Grand Committee
Financial Services and Markets Bill
Monday 13th March 2023
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 View all Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 80-VIII Eighth marshalled list for Grand Committee - (9 Mar 2023)
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Bull) (CB)
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.
Amendment 197
Lord Sharkey
“Duty of the FCA with regard to interest rates for mortgage prisoners
After section 137FD of FSMA 2000 insert—
“137FE FCA general rules: interest rate for mortgage prisoners
(1) The FCA must make general rules requiring authorised persons involved in regulated mortgage lending and regulated mortgage administration to introduce a cap on the standard variable rates charged to mortgage prisoners and to ensure that mortgage prisoners can access new fixed interest rate deals at an interest rate equal to or lower than an interest rate specified by the FCA.(2) In subsection (1)—“mortgage prisoner” means a consumer who cannot switch to a different lender because of their characteristics and has a regulated mortgage contract with one of the following types of firms—(a) inactive lenders, or firms authorised for mortgage lending that are no longer lending, and(b) unregulated entities, or firms not authorised for mortgage lending and which contract with a regulated firm to undertake the regulated activity of mortgage administration;“new fixed interest rate deals” means the ability for the consumer to fix the rate of interest payable on a regulated mortgage contract for periods of 2 years and 5 years;“standard variable rate” means the reversion rate which is a variable rate of interest charged under the regulated mortgage contract after the end of any initial introductory deal.(3) The general rules made under subsection (1) must set the level of the cap on the standard variable rate at a level no more than 2 percentage points above the Bank of England base rate.(4) The general rules made under subsection (1) must make new fixed interest rate deals available to mortgage prisoners who—(a) are up to date with payments or have aggregate arrears of no more than one monthly payment in the past 12 months,(b) have a remaining term of 2 years or more,(c) have an outstanding loan amount of at least £10,000, and(d) have not received consent to let the property. (5) When specifying the interest rates for new fixed interest rate deals required by subsection (1) the FCA must specify rates for a range of loan-to-valuation ratios taking into account the average 2-year and 5-year fixed rates available to existing customers of active lenders through product transfers.(6) The FCA must ensure any rules that it is required to make as a result of subsection (1) are made no later than six months after this Act is passed.””Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would require the FCA to introduce a cap on the Standard Variable Rates charged to mortgage prisoners and, under specified circumstances, ensure their access to fixed rate interest deals.
Lord Sharkey (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as co-chair of the APPG on Mortgage Prisoners. I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, for adding his name to my Amendment 197, which is a probing amendment to allow debate on the issue of mortgage prisoners. There are getting on for 200,000 mortgage prisoners in the UK, who are trapped with their current lenders. For eight years or so they have paid very high standard variable rates, now of around 7%, 8% or even more.
Mortgage prisoners exist because the Government sold their mortgages to vulture funds, which have been increasing their standard variable interest rates and refusing to offer mortgage prisoners new deals or access to fixed rates. The harm being caused to these mortgage prisoners is the direct responsibility of the Government; when the time came for the mortgages of Northern Rock and Bradford & Bingley customers to be sold back to the private sector, the Government could have pursued an approach that ensured that these customers were protected. They could have sold them to active lenders or secured a cast-iron commitment from purchasers to offer these customers new deals.
The risk to these customers was clearly identified. In January 2016, the noble Lord, Lord McFall, wrote to the Treasury, UK Asset Resolution and the FCA to highlight that many of those affected by the sales were mortgage prisoners who would be unable to switch lender. He warned:
“Given the prospect of rising interest rates it is important that all mortgage customers are given the opportunity to achieve certainty over their payments by accessing a fixed rate. I am concerned that some customers affected by these mortgage sales … will not be offered reasonable fixed mortgage rates.”
UKAR responded that, in returning these mortgages to the private sector,
“the option to be offered new deals, extra lending and fixed rates should become available”.
However, this requirement was not written into the contract when mortgages were sold to the vulture fund Cerberus, with the BBC reporting that UKAR is now claiming to have been misled by it.
Consumer champion Martin Lewis, about whose work I will have more to say in a moment, lays the responsibility for the treatment of mortgage prisoners with the Government. He said that they have
“sold these loans to professional debt buyers that don’t offer mortgages, and left these people with these types of mortgages that have been too expensive and crippled their finances and destroyed their wellbeing.”
The Government are directly responsible; they chose to sell the mortgages to vulture funds.
In 2021, the House of Lords passed an amendment that would have capped standard variable rates for mortgage prisoners. This would have provided immediate, practical help for the 200,000 mortgage prisoners and their families. When the Government rejected this amendment in the Commons in April 2021, the Minister claimed that
“the Government and FCA have undertaken significant work in this area to create additional options that make switching into the active market easier for some borrowers.”—[Official Report, Commons, 26/4/21; col. 85.]
The FCA published an update in November 2021; this review confirmed that its interventions have, so far, had only a tiny impact. Only 2,200 of the almost 200,000 mortgage prisoners have been able to switch, just over 1% of the total. It turned out that lenders had only a limited appetite to offer options to switch using the modified affordability test devised by the FCA.
The FCA and the Government show little understanding of how vulnerable many mortgage prisoners really are or what stress and financial hardship they have endured and continue to endure. They certainly have not done anything practical to help. All this misery and harm could have been prevented, but even now the Government still refuse to acknowledge their responsibility or provide any help. At the moment, they and the FCA propose no further action.
This is deeply unfair and more than slightly ironic. A recent LSE report found evidence that the Treasury has not only made back the cost of managing the sales of these mortgages but has made a £2.4 billion surplus. However, there has been one significant development. Last Wednesday, my co-chair of the APPG on Mortgage Prisoners, Seema Malhotra MP, and Martin Lewis, chaired a meeting in Parliament to examine and explain new research conducted by the LSE, generously funded by Martin Lewis. The Treasury and the FCA were in attendance. This research contains concrete and costed proposals for a solution to this long-standing and continuing injustice.
Martin Lewis told the meeting:
“This report lays out starkly that the state sold these borrowers into poverty, knowing it could cause them harm, and made billions doing it. The result has destroyed lives. People have been left in financial, physical and mental misery, exacerbated by the pandemic and cost of living crisis ripping through their already dire situations. When we put solutions to the Treasury in the past, it said it wanted to look at them, but couldn’t as they weren’t costed. Now, having fought tooth and nail to get some of the data needed from official institutions, it is costed.”
Therefore, there should be no more excuses. He went on:
“The Government has a moral and financial responsibility to mitigate some of the damage done. Mortgage prisoners are the forgotten victims of the financial crash. The banks were bailed out at the expense of these borrowers. I hope the Treasury lives up to its past promise to investigate at speed and uses this report as a springboard to find any and all solutions to free mortgage prisoners.”
The APPG has sent copies of the LSE report to the Treasury, the FCA and other interested parties.
Will the Minister and her Treasury colleagues meet the APPG and its supporters to discuss the solutions proposed in the LSE report? Can she arrange this meeting urgently—certainly well before Report? Thanks to the support, generosity and persistence of Martin Lewis, and the work of the LSE and the APPG, we now have a clear and costed plan finally to bring relief to the nearly 200,000 mortgage prisoners. There can be no excuse for further delay. If we cannot set a course to free these prisoners, we will want to return to the issue on Report. I beg to move.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to support Amendment 197, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, and to which I have added my name. I served on the former Services Sub-Committee of the former European Union Committee with the noble Lord and have been impressed by his accurate understanding of, and thoughtful approach to, this and other financial issues.
The noble Lord explained the reasons for his amendment with his customary clear logic. I will not take up the Committee’s time by repeating them. I particularly endorse the introduction of a cap of 2% over the standard variable rate for mortgage prisoners. UK Finance has identified 195,000 borrowers from inactive lenders, of whom 47,000 have been identified as mortgage prisoners.
I welcome the FCA’s recent review of this problem and its review of the effectiveness of its regulatory interventions to remove barriers to switching. Recently, only a small number of borrowers have been able to switch from an inactive lender to a new deal with an active lender. I share the FCA’s hope that more mortgage prisoners will be able to switch their mortgage and I hope that the Minister will support this amendment.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I rise briefly to offer Green support for this amendment and to agree entirely with everything that has been said thus far. I feel a sense of déjà vu all over again. I was just looking back at the comments I made in 2021, when, it is worth noting for the record, this issue of mortgage prisoners went to ping-pong: the House of Lords passed an amendment, and it went back and forth between the two Houses. Back then, we were talking about people suffering under high rates of 4% or 5%, and some were suffering with the vulture funds of 9%. As we have heard set out clearly, the situation has not improved but has got much worse, and we also have a cost of living crisis.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, noted that Martin Lewis is now involved in this, with his crucial supporting research. What a state our country is in when everyone can feel a great sense of relief and hope because someone who is, after all, only a private individual has stepped in where Parliament has failed. Surely this is the stage where Parliament—or the Government—can step up and rescue people trapped in often terrible situations through no fault of their own.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, I recall our debates on this subject in 2021. Indeed, I think the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, has tabled is word for word the amendment he tabled on Report during the passage of what became the Financial Services Act 2021. It will not surprise the noble Lord that familiarity with it has not made me any warmer to the amendment.
As the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, reminded us, mortgage prisoners derive from lending practices before the financial crisis. These mortgage borrowers were much more likely to have got a mortgage without proof of income or with an impaired credit history. They still have relatively high loan-to-value ratios, and they often have unsecured debt as well. Many of them have interest-only mortgages, with no repayment plan. Put simply, they typically have higher-risk characteristics than borrowers with active lenders.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, has correctly excluded 50,000 or so of the population of mortgage prisoners from his amendment, because they are in arrears or within the last 12 months of their mortgage term, but I think he intends the remaining 143,000 to benefit from the largesse provided by this amendment. This is notwithstanding that the FCA estimates that 66,000 of them could, in fact, switch to active lenders because the active lenders in the market have changed their risk appetite, with the encouragement of the FCA, and they would now be able to remortgage. I do not believe that it is right to legislate to give preferential financial terms to those who choose not to take advantage of the opportunities available to them in the market.
The FCA’s last review found that around 30,000 of the remaining 47,000 would be unlikely to benefit from switching, because if they did find a deal it would cost them more than the interest rates that they are currently paying. High-risk borrowers do not get the best rates in the market, however much they might wish to. Amendment 197 would give these borrowers a rate that did not reflect the market for them, and I do not believe that it is fair to give them a special advantage by legislating for them.
The FCA has proposed some practical steps to assist the remaining population, but it does not propose anything like that which is contained in Amendment 197. That is not surprising because the LSE in its earlier, independent study—I have yet to see the study that the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, referred to—concluded that market interventions were not justified and could cause markets harms.
We all have sympathy for those stuck with debt that they struggle to afford, but the problem is not confined to mortgage prisoners, and it is just not fair to single out this group of problem borrowers for special treatment. It is also an extraordinary departure from regulatory norms. The FCA does not tell lenders to whom they must lend money; that is not how regulation works. Under this amendment, the FCA would be telling lenders what their risk appetite should be, which raises big issues of moral hazard and fails to deal with the prudential consequences in terms of capital, on which the PRA is the arbiter.
Furthermore, the FCA is required to set interest rate caps, but only by reference to LTVs. This ignores the other key driver of interest rates—namely, the credit risk of the borrower. Whatever rate the FCA comes up with, it will be the wrong answer for some borrowers, and it would be plainly unfair if the FCA set the rate assuming high credit quality, because that is very likely to be at odds with the facts. In addition, requiring the standard variable rates to be no more than two percentage points above base rate ignores any evidence about the correct uplift for the particular type of loan and borrower characteristics, which can produce outcomes that do not reflect objective market realities. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, does not pursue this amendment, as he did in the 2021 Bill; it really does not make sense.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, I take issue with my noble friend, as I have spent most of my political life involved in housing. We have a situation in the country, which is relevant to this amendment, of huge pressure on local authorities to help families who are homeless. The numbers are going up every month at the moment, and this amendment would at least ensure provision for a small section of society—possibly younger people or single-parent families—who find themselves in a situation that is nothing to do with their own original arrangement with the mortgage lender. It is entirely appropriate for our society to say that there is a means of helping them in a transitory manner to get them settled.
The most worrying aspect is in proposed new paragraph (b), which the noble Lord highlighted. This is not a new problem but a growing one, with unregulated entities on the fringe of the mortgage market. Any of us who has done any work in this area knows that it is quite a difficult area to control, but the FCA has not got a handle on it yet and it needs to.
I am not going to say any more, but I very much hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will take this issue away, think about it and recognise that, if we do not take action, the local authorities where these people live will have even more pressure on them to find a home for the relevant family.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, I rise to say a word in support of my noble friend Lord Sharkey. There are some more generalised and wider issues around this problem. We have the situation quite often—in fact, it is perhaps the norm nowadays—that whoever extends credit, whether for a mortgage or another thing, is not necessarily the same organisation that ends up holding it later on. It may be securitised, sliced, diced and sold on, or it may be sold on to a vulture fund because they are in trouble. The same sort of thing has happened with student loans, which have essentially been sold to vulture companies.
This raises the issue of what the Government’s terms are when they are doing the selling. I fully understand that they say they have to get the best value for the taxpayer, or whatever it is, but you cannot have value for the taxpayer at the cost of usury on a minority, and that is the situation that has arisen. It could impact on some with student loans, if the pressure to pay is different from how it was when the loans were elsewhere.
I have two questions. First, what are the Government going to do along the lines outlined by my noble friend to assist mortgage prisoners? More generally, what are they going to do when looking at mortgage terms that allow it to be sold on to anybody without any safeguards and other types of selling on, whether in distress or otherwise, that likewise essentially dispense with any kind of consumer credit or similar kinds of protections?
I am sure the Minister will recall that when we were talking about bounce-back loans and we had to dispense with some consumer credit protections, I warned that we might get bad behaviour as a consequence. This is part of the same picture and why we have such protections there in the first place, yet nowadays they are being seriously circumvented.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I do not come to this debate with a predetermined position but to listen and take a view after we have looked at the circumstances and listened to the Minister’s response. I would value a copy of the report that the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, spoke about. I have a lot of sympathy for these individuals and note that their problems are undoubtedly exacerbated by—I do not know how to describe it—the Truss impact on loan rates in the UK, which must fall particularly heavily on those individuals. I await the Minister’s response.
Lord Harlech (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, for tabling this amendment, and all noble Lords for their contributions.
The Government have a great deal of sympathy for borrowers who are unable to switch their mortgage, and the Treasury has already worked extensively with regulators and industry to act where possible to support borrowers. For example, we have worked with the FCA to implement changes to its mortgage lending rules, removing the regulatory barrier that prevented some customers, who otherwise may have been able to switch, accessing new products.
However, we do not believe there are further practical and proportionate universal options than those already taken to reduce the rates paid by these consumers. Extensive work has been done to look into this issue, partly as a result of prior interest from this House, which has emphasised the complex and varied circumstances that consumers are in. Specifically, following commitments made during the passage of the Financial Services Act 2021, the Government worked with the FCA to conduct a report into mortgage prisoners, which was completed and laid before Parliament in November 2021. This report found that the vast majority of those with the 195,000 mortgages held by inactive firms are not mortgage prisoners, as they are already paying competitive rates for their circumstances or they would be able to switch if they took action to do so—if, of course, they met the risk appetite of active lenders, a point raised by my noble friend Lady Noakes. Others had different factors that might prevent them being able to switch, such as being close to the end of their mortgage term or having an account in arrears. The report found that only 47,000 were truly mortgage prisoners—that is, customers who are up to date with their mortgage payments and unable to switch to a new mortgage deal, but who could potentially benefit from lower rates if they were able to switch.
While I understand the difficulty that many of these customers are facing, capping the standard variable rates charged on mortgages with inactive lenders to help this limited group of customers would have significant implications for the wider mortgage market which cannot be ignored. Any action we take must also be fair to other borrowers in the active market, particularly those with similar characteristics and paying similar rates, who may be unable to access fixed-rate deals.
A cap for mortgage prisoners would therefore create an arbitrary division between one set of consumers and another. Capping rates would also restrict lenders’ ability to vary rates in line with market conditions—a key part of responsible lending. This is a material risk, which, as Ministers set out during the passage of the Financial Services Act 2021, could have financial stability implications. Those concerns were also raised by the London School of Economics in its November 2020 report on mortgage prisoners, which argued against the introduction of a standard variable rate cap. In view of these risks and the proportionate steps that the Government and the FCA have already taken to support mortgage prisoners, it is clear that an SVR cap is not an appropriate solution.
However, borrowers who have switched have seen significant savings. The FCA’s review found that take-up was affected by consumer inertia and limited lender risk appetite. Some 140,000 letters were sent to borrowers about the rule change, which resulted in only 700 calls to brokers.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, raised the new report from the London School of Economics and Martin Lewis. The Government will of course carefully consider the proposals put forward in this report. I note that it recommends free, comprehensive financial advice for all, but I would like to provide reassurance that the Government are committed to helping people in financial difficulty. We recognise the important role that debt advice providers play in assisting people, including mortgage prisoners, who are in problem debt, especially with the increasing cost of living pressures that were raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett.
This is why the Government have continued to maintain record levels of debt advice funding for the Money and Pensions Service, bringing its budget for free-to-client debt advice in England to more than £90 million this financial year. Furthermore, the Government have made a number of interventions, as a result of the financial crisis, to protect the economy and ordinary savers and businesses from the negative impacts of economic and financial instability. These include the interventions in Northern Rock and Bradford & Bingley, with their loan and mortgage assets ultimately held in the government-owned company UK Asset Resolution. It is right that the Government seek to achieve value for money for taxpayers as we exit the interventions made as a result of the financial crisis. The proceeds from these sales are not hypothecated and go towards supporting wider public finances.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, sought to draw out the wider case of the Government selling on. I can say only that UK Asset Resolution sales met or exceeded best practice for customer protections. Firms had to agree to robust protections before their bids were considered. Inactive firms have and use a range of forbearance options for borrowers in payment difficulty, and many borrowers with inactive firms pay competitive rates.
However, the Government are consistently committed to looking for practical and proportionate options where they will deliver genuine benefits for affected mortgage borrowers, and where interventions are fair to borrowers in the active market and to taxpayers. In light of the request, we will be happy to facilitate a meeting with Treasury officials before Report. We will co-ordinate with Members’ offices to agree a time and place suitable for everyone.
While it is important that we do not create false hope, the Government will carefully consider the proposals from the LSE/Martin Lewis report. In light of this, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Sharkey (LD)
I thank all noble Lords who spoke in this brief debate. There was a sense of déjà vu in all this. I recognise the arguments of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, because it is not so long since we heard them last time. It would be indelicate of me to remind the Committee that, having heard all those arguments last time around, and mine, we voted fairly massively in favour of the amendment in front of us again today.
As I said in my opening remarks, at the moment this is not about the amendment as it is down on the page. This is a probing amendment to make sure that the initiative of Martin Lewis, the LSE and the APPG is taken seriously by the Government. I am grateful for the Minister’s promise—if that is what it was—to arrange a meeting with the APPG and other interested parties. It would be wrong if, after all this work and effort, we were simply to get a note from the Treasury passed under the door saying, “No, it doesn’t work”. We want an interactive process to discuss the proposals that Martin Lewis and the APPG are putting forward. I do not think the Minister talked about timing, but we need to do that urgently and before Report.
Baroness Noakes
“Financial Ombudsman Service
(1) FSMA 2000 is amended as follows.(2) After section 229 insert—“229A Power of FCA to require Financial Ombudsman Service to refrain from specified action (1) Where the first, second and third conditions are met, the FCA may give a direction under this section to the Financial Ombudsman Service.(2) The first condition is that the Financial Ombudsman Service is proposing to exercise any of its powers in relation to the determination of a complaint.(3) The second condition is that the FCA is of the opinion that the exercise of the power in the manner proposed may have implications beyond the specifics of the complaint in question.(4) The third condition is that the FCA is of the opinion that the giving of the direction is necessary in order to avoid the possible consequence described in subsection (3).(5) A direction under this section is a direction requiring the Financial Ombudsman Service not to exercise the power or not to exercise it in a specified manner.(6) The FCA must consult the Financial Ombudsman Service before giving a direction under this section.”(3) In paragraph 15(1) of Schedule 17 (fees) after “respondent” insert “or relevant party”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment gives power to the FCA to overrule a decision of the FOS where this would have implications which would affect the FCA’s ability to regulate effectively and to allow the FOS to make persons other than the complainant make a payment towards the costs of a case.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, this amendment concerns the Financial Ombudsman Service. It is in fact two amendments in one; I should have separated them. The amendments were suggested by UK Finance and I will speak to each leg separately.
The first two subsections of proposed new Section 229A of FSMA, which my amendment would insert, would establish that, in certain circumstances, the FCA can direct the FOS in a particular complaint determination. I should say that I welcome Clause 38, which will set up a new duty of co-operation and consultation between the FCA, the FOS and the Financial Services Compensation Scheme. It was curious that FSMA provided for co-operation and consultation for the FCA and the PRA but the FOS was left out. In practice, I understand that Clause 38 would do little more than formalise what has already been happening in practice as part of the FOS’s wider implications framework, although that is entirely voluntary and Clause 38 would make it mandatory.
In the past, there have been problems with regulated firms having acted in a way that they believed was wholly in accordance with the FCA rulebook, including the principles that should guide how firms act. Firms believed that their actions were in accordance with the FCA’s expectations as well, although those are notoriously hard to pin down. Then, following a complaint, the FOS took a different view. As we know, the FOS is required to determine each complaint individually and makes its determinations using the FSMA formula of what is fair and reasonable in the circumstances of the individual complaint. That can and does result in outcomes that are, at best, frustrating for the firms involved when they believe that they have been doing exactly what was expected of them. A particular source of concern has been fraud cases, where the FOS has often gone beyond the requirements of the banking protocol, which was supposed to set out agreed expectations of what banks need to do in relation to suspicious transactions.
In addition, the FCA handbook requires firms to apply the outcome of FOS determinations to future complaints, so individual FOS decisions in effect become precedents, even though they were determined on the facts of individual cases. Another frustration can be that FOS decisions are not always internally coherent, so a confusing pattern of precedents can be created. In effect, a parallel rulebook grows up, but one created out of specific cases without underlying principles—certainly without any underlying principles that have been consulted on.
I think it fair to say that, although the financial services sector values the fact that the FOS represents a low-cost dispute-resolution service, it has for some time had concerns about how it operates and how its decisions become quasi-law. These concerns are now amplified, with the advent of the new consumer duty, which rests on the principle of delivering good outcomes for consumers. This adds a layer of complexity and uncertainty into an already challenging environment. There are concerns about precisely what firms are expected to do in the case of closed products and whether new vectors are being opened up for claims management companies. There will be an ongoing tension between the consumer principle, which is not intended to operate at the level of individual consumers, and the FOS, which is unambiguously focused on individual cases.
