a), after “Part I” insert “, IA or IB”.”