My amendment does not give the FCA an unconstrained ability to override the FOS; it is drafted to apply only where there are implications beyond the specifics of the particular complaint. The PRA has long had the power to overrule the FCA where it thinks it will have an adverse impact, as specified in Section 31 of FSMA. Similarly, the banking reform Act of 2013 gave powers to the Bank of England, the PRA and the FCA to intervene against the payment services regulator. It is genuinely puzzling that a similar power in relation to the FOS was not granted to the FCA when it was set up, or to the FSA under FSMA. This is a modest provision designed to ensure that the activities covered by both the FOS and the FCA are dealt with in a coherent way.
The second leg of my amendment is on a slightly different subject: it is a minor amendment to paragraph 15 of Schedule 17 to FSMA. Under this paragraph, the financial services firms complained about pay fees to the FOS—there is no problem with that. My amendment adds “or relevant party” to this, so that firms or individuals other than the firm complained about could be required to pay fees. This is obviously not intended to enable the FOS to charge fees to complainants, which I am sure it would never do, even if it had the power. Instead, it is intended to give some flexibility to the FOS so that, for example, claims management companies might be asked to pay fees if they have been responsible for unmeritorious complaints. That in turn could help disrupt the business model of the worst offenders in this parasitic industry. I hope this will be seen as a modest change that will give greater flexibility to the FOS. I beg to move.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, I was waiting to hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said on this amendment. I am afraid I cannot support her this time, although we agree on a lot of things. I accept that this is a hard call. The way I look at it, this goes back to our discussion about whether you follow rigid rules or you want people to think about what they are doing. Ultimately, there has to be a desire for people operating in financial services to think about what they are doing in all circumstances. Therefore, I see that as a proper override.
What has been portrayed as the ultra-right wing libertarian approach of just doing things and then being for the high jump if you get it wrong—that is a caricature, I accept—relies on your having done what is right in principle. Some things will not be fair if you merely follow a rigid set of rules. Therefore, it is right that there is a “fair and reasonable in the circumstances” backstop. It is right that if such things happen, there should be discussions about what it means for the generality.
However, it is not right for the FCA to have an automatic override and say, “We’re right, and our rigid rules derived from principles”—because they abandon principles once we have rules—“can never be wrong”, and that people should not have been thinking actively about these things, particularly while they were dealing with customers and individuals. I understand where the noble Baroness is coming from, but I cannot support this. I plug again that we should expect that extra level of thought. This again goes to the heart of having a duty of care. It is the same argument. A duty of care does not mean, “I just do what I’ve always done and got away with” or “I just do what everybody else appears to have done, turn the handle and don’t think about it.” It is a fundamental principle of caring for the consumer that at least the ombudsman can continue with. I heartily think that we need a dash more of it in the Financial Conduct Authority.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Noakes in her amendment. As she has explained well, Clause 38 requires the FCA, the FOS and the FSCS to co-operate and to consult with each other in exercising their statutory functions. However, it is important that FOS decisions with wider implications do not diverge from FCA rules, or there may be unintended consequences, and predictability and consistency may be negatively affected.
As my noble friend just said, this does not mean that the FCA or the FOS should act without thinking very carefully about what they are doing. Her amendment takes account of that and would be likely to encourage real thought about the consequences of making a particular decision in any case. Besides, Parliament never intended the FOS to be a quasi-regulator. UK Finance has recommended that the FCA should be given a power to overrule a decision by the FOS where it believes that the decision could have wider and perhaps unforeseen implications. My noble friend’s amendment would deal effectively with this potential problem.
Of course, the granting of additional powers to the FCA strengthens further the case that the FCA must be properly accountable to Parliament, and I regret that I have not yet heard my noble friend the Minister acknowledge that, as drafted, the Bill does not provide adequate arrangements for this. I firmly believe that a properly resourced joint committee is how to achieve that.
The Parliamentary Secretary, HM Treasury (Baroness Penn) (Con)
My Lords, the Government agree that, where there are wider implications, it is critical that the bodies within the financial services regulatory framework, including the FCA and the FOS, co-operate effectively.
As my noble friend Lady Noakes noted, that is why Clause 38 of this Bill introduces a statutory duty for the FCA, the FOS and the Financial Services Compensation Scheme to co-operate on issues which have significant implications for each other or for the wider financial services market. Clause 38 also ensures that the FCA, FOS and FSCS put appropriate arrangements in place for stakeholders to provide representations on their compliance with this new duty to co-operate on matters with wider implications.
As my noble friend also noted, these organisations already co-operate on a voluntary basis through the existing wider implications framework. The voluntary framework was launched in January 2022 to promote effective co-operation on wider implication issues. Clause 38 will enhance that co-operation and ensure that these arrangements endure over time while retaining the operational independence of the bodies involved.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Trenchard for his support; I was not expecting the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, to support my amendment, because she and I have discussed the FOS in the past.
There is a potential problem in the relationship between the FCA and the FOS with the introduction of the new consumer duty. I think that is particularly concerning people: we are going a little into the unknown. We know that if regulatory pressures get too difficult for firms, their natural response is, ultimately, to leave or severely curtail the elements of the market that they are prepared to operate in. We need look only at the availability of advised investment to see what can be the consequence of heavy-handed regulatory action. If the new consumer duty becomes a nightmare, with individual cases being settled on particular circumstances but then having to be read across because of the FCA handbook, which requires cases to then be followed by firms, we could end up with a very confused understanding of what the consumer duty involves. That was the main burden of my tabling the amendment, but we may just need to see what happens when the consumer duty operates in practice to see whether those harms genuinely emerge.
As for the second leg of my amendment, which should have been a separate amendment, I was very interested to hear what my noble friend said about the case having been made. What I am not quite clear about, which she may be able to clarify, is on what timescale she believes the Government will be looking at this, because not many financial services Bills come along to get things done in.
Baroness Penn (Con)
I will have to write to the Committee to clarify the timescale for the noble Baroness.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I look forward to that letter with great anticipation. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would remove the limitation that APP mandatory reimbursement is limited to APP scams made via the Faster Payments system, so that all APP scams must be covered regardless of payment system used.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, it is an unexpected feeling to be zapping through groups at some speed. In moving my Amendment 202, I will speak to the various other related amendments in my name in this group. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, for her support.
I greatly welcome the introduction of the requirement in Clause 68 to improve the current voluntary arrangements under the contingent reimbursement model, or CRM, for the reimbursement of losses resulting from authorised push payment, or APP, fraud. My amendments attempt to apply some of what we learned during the inquiry by the Fraud Act 2006 and Digital Fraud Committee, which reported at the end of last year, but I should stress that these are my amendments, not those of the committee.
The committee’s inquiry heard that the current voluntary system has led to a wide range of inconsistent outcomes for victims. In fact, the very process of claiming can add to the trauma for victims, especially when they are not applied consistently or fairly. At one extreme we have TSB, which has chosen to reimburse all fraud victims; at the other, we heard of banks that, because they are not signed up to the CRM at all and do not reimburse victims, have no incentive to try to prevent fraud going through their systems. We heard that some banks are now seen by fraudsters as a soft touch.
Levels of reimbursement vary widely even within the CRM and the scheme does not publish league tables, so consumers cannot see which banks are more likely to reimburse and which are not. That lack of consistency and of clarity over the circumstances in which reimbursement will be made leads to greater uncertainty and trauma for victims. Importantly, the lack of consistency also leads to different levels of incentivisation for banks to take the steps necessary to protect their customers. Any new mandatory scheme needs to address that and make things fairer for victims, but at the same time it needs to be balanced against the risk of unintended consequences. That is what my amendments try to achieve and I turn to them specifically.
As currently drafted, the rules will apply only in respect of fraud carried out using the Faster Payments scheme. I am sure the Minister will explain that this is because this will cover the majority of frauds by number. She is quite right; that is true. However, other payment methods are often used by fraudsters, such as CHAPS. Although smaller in volume, those other payment methods often involve larger, more life-changing sums. CHAPS is used for large payments, such as house purchases. Many frauds involve overseas payments.
Amendment 202, together with Amendment 207, would widen the scope of the reimbursement provisions so that all payments are covered, regardless of the method. I am sure the Minister will tell us that the Bill does not prevent the scheme being widened to other payment methods, but I am concerned by this statement on the PSR website:
“We are working with Pay.UK—the operator of the Faster Payments system which is how APP scams are carried out”.
That shows no recognition that the problem is wider than just Faster Payments. APP scams are carried out using all payment methods, not just Faster Payments. I wonder whether the real reason for restricting the changes to Faster Payments is because it allows the PSR to subcontract its responsibilities under Clause 68 to Pay.UK, the operator of the Faster Payments system. The Minister will be aware that concerns have been raised by the Treasury Select Committee in the other place about this approach. What are her thoughts on the PSR subcontracting its responsibilities to Pay.UK?
The Bill leaves the details of the reimbursement scheme entirely to the PSR, so Amendment 204 sets out some matters that it should consider when creating the new compulsory requirement. First, the key problem with the current situation is the lack of clarity for victims in how reimbursement decisions are made and the inconsistency of those decisions. Proposed new paragraph (a) of Amendment 204 therefore says that the PSR must consider
“how to ensure that the parameters used to determine whether or not reimbursement should be made are transparent and applied consistently”.
If that does not happen, we will not have moved much further forward, so that key point should be stated in the Bill.
I turn to proposed new paragraph (b) of Amendment 204. I have long felt that the bank that is more in the wrong in a fraud situation is the receiving bank—the one that, in effect, processed the stolen money on behalf of the fraudster. Although it is not in the Bill, the PSR apparently intends that the liability for reimbursement should be split 50:50 between the paying and receiving banks, with a mechanism to change that split in certain circumstances. I am content with that proposed approach as a starting point. Proposed new paragraph (b) of Amendment 204 simply puts in the Bill that the split must be considered but, as we move forward, the PSR and the industry should look to refine this. Importantly, discussion of how to split the reimbursement between the banks must not make things more difficult for victims.
Proposed new paragraph (c) of Amendment 204 says that the PSR should consider how
“mandatory reimbursement is likely to affect the behaviour of consumers”.
Our fraud committee deliberated long and hard on whether to recommend blanket reimbursement; in fact, we were criticised for not doing so. We recognised that there is a case for mandatory blanket reimbursement but concluded that such a policy could fall foul of moral hazard and lead to increased levels of fraud, including, potentially, directly to new avenues for APP reimbursement fraud. Our recommendation therefore was that this needed to be explored further and a solution should be found that creates a level playing field for all consumers.
I do not often disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, but I am a little concerned by her Amendment 203, which says that
“reimbursement … cannot be refused on the basis that a victim … ought to have known that the payment order was executed subsequent to fraud or dishonesty.”
If someone really should have known but went ahead anyway, this feels reckless to me. We need people to take some basic level of precaution and we need to help them do that.
Proposed new paragraph (c) of my Amendment 204 tries to address this difficult area by saying that the PSR must consider how the reimbursement policy might alter the behaviour of potential victims. If the effect is that people stop taking any care to avoid fraud, because they are going to be reimbursed anyway, the policy might make it easier for the fraudsters; it might increase fraud, which would be an extremely undesirable unintended consequence. At the same time, we need to move away from victim blaming and ensure that, unless consumers have acted irresponsibly, they are reimbursed. There is a delicate balance here and it is something that the PSR should consider carefully and keep under review.
Finally, proposed new paragraph (d) of Amendment 204 says that the PSR must consider how appeals can be made. I hope this is self-explanatory.
Amendments 205 and 206 attempt to bring some transparency to the process. Amendment 205 would enable consumers to see which banks are most susceptible to fraud; in other words, which are doing less to protect their customers in the first place and which are better at reimbursing customers who become victims. This is important. If we want to incentivise banks to do the right thing and behave well, shedding daylight on how they perform is the best way to ensure it. Customers will be able to vote with their feet.
There is also a danger that banks might react to mandatory reimbursement by changing their behaviour in a way that disadvantages vulnerable consumers—deciding that it is too risky or expensive to provide services to those seen as more vulnerable to fraud, if the reimbursement process is seen as too one-sided. Later today, we shall talk about PEPs, which are a good example of how the banks are reacting to overzealous regulation.
Similarly, we need to avoid a situation in which the reimbursement process puts off new entrants into the system or innovation in payments. Amendment 206 requires the PSR to keep the situation under review and to report annually on the impact that the requirement is having, including whether it is causing any change in the behaviour of the payment service providers. Fraud is constantly changing—fraudsters are constantly finding new ways to get around rules and find victims—so the amendment requires the PSR to make changes to the requirement as it considers necessary, taking account of the actual impacts to keep protecting consumers better.
I will finish with a couple of general points. First, it is critical that people are properly and fully informed and educated about the changes. Clause 68(3)(b) mentions that, which is welcome, but in relation only to the draft requirement, not the final requirement. UK Finance and others have raised concerns about whether the full six-month timeframe is sufficient to ensure that that information and education process happens.
Lord Sharkey (LD)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 203 in the name of my noble friend Lady Kramer, who cannot be with us today. She is making good progress but is still recovering from surgery. On her behalf, I gently disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Vaux. The amendment is straightforward: it would simply prevent financial services from using the “You should have known it was fraud” excuse to deny restitution. In effect, in many sectors this allows the banks to decide whether to refund.
It seems to me that it is impossible to design a fair test for “You should have known” when talking of retail customers, especially vulnerable ones. How on earth do we devise a fair test under those circumstances? It is true that most consumers will not have the ability to challenge a bank’s classification of an event as “You should have known”, because they do not have the resource or the means to do so. Effectively, without Amendment 203, banks can decide for themselves which cases to allow, and that does not seem to be a good idea.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, I will speak broadly in support of these amendments, starting with Amendment 202. The incidence of fraud is growing almost daily. It is a huge worry and, unfortunately, it rests on His Majesty’s Government to try to find an answer to it. I accept that it is not an easy problem, but we cannot shy away from it. Over lunch today I was having some discussions with Transparency Task Force, a certified social enterprise. Certainly, some of the evidence it has is quite extraordinary and deeply worrying. I do not know whether there are other types of scams not covered in the Bill. I have not given any notice to my noble friend on that, but we would certainly like an answer.
On Amendment 203 on qualifying cases, I have spoken to only about half a dozen people who have had scams, but none of them knew anything about who was behind it. It is not very likely, is it? Having watched “The Gold” on television on Sunday, I can see how creative some people can be. It does not seem realistic, which is why Amendment 203 is important.
I have had a chat with members of the All-Party Group on Personal Banking and Fairer Financial Services. The only way to get a grip of these problems is to know what is happening on the ground. The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, asked for a six-monthly report, which is quite right. A quarterly report would probably be better, though it might be too tedious. At this point in time, His Majesty’s Government do not have a handle on the rate of growth, which is deeply worrying. I do not know whether these amendments are exactly right, but the problem is there, and it is the responsibility of His Majesty’s Government to get a grip on them.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, I broadly support this group of amendments. I particularly want to address Amendment 205 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles.
As the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, said, it is worth highlighting uncertainty and trauma. We have a society in which every time people pick up their phones or emails to look at a message, many of them think, “I’m worried. Is this right or wrong? Is this official-looking email something I should click or not?” That is where we are. These amendments seek to address some of this, although even with them we would not get far enough. In the other place, the Treasury Select Committee last month expressed concerns about the Payment Systems Regulator dealing with push payment scams regarding the banks handing out the money and controlling the Pay.UK body that would be doing that. There is a concern that this needs to be seen as fair and rapid; to take away some of that fear is the key issue.
Amendment 205 is particularly interesting because we are talking here about a league table for how fairly banks treat victims of fraud. I could not help thinking of the comparison with schools. We have intensely scrutinised and detailed league tables for schools; surely we can manage similar league tables for banks. We had a lot of debate on earlier days in Committee on whether we wish to encourage competitiveness. But however much we might debate competitiveness, surely we all agree that competition between banks to see who is fairest towards victims of crime would be good.
This may not go far enough, but there are amendments here that the Government should certainly consider, particularly Amendment 205 concerning the league table.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, I signed all the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux. We were both members of the committee looking at the Fraud Act 2006 and digital fraud. Although these amendments are not exactly what we recommended, they fairly represent the mood after what we had heard. We could not make them all exact recommendations. Some of them are difficult; there is difficulty between my noble friend Lady Kramer’s amendment and this set of amendments. I did not weigh them up beforehand, but it will be very difficult if you just allow a broad, “Well, you ought to have known” provision for the bank.
It is not a question of who you are and what you know. Some pretty intelligent people have been defrauded and you can be caught at a bad moment, but how do you prove that it was a bad moment, if you are being scammed? Say the scammer claims that a child is in trouble and says, “Send money now, mum.” Every now and then, the scammer is going to be lucky, and the message is going to arrive to a mum whose kid is off somewhere doing something, and it will look genuine. You might have been very worried about the circumstance in the first place. How do you prove that kind of thing, if the provision is going to assume that you are a sensible, intelligent person and you ought to have known? How do you discriminate against those who are not intelligent and sensible and who are vulnerable for whatever reason?
There is a lot to be said for my noble friend’s amendment, but at the same time there is the issue, which we discussed in the committee, whereby you do not want everybody to think that it is all right and that they are covered. Do you need some kind of hurdle? How do you encourage people? We need to see whether we can in some way nuance that, to make it clear that we are protecting the most vulnerable, including those with a circumstance that they might find themselves in, even though they would not have been vulnerable at other times—but then you do not want to make it even easier for scammers. People can think that it is a victimless crime, but it is not a victimless crime at all. Even if people get compensation, collectively we are all going to pay for it.
We also talked in the committee about why the proposal is just for Faster Payments. Yes, it is an easy target, because of the instantaneous nature of it. But what if, when you go into a bank to make a transfer by CHAPS—and a mortgage is the obvious kind of payment in that regard—somebody comes in with you and coerces you? What steps are taken at the counter? I have been in with someone who was doing a big CHAPS transfer for the purpose of a mortgage—it happened to be my son—and nobody questioned what I was doing there. There may have been a familial resemblance, and they may have thought that it was okay, but there was no one saying, “Would you mind just stepping aside?” No one asked him who I was, what the relationship was and why I was with him. It would be good to have some more checks to make sure what is happening, checking that the money is going to a genuine solicitor’s account and those kinds of thing. To have other payment methods included is not unreasonable, although I accept that these are big chunks of money. We also discussed in the committee the culpability of the receiving banks, if they have dodgy accounts that they have not checked out thoroughly, and have not joined up two systems to check the nature of the account and whether it is right.
As we go forward, it would be nice if we could agree that there was some kind of flavour of these amendments that the Government could bring forward so that we do not have to do anything on Report. Perhaps there could be assurances that that kind of balance, and the sorts of things that have been said in the report from the committee, are taken on board. A lot of work went into that issue. There are many ways in which we can do things—it does not always have to be through legislation—but all these points are very valid ones for what needs to be done. I think that is probably all that I need to say, but I recommend that the sense of these amendments is taken forward.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, this group of amendments has a general direction which may be supported. It would be much better if the Government were to come forward with proposals in that general direction and improve the situation.
I, too, however, feel that there is some moral hazard. The extent to which victims are compensated draws attention from the fact that this is serious crime which, as I understand it, is growing exponentially. I hope that in looking after victims, which I am broadly in favour of, we massively increase our efforts to prevent fraud in the first place. I do not have a simple solution to that, but it is my understanding that the relationship between a preventive resource in the police and the banks is, compared to the general application to prevent crime, disproportionately low. More resource has to be put into combating this frightening industry. There is a sense of almost moral decay that allows this virulent industry to continue to grow. I hope that, while responding to the concerns of victims, there is also feedback to the Government as a whole that we must find a way to get on top of this very unpleasant crime.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I recognise the keen interest across this Committee in the provisions in the Bill to tackle financial crime and fraud more generally, and, in this group of amendments, on tackling APP scams specifically and the related work of the Payment Systems Regulator to introduce mandatory reimbursement. The noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, said that she hoped that the sense of the amendments could be taken forward, or that the Government could provide reassurance to noble Lords that it will. I hope to be able to do so.
Measures in the Bill not only enable the Payment Systems Regulator to act on APP reimbursement regardless of the method of payment used, but also have a specific requirement mandating, within a specific timeframe, that they are taken forward under Faster Payments. We have sought within the Bill both to provide further powers for the regulator and to specify that it needs to act within a certain timeframe on the form of payments, which currently represents the largest form of fraud, not only by volume—97% of payments by volume—but by value. The figures I have are that Faster Payments account for approximately 85% of the value. The noble Lord and noble Baroness also mentioned CHAPS. That is the next highest in value, but it is about 4%, so it is right that we prioritise action on Faster Payments first. That does not rule out further action on other forms of payment further down the line.
I appreciate that we often have a debate on what needs to be in a Bill versus powers that, in this case, we are giving to the regulators to make rules. We have also heard during this debate about fraud how dynamic that situation can be, so enabling the regulator to update its response to approaching these questions through its rules is the right approach in this situation.
None the less, a lot of detail of the Payments Systems Regulator’s approach is in the public domain, and I hope it would reassure the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, on a number of his amendments that the approach being taken is consistent with many of the recommendations made by his committee. Indeed, having its proposals out for consultation on how mandatory reimbursement should work has provided an opportunity for all interested parties to comment.
Turning to the specifics in the amendments and hopefully updating the Committee on work that the PSR is taking in relation to each, I begin with Amendments 202 and 207, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, on the scope of the requirement on the PSR to mandate reimbursement. As I have noted, under this legislation the PSR could act in relation to any designated payment system, but with a specify duty on Faster Payments which, as I said, accounts for 97% of scams by volume today. We expect the PSR to keep under review the case for action across other designated payment systems, in collaboration with the Bank of England and the FCA.
In relation to Amendment 204, on issues that the PSR should consider as part of its approach, I assure the Committee that the PSR has set out how it has considered these issues in its consultation. For example, as discussed, the PSR is proposing that the cost of liability is split equally between the sending and receiving banks, recognising that both parties have a responsibility in preventing fraud.
On Amendment 205 on the publication of data, the PSR is currently consulting on a measure to require payment service providers to report and publish fraud and reimbursement data. I was surprised to hear Green support for league tables. I did not know that they were supportive of them on schools, but in this case that data is important and the transparency we are talking about helps noble Lords keep track of how effective these provisions are once they are implemented.
Amendment 206 is on a duty to review. The PSR regularly reports on the discharge of its functions through its annual report and has committed in its consultation to a post-implementation review of its action on APP scams, to assess the overall impact of its measures for improving consumer outcomes. The Government will also monitor the impacts of the PSR’s action and consider the case for further action where necessary. While the Government recognise the intention behind the noble Lord’s amendments, we do not think it necessary or appropriate to further circumscribe the actions of the regulator in primary legislation at this stage, given the extensive consultation the PSR has undertaken on this matter and its responsibilities and expertise in this area as the independent regulator.
On Amendment 203, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, the Government’s intention, as already expressed in the legislation, is to ensure that more victims of APP scams across the Faster Payments system specifically, and wider payments systems in general, are reimbursed, and to enable the PSR to act in this area. The Government recognise that no one sets out to be defrauded and that APP scams are, by their very nature, convincing and sophisticated.
None the less, we also recognise that many banks take action to engage with their customers ahead of making a payment, and that questions of liability can be complex. As the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, set out, a blanket approach to mandatory reimbursement raises questions of moral hazard and the potential for APP reimbursement fraud itself to become an area of difficulty. This is a difficult balance to strike. While this amendment is well meaning, it will not help achieve effective resolution in these cases. We are confident that the PSR has the appropriate objectives, expertise and powers to develop proposals for APP scam reimbursement that both ensure strong protections for victims and incentivise banks to engage effectively with their customers to prevent fraud. In its consultation on its reimbursement approach, the PSR stated its intention to require firms sending payments over the Faster Payments system to fully reimburse all consumers who are victims of APP scams, with very limited exceptions. The PSR considers that this will ensure that victims are reimbursed in the vast majority of cases. In that regard, the PSR has already signalled its intention to set a high bar for customer liability—higher than currently applies within the existing code of voluntary reimbursement.
We do not believe that this amendment will improve outcomes for customers beyond the provisions already set out in the Bill, and it could impede the work of the regulator, which has already consulted on the proposals. I hope that noble Lords genuinely feel reassured by the level of detail in which the PSR and the Government have thought through these proposals, and acknowledge the ability to have a dynamic response in this area. I therefore hope the noble Lord can withdraw his amendment.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
Can the Minister comment on the Treasury Select Committee’s recommendation on the PSR, effectively subcontracting its responsibilities to Pay.UK?
Baroness Penn (Con)
I apologise to the noble Lord; I did have an answer for him on that. The Bill is clear that the Payment Systems Regulator has the duty to act on mandatory reimbursement. The PSR has the relevant powers and expertise, as well as the appropriate discretion, to determine the most effective approach in that area.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate. I think the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, set out the difficulty in finding the right balance to ensure that victims are not blamed and are reimbursed, unless they have really been irresponsible, versus the question of moral hazard and the issue of potentially making fraud worse. That will just have to be kept under review.
While I am reassured by a lot of what the Minister said and what the PSR has said publicly, the Government might want to think more seriously about Amendments 205 and 206 on transparency and review. The PSR may say that it will do a post-implementation review, but this has to be consistent and carry on happening, because fraud keeps on moving and changing. It is similar to the statistic that 85% of fraud, by value, is Faster Payments, but what we are doing now may change that. This will hopefully incentivise the banks to lock down the ability to carry out fraud over Faster Payments.
There is nothing specifically in here to prevent fraud, but we are providing an incentive to do that. Fraudsters are very good at moving, and if they move on to CHAPS or overseas payments—the Bill itself introduces stablecoins as a new method of payment—we can see that the situation will move. This has to be not just a one-off, post-implementation review; it has to happen regularly and be reported on. We must see which banks are doing better and which are doing worse. It is a question of not just who is reimbursing better but how many frauds they are suffering. If a bank is suffering greater levels of fraud, it is a clear sign that it is not taking as strong action to prevent it as other banks are. The only way to see that is for it to be reported on.
While I am unlikely to chase the other amendments, we might want to return on Report to Amendments 205 and 206 on transparency, reporting and review. With that, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 202.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Bull) (CB)
My Lords, as Amendment 209 has not been moved, I cannot call Amendments 210 and 211.
Lord Sharkey
“Access to Sharia-compliant financial services including student finance
(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Treasury must make provision by regulations to facilitate the availability of Sharia-compliant financial services in the United Kingdom, including availability to students who are eligible for the Government’s student finance provision of Sharia-compliant finance products for paying tuition fees and for student maintenance on equitable terms with students accessing the Government’s student finance provision.(2) Regulations under this section are subject to the negative procedure.”Member’s explanatory statement
This is a probing amendment to allow debate on the progress towards provision of Sharia-compliant student funding.
Lord Sharkey (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 213 addresses the provision of sharia-compliant student finance, of which there is currently none. This matters because Islam forbids interest-bearing loans and that prohibition can be a barrier to our Muslim students going on to attend our universities.
This is not a new problem, nor the first time the issue has been raised in this House. The problem became clear in 2012 when tuition fees were significantly increased and it became worse when maintenance grants were replaced by maintenance loans. In 2014, the Government published a report on the consultation they had undertaken. It attracted 20,000 responses, a record at the time. The Government acknowledged that the lack of an alternative finance product to the conventional interest-bearing student loan was a matter of major concern to many Muslims.
The report also identified a solution: a takaful, a well-known and frequently used non-interest-bearing, sharia-compliant financial product. The Government explicitly supported the introduction of such a product. That was nine years ago, and we still have no takaful. In 2013, Prime Minister Cameron promised action. He said:
“Never again should a Muslim in Britain feel unable to go to university because they cannot get a student loan—simply because of their religion.”
But nothing has changed. There is still no available sharia-compliant student finance. In fact, it now looks further away than ever.
The Muslim community and parliamentarians in both Houses have continued to press. Last September, the right honourable Sir Stephen Timms wrote to the then Secretary of State for Education to ask whether delivering sharia-compliant student finance was still a government commitment. He got a reply saying that it was. Sir Stephen wrote again in October to the new Secretary of State, the right honourable Gillian Keegan MP, asking whether government policy had changed—there was quite a lot of change around at the time.
Ms Keegan confirmed that the provision of a sharia-compliant student finance product remained a government commitment and that the Government were considering whether and how the ASF could be delivered as part of the lifelong learning entitlement. She noted that the consultation on the LLE had concluded last May and promised to provide a further update on ASF as part of the Government’s response to that consultation.
The Government published their response to the LLE consultation last Tuesday. The whole response runs to 71 pages, yet ASF gets no mention in the document’s ministerial foreword and only two substantive paragraphs right at the end of the response. This does not seem a proportionate reaction, either to the gravity of the issue or to the overwhelming number of individual respondents who asked for sharia-compliant student finance, by far the largest group of respondents. The question about sharia-compliant student finance attracted 851 unique individual responses; the average number of unique individual responses to all the other questions in the consultation was 30.
The first substantive paragraph confirms the Government’s commitment to the ASF but says, without any explanation, that it will not be delivered with the 2025-26 launch of the LLE. The second paragraph says:
“The Government is procuring advice from experts in Islamic finance and will be working with the Student Loans Company … to better understand timescales for delivery of an ASF product under the LLE. Our aim is that learners will be able to access ASF as part of the LLE as soon as possible after 2025. An update on ASF will be provided by late 2023.”
This is miserable stuff. It makes it clear that, in the past nine years, there has been no serious thinking or planning for ASF. It does not explain why ASF has to be linked to the LLE at all or why it cannot be launched simultaneously with it. It also makes no hint of an apology to the Muslim community for condemning at least four more cohorts of Muslim students to choose between faith and education.
If we interpret the Government’s vague timings generously, the ASF will arrive in the academic year 2026-27. That is four academic years away and means an additional 16,000 qualified Muslim students not going on to university. It will have taken 16 years for the Government’s firm, clear and repeated commitment to be realised. The problem remains as it was 11 years ago. This is deeply unsatisfactory and obviously has gravely disadvantaged our Muslim community. It is easy to see how the Government’s inaction over such a serious issue over such a very long timescale could look like discrimination against our Muslim community, especially since the Government seem not to have engaged with the community or explained the very long delay and lack of a target date.
Before last Tuesday, Universities UK and 68 Muslim organisations and prominent individuals had written to the Minister, pressing for speedy action and a firm date for ASF. Since then, there has been widespread disappointment and dismay at the very long further delay and the continuing lack of a firm date. The Muslim Council of Britain, UUK, the CEO of Islamic Finance Guru, the NUS and others have all written to me expressing their disappointment at the Government’s response. It is deeply distressing and shameful that the Government, despite their firm promises, should continue to treat our Muslim community in this offhand, almost contemptuous way.
It is very hard to avoid the conclusion that the Government are making a fundamental error—moral, social and political—in putting Muslim students right at the back of the queue. Will the Minister talk to her colleagues in the Department for Education to ask them to arrange an urgent meeting with interested parliamentarians and Muslim community groups? This would allow explanation of the further delay and of the work programme, and an exploration of the possibility of setting an earlier and firmer date for the introduction of the ASF.
All this has gone on for far too long. I hope the Minister will be able to give a substantive and encouraging reply. I beg to move.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Sharkey’s amendment. I should declare that, as a Muslim woman, I have a number of relatives who will be, and are being, affected by this. Not every Muslim feels unable to take out student loans as they are currently structured but there is a significant minority. It is usually women affected because they always come at the bottom of the list of who will be financed without a loan through private means. I urge the Minister, particularly given all the conversations we had last week about International Women’s Day, to consider this.
I will not detain the Committee long; my noble friend Lord Sharkey gave us chapter and verse on the Government’s position and prevarication on this issue, which, we are told, they have been able and willing to support for over a decade now. The Higher Education and Research Act 2017 allows the Government to introduce a student finance product consistent with Muslim beliefs regarding interest-bearing loans. However, as my noble friend said, the Government have yet to launch such a product. In February last year, as part of the conclusion of their review of post-18 education and funding, the Government said that they were still considering whether and how to deliver sharia-compliant alternative student finance and whether they would do so as part of the lifelong loan entitlement.
We have a situation where, not only are 18 and 19 year- old Muslims—predominantly girls—unable to access higher education but it now looks as though, with the LLE, they will not be able to access post-18 further education either. That will curtail their life chances, their ability to contribute to the life of this country and the financial contribution that they make to their families.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, who has highlighted the gender aspects of this debate, and the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, who has been a consistent champion on this issue in your Lordships’ House. I wish to make a couple of comments additional to what has already been said, while offering support for this amendment to push the Government to take action.
It was Green Party conference at the weekend, and I found myself discussing again and again how the public, who once thought that when the Government announced something that meant it would happen, are increasingly aware of the legislative process, and even the role of your Lordships’ House, because it is taking so long between government announcements and something actually happening. That is true of the announcement of a bottle deposit scheme for England, but there has been an even longer stretch between the promise of sharia-compliant finance, particularly for student loans, and the delivery.
The last figures that I saw showed that 9% of higher education students in the UK were Muslim. Extending loans for lifelong learning into further education makes it very likely that the percentage of students affected by the lack of sharia-compliant loans will increase. It is not as though the Government have not been reminded of this again and again. I note, again, that it was in July 2021, during the passage of what became the Skills and Post-16 Education Act, that we debated this. We were promised, “Yes, it’s going to happen; it’ll come”, but, yet again, we have just had a report from the Government which shows that there has been no progress. That is simply not good enough.
We often debate in your Lordships’ House how to get trust in government and the system. One way is to deliver on your promises in a reasonable and timely manner, particularly the things that really should not be that difficult, of which sharia-compliant loans is a case in point.
Lord Carrington of Fulham (Con)
My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, in this. There is no question that there are a large number of Muslims, both students and others, who have the very strong belief that their religion forbids them from engaging in normal financial practices as recognised in the West. It is about time we did something about it; it has taken far too long to get to where we are now, and we need to find a solution, particularly for student finance, where it is urgently indeed.
I can entirely understand why there is a problem. I understand why His Majesty’s Treasury is finding it difficult to find a solution. I spent a considerable part of my banking career devising means of meeting the religious requirements of Muslim communities to access financial services, often in conjunction with the Islamic Development Bank. It is an extraordinarily complex business. There are many different ways of doing it, but one of the problems is that there is no universal agreement as to what is an acceptable form of finance under the sharia. That is partly because of the difficulties between the various types of Islam—Sunni or Shia—and the various interpretations within the various branches of Islam itself, which also impact the nature of the financial products that are capable of being used. Indeed, Islamic scholars, particularly in the Sunni version of Islam, cannot agree among themselves what is acceptable and what is not. All this leads to considerable problems in devising a universally acceptable product.
Of course, the additional problem that the Treasury will have is that there is considerable scepticism among the conventional financial markets, particularly the western ones, about the credibility of Islamic finance altogether. To put it bluntly, there is scepticism about whether it is not just a con. In some cases, it is: the market is full of rogues, charlatans and crooks who will try to put up products that do not, in fact, meet the sharia requirements. So there is no great agreement on what should be done.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, there has been a series of powerful speeches. The Government really ought to react to this: either they believe what they have said they will do, or they do not. If they do believe in it, surely action could take place more quickly. The community concerned is now a very important part of our society, and it is crucial that we create an environment where its needs are taken seriously. It is particularly crucial that we do not create a situation where it is disadvantaged. I take the point about the gender issue, which is even more worrying, in many ways. I urge the Government to find some way of assuring us that they will act quickly.
Lord Harlech (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, for tabling this amendment on access to sharia-compliant financial services, including student finance. The UK is widely considered the leading western hub for Islamic finance. Institutions across the UK have been providing sharia-compliant retail and wholesale financial services for nearly 40 years, offering a range of products, including bank accounts, mortgages and insurance.
Last year, the Government expanded the scope of the alternative finance rules, which support equal treatment for sharia-compliant finance products, to include home-purchase plan providers and arrangements made through peer-to-peer platforms. This allowed for these products to be treated in the same way as conventional mortgages and loans for tax purposes, contributing to a level playing field for Islamic and conventional finance products. The Treasury is currently consulting on reform of the Consumer Credit Act, which will consider ways to make it easier to provide sharia-compliant consumer finance.
Within this context, the Government want to help ensure that higher education remains accessible to all those with the desire and ability to benefit from it. They remain committed to delivering an alternative student finance product compatible with Islamic finance principles and, more broadly, to ensuring equitable regulatory and tax treatment when compared to conventional finance. The Government legislated at the first opportunity to make a system of alternative student finance possible, taking the necessary powers in the Higher Education and Research Act 2017. However, a range of complex policy, legal and operational issues need to be resolved before a sharia-compatible product can be launched.
When noble Lords discussed this matter during consideration of the Financial Services Act 2021, my noble friend Lord True stated that the Government would provide an update alongside the Government’s response to the post-18 education funding review. As a result of that review, the Government have been progressing plans for introducing a lifelong loan entitlement, which will provide an individual entitlement equivalent to four years of post-18 education. This will significantly change the ways that students can access learning and financial support.
It is important that an alternative student finance product mirrors the mainstream student finance offer; therefore, it cannot be delivered until the LLE regulations and delivery specification are finalised. The Department for Education consulted on the LLE in February 2022 and sought views on barriers that learners might face in accessing their entitlement, including consideration of an ASF product. The Government’s response to that consultation was published last week; it provided an update on ASF and set out the Government’s aim to deliver an alternative student finance product as soon as possible after 2025.
Several Members, including the noble Lords, Lord Sharkey and Lord Tunnicliffe, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Sheehan and Lady Bennett, spoke about timespans—in particular, harking back to 2013. In September 2014, the Government published their consultation on a potential model that could form the basis of a new student finance product. The Government signalled in the consultation response that they would need to take new primary powers to enable the Secretary of State for Education to make alternative payments in addition to grants and loans. These were secured in the Higher Education and Research Act, which received Royal Assent in April 2017. Specialist consultants were appointed in October 2017 to provide advice on the range of issues that would need to be resolved for a new system of alternative student finance to be implemented.
Work has started to assess how the Department for Education can ultimately deliver an ASF product alongside the LLE. Our aim is that students will be able to access alternative student finance as soon as possible after 2025. The reason for that timespan is that a range of complex policy, legal and system issues will need to be resolved to launch an alternative student finance product. Most importantly, that includes procuring advice from experts in Islamic finance, who will be working with the Student Loans Company to better understand timescales for delivery of such a product. The Government are introducing the LLE, which will significantly change the ways students can access learning and financial support. The scale and complexity here should not be underestimated. The DfE is trying to replicate a system of student finance that delivers the same results as now and whereby students do not receive any advantage, or suffer any disadvantage, through applying for alternative student finance.
Furthermore, the ASF product will need to mirror the mainstream student finance offer to ensure that access to finance and the repayments expected from borrowers are the same. From the 2025-26 academic year, new students studying at level 6 seeking government financial support will do so using the Student Loans Company’s systems under new LLE regulations. The LLE regulations and delivery specification therefore need to be finalised before an ASF equivalent can be delivered. Finally, every “touch point” for students at the SLC—that is, marketing and information materials, application forms, online portals and correspondence—will need to be reviewed and modified to ensure sharia compliance.
The Department for Education is procuring advice from experts in Islamic finance to support delivery and planning of this product, and launched an expression of interest advertisement, which closed on 20 February, to understand the market capability to deliver this advice. The department is currently considering responses and next steps. The noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, raised the takaful. The advice will support the next phase of delivery of alternative student finance on the detailed design of an ASF takaful product, as part of the LLE, and on the delivery of ASF by the Student Loans Company.
In response to the request for a meeting, this is obviously something that will need to be done in joint consideration with the Department for Education. I cannot make promises for both departments but I will take the request back. As per the request in the previous group, I note that this would ideally be before Report.
I hope I have reassured noble Lords that the Government are committed to ensuring that sharia-compliant financial products are accessible. I therefore request that the noble Lord withdraws his amendment.
Lord Sharkey (LD)
I regret to say that the noble Lord has not convinced me at all that any progress is likely to be made and has not really explained why we are in the position we are in. I have talked to Islamic finance experts quite frequently over the last 11 years that this has been going on. They have always told me that it should take up to 18 months or so to have some kind of ASF product available on the market. They point to the Islamic version of the Help to Buy scheme, which I think the Minister mentioned. From a standing start, that was sold in the marketplace 18 months later. If that can be done, why can we not move faster? The basic question of why this is taking so long has not been answered by anybody here today.
I return to the 71-page report on the LLE. Why was the delay in ASF not explained? There was no attempt to explain why it was put back. It is quite obvious that no preliminary work of any standing was being done for the last 11 years. That in itself is deeply shocking.
It is also true that there has been no significant engagement with the Muslim community throughout this whole period. Why is that? That does not seem sensible, reasonable or honest.
I get no sense that the Government are embarrassed by their position, that they intend to move faster than they have over the past 11 years or that they understand the moral nature of this issue. I will withdraw the amendment but, unless we get the meeting that we talked about so we can sit down together to talk about this with members of the community as well as parliamentarians, when it comes to Report we will find a way, if we can, to encourage the Government to do more faster than they currently plan to do. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Moylan
“Politically exposed persons: UK taxpayers
(1) Within six months of this Act being passed, the Treasury must take all reasonable steps to make regulations to amend the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017 (S.I. 2017/692) so as to secure that, for the purposes of the regulation of financial services, individuals who are ordinarily resident for tax purposes in the United Kingdom are not treated as politically exposed persons, or as family members or close associates of a politically exposed person.(2) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.”
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I move Amendment 215 in my name and speak in general support of the other amendments in this group, all of which tend in a similar direction. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, and the noble Lords, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Sharkey, for adding their names to my amendment.
Noble Lords will have many personal experiences of the harm and damage being done by the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017 in their own lives and in those of their families and what are described as their close contacts, so I will not begin this short speech by giving a long list of examples; I will give only one. But I hope others will arise later, because while we in the Committee understand the damage done, members of the public who might be observing this debate will not necessarily know what we are talking about or why it matters so much to us.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 224 and to others in the group, including the ably moved Amendment 215, to which I have added my name.
I thought that this had been going on for a long time, but the 11 years on the sharia law amendment was even longer. This started only a decade ago, when the noble Lord, Lord Flight, raised it in 2013. Then the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, raised it in 2014 and the noble Lord, Lord Flight, and my noble friend Lord Harris raised it in July 2015. I had a Question for short debate on it later in 2015, at which point the Minister at the time, who subsequently became Chief Whip—although he is no longer—completely understood it, partly because it had affected him, as he said in the debate. It was also covered in the Mail on Sunday, because Charles Walker had raised it in a debate in the Commons in January 2016. I also had a Written Question in March 2016. If we say that we are doing this quickly, I just remind everyone that this has been going on a very long time.
The problem is that neither the FCA, to which I wrote back in 2016, nor the Treasury has actually moved to lift the burden on us normal PEPs, despite the FCA’s July 2017 guidance which, if it was complied with, would solve the problem—but it has never been complied with. Since that guidance, which is FG 17/6, we have continued to raise the issue in the House—on 6 September 2021, 22 February 2021, 3 March 2021, 24 and 25 November 2021, 5 July 2022 and 28 November 2022. So there should be no surprise at anything that is being said today.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I am sure we all have our own stories of how we have fallen foul of the PEP regulations. My own relatively recent one is that Revolut refused to let me have an international payment card, with no real explanation. It must have been because it tagged me as a PEP, because I cannot think of any other reason why it would not want to give me one. But I do not think this is really about our individual experiences, even though they are extremely aggravating for us and, indeed, our families.
I have Amendment 227 in this group, and I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Trenchard for adding his name to it. The Minister will see that the four amendments in this group are all slightly different, but she should take no comfort that they are not taking a consistent approach to this problem. They demonstrate, as I am sure this debate will, that we have a united resolve that this has to be dealt with.
Like my noble friend Lord Moylan’s amendment, mine seeks to amend the 2017 money laundering regulations to exclude people with a UK nexus from the PEP regime in the area of financial services. My noble friend’s amendment excludes individuals who are “ordinarily resident” in the UK for tax purposes, while mine focuses on UK citizens. My amendment says that UK citizens are not to be treated as PEPs unless the FCA considers that any of the categories of PEPs set out in the regulation—my noble friend Lord Moylan read this out—presents a money laundering risk. My amendment is predicated on UK MPs, Ministers and all the others in the list not presenting a higher money laundering risk than the rest of the UK population. There may well be some bad apples in the PEP barrel, but no more so than in other segments of UK society.
I believe that the money laundering regulations are based on an erroneous assumption, at least so far as the UK is concerned, that all PEPs—and their families and associates—present a high risk in money laundering terms. My amendment leaves the decision on risk to the FCA, on the basis of a risk assessment, but I would be staggered if the FCA concluded that UK PEPs presented a particular money laundering risk. Indeed, its own 2017 guidance, which the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, referred to—and apparently enjoys reading in the evenings—states that UK PEPs should normally be treated as low risk.
My amendment is based on citizenship. I believe that is a fairly straightforward way, because it can be established by way of a passport, which will often be required in any event as part of proof of identity for money laundering purposes, for all categories of individual. I believe it is administratively less complex than the way based on tax status in my noble friend Lord Moylan’s amendment, for a number of reasons, including the fact that more than four times as many people have passports than fill in tax returns.
In addition, my noble friend’s amendment seems to admit that foreigners can be exempt from the PEP rules if they are resident in the UK and paying tax here. I am somewhat uncomfortable with that proposition. My noble friend may not be aware that the term “ordinarily resident”, which appears in the amendment, disappeared from the tax code 10 years ago.
I am similarly not convinced that the other two amendments in this group will do the trick, because they call for consultations and reviews by the FCA, but the FCA has consulted on and reviewed this before. As we heard, the latest set of guidance, which came out in 2017, recognised that UK PEPs are not high risk, but nothing has changed, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, said. The fundamental problem remains that the regulations require enhanced due diligence for all PEPs, and that is where the aggravation arises. Even low-risk PEPs have to be subjected to enhanced due diligence, with all the record keeping and evidence that entails.
Furthermore, the regulated firms that have to comply with money laundering laws are, frankly, terrified of falling foul of their regulators, whether here or abroad. It has cost them a small fortune in regulatory fines and compliance costs, and they simply will not take unnecessary risks. From their perspective, upsetting a few PEPs and their families is a lot less expensive than getting entangled in regulatory enforcement. That is why I believe that we have to change the regulations if we are to achieve a step change and get UK PEPs treated with common sense in our own country.
Lord Sharkey (LD)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 215 from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. I congratulate him on his opening remarks.
I first encountered the PEP problem in 2016, as the banks were preparing for and, in some cases, anticipating AML regulations. For years I had had money with NS&I with minimal fuss and no difficulties at all, so I was very surprised when it wrote to me demanding very much more detail about my finances and sources of funds. My three children were even more surprised to get the same letter from NS&I—they did not even have NS&I accounts, which showed overzealousness on the part of the organisation.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, I rise for a moment to support the amendments from my noble friends Lord Moylan and Lady Noakes. I spent much of my political career in Brussels, where I used to complain regularly that various directives and regulations were gold-plated when they came back to this country. We were always very stern in the implementation of just about everything that came from the European Union. I and others in this Room played some part in preparing these things, including the anti-money laundering regulations. In fact, for a long time, when I went places I endured the description, “Here’s the expert on money laundering”. This was not very nice, but it got even worse with the PEP issue.
My noble friend Lady Noakes is right to say that we should not dwell too much on our personal problems with this. I will not, although I have had problems—more particularly, one of my sons, when he tried to open an account with an emerging bank. Everything was going swimmingly until someone contacted him and said, “Are you by any chance related to a Lord Kirkhope?” He said yes, presumably thinking that it would help him get a better deal, “That’s my father—thank you very much”. That was that. He then received a communication some two weeks later telling him that his application for an account had been declined, but they would not give him a reason and apparently could not do so under our regulations in this country. It was obvious why he was declined; that information had been enough to make them use some kind of prescriptive arrangement whereby everybody is looked into not individually but under a general approach, subject to having a PEP in your family.
Again, I will not get into the point from my noble friend Lord Moylan that we can now ignore the anti-money laundering regulations or do something different. That might well be the case but I do not want to revive discussions on Europe in this debate. However, we were very careful when we drew up the regulations. It was very much a British component that insisted on the regulations being employed or deployed proportionately. The word “proportionate”, which has been referred to already, was conveyed with those regulations to us in this country. The problem was that, when we entrusted the implementation of the regulations into the hands of the FCA we failed to oblige it to follow a proportionate approach in the way we should have done, although the word “require” is set out in its instructions. It did not do so, has not done so and appears not to be willing to do so.
I simply want to make it clear that consultations, which I think my noble friend Lady Noakes mentioned a moment ago, seemed to take place, particularly in 2017. It was perfectly clearly stated how these things should be implemented. It was not expected that those holding politically exposed positions in the UK should be regarded as anything other than a low risk, rather than the enhanced risk that we seem to be stuck with. I suggest that it is too late for consultation and that it must be done by way of legislation. Very strict instructions must then follow to the financial institutions, past, present and future, that they must not deploy the draconian measures and inquiries that are totally unnecessary and unjustified.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I apologise that, in the earlier group of amendments, I omitted to declare my interests as a director of two investment companies.
All four amendments in this group seek in different ways to find a solution to the problem that all noble Lords, and members of their families, suffer as a result of being designated as politically exposed persons. Regulation 35 of the 2017 regulations provides that a regulated person must “manage the enhanced risks” arising from having a business relationship or conducting a transaction with a PEP. It assumes that such a business relationship always carries a higher risk than a business relationship with a person who is not a PEP. From my experience, I suggest that the reverse is the case—in other words, entering into a business relationship with a Member of your Lordships’ House carries, in general at least, a lower degree of risk than the average risk posed by a customer of a relevant person.
However, the regulation requires more personal KYC information to be provided in respect of PEPs than for other customers. As noble Lords are well aware, it is currently hard enough for anybody to open a bank account or an account with any financial institution. Long-standing customers with active accounts with banks who fail to answer emailed requests for proof of address or the like find their account summarily closed, without any appeal. It is very difficult and time consuming to speak to anyone with responsibility for such decisions. Quite extraordinarily, when a credit card operator obtains KYC information for a customer with regard to one account, it does not automatically regard that information as being equally relevant to other accounts held with it by the same customer. The situation for PEPs is disproportionately worse.
My son, who was resident in Taiwan, was nominated by his employer as a signatory on his corporate bank accounts but was subjected to entirely disproportionate questioning which caused a considerable degree of irritation. He experienced the same thing when proposed by his employer as a signatory on a Singapore bank account. He has now had to agree with his employer not to be nominated on the corporate bank accounts in Korea, where he now resides, and in several other jurisdictions.
I have put my name to Amendment 227, well introduced by my noble friend Lady Noakes, which sensibly seeks to disapply the application of PEP status for this purpose by the FCA in respect of UK citizens. Amendment 215, in the name of my noble friend Lord Moylan and others, would place an obligation on the Treasury to achieve the same thing. But these amendments do not solve the problem for overseas relevant persons. I hope that the adoption of more proportionate and reasonable guidance, as proposed by my noble friend Lord Kirkhope in his Amendment 234, to which I have also added my name, might eventually be copied by overseas regulators too.
In any event, I ask my noble friend the Minister to respond positively and to commit to take action on these proposals. It really is time that something was done about the expensive waste of time caused by the current regulations.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I will be brief. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, made the point that this should not be just about us and anecdotes about ourselves. That is true, but the fact that family members are caught up in it leads you to think, “Maybe I could cope with it, but why should innocent members of my family be affected in this way?”
However, I am falling into my own trap because I am saying “innocent family members” as though we are not innocent. One of the most disconcerting aspects of this whole discussion is that this is about the law of unintended consequences. We all know who these regulations should be aimed at, and none of us would advocate being soft on money laundering or not having the kind of regulatory framework necessary to deal with money used for terrorism and so on. But can you imagine what it would say to the public were they to find out that the PEPs on that list that the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, read out are considered to be dodgy people who are not to be trusted? We are telling the public that political figures in this country are what some of the more cynical and nihilistic commentariat might have us believe—that everybody is on the brink of money laundering. It sends a terrible message, but I feel as though it is just the law of unintended consequences.
As noble Lords know, if you ask whether this is happening because you are a politically exposed person, the person you are talking to goes through the most extreme example of gaslighting, where they kind of glower at you and, as one noble Lord said, either imply that it is happening to everyone all around the country or that you are making it up. You are made to feel completely paranoid, even though you know that that is probably the cause. Without telling anecdotes, I can say that I am met with a certain amount of aggression.
On lots of aspects of the Bill—certainly the parts that I was involved in the other day—we have talked about the public’s frustration that banks are closing all the time. Barclays has just announced a whole set of closures. We are worried about the consequences of not being able to go into a bank and talk to a manager and about what kind of lives we will have if everything is overly removed from people’s interactions. Here we have the most unnecessary example of risk-averse, bureaucratic time wasting from banks which should be spending their time serving the public and working for society’s financial services as we face an economic crisis. Can you imagine how much time they waste checking on us? I know how much time I have wasted during their completely unnecessarily and spuriously checking on us.
I do not know which of the amendments I prefer but, for once, I just want the law to change. I shall go with whichever is likely to win and pass. We are not doing the public any favours at all by worrying that they might think that we are just talking about ourselves in this instance, because the public are having their financial services wasting time on something that is not due diligence but a complete distraction from attacking the real problem.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, I may have had the unique experience among us here of having to chair the committees that did some of the anti-money laundering directives. It is right that the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, points at the origins and the fact that we have carried through some things that were not necessary.
We have to go back to where it all began. He was quite right that it was with the Financial Action Task Force, which related to foreign nationals. We had a problem in the EU with what that meant—foreign vis-à-vis the EU—and tried hard to construct ways in which we could exempt the whole of the EU. There were words that would do that, but they did not get past the civil liberties committee people. We kept running up against being told that we could not discriminate. It was very difficult, because two committees were involved—my committee, the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, and the civil liberties committee. Most of the time, because we were a bigger committee, we managed to outvote the civil liberties people, but there were one or two places where they had unique responsibility and, unfortunately, things such as discrimination were theirs, not ours.
I am telling this story because, if we want to solve this problem—if we say, “Okay, now we’ve had Brexit, we don’t need to stick to the rules that were made in the EU”—what can we do? Can we actually do what FATF said and discriminate within the UK against people who are in the UK but foreign? Where does that leave us with our discrimination laws? I cannot solve that, but I wonder whether the Minister knows the answer—because if the answer is that we are not hidebound and can do what FATF said, let us do that and put the focus where it should be.
It is very difficult to do a risk-based approach. I am all for it, and I think that the banks should do more of it. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, has explained, it is costly. In fact, these things are outsourced; you fill in all the forms, somebody somewhere else ticks the boxes and the bank jolly well does not know its client any better. Then two or three years later, they ask you for all the same forms again, and they do not notice if you have done it exactly the same.
When the anti-money laundering regulations first came out, we seemed to get up to speed in the UK very quickly, and we started getting all this rubbish very quickly. I got the Belgian versions, because I still had Belgian bank accounts. I got a nice little form with tick-boxes on, so I photocopied that and started sending it to some UK banks, asking them why they could not do the same thing, although it did not get me anywhere. Recently, all the EU banks have stepped up, and my son has had a lot of trouble with the Irish banks, because he was working in Ireland—and he had even more trouble once he was no longer working in Ireland and came back to the UK, even though he has Irish nationality. He has had to close his accounts, because he just could not operate them.
So there are some issues here that need to be handled. I thought, going through this and trying to remember the discussions we had, that the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, got the closest by saying that if they are already having some check, such as through the tax authority, then that is a proper and non-discriminatory way to take people out of it. It is hard to think of anything better than that, other than just taking everybody out.
It is true that these regulations were really meant for catching politicians in dodgy countries who had access to ways to bypass the normal systems and checks for moving large sums of money between countries—for pilfering it. It is very difficult to talk about who they might have been without having carefully prepared your notes—although I know we have parliamentary privilege. They were not meant to affect ordinary people. Under the FATFA provisions, it was never meant to be ordinary people or ordinary politicians in generally law-abiding countries, shall we say, where politicians are not given extraordinary access to start siphoning off money from the central bank and suchlike. I do not think there is anyone in our central bank who can do that—perhaps the chief cashier; I have not thought about that—but that is who they were meant for.
Like others, I do not have confidence that our regulators will necessarily break cover and do something dramatically new if we ask them to revise this. It will be a problem that they are entrenched in the rules they have and the thinking of the other regulators who they keep meeting when they go places. It needs something very clear in legislation—something like the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, if we can check out the point about discrimination. It is very difficult for us, as PEPs, to vote on things such as this, but it is causing a lot of distress to a lot of people. It is potentially devastating when you cannot complete on your house purchase and such things, and when things are happening randomly. It needs to be attended to. I really do not see why the Government cannot put their foot down and say to the banks and regulators that this must be done in a way that truly reflects who the targets are.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I will speak very briefly in support of the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Moylan and those spoken to by my noble friend Lady Noakes. All noble Lords have spoken very well, and there is clearly consensus here. The specific issue here has trundled on for 10 years. I remember that when I served as treasurer of the 1922 Committee, this was an issue taken up by both the then chairman and, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, by Sir Charles Walker. I naively believed that we had resolved this issue by about 2017-18; obviously, that is not what happened.
This is about the limits of a permissive regulatory regime. It is clear that the Treasury and the regulatory bodies involved have not taken a blind bit of notice of the cross-party support in Parliament. This is not a niche issue that affects just us. In my case, I was affected because I was told by my mortgage provider that I was not going to be permitted to make mortgage payments, let alone make any withdrawals from a bank account. But this is also an issue of the civil liberties of our family members and extended family members. On that basis, we must take a very tough stance.
I come back to the particular point from the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, about what we have the ability to do now that we are outside the EU—although my noble friend Lord Kirkhope is right that we must not recapitulate the arguments about Brexit. The noble Baroness’s point was astute, in that there is no proper risk analysis and risk assessment of all of these individual cases. A generic policy is applied across all individuals.
Frankly, let us be honest: the UK is one of the most open and transparent political systems in the western world. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, is absolutely right that people are not attracted to public service if the fallback position is, “You’re a liar, a cheat, a crook and a thief if you go into public service”. It is important that, after 10 years, we make that appropriate point.
If we do not adopt my noble friend Lord Moylan’s rather benign amendment, a future Government may well take a much more draconian approach to this, both for the regulators and for the individual financial institutions. On that basis, they have a vested interest in sorting this situation out because, when the Financial Action Task Force proposals were published in 2012, they were not about asking people like the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, to produce a premium bond certificate from 1957—I scarcely believe that it was 1957; I thought it might be a lot later.
This is an opportunity, and I hope that my noble friend the Minister makes, or at least commits to, those changes. This is not the first time that I have been compared to a brothel keeper—although that is normally in the other House—but my noble friend Lord Moylan makes a good point. This is an opportunity to right this wrong. This is not about us and it is not a niche issue: it is about civil liberties, decency, honesty, openness and transparency. We need action from Ministers on this.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, after so many very good speeches, I will be short. My personal experiences vary wildly. I remember a four or five-page document for a credit card, and I remember the bank that most of my money is in ringing me up and saying, “What’s this extraordinarily large amount of money that has just come into your account?” I said, “You’re not going to believe this, but it is my son paying me back a loan”, which he had. I heard nothing more from the bank. That gives an insight into the disproportionate ways in which various institutions react to this, and much of the problem is in that behaviour.
Let us not get away from the problem: money laundering is serious. If you believe all of the thoughtful reports on it, it is serious in our City. It is absolutely valid that we take it very seriously. I understand from the professionals who regulate us that it is very subtle: a lot of it is done with seemingly innocent accounts moving relatively modest amounts of money in a highly managed way. It is a profession that is, sadly and unfortunately, probably absorbing some good brains in an evil trade.
One has to accept that getting the regulations right is very challenging. I take the general view I hear today that the regulations need further improvement. Clearly, that has to go in law. Therefore, I urge those who have put forward amendments to try to address the problem and put together a common amendment that may attract support across this House and the other place. Of course, it would be much better if the Minister came forward with her own solution.
We have to think about the other agents here: the banks and financial institutions. Sadly, they seem to work like many large institutions do. They take views about spending money and about their duties; frankly, all too often their duties are not to their customers. The moment a piece of complexity is built in, they end up with algorithmic solutions and basic statements that some algorithm has been offended here or there, and they take draconian solutions: they close or block accounts. This is absolutely unreasonable.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the Government have a lot of sympathy with noble Lords who feel that they or their families have been subject to unreasonable treatment due to their status as politically exposed persons, or PEPs. As noble Lords have mentioned, I have engaged with noble Lords to understand this issue and I am aware that the difficulties faced can range from seemingly disproportionate requests for information to accounts being blocked, leaving Peers and their family members at risk of being unable to effectively manage their financial affairs.
The Treasury and the FCA will continue to work to address this issue and to ensure that those subject to these rules are treated fairly and proportionately. Before discussing that work further, I will set out the importance of the PEPs regime to UK security and the fight against economic crime.
Enhanced due diligence by banks is a key component of the UK’s anti-money laundering and anti-corruption measures, and ensures that any suspicious activity is identified and reported to law enforcement. Given the potential for the positions of influence held by those subject to the PEPs regime to make them targets for serious and organised criminals and hostile state actors, law enforcement agencies have strongly favoured maintaining these requirements on domestic PEPs. The enhanced due diligence measures are a crucial part of the UK’s anti-money laundering regime and contribute to a coherent, systemwide approach to tackling economic crime, providing law enforcement with valuable and actionable intelligence to help protect the UK’s political system from hostile state actors, for instance.
However, the Government of course recognise that domestic PEPs often represent a lower risk than overseas PEPs. This is already explicit in FCA guidance, which states that domestic PEPs should be treated as lower risk by financial institutions unless other risk factors are present. The FCA remains committed to monitoring banks’ compliance with its guidance on PEPs, and will take action where it identifies systemic issues. The FCA did so last year, resulting in one financial institution apologising to all PEP customers after its failure to adhere to FCA guidance.
In last year’s review of the money laundering regulations, the Government committed to an assessment of the risk profile of domestic PEPs and made it clear that we would consider removing the requirement for mandatory enhanced due diligence if they were found to be sufficiently low risk. The Government’s assessment of the risk profile of domestic PEPs has concluded. As part of that work, they engaged with law enforcement and other operational partners to develop their under-standing of the risk posed by domestic PEPs. In light of that review, the Government consider that the existing requirements remain appropriate.
However, given the concerns raised, the Government will continue to work with the FCA to ensure that banks and other financial institutions appropriately and proportionately implement the guidance set out by the FCA regarding the treatment of domestic PEPs, that it is taken forward in a way that is proportionate to their individual risk and that adjustments are made to enhanced due diligence measures as necessary. I would like to reassure noble Lords that the Treasury continues to engage with the FCA on this issue and stress the importance of taking a proportionate, risk-based approach to the application of enhanced measures on domestic PEPs.
I turn to the specifics of the amendments. Amendment 215 from my noble friend Lord Moylan would remove those politically exposed persons who are tax residents from the regime entirely. As I have set out, including domestic PEPs in the regime is important because of the risks presented by their positions of influence. Such a proposal would weaken the UK’s protection from money laundering and corruption and leave us non-compliant with international standards. International standards for domestic PEPs, as my noble friend set out, are set by the Financial Action Task Force. They require countries to implement a legal framework that compels regulated firms to identify whether their customers are domestic PEPs and make an assessment of which due diligence measures to apply based on the risk presented.
Amendment 215 would remove the requirement for financial institutions to identify and treat those resident in the UK for tax purposes as PEPs, making the UK non-compliant with those international standards. The UK is a leading member of the Financial Action Task Force and was recognised in its mutual evaluation report in 2018 as having the most effective anti-money laundering regime of well over 100 countries assessed to date. The UK remains committed to ensuring that its anti-money laundering regime is compliant with these international standards. While I appreciate that, in drafting their amendments, noble Lords may have sought to remain compliant with those standards, I am afraid it is not possible to remove domestic PEPs from identification altogether and remain compliant.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
Why is it therefore possible to exclude councillors, as the guidance does, but not Peers?
Baroness Penn (Con)
That is a question of who is classed as a domestic PEP, not of the need to have a regime in place to identify domestic PEPs and then look at what enhanced due diligence measures should be applied to them.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
Does the Minister accept that we could therefore exclude all Members of Parliament?
Baroness Penn (Con)
I do not think that would be consistent with the Financial Action Task Force guidance that is interpreted at a UK level.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
I am sorry, but the Minister said that we are a leading member of the Financial Action Task Force. It has been enabled to take councillors out; it is very hard to imagine that Members of this House could not be.
Lord Moylan (Con)
I know the answer to this. It is because the FCA said in 2017 that a council was not a parliament or similar body. Those words appear in the task force recommendation. By declaring that a council was not a parliament or a similar body, members of councils immediately fell out of the regulatory scope by virtue of the guidance as it was changed at that time.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
This may not be something that the Minister can answer straightaway, but she has just finished by saying that the law enforcement agencies still wanted to keep the provisions. It would be good if she could tell me which and why, and on the basis of what evidence. How many parliamentarians have been done for money laundering, for example, and how many have featured seriously in inquiries? If that information is not to hand, I should be very happy to have it explained in detail in writing. I am still a bit perplexed, because my understanding of FATF was the same as that of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan: that is to do with foreign politicians, not our domestic politicians, or has FATF been updated? Oh, the noble Lord has it on his iPad.
Lord Moylan (Con)
It is the website with the 2021 version of the recommendations.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
So I cannot reconcile what the Minister has just told us with what is in FATF. If it needs detailed and arduous explanation, I am quite happy to have it in writing, but on the face of it, it is irreconcilable.
Earl Attlee (Con)
Further to the questions of the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, can the Minister point to any illegal activity on the part of a parliamentary PEP that has been detected as result of the money laundering regulations?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, to deal with the question of the risk assessment undertaken as part of this work, as I have already said, the Government have engaged closely with law enforcement and the intelligence community to inform our understanding of the risk in this area. It is a difficult area, and it is not particularly appropriate to go into detail on the contents of the risk assessment, given the sensitive nature of the information. As I also set out, the context is that there is potential for those in positions of influence to make domestic PEPs targets for influencing behaviour by serious and organised criminals and hostile state actors. The potential links between domestic PEPs and criminal activity vary, including abuse of political position for personal gain or links to overseas corruption.
I very much understand the desire by those directed by the regulation to hear more about that risk assessment. It was a question that I anticipated and to which I sought to get as full an answer as possible for the Committee. I am under constraints, but I shall none the less take away the requests from noble Lords to see whether there is any more I can do to provide more information on that point.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
I follow up the inquiry of my noble friend Lord Attlee about statistics—whether parliamentarians have actually fallen foul—and take it one stage further. With regard to the particularly appalling way in which family members are implicated here, do we have statistics on how many family members of parliamentarians have fallen foul? Surely, they are implicated simply because they are related to someone who is classified as a PEP. We have mentioned human rights, but this provision cannot be fair or proper and should surely be removed.
Baroness Penn (Con)
As I said, I shall take away the point about what further I can say about the work on the risk assessment. The focus has been on looking at risk, and my understanding is that, in considering that, the question of close associates or family members—I believe that is the terminology in the regulations—has also been considered.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
I am sorry about this, but the Minister will not be surprised, because we have had 10 years of this issue. There was a review last year, which she reported on in the House, which said that no change was needed, which is extraordinary. She referred to the case where we all got an apology, but that was only because we kept on standing up and asking for it, otherwise it would never have happened.
The important thing that I wanted to raise is that this somehow is going further than anti-money laundering—it is about general corruption. Some of us have been debating the National Security Bill, where it is being dealt with in another way. I do not think that the Minister has been following that Bill, but I can understand that she has not because she has been involved with this one. We now have the FIRS scheme, which will be set up when the Bill becomes an Act and which is about the other things—the approach to politicians by malign forces trying to corrupt us, or whatever. So can we take out corruption and that sort of thing, because the National Security Bill will deal with that? This is simply to be simply about anti-money laundering—in other words, dirty money.
A lot of what the Minister has said goes beyond that, and the fact that she cannot tell us means that the spooks—who tell us that they do not want it, by the way—want it for some other cause. That is not the purpose of the provisions on anti-money laundering; it is about dirty money. Perhaps the Minister could talk to the Home Office and Tom Tugendhat about how much is covered now on the approach to any of us as politicians by malign forces, because this is separate.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, although I have not been following the detail of that Bill, I am aware of the provisions in it. As part of looking at this question, one question asked is, in our broader ecosystem of the checks and balances that we have on our politicians and people defined as PEPs—the other requirements of disclosure that they are held to and the other tools that we have at our disposal—how they influence the risk assessment has been done. I reassure noble Lords that that question has been asked. I should also reassure noble Lords that I am seeing the Security Minister tomorrow to discuss economic crime, but also that issue. We are seeking wherever possible to ensure that there is join-up across government in our assessment of the risks and the tools available to deal with them, ensuring that where we have measures in place they remain proportionate. That is something that I continue to engage with, with the Security Minister and others across government.
I shall just try to answer the point on the Financial Action Task Force, the difference between domestic and foreign PEPs, and the requirements within that, as I understand it. I commit to following up in writing if it remains unclear or if anything I say is not correct. The requirement for automatic enhanced due diligence applies to foreign PEPs. However, within the FATF guidance on recommendations 12 and 22—I think that this is particularly around 12—there is still the need to take steps to identify whether someone is a domestic politically exposed person and then review the relevant risk factors. So they need to determine whether a customer or beneficial owner is a domestic PEP, then determine the risk of the business relationship in that context—and then, in low-risk cases, there are no further steps to determine whether a customer is a PEP. In other words, there is still a requirement to identify whether someone is a domestic PEP or not and to look at the risk around that.
Where there is a difference, in my understanding, from the Financial Action Task Force requirements, is that for foreign PEPs you need to apply automatic enhanced due diligence. Under the EU regulations, that also applied to domestic PEPs—and we therefore ensured that automatic enhanced due diligence applied to domestic as well as foreign PEPs was a system in our regulations. The review we did last year into all of our anti-money laundering regulations did not conclude that on this matter no further action was to be taken but that we needed to look at the risk profile and risks associated with domestic PEPs before determining whether those requirements of automatic enhanced due diligence remained appropriate, now that we had the ability to vary our money laundering regulations, having left the EU. So that was a further piece of work that needed to be done after the review was published last summer of our money laundering regulations overall. That further piece of work has been undertaken, and I have undertaken to write to noble Lords with further details if I can provide them on that risk assessment, but that concluded that it was appropriate to maintain automatic enhanced due diligence for domestic PEPs.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
Did this review involve the FCA? When the FCA reissued its guidance in 2017 it was very clear about domestic PEPs being low risk, but it was constrained by the regulations, which said that you had to do enhanced due diligence. It was within that context. There seems to have been a shift between the FCA’s apparent position on the risk profile of UK PEPs and what my noble friend the Minister is now saying that she is being told by the security services, which will always try to find things that can go wrong. It is quite easy to construct a case that we are potentially capable of being corrupted by whoever and involved in money laundering, but they are not involved in the money laundering processes; the FCA is. I am getting a bit confused about how robust this risk assessment is in the context of money laundering.
Baroness Penn (Con)
I believe that it aimed to get relevant information from all those involved and take a holistic view. I appreciate and agree that we need to ensure that, when these measures are put in place, they are proportionate to the risk faced, so it is entirely right to interrogate that risk assessment. I also appreciate that it is a slightly frustrating process when the sensitive nature of some of these issues means that we cannot always go into all the details noble Lords want at this time. I have tried to explain the context as to why domestic PEPs are viewed as having sufficiently high risk so that enhanced due diligence should still apply. I have the FCA guidance in my pack but I will not go through it, but it is also true to say—this is another point that I checked—that although the risk is sufficient to have enhanced due diligence measures, it is lower for domestic PEPs than for foreign PEPs. That assessment still applies.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
The Minister is doing a very good job on a very sticky wicket. I am not surprised. Notwithstanding what she said about risk assessments and how that has to be, of necessity, a discretionary issue, the problem we are identifying, which the Government should address if they come forward with an amendment at Report, is the opaque nature of identifying these individuals and the offence against natural justice, because when people have accounts closed they are often not told why, who made the decision, on what basis and using what methodology. That is a serious issue and, after 10 years, one that the Government should address, if necessary by a government amendment.
Baroness Penn (Con)
I absolutely take that point. It comes back to the appropriate and proportionate enforcement of these regulations. I know that that is something noble Lords have raised previously, but we need to continue to work to ensure that it takes place.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
This goes back to when the Minister mentioned the FATF provisions. I thought she mentioned the risks in business relationships. All the stuff we get as PEPs is our personal stuff; it is nothing to do with business relationships. I have not been interrogated about anything to do with the London Stock Exchange, of which I am a non-executive director; I am interrogated about my father’s will and that kind of stuff.
Again, I am happy—in fact I would almost prefer—for the Minister to write the replies because it is hard to put together quoted bits and pieces, even when we get them back in Hansard. It seems that the whole risk assessment business is being set aside at the behest of the security agencies, which just like the idea that they have another captive load of people and that they may be able to track something with money—which I doubt, because these forms go to an outsourced place, they are filed, and nobody ever looks at them. There is no “know your client” going on. They may look at one or two, but I do not see how it adds up at all, even taking that security aspect into account, because if anybody was really a security threat, there are other ways of vetting.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I am confused. I always encourage people to find out what is happening in this House by telling them to look at the speeches and follow Hansard, but now I am dreading anyone watching this because we have a government Minister implying that the security services at looking at us, particularly our private financial affairs, because we are high risk. Why? I do not think that is true. I want to denounce the notion that because you are in the House of Lords you are more likely to be doing something such as that.
I do not think the Minister can answer my second point, but I think we would all feel that it is a generalised accusation rather than specifically going after individuals who might be doing things that are wrong based on evidence, which nobody here objects to. Never mind the families; I have got to the point now where it is not just the families. I am sitting here feeling embarrassed, thinking, “Oh god, somebody is basically saying that the security forces think that we are all up to no good”. If the public find that out, it is said by a Minister and it is the general atmosphere, that is not good, is it? I usually put my speeches up on social media; I am not putting this one on. I do not want anyone to know about this conversation, because it will discredit the reputation of this House far more than anything else.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I have already set out for the Committee, and I repeat now, the reasons why UK domestic PEPs may be at greater risk of money laundering. For example, in the general sense, the positions of influence that we have can put us at greater risk. I have also tried to set out—and will set out in writing for noble Lords—the approach that we are taking to look at risk in this area. I will share any further details that I am able to.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
Following on from what has just been said, I would quite like the Minister to rephrase what she said: that we are at greater risk of money laundering. I cannot let that stand on the record.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
I can let stand that we might, in some instances, be at greater risk of being targeted for various things, and I hope that we also have a greater capacity for repelling such actions, given the experience of people in the House and having done the sorts of things that we have done throughout our lives. I am not prepared to accept that kind of statement with any acquiescence whatever on my behalf or, by the sound of it, on behalf of colleagues here.
Baroness Penn (Con)
I am very happy to clarify for the Committee and anyone who may be reading our proceedings, that we, due to our positions of influence, are at greater risk of being targeted by those who may seek to engage in money laundering.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I say to the Committee that if someone tried to target me in any inappropriate way, I would report it to the appropriate authorities immediately.
Baroness Penn (Con)
I am sure that many of us in this Committee would do so—
Baroness Penn (Con)
I am sure we all would. The noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, asked me to set out in writing the position of the Financial Action Task Force in terms of the requirements for foreign and domestic PEPs. I will also set out in writing the position on the risk assessment that has been undertaken, so that everyone has it and it is not just in the toing and froing of the exchanges in this Committee. I will clearly set out for the Committee the Government’s position on this.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
This is a risk of money laundering, not anything else. What wider implications should be taken into account? The FCA knows about money laundering and its risks. How could there be wider considerations than money laundering?
Baroness Penn (Con)
Others are involved in looking at the risks of money laundering in counterterrorist and proliferation financing, which I believe are subject to these regulations.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
As far as financial institutions are concerned, all of those are dealt with by the FCA, not the security services or any other shadowy agencies that seem to be involved in this latest risk assessment, so I am struggling to see what wider issues could possibly have been taken into account.
Baroness Penn (Con)
The Government believe that the decision about the scope of the money laundering regulations is best taken by, and should remain with, the Government, rather than being delegated to the FCA.
I turn to Amendment 224 from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town. This would require the FCA to consult with consumers with regard to its functions relating to PEPs. In the discussion—
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
The noble Baroness does not need to respond on this; it was a placeholder.
Baroness Penn (Con)
Okay—I was going to talk about the engagement that we have conducted so far and will continue.
My noble friend Lord Trenchard touched on my noble friend Lord Forsyth’s Amendment 234, but I am not sure whether anyone spoke to it specifically. In my response, I addressed the Committee’s desire to focus its attention on the statutory changes, and I am not sure we had a detailed discussion on the other proposals put forward here.
Noble Lords have made their position on the issue very clear. I hope that, to some extent, they have also heard the rationale for the Government’s approach and would agree with the desire to be in line with international standards in any action that we take in this area. As the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, said at the start of his remarks, we should bear in mind the context of the Government’s efforts, very much supported by this House—we are often pushed to go further by this House—in tackling issues of economic crime, which include money laundering. We have to recognise that London and the UK being such a centre for financial services, and the great benefits that that brings, also brings greater risks. It is right that we make sure that we have a regime that manages those risks as effectively as possible.
I shall write to noble Lords on the matters that I have mentioned, and any other matters in looking at this debate again, on which I can provide further clarity. I am sure that I will engage with noble Lords further on this issue ahead of Report.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
Would the Minister also engage with the banks and financial institutions to see whether they can improve their performance in being reasonable?
Baroness Penn (Con)
The noble Lord is absolutely right to say that. This Government are committed to do that with the regulator. I understand this Committee’s desire to look at legislative change, but I have also heard from the Committee that the guidance is clear on the lower risks of PEPs, and the challenge really lies in the effective implementation of that guidance. We should not take our eye off that work. It is something that the Government are absolutely committed to doing.
I know that noble Lords have raised the challenges of engaging with the FOS on this issue, but I remind them of that route. I have also said to noble Lords, as the FCA has said, that in the list of contacts that we have provided to parliamentarians with issues with their status as politically exposed persons, the FCA will monitor any of those points of contact in terms of complaints to look more systematically at whether there are issues in individual institutions so that further action can be taken on that basis. The Treasury will continue to engage with the FCA on how we can ensure that that takes place.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
I think that we have already mentioned why the FOS is so inappropriate. To expect a judge to take a complaint to the FOS is frankly out of order. It is no way for this issue to be raised. It is a very small number—but it is not appropriate to ask very senior judiciary to go via FOS, if their children are being affected. That is really not the right way forward.
Baroness Penn (Con)
I appreciate that it will not be the right route of recourse in many circumstances, but I do not agree that it is never the right form of recourse for people. It is important for people to know that that route is there. For particular cases, it may be appropriate. The noble Baroness has set out why, in many other cases, that is not the form of recourse that people want, which is why we have also set out other points of contact and ways in which to try to resolve these issues, which also act as a data point for the FCA as the regulator to look at issues in particular banks or institutions that are not applying the guidance appropriately.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, we have had a very valuable debate. I am grateful to all noble Lords who spoke in it and, if I do not thank them individually, I hope that they will forgive me, given the length of the debate so far. It is unusual, at the end of such a long debate, to be able to summarise the arguments made in one or two sentences—but I can, because everybody, in effect, said the same thing. That is that we want to see change, and the majority of us want to see legislative change.
Having said that I am not going to refer to individuals, there are two speeches to which I will briefly refer, because they were important. The first was the winding-up speech from the Labour Party Front Bench by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe. He spoke very briefly, but his words were very pregnant and important as we approach Report.
The second, which I will deal with at greater length, was the speech made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, who acutely put her finger on a key issue that must be addressed if we are to achieve the legislative change that we want to see. That is about the definition that we choose. When I spoke earlier, I said that there must be a way in which to distinguish satisfactorily between domestic and foreign. In doing this, I will not use the term “non-discriminatory”, because that has legal implications, but we want to do it in a way that is fair and is seen to be fair by everybody who might be affected. At least a couple of suggestions have been made, and they both have merits. This is something to which we need to return as we approach Report, to make sure that we are comfortable with it—but I thought that the noble Baroness put her finger on that very acutely.
Normally, at this stage in a speech of reply, I would turn to a lengthy and careful analysis of the remarks made by the Minister, but she has been subject to a lengthy and careful analysis by practically everybody else in the course of her winding-up speech. So perhaps I will spare her that, and congratulate and thank her for taking, with such good grace, the questions and points that were put to her.
However, I shall refer to two points, the first being the security services. Frankly, I have never come across a case where the police or security services have given up a right to scrutiny that they already have. There is always some excuse for why it is necessary. I find that unconvincing—and the reasons are not, per se, on the grounds that it is the security services, but because of the arguments made here. It is astonishing that there is a special list of people in scope of suspicion of money laundering and terrorism, who happen to be the list in Regulation 35(14), when all of us could supply—even a five year-old could supply—a list of people much more likely to be in scope, who are not being subject to the same scrutiny.
On my second point, I do not think that I am in the wrong here, and suspect that my noble friend has not quite got it right, but am happy to be corrected. What are our international obligations to the FATF, insofar as we have legal obligations to it in a legal sense, given that it is not a legal body?
From this little iPad, I read out and referred very carefully to the current version of recommendation 12. It quite clearly says “foreign”; it places no obligation on the parties to the agreement to do anything about domestic PEPs. Clearly—this is where there may be a degree of confusion—in deciding who is a foreign PEP, you have to make a decision, if you like, that they are not a domestic PEP. Naturally, a sift is therefore required to get to the point of identifying that this is a foreign PEP, but I suspect that too much has been built on that, and there is some suggestion that that sift—are they foreign or are they domestic?—involves some obligation to scrutinise them. However, it simply is not there, so I referred in the course of my noble friend’s speech to the interpretative notes, and there is an interpretative note to recommendation 12, but it deals entirely with life assurance policies.
I think I also heard my noble friend say that recommendation 22 was relevant. That may have been a mishearing on my part but, looking at recommendation 22, it deals almost entirely with casinos, real estate managers and trusts. I do not know why they are all in the same recommendation, but there we are.
House of Lords
Northern Ireland and Great Britain: Regional Connectivity
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rogan
To ask His Majesty’s Government what discussions they are having with airlines about strengthening regional connectivity between Northern Ireland and Great Britain following the collapse of Flybe.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Rogan and with his permission, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, connectivity between Northern Ireland and Great Britain is currently very strong and has largely recovered to 2019 levels. This includes several competing services between Belfast and London, the public service obligation from Derry/Londonderry to London, and routes from Northern Ireland to several cities throughout Great Britain.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a fervent supporter of the union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Does not a strong union require good, efficient and reliable air services between Northern Ireland and the rest of our country, not least in order to assist in the great work being done by the Northern Ireland tourist board in promoting the cultural and environmental glories of the Province, which are not as well-known and widely appreciated as they should be? I know my noble friend understands the anxiety created in Northern Ireland and elsewhere by the sudden collapse of Flybe at the end of January. Will she and the Government do everything possible to help regional airlines increase flights and keep fares down as far as possible for all those travelling to and from this most important part of our country?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I completely agree with my noble friend. I have been to Northern Ireland as a tourist, and it is truly fabulous. On the recent collapse of Flybe, in November 2022 Flybe was transporting only 5.9% of passengers, so I am delighted to say that other airlines have now stepped up and by the end of April we expect that all Flybe routes will be picked up by other carriers.
Baroness O’Loan (CB)
Is the Minister aware that Aer Lingus has pulled out of the Belfast-London route and that there are regular cancellations by British Airways, particularly of the early flights on Monday morning? The reduction in the number of flights from Belfast to London and back is a significant problem.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I will have to take that back to the department because I am not aware of a significant reduction in the number of flights; indeed, I expect them to be back to where they were by the end of April. I looked at the prices a couple of weeks ago, and it was possible to book an easyJet flight on a Monday morning for £22, which I feel is very reasonable. I know that BA has had a few cancellations recently, but I met with it this morning and we discussed how to reduce those as we head into the summer.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
As someone who uses that air connection weekly, I remind the Minister that there was a £5.7 million investment in connectivity between Northern Ireland and Great Britain during the Covid lockdown in May 2020 and since then, Flybe and the Belfast-London, London-Belfast Aer Lingus flights have ceased to operate. What discussions will she have with other airlines on filling the slots, and with Aer Lingus about reinstating its flights between Belfast and London and London and Belfast using Emerald Airlines, which undertakes carrier flights for it to other cities in Britain?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
Aer Lingus flights had to cease because of the wet-leasing arrangements it was using, which it carried on for much longer than the Government would normally allow. However, I am delighted to say that Aer Lingus’s partner in IAG, British Airways, picked up the services so there is no loss in connectivity. Of course, we will warmly welcome Aer Lingus back to that route if it is able to sort out the UK-registered aircraft it would need to operate the route.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, as the Minister said, Flybe failed in 2020 and 2023, which highlights the need to maintain consumer confidence. To do that, customers must be reassured that they have the right to the highest levels of financial protection and full refunds when things go wrong. Last year, the Department for Transport consulted on proposals to reduce consumer rights for domestic flights. Do the Government intend to pursue these plans? In view of the Windsor Framework, will flights between Great Britain and Northern Ireland remain subject to EU rules on compensation?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The Government did indeed consult on a wide range of issues relating to consumers and aviation. We are still considering the response to that consultation and we will publish it in due course.
Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that speeding up Heathrow expansion would provide more opportunities for Northern Ireland companies and open further links to global business, and that new links and flights would encourage competition and provide Northern Ireland with better and cheaper connections to the rest of the UK and the world?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
Any expansion at Heathrow is of course a matter for the airport itself; it is a private company and will be making the decision as to whether to expand. However, there are many London airports. I was at Luton only last week, where a brand new train service operates directly into the airport, which means that Luton will be 30 minutes away from central London. There is a lot of opportunity around London and, of course, we would like regional airlines to make the most of it.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I am very pleased to see the Minister in her place today, and after the HS2 Question on Friday, I expect the noble Lord, Lord Davies, is too. The collapse of Flybe in January was devastating news for staff as well as the wider supply chain and those employed in industries reliant on its transport links. What steps are the Government taking to encourage further investment in Northern Ireland? Are they working with other operators to unlock new opportunities? What further work has been done to reduce the inequalities that domestic airlines face when paying double air passenger duty?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
As the noble Baroness will be aware, the Government announced a reduction in domestic air passenger duty. That comes into force from April 2023—next month—and will be a 50% cut in domestic air passenger duty. As I explained, we work with many of the regional airlines to consider regional connectivity. We will be looking at what we can do around slots but, as I said, services to Northern Ireland in particular are pretty much back to where they were in 2019.
Lord McLoughlin (Con)
My Lords, in drawing attention to my entry in the register of Members’ interests, may I ask my noble friend, when she looks at the case for regional connectivity—be it with Northern Ireland or Scotland—to ensure that the Government have a very strong bias towards protecting those vital slots in some of our larger airports?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My noble friend will be well aware that the Government have limited levers when it comes to slots. However, there are some things that we can do. Slots are allocated by an independent slots co-ordinator. We set out in Flightpath to the Future that we would consult on some elements of slots reform. We still intend to that and, in doing so, we will consider very carefully regional connectivity and how we can ensure that slots are available.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, I want to take my noble friend back to the question of slots. There is a lot of concern that when an airline fails the slots are often sold off at an enormous price, which excludes other, smaller airlines from taking up the routes that that airline has had to leave behind. Will she confirm that the Government are interested in that and will do everything they can to deter that practice?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I am not able to confirm that we will do everything we can to deter that practice because, of course, historic rights to slots are an asset and when an airline fails, those slots can be transferred for a sum to another party and that money can be used to pay creditors. What I can commit to my noble friend is that, for example, the Flybe slots are part of a competition remedy and cover specific routes, which means that any operator can apply to the slots co-ordinator to take up those slots for those specific routes.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I do not seem to be able to get an answer from any other Minister to my question regarding the Belfast to London and Belfast to EU route, so perhaps the noble Baroness can answer it. Can she explain why, given that you can get duty free from Dublin to London, you cannot get it from Belfast to London? Indeed, nor can you get it from Belfast to the EU, because the EU does not allow it. Will she come back to me with a real answer on this—even if it is one the Government do not want to admit to?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I am not sure I am going to be able to help the noble Baroness any more than other Ministers have, as it is beyond my departmental brief. However, I will pass her concerns on to the Treasury.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, while this Question is on the collapse of Flybe, I ask the Minister to pass on congratulations to the Prime Minister and the Chancellor on HMG finding a buyer, with no risk whatever to the taxpayer, for Silicon Valley Bank, which collapsed.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I am sure all noble Lords will agree that the Government acted incredibly swiftly in a very difficult situation, and we were all very pleased with the outcome.
Playing Fields
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Baroness Hoey
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the decreasing numbers of accessible and affordable playing fields.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name, and refer to my entry in the register regarding my position as honorary president of the London Playing Fields Foundation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay) (Con)
My Lords, the Government are committed to ensuring that every community has the facilities it needs so that sport and physical activity are accessible to all. We are investing £300 million in developing thousands of state-of-the-art community football pitches and multiuse sports facilities across the UK. We have committed £30 million a year for three years to school sport facilities in England, and over £20 million with the Lawn Tennis Association to renovate park tennis courts across England, Scotland and Wales.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
I thank the Minister. That all sounds very good, but does he agree that playing fields are more than just green spaces and can help to improve people’s lives physically, mentally and indeed socially? Unfortunately, the temptation at the moment is for councils to get capital receipts from selling off playing fields for more desperately needed housing. That is happening now all over the country. Will the Government accept that real protection will come only when local councils have a specific statutory responsibility for sport and leisure, including playing fields?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I certainly agree with the noble Baroness that sport facilities are important, not just to people’s physical health but to their mental health and well-being. That is why we are investing the sums that we are—£300 million—in ensuring that communities across the UK have them in their areas. At least 50% of the funding will go to the most deprived areas across the United Kingdom, and we work closely with local communities, including local authorities, in ensuring that the provision is there.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I am sure that my noble friend the Minister will be aware that in many areas there are privately owned sports facilities, either private clubs or sometimes public schools. What are the Government doing to encourage those privately owned sport facilities and playing fields to be shared more widely with people in the community?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
We applaud those schools that make their facilities open to the community, and our Opening Schools Facilities programme is providing up to £57 million to allow selected schools across England to keep their facilities open for longer for after-school activities. That is targeted especially at girls, disadvantaged children and people with special educational needs. We want to make sure that everyone has the opportunity to take part in sport and physical activity.
Lord Woodley (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as president of Vauxhall Motors Football Club, where 40,000 children from the age of five play in only one football season. It has been very difficult to watch so many council and school playing fields be sold off so that they can pay their bills, for whatever reason. I suggest to the Minister one or two things that could be done. First, we need to talk to Sport England to stop it objecting to all-weather pitches being laid because of its mental blockage about saying that they must be grass. Secondly, does he agree that the Football Foundation and the Premier League should put even more money into grass-roots football for 4G pitches, so that communities like mine can really enjoy football or rugby throughout the whole of the year?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
In the context of the fan-led review, we have talked through wanting to see funding flow more equitably throughout the football pyramid, and the work that we have taken forward in the White Paper will follow that up. On the question of grass or artificial sports facilities, £43 million of the £300 million I mentioned has already been delivered, which will improve 177 facilities across the UK including 80 artificial-grass pitches and over 20 grass-pitch improvements, so we are looking after pitches of all types.
Lord Addington (LD)
The Minister says that the Government are improving the number of pitches and putting more money in. Do they have an idea of how many pitches and open spaces are required to get the best health benefits out of the exercise programme? If not, why not?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The programme is targeted and, as I say, at least 50% of the funding will go to the most deprived areas across the United Kingdom to make sure that we are inspiring people and giving them the facilities in the areas that they need. We work with a range of bodies to do that.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, I want to press the Minister a little further on the answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, particularly on public and private schools opening their facilities. Those schools have some of the very best sports facilities in the country, and the lack of access to good opportunities further exacerbates inequalities between those children from disadvantaged homes and those who are better off and able to afford an education at those schools. What is the department doing to press those schools to partner more effectively with their local communities?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
We work through the Department for Education to encourage schools to make their facilities available to the wider community. Last week we announced a significant package of over £600 million to boost school sport in the state sector, including confirmation of funding for the PE and school sport premium and the School Games Organisers network until the end of summer term 2025, so we are making sure that we are working with state schools as well.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, Labour welcomes the fact that the Government have conceded to the Lionesses’ campaign for girls to have the right to play football in school. However, given the continued loss of playing fields, how will the Government ensure that playing fields are available for the next generation of both male and female footballers to get the start and the facilities that they deserve?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The £300 million which I mentioned is making sure that there are changing rooms, facilities, and new artificial and grass-pitch improvements; it is also being targeted toward smaller capital projects such as floodlights and equipment. We are making sure that we are targeting it at disadvantaged groups of people, as well as groups who are underrepresented in sport, which of course includes women and girls. I am delighted to say that the first of the stadia around the country that are being named after some of our victorious Lionesses has been announced: the Jill Scott pitch in Jarrow in Tyne and Wear.
Lord Lexden (Con)
What are the Government doing to discourage the sale of school playing fields without any provision for their replacement? I also applaud the Government for doing all that they can to encourage further partnerships between independent and maintained schools, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, referred. There are now many thousands of them and they are growing all the time.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
We are working through the programmes that I have mentioned—the PE and school sport premium, the School Games Organisers network, and the Opening School Facilities programme—to encourage school sporting facilities to be made available to the widest possible group of people.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, the questions so far have focused quite significantly on football, and to a lesser extent on other sports that require to be played on playing fields. Could the Minister say a bit more about what the Government are doing to support swimming facilities, which have major health benefits, and are among the more expensive facilities to maintain, particularly for local authorities? Furthermore, how are the Government investing to make sure that they are not lost?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble Baroness is right to point to other sports. In regard to the £300 million I referred to, 40% of projects will support a sport other than football. We know that, like many organisations and businesses, swimming pools are hit particularly hard by the rising cost of energy. My right honourable friend the Sports Minister has had a number of discussions with the sector to hear about the impact of rising energy bills on swimming pools, which we are of course feeding into colleagues at His Majesty’s Treasury, particularly with a view to the Budget this week.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, notwithstanding the answers that the Minister gave to the noble Lords, Lords Lexden and Lord Kennedy, is he aware that in the last few years over 100 schools have been forced to sell off their playing fields, affecting something like 75,000 pupils? Does he not believe that more should be done to provide funds to schools so that they are not forced to sell off these valuable assets?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, in part, that falls to colleagues at the Department for Education, but the noble Lord is right to point to the importance of school facilities. Through the programmes that I have mentioned we have support for schools to make sure that facilities are shared with the wider community, which of course underlines their importance and gets more people using them. The investment that we are making in England reflects the need identified through local football facility plans, which ensure that we engage communities in the facilities that they need in their area.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, after the events of the weekend, does my noble friend the Minister agree that the key thing is that public access to playing fields and what goes on on them should be both direct and unimpeded, and need not be mediated through the views of opinionated and overpaid pundits?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, we work with a variety of people in sport to ensure that funding is available to those who need it, to inspire future generations of boys and girls to take part in whatever sport or physical activity they wish.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, the loss of these facilities is clearly unfortunate and, as has been said, there is an issue of mental health. Can the Minister explain to me why my mental health seems to have been affected by the rugby football match between France and England that has just taken place?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble Lord underlines the emotional journey that supporters go on when cheering on the teams in their preferred sport, but also the great delight that they bring to the many people who spectate.
Pension Schemes: Guidance
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Altmann
To ask His Majesty’s Government, further to the report by Pensions For Purpose One year on—TCFD reporting for pension funds, published on 1 February, whether they intend to produce guidance for pension schemes in relation to their fiduciary duties.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Viscount Younger of Leckie) (Con)
My Lords, by October 2022 occupational pension schemes with assets above £1 billion fell into scope of DWP’s requirements to report in line with the task force on climate-related financial disclosures, the so-called TCFD recommendations. The department published guidance alongside the requirements to help pension schemes improve the quality of governance and manage climate risk. DWP committed to review the requirements in late 2023 and will consider whether pension schemes require additional guidance in relation to their fiduciary duties.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer and declare my interests as set out in the register. The Pensions for Purpose report highlighted a dilemma, in which some say that considering the real-world impacts of pension fund investments, including green or net-zero assets, infrastructure and housing, could be portrayed as trading off risk-adjusted returns against doing good. But does my noble friend agree that this is a false dichotomy? A failure to consider the climate and nature impacts of investments is likely to increase long-term risks and reduce returns, as opposed to pension funds that typically look at short-term performance measures. Can my noble friend ask relevant Ministers in the Treasury whether they will consider accepting relevant amendments that have been laid to the Financial Services and Markets Bill?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
Well, I will not be drawn on that by my noble friend, but the comments that she makes are broadly correct. It is very important that pension schemes, particularly those for purpose, encourage investments that align with the environment and society, and that includes climate change. I believe that the report, One Year On, outlines some pointers, insights or challenges. For example, most funds are using their investment consultants, while some are not yet using or including carbon offsets in their TCFD reports, but nothing in the findings so far is unfamiliar to DWP. We know there is work to do to improve the reports and build an element of expertise across the industries more generally.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the report. The question is whether the advice can effectively come from the Government against the background—I hope the Minister will agree—that it is the members’ money that is intended to provide them with a retirement income and should be used in accordance with their wishes and views. Can the Minister confirm that that is his view of how money in pension funds should be used?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I think it is important that the right advice is given. I start by saying that this is pretty ground-breaking, because the UK is the first country in the world to make occupational pension schemes consider, assess and report on the financial risks of climate change. In terms of what I would call “the push”, we have consulted with the pensions industry and certainly think it is right that guidance is given. For example, my department has introduced guidance alongside the TCFD requirements to help pension schemes understand how to identify, manage and assess climate-related risks and opportunities.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, actually, I think we were second after New Zealand; we were the first in the G20. The Financial Conduct Authority recently surveyed TCFD returns and found weaknesses in two areas: data or metrics, and targets. These are key areas. How will the Government try to put that right? Secondly, will the Government move forward, as I think they have said they will, with external assurance—in other words, audit—of those returns, to make sure that we banish greenwashing in this area?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
The noble Lord makes a good point. He has pointed out a few issues that were in the initial outlines. He mentioned data, which is an issue. Metrics and the use of implied temperature rises—for example, carbon offsetting and scenario planning—are definitely challenges that are being worked on domestically and internationally. As I said, we are the first country in the world to do this. It is good work, which needs to be built on.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a trustee of the Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund. I hope that those who are members have received the annual report and will recognise the performance of our fund, which grew from 104.3% in April 2020 to 130% in April 2022. However, that is not really the key point. My key point is that a fair number of pensions—though not our pension—have suffered from LDI and the chaos in the financial markets in September last year. Against that background, I suggest to my noble friend on the Front Bench that all those who are affected have more than enough on their plate at this time tackling those challenges, without having any further advice from anywhere else.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
Well, I do not really agree with the general points my noble friend has made. The main thing is that the regulator has a particularly strong role here, and it plans to publish its findings on what we are doing soon to provide schemes with examples of good practice. The regulator has found so far that most reports were published on time. This is to do with the publishing of reports. Almost all were substantial documents showing trustee engagement. In terms of my noble friend’s point about LDI, he will know that much progress has been made, led largely by the independent Bank of England working closely with the Treasury.
Baroness Drake (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interest in the register as a trustee. The report raises key questions about fiduciary duty. In summary, we need clearer guidance from the Government on three key issues: the extent to which environmental and social factors form a core component of investors’ fiduciary duties; the fact that pension scheme fiduciary duties are not a substitute for what government should do; and the fact that government desire for more pension fund investment in UK productive investment has to align with pension trustee fiduciary duties. Can the Minister confirm that, when issuing more guidance on the fiduciary issue, they will address these particular three issues where the contours of fiduciary duty need clarity?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
As I have said before, it is the case that more progress needs to be made, and the noble Baroness has much experience in this field. Let us start with climate change, which poses major financial risk to pension schemes and savers’ returns, with almost £2 trillion in assets under management. I reassure her that pension schemes in scope of the DWP’s requirements, as I think she will know, must produce the annual TCFD report, which is based on four key pillars: governance, strategy, risk management, and metrics and targets. That might be five, but I think it is four.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. Has this afternoon’s discussion not illustrated that there is a lack of clarity about how fiduciary duties are interpreted in terms of the long-term risks and possibilities of climate change-related investments? Therefore, would the Minister reconsider having a conversation with his colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, about the amendments on this point to the Financial Services and Markets Bill?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I can certainly pass the message on to my noble friend. On fiduciary duty, the noble Baroness will know that trustees have a duty to act overall in the best interests of members. This has been traditionally interpreted as covering risk-related returns as well. We made clear in our 2022 stewardship guidance, perhaps as an assurance, that trustees should be considering whether climate change risk is financially likely to be a material risk.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, the report has said that, since the law was changed to require pension funds to do climate reporting as a way to nudge the companies and assets in which they invest to do better, two broad problems have emerged. First, the data out there are not consistent in timeframes or formats, or across asset classes or managers. Secondly, the regulatory regime seems to focus more on positioning pension funds than on the climate transition plans of the companies; as the report puts it,
“the world needs greening, not the pension fund”.
So will the Government look again at this?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
Not only will we be looking again, but this is an iterative process. As I have said, we are yet to come back on the report, One Year On, but we will come back soon. I also reiterate the fact that we are the lead in the world; I will have to check the figures from the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. For example, since our department introduced TCFDs, over 70% of occupational pension schemes—a value of £1.4 trillion—are now subject to climate disclosure, and over 80% of scheme members, some 20 million people, will be able to access their pension schemes’ disclosures on climate risks and see how they are being managed. That is being published for the first time.
EU Settlement Scheme
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Ludford
To ask His Majesty’s Government, further to the High Court judgment of 21 December 2022, what plans they have to allow EU citizens who hold pre-settled status under the EU Settlement Scheme (1) to keep their rights under the Withdrawal Agreement when that status expires, and (2) to automatically obtain permanent residence rights without making a second application to that scheme.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Murray of Blidworth) (Con)
We have informed the High Court that we do not wish to pursue an appeal against the judgment. This avoids continuing uncertainty for those affected. We are working to implement the judgment as swiftly as possible, and we will provide a further update in due course.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, it is nearly three months since the High Court found that the Government’s interpretation of the withdrawal agreement was wrong in law in the way it constructed the EU settlement scheme for EEA citizens to get a permanent residence right. I suggest that the Government need to undertake some consultations with parties and groups with relevant expertise, such as the3million and the Independent Monitoring Authority for the Citizens’ Rights Agreements, to ensure that any changes now uphold—rather than undermine, as in the past—the rights under the withdrawal agreement. Are the Government undertaking such consultation? Can the Minister clarify what “in due course” really means?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I can confirm that work is proceeding to implement the judgment. As the noble Baroness will have noticed, the High Court accepted, in paragraphs 188 and 191 of its judgment, that
“before and after the conclusion of the WA”—
the withdrawal agreement—officials in the European Commission
“understood, and … accepted, the United Kingdom’s intention to require”
pre-settled status-holders
“to apply for settled status”.
In the High Court’s view, this was embarrassing for the Commission, but it did not alter the fact, as was contended by the Commission, that the text of the withdrawal agreement did not require such a further application for pre-settled status, and therefore the High Court found as it did. The Government will certainly implement its findings.
I add that the EU settlement scheme has been a great success, with over 7 million applications received and 6.9 million applications concluded as of 31 December 2022.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, the High Court judgment was very much in line with the recommendations and spirit of the multiple reports on citizens’ rights of the European Union Committee and the European Affairs Committee. In the reset of the scheme, will the Government make provision for another of our strong recommendations, made multiple times in these many reports, for the option of physical proof of status?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
As the noble Earl rightly observes, the High Court judgment upheld both limbs of the IMA challenge: first, that the withdrawal agreement residence right of a holder of pre-settled status does not expire for failure to make a second application to the EUSS; and, secondly, that a pre-settled status holder acquires the right to permanent residence under the withdrawal agreement automatically once the conditions for it are met. The intention has always been to provide digital proof of status, and that remains the department’s view.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, some people will always blame Britain and never Brussels. One of the reasons that this case came to court is because we have the independent monitoring authority, run by Sir Ashley Fox, a former colleague of mine and of the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford. It has a budget of £5.5 million and 50 staff and has been working assiduously to ensure that EU nationals in the UK enjoy their full rights under the treaty. There is no equivalent body. It is supposedly the Commission that does it on other the side with a couple of people there.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
Romania has exactly the same scheme as we do. The Commission has not begun enforcement proceedings. Will my noble friend the Minister press for a measure of symmetry in the treatment of UK nationals in the European Union?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I entirely agree with my noble friend and can reassure him that the department works very closely with our colleagues in Brussels in relation to the protection of the rights of UK nationals within the European Union.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark
My Lords, does the Minister agree that a positive move to implement the High Court judgment may help in bilateral representations where British citizens find themselves disadvantaged by the application of the immigration laws in certain EU countries where residence was not hitherto a problem?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I entirely agree with the right reverend Prelate that clearly it helps that the Home Office works very closely with those in the Commission in relation to the respective rights of citizens in each other’s countries.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, will the Minister give an absolute undertaking that the remedial action which he referred to in his reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, will be completed and enforced by the date which the one that was struck down would have come in this autumn? Will he give an absolute undertaking that that will be remedied by then? Does he recognise that it might be more sensible if the Government paid a little more attention to the IMA, which was actually set up to give advice on how the withdrawal should be enforced, rather than forcing it to take them to court?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I can certainly confirm that it is our intention to abide by the judgment. We work very closely with the IMA and will continue to do so.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, has not the Prime Minister, two weeks ago over the Northern Ireland protocol and last week with a highly successful visit to France, shown the tone that we should now adopt towards our European friends and allies and former partners in the EU?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
Yes, indeed. It is in that spirit of co-operation that the Government have determined that the appropriate method of resolving this case is to accept the present position—notwithstanding that permission to appeal was granted—to accept the judgment of the court and to make arrangements so that the scheme matches the findings of the court.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, the High Court’s decision affects about 2.6 million people granted pre-settled status. Will the Government now ensure that the plan to be put in place will be quick and that settled EU citizens do not risk having their right to live here put in any jeopardy? Can the Minister say what he means by “in due course”?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I can confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, that we will certainly not put in jeopardy any such residence rights. I am afraid that I am unable to confirm at this stage what “in due course” might mean, but I hope to return to the House fairly shortly to confirm the position.
Business of the House
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Business of the House
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mesothelioma Lump Sum Payments (Conditions and Amounts) (Amendment) Regulations 2023
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Younger of Leckie
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 12 January be approved.
Considered in Grand Committee on 6 March.
Airports Slot Allocation (Alleviation of Usage Requirements) Regulations 2023
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 31 January be approved.
Considered in Grand Committee on 6 March.
Local Authority (Housing Allocation) Bill [HL]
Monday 13th March 2023
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Local Authority (Housing Allocation) Bill [HL] 2022-23 View all Local Authority (Housing Allocation) Bill [HL] 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text
Lord Mann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Unless, therefore, any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
National Security Bill
Monday 13th March 2023
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate National Security Act 2023 View all National Security Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 115-I Marshalled list for Third Reading - (10 Mar 2023)
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, I have it in command from His Majesty the King and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to acquaint the House that they, having been informed of the purport of the National Security Bill, have consented to place their interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Clause 14: Foreign interference: meaning of “interference effect”
Amendment 1
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
“(aa) a Northern Ireland Minister, the First Minister in Northern Ireland, the deputy First Minister in Northern Ireland, a person appointed as a junior Minister under section 19 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, a Northern Ireland department or the Executive Committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly,(ab) the Scottish Ministers or the First Minister for Scotland,(ac) the Welsh Ministers, the First Minister for Wales or the Counsel General to the Welsh Government, or”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment and Lord Sharpe’s other amendments to clause 14 clarify the persons whose decisions are caught by clause 14(1)(d), and are needed to avoid giving a meaning to the terms “Scottish Ministers”, “Welsh Ministers” and “Northern Ireland Minister” that is different to the meaning of those terms given in the devolution Acts.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, as I set out at Second Reading, the first responsibility of any Government is to ensure the safety of their citizens. National security is at the forefront of this Government’s agenda, and that is why the passing of this Bill is so important. It gives us a new toolkit to tackle those state actors who threaten the safety and security of the United Kingdom. By listening carefully, and working closely with your Lordships through the passage of this Bill, we have created legislation which is stronger, more targeted and shows the importance of the scrutiny that this House provides.
We have made a range of changes to this Bill since its introduction, such as significantly tightening Part 1 in response to concerns relating to journalistic freedoms. We have amended the “ought reasonably to know” test to put it beyond doubt that individuals would not be caught if they acted unwittingly or without genuine knowledge as to the effect of their conduct. Further, we have focused the political tier of the foreign influence registration scheme more explicitly on foreign powers, providing us all with more information about the scale and nature of foreign political influence in the United Kingdom. We have also, under Clause 30, created a targeted defence available to UKIC and the Armed Forces for the extraterritorial offences under Part 2 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 in specific circumstances, replacing the previous approach of disapplying those offences.
I also note that the Government will bring back the sensible amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, to restrict the defence to intelligence activity of the Armed Forces, during Commons consideration of these amendments. We have extended the oversight provisions which were included in Part 2 on introduction of the Bill to cover Part 1 as well. We have also amended Schedule 3 to the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act, so that the statutory oversight for those powers will now be the responsibility of the new independent reviewer of national security legislation, ensuring that the oversight of all state threats provisions is in one place. The Government recognise the importance of independent scrutiny, and I know noble Lords welcome the inclusion of a new reviewer for the Bill.
I shall now speak briefly to the minor and technical amendments we have tabled today. Together, these amendments clarify definitions related to decisions of the devolved Administrations in Clauses 14(4)(a) and 71(3)(b) for the offence of foreign interference and the political influence tier of FIRS. These amendments will also clarify which officeholders in Scotland and Wales to whom a communication is sent are caught by Schedule 14 as set out in Clause 71(2)(a). I want to provide some context to these changes. We took the opportunity on Report in the Lords to clarify the drafting so as to ensure our policy intention in relation to government decisions was clear on the face of the legislation. We replaced the phrase
“a decision of the government of the UK”
through Amendments 50 and 118, with
“a Minister of the Crown (within the meaning of the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975), a United Kingdom government department”.
In doing so, we identified that the definitions did not fully reflect the decision-making powers of the devolved Administrations and their Ministers, but we wanted to make sure we got this drafting right, so we have worked closely with our colleagues in the devolved Administrations before tabling these amendments. Amendments 1 to 8 achieve the same effect as those tabled on Report mentioned above.
Amendments 1 and 4 relate to drafting changes for Clauses 14 and 71 respectively. They contain revised definitions for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to ensure parity for all Governments within the United Kingdom. Amendments 2, 3, 5 and 6 are consequential amendments flowing from Amendments 1 and 4. Amendments 7 and 8 relate to the definitions in Schedule 14, which covers those officeholders to whom communication is caught under Clause 71(2)(a). It is vital that the UK is able to promote transparency within the political lobbying arena and tackle those who seek to interfere in our democracy at every level and in every part of the United Kingdom. That is why these amendments are so important, and I ask noble Lords to support their inclusion in the Bill.
Finally, in terms of tabled amendments, there is also a change to the Long Title of the Bill to reflect the changes made on Report to the foreign influence registration scheme. I beg to move.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I briefly thank the Minister. I have heard from the stiftungs that we intervened on behalf of, and they thank the Minister for the movement that has happened and look forward to working closely with us in the future. I think it is as well to place these thanks on the public record.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I still feel quite grumpy about the Bill, but I accept that the Government have moved a little. I very much hope that, when it gets back to the other place, Members there will perhaps see fit to introduce stronger protections for journalists. I understand that something has gone into the Public Order Bill, but I think something should have been in this Bill as well.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
My Lords, we on these Benches are often critical of the Government—of either colour, I understand—so it is perhaps appropriate to record my appreciation, at least, to the Minister and indeed to the Security Minister, for the patience with which they listened to us, but also for the imagination with which they reacted, not simply producing cosmetic tweaks that resulted in dogs being called off, but being prepared to go back, particularly on the political tier of the foreign influence registration scheme, to first principles and to think it out again, with the consequence, I suspect, that we are now left with something of real value, rather than the bureaucratic nightmare with which we were threatened when the Bill left the Commons.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on Lord Sharpe’s amendment to clause 14(4).
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on Lord Sharpe’s amendment to clause 14(4).
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
“(ii) a Northern Ireland Minister, the First Minister in Northern Ireland, the deputy First Minister in Northern Ireland, a person appointed as a junior Minister under section 19 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, a Northern Ireland department or the Executive Committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly,(iii) the Scottish Ministers or the First Minister for Scotland, or(iv) the Welsh Ministers, the First Minister for Wales or the Counsel General to the Welsh Government,”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment and Lord Sharpe’s other amendments to clause 71 clarify the persons whose decisions are caught by clause 71(2)(b), and are needed to avoid giving a meaning to the terms “Scottish Ministers”, “Welsh Ministers” and “Northern Ireland Minister” that is different to the meaning of those terms given in the devolution Acts.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on Lord Sharpe’s amendment to clause 71(3).
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on Lord Sharpe’s amendment to clause 71(3).
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies which office-holders in Northern Ireland, to whom a communication is sent, are caught by Schedule 14, and is consequential (in part) on Lord Sharpe’s amendment to clause 71(5).
“3 The First Minister for Scotland, a Minister appointed under section 47 of the Scotland Act 1998 or a junior Scottish Minister.4 The First Minister for Wales, a Welsh Minister appointed under section 48 of the Government of Wales Act 2006, the Counsel General to the Welsh Government or a Deputy Welsh Minister appointed under section 50 of that Act.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies which office-holders in Scotland and Wales, to whom a communication is sent, are caught by Schedule 14, and is consequential (in part) on Lord Sharpe’s amendment to clause 71(5).
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment to the long title is consequential on amendments made to Part 4 of the Bill on Report.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I wish to express my sincere gratitude to all noble Lords across the House for their interest in this Bill and for their valuable contributions and co-operation so far. Debate has been consistently informative and constructive. I am extremely grateful for the diligent approach that noble Lords from across the House have taken to ensuring that this vital legislation has received full scrutiny ahead of returning to the other place.
I am particularly grateful for the positive engagement and support of various noble Lords. From the Benches opposite, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Coaker, Lord Ponsonby and Lord West; from the Cross Benches, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, and the noble Lords, Lord Evans, Lord Anderson and Lord Carlile; from the Liberal Democrat Benches, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Purvis and Lord Marks; and I am also grateful to my noble friends Lady Noakes and Lord Leigh. I hope all noble Lords will join me in thanking the Bill team, policy teams and legal teams in the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice for their hard work in getting the Bill to its current position. They worked phenomenally hard, particularly in relation to FIRS. It is always invidious to single out anyone in particular, but I would very much like to thank the following: Emer Smith from my private office, and Laura Weight, Jack Joseph, Sebastian Graves Read, Grace Bennett, Joe Marshall, Grace Lucas, James Dix and, last but by no means least, Louise Holliday from the Bill team.
I also place on record my thanks to our law enforcement and intelligence agencies, both for their contributions to this Bill’s development and for their enduring work in keeping us all safe every day. It is vital that they have the tools they need to fulfil such a challenging task. The measures in the Bill seek to ensure they are well equipped to tackle the wide range of modern threats that we face in the UK today. I beg to move.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I start by thanking the Minister for his constructive engagement, along with his colleagues, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, and the noble Lord, Lord Murray, and others, including his Bill team. The Bill has had significant changes made to it, showing the way this Chamber can improve legislation. That can happen only when a Minister and the Government listen. All of us, I think, appreciate the way the Minister has engaged and made significant changes to the Bill to improve it. We are all grateful to him for that.
I also pay due respect to the contributions of many noble Lords across the House. I pay my respect to the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, who we have just heard from on the previous group of amendments, and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, who I am pleased to see in his place. I think the contributions from the noble Lords, Lord Alton, Lord Hogan-Howe and Lord Pannick, have been significant and have helped to improve the Bill.
The Minister paid tribute to the intelligence and security services, as we all do, because we all have an interest in the security of our nation. We should note that the noble Lord, Lord Evans, and the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, have attended virtually the whole of the proceedings on this Bill. That says everything about the contributions they have made, but also it also sends a signal to the intelligence and security services to know that two former directors-general have spent all their time contributing to the Bill and advising people both in the Chamber and outside of it. That is of huge significance, not only to this Chamber but to our country. They deserve recognition for that.
I also thank my noble friends Lord West and Lady Hayter for their contributions throughout the Bill, which have helped our thinking as well. I thank my noble friend Lord Ponsonby for his—as I often say now—calming support to my more excitable personality. That helps me enormously in more ways than you can imagine. I also thank—I know they are not here—the noble Lords, Lord Purvis and Lord Marks, for their input, which helped to improve the Bill.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)
My Lords, I must apologise that my noble friend Lord Purvis cannot be here with us today. He was coming down from the Borders, but he was unfortunately grounded by the winds at UK airports, so I am just standing in to pass on his thanks to the House.
At Second Reading, my colleagues raised concerns that, in many areas, this important Bill was not workable and, in others, seriously undermined civil liberties. However, we would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, who in Committee listened, acted and then brought forward a series of government amendments to address them. My noble friend Lord Marks is also appreciative of the openness of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, at the Ministry of Justice. The Bill leaves this House a better one than when it arrived, and it is a testament to the cross-party working that went into it. Of course, some issues remain, and we will continue to press on them.
My noble friend Lord Purvis would also like to thank all Members of the House who have participated, including the opposition team and the officials’ Bill team, for all their support and work during this Bill. On his behalf, I thank our own team, led by Elizabeth Plummer, who marshalled all our work supremely.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I saw my role in this Bill as representing the research sector to some extent, and I am very conscious—as I am sure the Minister is—of the delicate balance there is between the desirability of close international collaboration and sometimes having to collaborate with those who come from authoritarian countries that are not entirely friendly to us. The representatives of the research sector—the Royal Society and others—look forward to talking with the department about the guidance, which we hope will strike exactly the right balance in this delicate area between what needs to be done and not imposing deliberate bureaucracy.
I am sure that the Minister is aware from what we have seen in Georgia over the last two weeks—where there have been very serious riots against the Government caused by a foreign agents Bill, which is seen as a Russian attempt to gag the Government and the people of Georgia and to block their contact with the western world—that this is a delicate area. It is extremely difficult to get the right balance, and we hope that we have achieved in this House a much better balance than when the Bill was originally drafted.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I hope the Chamber will indulge me. I forgot to thank Ben Wood, who is our adviser. I apologise to him for that.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
While the House is indulging, I also forgot to thank my colleagues, my noble friends Lord Murray of Blidworth and Lord Davies of Gower, so I would like to place that on record. I also thank my noble and learned friend Lord Bellamy at the Ministry of Justice.
Bill passed and returned to the Commons with amendments.
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill
Monday 13th March 2023
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 View all Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 84-V Fifth marshalled list for Committee - (13 Mar 2023)
Lord Foster of Bath
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that any constituent council has, as part of a CCA, the same number of appointed elected members as any other constituent council.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 70 I am extremely conscious that it is a probing amendment to look at one aspect of the Government’s thinking on the creation and operation of CCAs. However, in many ways it is also a paving amendment for many of the other amendments in this group. Clause 8 confers on the Secretary of State, subject to the consent of the constituent parts of the proposed CCA, numerous powers in relation to it, ranging from membership and voting powers to the appointment and function of an executive of the CCA. It also covers the overview and scrutiny arrangements as well as the appointment of a mayor, where relevant, and of non-constituent and associate members. So it is very wide-ranging and to some extent, the amendments in this group touch on many of those issues.
It is important to begin by making it clear that, for we on these Benches, at least one issue is really important. Given their crucial role, not least in planning and economic development, we believe that district councils should be full members of any CCA. We have already moved amendments to that effect, as have other noble Lords, and we will continue to do so at later stages of the Bill. I note that, in Amendment 81 in this group, my noble friend Lady Scott of Needham Market and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, are also proposing a role for parish councils.
We have also been clear that the voting membership of a decision-making body such as a CCA should comprise only those who have been elected to it or one of the constituent organisations that makes it up. In simple terms, we believe that those who have to abide by a law or decision should have some say in deciding who makes those decisions; I certainly believe that that should be true of a second Chamber of this Parliament. For those reasons and many others, as my noble friend Lady Scott will no doubt discuss in a few minutes, we oppose the appointment of non-constituent and associate members to a CCA. We certainly feel, as expressed in Amendments 155 and 156 from my noble friend Lord Shipley, that if they are put in place, these unelected CCA members should not have a vote.
Even if we reach agreement on who should be constituent members of a CCA, there remains the crucial question of what the voting arrangements should be. As I mentioned in an earlier debate, I appreciate the concern that if, for example, district councils are allowed to become constituent members of a CCA, they could, because of their number, always outvote the other constituent members and, in effect, have a veto. It is therefore important that we are clear about how the voting arrangements will be made. Incidentally, I entirely accept that my probing Amendment 70 could lead to that very problem of district councils having a veto.
The Minister has already made it clear that the Government intend to allow CCAs to determine their own arrangements where possible. We broadly agree with this approach, but surely we need to be clear whether that freedom will extend totally to, for example, voting arrangements, without any restrictions on local decision-making. After all, subsection (2)(b) of Clause 8, which refers to the Secretary of State’s power to make regulations, states that regulations may—so it is possible for the Secretary of State to do this—cover
“the voting powers of members of the CCA (including provision for different weight to be given to the vote of different descriptions of member)”.
Like my noble friend Lord Stunell, who will go into more detail on this at a later stage, we are concerned that, for example, setting aside a requirement that the CCA need not be constructed in accordance with the balance of political representation among the constituent members could lead to serious problems with its voting on the issues on which it makes decisions. Not limiting the number of associate members—who could, as we have heard, be given a vote—as per the current arrangement could also have a significant impact on the voting decisions of the CCA.
I am absolutely clear that while we support the Government’s principal intention of ensuring that decisions on these matters are made by the CCA itself, we need to be very clear what freedoms it will really have and what the implications of Clause 8(2)(b) really mean. No doubt, that clarity will come when the Minister winds up. I beg to move.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)
My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment 81, which is the first of a number of amendments I have tabled that relate to the powers and duties of town and parish councils. In doing so, I declare an interest as the president of the National Association of Local Councils. These councils are well understood, well established and are a serious part of the fabric of local government. In some cases that is by virtue of size—they spend significant amounts of money—but in others it is about the role they play as, if you like, a convener of local interests, creating that sense of place which we know is so important in any venture that we might call levelling up.
When you talk to Governments of any persuasion and their Ministers, they always say nice things about this sector. They always say that it is very important and does great work, but when the legislation is drafted and the cheques are written, it always feels as though it is at the back of the queue. This is an example of new structures being created that, arguably, are to some extent devolutionary, but there is no mechanism for onward devolution to the town and parish council sector. So, this amendment simply argues that when it comes to the overview and scrutiny arrangements for the combined county authorities, there ought, as of right, to be a requirement for some involvement of this sector, perhaps through the county associations. Having this tier of local government represented would actually strengthen the overview and scrutiny function overall, and it would certainly strengthen the sector.
Lord Mann (Non-Afl)
I rise to support Amendment 70, which was eloquently articulated by the noble Lord, Lord Foster, and to illustrate the problem of district councils that sit in boundary positions between county councils and, in some cases, regions. I live in Bassetlaw, and in Bassetlaw District Council the health authority extends into South Yorkshire. Therefore, representation in terms of the hospital trust comes from one district council, and, in terms of local governance, from the county of Nottinghamshire.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendment 81, spoken to so eloquently by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market. In doing so, I draw attention to my vice-presidency of the National Association of Local Councils, which I had the privilege of serving as president for many years, and my current joint presidency of the West Sussex Association of Local Councils.
It is regrettable that, notwithstanding the status of neighbourhood plans as a material consideration in local planning structures, principal authorities often seem to be obliged to disregard them, despite having considerable agency in the production of these plans. I refer to the calling of referenda or, as sometimes seems equally likely, delaying of the calling, which I can only assume has sound reasons. It creates great problems, given that there is substantial commitment of time and no small amount of public money to the neighbourhood planning process.
As we move into other areas that will involve multiple local authorities, such as biodiversity net gain and water neutrality, I can see that it is perfectly legitimate for these to be dealt with at what you might call a superior level. But it remains absolutely essential that communities still have a voice, a view and a role in that particular decision-making format. If the Secretary of State’s comments mean anything when he refers to strengthening the role of communities, as I understood him to say some while back, it must be something other than lip service—something other than parishes and town councils being somehow left behind. When I say that neighbourhood plans are being disregarded, I think of the neighbouring parish to the parish in which I live, where precisely this has happened.
It is very important to understand the structure of town and parish councils, as alluded to by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, with their knowledgeable, highly engaged and often very effective interventions in local planning processes through their structure of county and district associations as well as the individual parishes. They should not be underrated. They have access to resources you would not believe. I have come across parishes in which top planning consultants happen to be residents. These people are highly engaged, highly knowledgeable and should be listened to. Parishes have moved along massively in the past 20 or 30 years. They really are the only structure that represents the community at this level. When you think about it, there is no other authority that extends down to that level of where people really live and do things in their work/life balance. If people feel disregarded, as do many residents in my part of West Sussex, it bodes ill for engagement, cohesion and, ultimately, the efficacy of national policies. I would not want that to go unstated in the context of the Bill.
Lord Shipley (LD)
I rise to speak to Amendments 155 and 156 in my name. These are probing amendments because I think it is very important that the Government explain their intentions. Amendment 155 provides that non-constituent members of the combined authority are not able to vote, given their status, and Amendment 156 provides that associate members of a combined authority are not able to vote, given their status. On a previous day in Committee we addressed this issue, in part. However, the Government need to undertake some mature reflection about what is proposed here.
Giving a vote to somebody who is not a full member of a combined authority is unwise. My amendments provide that there should be no vote for anybody who is not a full member of the authority. The principle is that full members are voting members, and voting members are full members, but you cannot have full voting members when they are not full constituent members, as opposed to associate members, of the authority.
The voting structure between counties and districts as explained in the Bill would provide a route for resolving any impasse that might arise if votes were allocated on the basis of population. Of course, a county would have exactly 50% of the votes. If all the district councils voted against the county—one hopes it does not come to that—there would have to be some kind of system for a casting vote. The mayor would seem to be the way forward.
After reflecting on what we have been saying on previous days in Committee, to me it seems that district councils, which are responsible for planning and economic development matters, ought to be full members of a CCA. That seems to me to be the principle. It should not be at the discretion of the CCA, which does not have a district council member, to simply award a vote to that district council member when other district council members may not have a vote because, as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said on the previous day in Committee, when giving a vote to one non-constituent member or to an associate member, it does not follow that other associate or non-constituent members would have a vote.
So this is a probing amendment. It is complicated; I understand that. When in due course we reach Report, I just hope that the Government will be prepared to examine the structure they have proposed here. I have come to the conclusion that they should permit district councils within a CCA area to become full members. At that point, those full members would have a right to a full vote under their own terms of membership. I hope very much that the Minister will be able to respond to that, so that we can get a better feel of what we need to do on Report to bring in further clarification on this matter.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, we have a couple of amendments in this group, one in my name and one in the name of my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage. First, Amendment 73 in my noble friend’s name would mean that a non-constituent member ceases to be a member when they form part of a different CCA.
We are aware that the Local Government Association has expressed concerns about this amendment. It has said that local areas should be able to “look both ways”—in other words, be a non-constituent member of more than one authority—if they have close economic or cultural ties with more than one combined authority or devolution deal area. It has also expressed concerns about the fact that it would set a precedent, contrary to the current plans for the city of York, which is currently a non-constituent member of the West Yorkshire Combined Authority but would become a member of the new York and North Yorkshire mayoral combined authority.
I want to explain the thinking behind why we tabled this amendment, which is, of course, a probing amendment. It is of course understandable that local authority non-constituent members may wish to be part of more than one CCA. However, we believe, first, that district councils should be constituent, not non-constituent, members of a CCA, to ensure that they can play a full part in decision-making for their area—as other noble Lords have just said—and that this would include any budgetary and spatial development issues, and, secondly, that therefore they could then be a non-constituent member only in a CCA that was not their primary CCA.
We believe it must surely be the case that membership of a CCA is implicitly determined by the geography of an area. If it is the intention of the Secretary of State to have a pattern of overlapping CCAs across the country, will this not complicate the structure of local government rather than simplify and declutter the picture, which the Government have said they want to achieve?
Further to this, if we then have overlapping areas that are both combined mayoral authorities, to which mayor do the people of an area represented on more than one CCA relate? Can the Minister in his response clarify whether the population of that area get a vote in both mayoral elections, which of the mayors is responsible for delivering the economic development and/or regeneration of their area, and who is accountable?
This clause is predicated on the assumption that district council members are simply co-opted, junior partners in CCAs with no voting rights and only a passing interest in sitting in on meetings that they are not actively participating in. As has been said in debates on earlier amendments, we feel that this is, frankly, an insult to district councils.
As I said, my noble friend’s amendment is intended to probe why the Government appear to have set their face so firmly against the inclusion of district councils. Instead, we believe they should be at the heart of decision-making in CCAs since, as the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, said, they have powers over planning and economic development, not to mention that they are the councils with the highest percentage of public support. We strongly believe that they should be able to be full members.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, this is a very important group of amendments, which probes and challenges the membership of the CCA, and even existing combined authorities. It seems to me that there are three major principles that the amendments in this group are exploring; the first concerns whether the Government are determined to continue with democratic local government. There are proposals in the Bill for non-constituent members, which may be groups of businesses, rotary or chambers of trade, or trade unions, that are not elected locally, to be able to influence the spending of substantial sums of public money in their areas.
For me, the whole purpose of democracy is that those elected are those who are going to be accountable for decisions made about public funds—that seems to me to be a fundamental principle of local government. Unfortunately, the proposals in the Bill seem to be moving away from that basic principle by giving combined county authorities the ability to appoint associate members, who represent nobody but themselves, and indeed non-constituent members, who may not be members of an elected body such as a district, town or parish council. I would like to hear from the Minister the Government’s view on this and why these proposals are in the Bill.
The second principle is that of local. It seems that the Government, as perhaps were previous Governments, are intent on taking the “local” out of local government. The move to dismantle two tiers of local government and make them into unitaries moves the elected representatives away from their local area, because their wards are much larger in size. That leads me to support very much the proposals in the amendment of my noble friend Lady Scott of Needham Market about the involvement of town and parish councils within this system of combined authorities. It also leads me to support, the Committee will not be surprised to hear, the voices that have been heard across the Chamber on the important role of district councils within this system. They are the ones which, along with town and parish councils, are at the local level and they understand the economies and cultures of their areas. Those voices must be expressed in a higher or more remote tier of government.
The third principle that has been expressed today is proportionality. What we cannot allow—because, again, it is undemocratic to do so—is to move away from the convention of proportionality. We cannot accept that voices from other political backgrounds will not be given a chance to express those views within a combined authority.
I look forward to what the Minister is going to say about membership, voting arrangements and proportionality, and about the role of district, town and parish councils, because for me this is absolutely fundamental to any proposal for devolution. Devolution is a nonsense if it just results in another remote body that bears no relationship to its local area. If people cannot express their concerns or propose ideas, it is just another way of doing things to people rather than involving them.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Does the noble Baroness agree that one of the other concerns is that such members cannot then be voted out if people do not agree with them being there?
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
That is my fundamental principle. Anyone who makes decisions about public money has to be voted for; they have to be an elected member. The whole point is that they are then accountable for the decisions they make and can, quite rightly, be kicked out of office if local people do not agree with what they have done. That is the point and if you have non-elected members of these combined authorities who cannot be ejected from office for the decisions they have made, we are no longer a democratic country.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, as noble Lords have explained, this group of amendments considers various aspects of the membership of combined county authorities and combined authorities, and the voting rights of members.
Amendment 70, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, seeks to require equal membership for all the members of a combined county authority, removing the flexibility that the Bill currently provides. I listened carefully to the noble Lord but I have to come back to a point that I made in an earlier debate: it is vital that the primary legislation on combined county authority membership retains this flexibility and enables the local area to make the decision about membership.
The practice within the existing combined authority model illustrates why. It is very common for the constituent councils of the existing combined authority model to have equal membership, but this is not always the case. For example, in the West Yorkshire Combined Authority, each constituent council nominates one member of the authority and collectively they agree another three members so as to achieve political balance. This would not be possible if the legislation was amended as proposed.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I am finding some of this slightly confusing, so I wonder whether the noble Earl could clarify something. Is he confirming, first, that district councils can be constituent members, and not just non-constituent members? Secondly, did he just say that all district councils will be able to be members? I would just like clarification.
Earl Howe (Con)
It may be helpful if I cover the issue of district councils in a moment when I come to Amendments 155 and 156. I will do my best when I do so.
Amendment 127A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, addresses the requirements in relation to public consultations on proposals to change a combined county authority. We are in complete agreement that public consultation on a proposal to change a combined county authority is important. However, the amendment questions an important part of the safeguard that Clause 46 has in place to ensure that such a consultation is sufficient.
I will explain. As the provision is currently written, the Secretary of State must carry out a public consultation on changing a combined county authority unless three factors are met: first, that a proposal has been prepared under Clause 45; secondly, that a public consultation on the proposal has been carried out and a summary of it submitted to the Secretary of State; and, thirdly, that the Secretary of State considers that no further consultation is necessary—namely, that the consultation which has been carried out is sufficient. The amendment, as I take it, probes the process involved in the third factor. I tried my best to cover that in the letter I sent to all noble Lords who spoke in our previous Committee session.
In essence, the issue here is that the Secretary of State, in deciding whether a prior consultation has been sufficient or insufficient, has to look at several things: what the consultation consisted of; whether it followed the Cabinet Office guidance for public consultations sufficiently well; and, in that regard, whether it covered the necessary groups of people that it should cover, which is one of the principles set out in the Cabinet Office rules. So the public consultation would involve not only residents but key stakeholders, such as district councils, local businesses, public sector bodies, and voluntary and community sector organisations. A summary of those responses has to be presented to the Secretary of State when the proposal is submitted, together with any amendments that the proposing councils wish to make to the proposal in the light of the consultation. So the consideration the Secretary of State has to undertake is a combination of making sure that the principles laid down for consultations have been followed and looking at the evidence that has been presented. I hope that is of help to the noble Baroness.
I turn now to Amendments 155 and 156, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, which have similar effects, as he explained. Amendment 155 would remove the ability of a combined authority to resolve to allow non-constituent members voting rights on certain matters. Amendment 156 would apply the same restriction to a combined authority’s associate members. Both non-constituent and associate members are non-voting members by default, but we have enabled the combined authority to give them voting rights on most matters, should they wish to do so. For example, a combined authority may have provided for there to be a non-constituent member of a neighbouring council to enable their input on matters which may have cross-boundary effects.
I listened with care, as I always do, to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, who expressed some severe reservations about this idea. However, it is entirely possible that a combined authority may have provided for an associate member—for example, a local business leader—to enable their input on matters which may have an impact on businesses in the combined authority’s area.
The combined authority may wish to maximise this input by allowing both non-constituent and associate members to vote on such relevant matters. The process for doing this would be set out in the combined authority’s local constitution, with the decision being made by the authority. As I have alluded to, there is a good example of this. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, expressed the view that district councils should be allowed a seat at the table and a vote. The Government have allowed for this to happen, albeit not in the way that the noble Lord has suggested, but as a non-constituent member.
We will be coming to a later group, consisting partly of Amendment 125A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, when we can perhaps discuss the issue of district councils in a little more depth. But it is also one of the topics that I suggest to noble Lords we cover in the round-table discussion which I proposed in our last Committee session, and which is now in the course of being arranged.
I should add that, very importantly, the decision by a combined authority to give any non-constituent members and/or associate members voting rights could be scrutinised by the authority’s overview and scrutiny committee to ensure due process is being followed. I suggest to the noble Lord that what we are proposing will not be without checks and balances.
Lord Shipley (LD)
The Minister has given one example of a constituent council—a council outside the area of the CCA becoming a constituent council because there are cross-boundary issues. But that is the only one I have heard him come up with, and I had assumed there would many other examples of why this structure is being created.
I also have concerns about the associate member category. The Minister said, and I hope I understood him correctly, that a business leader in the area might be co-opted as an associate member, who would then be given a vote. Do the Government think that wise, in terms of public perception? I suspect that the public might have some doubts. I do not understand why giving them the vote is so important. I can understand a business leader advising as an associate, or simply being in attendance, which is a common category in meetings, but not actually having a vote.
I will not extend this debate, but I hope that when we have the round-table discussion we can get to the bottom of the reasons for votes being given to those who are not full members of the combined authority.
Earl Howe (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, and I am sure that we can cover those issues in more depth at the round table. I think it is worth bearing in mind that if the local councils themselves have any doubts or reservations about the appropriateness of giving voting rights to an individual, they do not have to go down that road. It would be only by agreement that this would happen. They would see a value and a purpose in granting such rights.
Lord Bach (Lab)
What could the value be in an outsider—someone who is not elected as part of the authority—having a vote? Perhaps the Minister can give us some examples of it being valuable for them to vote. Their advice, of course, would be important and the traditions of local government are that that advice would be listened to. But I think a vote is the thing that some of us find difficult to accept.
Earl Howe (Con)
I gave one example, which was a district council that might have particular interests; another might be a university. An integrated care partnership might have major interests in what was being debated or decided. There could be circumstances where a vote by a representative of such organisations could be seen as the right thing to do in the circumstances. Again, I think this is worth my following up in subsequent discussions. I sense that there is considerable uncertainty and hesitation about this provision.
In summary, the Government’s view is that the course proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, would undermine a combined authority’s ability to work in collaboration with local stakeholders, in the fullest sense, and experts who can contribute positively to the working of the combined authority and collectively ensure the best outcomes for the area and its residents. I hope that my explanatory comments are helpful, as far as they go, although I am conscious that they will not have satisfied noble Lords entirely. For the time being, I hope too that the noble Lord, Lord Foster, will feel able to withdraw Amendment 70.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, the whole House is inordinately grateful to the noble Earl the Minister for genuinely listening to what people say and seeking to provide responses to our questions. Nevertheless, he has just acknowledged how complicated this Bill is and how much murk still remains to be resolved. We are therefore particularly grateful that he acknowledges that these issues can be raised again not only at a later stage but in the round table that he now assures us has moved some way towards being formed.
I do not want to dwell on all the points raised, but I pick up very briefly on the contributions by my noble friend Lady Scott and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. Both have been doughty campaigners for parish councils and the crucial role they often play in our communities, not least, in many cases, in driving forward neighbourhood plans but, as my noble friend pointed out, through their convening powers. It would be helpful to hear in more detail the Minister’s thoughts on where exactly he sees them fitting into the structure.
The key thing that has yet again been raised today, even though it is not directly related to any of the amendments in this group, is the passionate belief in many parts of your Lordships’ House that district councils have a crucial role to play. It was great to hear the noble Lord, Lord Mann, a passionate supporter of Bassetlaw District Council, promoting the contributions that all district councils can make.
We will have an opportunity to raise these issues again in considering other groups. However, while the Minister has said time and again that he is great believer in devolution of power and getting rid of central diktat—I applaud that approach—I say carefully to him that, unless we get the mechanisms right and are clear about exactly what the Government will or will not permit through the various regulations, there is a real danger that we could move from central diktat to party-political diktat in a particular area.
Much confusion still remains. The noble Earl, in his letter to many of us, said that the enfranchisement arrangements for other categories of membership would be determined through a unanimous decision-making system whereby all constituent parts would have a clear vote. However, Clause 10(2), for example, does not say that there has to be unanimity on such decisions. We can deal with issues such as this at a later stage, and my noble friend Lord Stunell certainly intends to probe the Minister in more detail. Given that we have these further opportunities, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Shipley
“(d) to make its reports public whenever the overview and scrutiny committee believes publication to be in the public interest.”Member’s explanatory statement
This would ensure that the CCA cannot refuse to publish a report of an overview and scrutiny committee.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 79, 82, 83, and 84. All these amendments relate to audit and scrutiny, and issues that I think are extremely important if the public are to have confidence in the combined county structure, but those principles, of course, apply to any structure in local government and to any combined authority structure.
Amendment 77 would ensure that the combined county authority cannot refuse to publish a report of an overview and scrutiny committee. This is a probing amendment, for the Minister to explain that indeed it is possible, as I propose in Amendment 77, that an overview and scrutiny committee can
“make its reports public whenever the overview and scrutiny committee believes publication to be in the public interest”.
I simply seek the Minister’s confirmation that is actually what is intended, because I do not think it is actually in the Bill—maybe the words are there and I have simply missed them.
Amendment 79 in my name would prevent a CCA restricting the work of an overview and scrutiny committee without good reason. I think this is really important because an overview and scrutiny committee must have independence to operate without undue influence by the parent committee. Therefore, my amendment simply says that a CCA cannot unreasonably withhold permission for some work of the overview and scrutiny committee taking place.
Amendment 82 relates to whether recent members of a political party can qualify as “an appropriate person”. Amendment 83 is on the same subject or principle. It seems to me that the Bill actually permits someone to be appointed as “an appropriate person” the day after they have resigned from a political party. I have proposed five years: if you are really going to be “an appropriate person”, surely you can be appropriate only if you are not recently associated with an individual political party—five years is a probing proposal; some other period might be relevant. I feel very strongly that you cannot have people appointed as an appropriate person who have very recently been a member, perhaps a prominent member, of any political party. I hope the Minister will be able to put my concerns at rest.
Amendment 84 would enhance public confidence in the audit process by increasing the number of independent people on the audit committees. At the moment, the Government have put one person in the Bill. I think one person is inadequate. What if there were one person and that person’s only contribution to a meeting was to apologise for their absence? I have proposed three people: then if somebody is not present at a meeting, at least somebody is more likely to be present. The general public are now increasingly aware of some of the problems around the audit process in local government: I think that six local councils are now in special measures under the Treasury.
One of the reasons the public have concern is that they are being asked, in some places, to pay much higher levels of council tax to make up for losses that the council has created. The audit function—as opposed to just the overview and scrutiny function—really does matter. To have only one person appointed as an independent person seems to me to be insufficient. Given the concerns that can arise so very quickly about investments and the administration of current expenditure that may go wrong, audit committees play a very important role in giving the public confidence that the taxes they pay are being properly spent. I hope very much the Minister can indicate that the Government understand why just a single independent member of an audit committee is not sufficient. I hope she will confirm that there will be at least two independent people—though I would prefer three, it could be that there should be four or five—for that is the basis of audit. It is and should be run on the basis of independence. I beg to move.
Lord Carrington (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest in farming as set out in the register.
I rise to speak on Amendment 80, and I will continue with my theme I brought up on Amendment 33 in Clause 2 about rural proofing. The levelling-up Bill is an opportunity to correct the systemic failings in the Government’s rural policy development. Defra is often seen as being responsible for rural policy but does not actually have the remit to change economic and social policies in the countryside other than on the environment, farming, fishing and forestry. The cross-departmental objectives set out in this Bill should now enable serious rural policy-making to level up that part of our community in both social and economic terms.
The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the combined county authorities are structured in a manner that enables them to review or scrutinise decisions which have rural implications, with relevant and experienced knowledge at their disposal. A lack of awareness and understanding of the special challenges facing rural communities is very much exemplified in the development and implementation of the rural England prosperity fund. Local authorities’ strategies for using this fund to exploit the potential of the rural economy are not clear, and their engagement with rural businesses has been scant. By ensuring that the overview and scrutiny committees of combined county authorities have the power to appoint rural sub-committees, a better understanding of the needs of rural challenges—from housing to education to transport to connectivity—will be embedded at the grass roots. This would lead to better local authority engagement with rural households and businesses, enhancing their understanding of the workings of the rural economy and rural livelihoods. Please can the Minister give her support to this amendment in the interests of confirming that and enabling rural issues to be properly considered in wider policy-making.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I draw attention to my interests in the register. I am a serving district and county councillor and a vice-president of the District Councils’ Network.
I will speak to our Amendments 78 and 85 and will comment also on some of the other amendments in this group. Many in this House who have connections with local government will be very aware of the significant issues in relation to formal audit over the last three years. This has been the result of a number of issues in the private sector audit regime that we now have, including the increasing complexity of local authority accounts and the resultant demands on training, the recruitment and retention of staff, and rapidly increasing fees, to name just a few factors that have been experienced by the private audit sector. In fact, it was estimated last year that only 9% of local authorities had been able to have their 2021 audits completed on time.
Audit is really vital, as the noble Lord said just now. It provides public reassurance and confidence for both members and officers, and more particularly for the public. It is disappointing that the Bill does nothing to address that issue. However, the amendments in this section are aimed at ensuring that scrutiny within the CCA is as powerful and independent as it can be, which should, in turn, mean that audit is effective and can develop a high level of confidence among members and the public.
Turning first to our Amendment 78, this is needed because of the proposals in the Bill that effectively exclude district councillors from being voting members of the CCA itself. I appreciate that we have some work to do to clarify that point. The fundamental impact of the decisions taken by the CCA must, therefore, be able to be scrutinised effectively by members with a detailed local knowledge of their area. As chairs of overview and scrutiny review the decisions of their own councils’ executive committees on a regular basis, they will have a good working knowledge of the strategic planning for their areas, and therefore will be able to assess the likely impact of decisions taken by the CCA.
There is a precedent for this. For example, in the policing panels, which scrutinise the work and budgets of police and crime commissioners, all districts in a PCC’s area are entitled to be present. It is not intended that this amendment would prevent other members being appointed to an overview and scrutiny committee—for example independent members, as referred to in Amendment 84, from the noble Lord, Lord Shipley.
I turn now to our Amendment 85. This relates to the sharing of best practice on scrutiny, and there is some very good advice and support on scrutiny available from the Centre for Public Scrutiny. It will be vital to the successful operation of the CCA that best practice from around the country is shared among the committees. We appreciate that this is not necessarily the role of the Secretary of State, but it could be made clear in guidance to overview and scrutiny committees that they should give consideration regularly to how they operate and how they assimilate best practice.
I will now comment, if I may, on some of the amendments tabled by other noble Lords. We support Amendment 77, from the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, which is designed to strengthen the role of overview and scrutiny in relation to CCAs. The Labour Party has long been advocating that local public accounts committees could be a way of pulling together local scrutiny of the impact of both national and local policy-making and decision-making on local areas. This would be a first step towards ensuring that overview and scrutiny committees have a level of independence from the CCA. The membership of these committees also needs to be carefully considered.
Turning to Amendment 79, the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, referred to the fact that overview and scrutiny committees must be able to carry out their work without influence, and I totally support that. The overview and scrutiny committees must be completely unfettered from any interference from the CCA, including such devices as setting out workplans for them or prohibiting them from scrutinising any aspect of work undertaken by the CCA. Neither should the CCA be able to determine the process used by the overview and scrutiny committees. For example, if the committees wish to call witnesses, including members of the CCA, they should be able to do so. We would be grateful for the Minister’s clarification that it is the intention that overview and scrutiny committees are entitled to carry out their scrutiny of the CCA in any way that they determine will achieve effective scrutiny.
The amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, raise some important issues around the way in which rural issues—such as housing, education, transport, rural economies and so on—often differ from those that are the main consideration of a CCA. We should support the freedom of a CCA to create any sub-committee that is relevant to the work that it undertakes. If it helps to have a rural sub-committee specifically listed to ensure that rural issues are considered by a CCA, that is no bad thing. This is particularly useful where the CCA covers an area that is largely urban but contains smaller rural areas, as it will ensure that issues relevant to rurality are properly considered and reported back to the CCA. A report from one of our own Lords committees, on rural communities, showed that, on the whole, local enterprise partnerships are not great at delivering for rural areas, so the need for that sort of committee of a CCA is well evidenced.
Amendment 82, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, is a belt-and-braces amendment, if noble Lords will forgive the expression, to ensure that, should a Member have recently crossed the Floor from one political party to another—meaning that they would have had very recent contact with the mayor, their decision-making processes and strategy—they are not then placed in a position to be able to scrutinise the mayor’s actions. It truly is belt and braces because, in my experience, people who change their political party do so because of disenchantment with where they have been, so it is possible that they may be the best critics of the mayor and their administration. However, this amendment would ensure that there could be no deliberate manipulation of the scrutiny function.
Similar to Amendment 82, Amendment 83, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, would mean that, if there is no party with an outright majority on the CCA, the chair of overview and scrutiny should not be a member of either of the parties that may hold the majority together. Depending on local circumstances, this might be difficult if, for example, a third or fourth party is very much in the minority and may not be able to put forward a chair. In those circumstances, it might be necessary to make provision for an independent chair; the fact that we need to continue to discuss this means that there are issues here that continue to need resolution.
The LGA has made some extensive comments on Amendment 84 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. It is worth recording what it has said about having independent co-opted members on audit committees; it is certainly in favour of it. It states:
“Having multiple co-optees enables them to have complementary skills (eg finance, risk management, governance) … The constitutional rules should still require the majority of audit committee members to be elected members. This is for two reasons”—
which are fairly obvious to me but perhaps they are not always so obvious. They are that
“audit committees are fulfilling a role delegated by elected members … who are jointly and severally ‘those charged with governance’, and … elected members represent the community and are in a unique position not enjoyed by independent co-optees to understand what the concerns of local people are in relation to assurance”.
So, although we would support the increase in transparency provided by an increased number of independent members participating in an audit committee for all the reasons that the LGA and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, have highlighted, we question the need to have a specific number when the Bill already states that “at least” one member of an audit committee is an independent member. Perhaps it should be for the CCA to determine its preference for the number of independent members, based on the particular skills base that it feels it needs to carry out the audit role. In time, we feel that good practice would be developed by CCA audit committees as they understand what particular skills are needed in relation to CCA audit work; we are sure that they would be supported by national bodies such as the LGA in sharing good practice.
Another important issue arises here: the question of remuneration, which the LGA has raised. Independent members of a CCA audit committee are likely to be necessarily highly skilled individuals in, for example, finance, risk management and/or governance. While one could expect that they will give a certain proportion of their time for community benefit, it seems unreasonable to expect that they would carry out this role without any remuneration at all. Although the cost of the remuneration of independent members is likely to be minimal in the context of the overall budget of the CCA, consideration should be given to this at the initiation of the CCA so that the roles can be properly defined and recruited. The availability of the necessary skills in any particular area can be decided only in practice.
I am grateful to noble Lords for all their amendments in this group.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I remind the House of my interest as a member of Kirklees Council and one who has served on its audit committee for a number of years. Scrutiny and audit are close to my heart. My noble friend Lord Shipley has raised some important issues about scrutiny—about the importance of an appropriate person not being seen as a political nominee, because that would undermine the whole purpose of scrutiny, taking an independent view of the decision-making process in the combined authority.
The second thing, which has not yet been explored, is that scrutiny can be post decision-making and pre decision-making. In strategic decisions made by a combined county authority or a combined authority, the primary duty of a scrutiny committee ought to be pre-decision scrutiny, because that is one way of ensuring a very detailed look at what is proposed—through a semi-independent committee one step removed from the decision-makers in the combined authority. I look forward to what the Minister will say on that and whether emphasis could be put on pre-decision scrutiny, particularly in this role.
The audit function has been illustrated by my noble friend Lord Shipley, who pointed out the number of councils that are failing in their financial status because auditors fail to pick up what is going on there. There are two elements of audit, though, which, again, have not been explored today or indeed in the Bill. One is internal audit, which ought to be primarily the duty of elected members, and the other is external audit, where the appointed external auditors of every council have a very important role at looking at where deficiencies might occur and where decisions being made by the council pose a substantial risk to its future. I totally support the views expressed by all Members who have spoken so far about the importance of having independent experts on those committees from a financial, audit or risk sector to support and advise the committee, but in the end, it is the decision of the elected members. It is them who have to carry the can, quite rightly: if they make poor decisions and fail to expose issues of concern in their councils, they too must be held accountable. I look forward to what the Minister will say on those issues.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)
My Lords, the amendments in this group relate to scrutiny of combined county authorities. I think that we all agree that effective scrutiny of a combined county authority, as with any other local authority, is a key aspect in providing the strong accountability that we all wish to see. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, is absolutely right: it is about not just scrutiny after the event but overview before the event as well, as any good local authority would be doing at the time. I also say this to her: the Bill makes provision for payments of allowances to local authority members who sit on overview and scrutiny, and audit, committees.
Noble Lords will be aware that Schedule 1 provides the underpinning processes for holding a combined county authority to account. Through Amendment 77 the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, wishes to put provisions in the Bill requiring a combined county authority to publish a report of an overview and scrutiny committee if that committee believes that publication of that report is in the public interest.
I reassure the noble Lord that Part VA of the Local Government Act 1972 provides powers to require the publication of reports of a committee or sub-committee of a principal council, including overview and scrutiny committees. Schedule 4 to the Bill amends Part VA of the Local Government Act 1972 to apply these provisions to combined county authorities. I hope that this provides sufficient reassurance to the noble Lord that further amendments in this area are not necessary.
Amendment 78 was tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage. We absolutely agree on the importance of overview and audit, as I have said. We recognise that it could be appropriate for representatives from district councils within a combined county authority’s area to be members of a CCA’s overview and scrutiny committee. However, our approach is that this issue of representation is best decided locally. The Bill provides for combined county authorities to invite representatives of district councils, along with other appropriate persons, to be members of their overview and scrutiny committees. The powers are already available to achieve what she seeks.
I recognise that the noble Baroness is perhaps seeking to place a requirement on combined county authorities to ensure that chairs of overview and scrutiny committees of district councils in the CCA areas have to be members of the CCA overview and scrutiny committees. As we have said many times, we prefer a localist approach of enabling those in the area the ability to form their scrutiny committees, rather than dictating this from central government.
Amendment 79 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, seeks to prevent a combined county authority restricting the work of an overview and scrutiny committee without good reason. The provisions in this schedule mirror exactly for the combined county authorities the overview and scrutiny arrangements in place for combined authorities. It is important to ensure consistency in approach to robust accountability across all those authorities that have functions and funding conferred to them from the Government.
As with combined authorities and local authorities, combined county authorities are public bodies required by public law to act reasonably in making decisions. It is only right that each combined county authority should be able to decide its own overview and scrutiny committee operational arrangements which best match its local circumstances. This is what this provision in the schedule does.
These operational arrangements will be set out in a combined county authority’s local constitution, to which it and all its members are bound. As such, there is no requirement for this amendment. A CCA cannot withhold an overview and scrutiny committee’s powers. Without such proposals in place that have been consented to by all parties, overview and scrutiny committees will not be able to undertake their role effectively.
Amendment 80 was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, who I thank for being the voice of rural committees, which are extremely important. This amendment seeks to give combined county authorities’ overview and scrutiny committees the ability to establish a rural sub-committee. I see that is very important for many county authorities, and I can confirm that the existing provisions enable a combined county authority’s overview and scrutiny committee to do this, should it wish. Paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 1 allows a CCA’s overview and scrutiny committee to appoint one or more sub-committees, and they could, of course, be rural sub-committees.
Amendments 82 and 83, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, are about the chairs of overview and scrutiny committees and sub-committees. Schedule 1 sets out that a chair of a combined county authority’s overview and scrutiny committee has to be of a different political party than the mayor in the case of a mayoral CCA and of a different political party to the majority of members in the case of a non-mayoral CCA or an independent person. These amendments seek to provide an additional criterion that the chair cannot have been a member of the same political party as either the mayor or majority of members for a non-mayoral combined county authority for a period of five years prior to appointment.
While we agree with the noble Lord that overview and scrutiny committees are an important part of the accountability process, we believe this amendment to be an unnecessary extra hurdle. Potential chairs’ credentials should be treated on the basis of their current political membership, or lack of it in the case of an independent chair. This is a consistent approach throughout local government. There are no requirements to look back over previously political membership, and we do not think there should be one in these new arrangements.
Amendment 84, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, looks to increase the minimum number of independent members of a combined county authority’s audit committee to three. The Government believe that devolution should be locally led, as I have said many times, and recognise that greater functions and funding must come with strong accountability. The Government’s policy approach is to allow each combined county authority the flexibility to decide its own operational arrangements for its audit committee to best match the arrangements to local circumstances. Currently, this allows CCAs to decide how many independent persons should be appointed to an audit committee, providing that there is at least one independent member.
The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, brought up the issue of who will be the members of audit committees. The regulations that will establish combined county authorities will set out audit committee arrangements. They will provide that, where practical, the membership of an audit committee reflects the political balance of the constituent councils of the combined county authority. Membership may not include any officer from the combined county authority or the combined county authority’s constituent councils. We await that further information on membership. The amendment that the noble Lord seeks to introduce would take away some of this flexibility, which might not best fit the local circumstances of the combined county authority.
Finally in this group, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, tabled Amendment 85, which would place a duty on the Secretary of State to facilitate the sharing of best practice between overview and scrutiny and audit committees of combined county authorities. We recognise that sharing best practice makes an important contribution to the delivery of effective scrutiny functions across the local government sector as a whole. However, we believe that this works best where best practice sharing is locally led rather being a diktat from above.
When they are established, combined county authorities will become part of a broader local government framework and will receive support in developing and improving scrutiny functions. The existing combined authorities are already working together to share best practice between their organisations, including considering effective scrutiny. This includes via the M10 network, which is led by the combined authorities but which government engages with regularly.
Combined authorities are also supported in their work on scrutiny by the Centre for Governance and Scrutiny, which looks at specific challenges across all local government, including combined authorities, and works with them to enhance the effectiveness of their scrutiny. Once established, combined county authorities will also be able to operate and share best practice in a similar way to those authorities already in place. I hope the noble Baroness agrees that—
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I hope the Minister will excuse me. I find that response about the sharing of best practice a little confusing. What we were trying to understand was how the work across the CCA picture nationally would be shared. I am not clear how that will work across the piece—across the country. There will, clearly, be the development of good practice in audit and scrutiny. Is it intended that that will sit within a framework such as, for example, the Local Government Association? Where will it sit, and how will those authorities be able to share what they are doing properly and effectively?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
For a start, they will still be members of the Local Government Association, I assume, as will their members; so there is that route. As we have said, the combined authorities already in existence are already joining together themselves and sharing good practice. I would imagine that the CCAs and further combined authorities will also be doing that sort of sharing of best practice. The department will obviously keep a close eye on a new structure, work with those local authorities and be able to share any good practice from that as well. As usually happens with change, everybody wants to get together to see how it is going. I can give your Lordships an example of when I took a local authority to a unitary authority, and other authorities were going to unitary authorities at the same time. We all joined together and shared best practice. It did not have to be imposed on us; we did it as a matter of course. I think local government is good at doing that and will continue to do so into these new ways of working.
I hope the noble Baroness will agree that, as the work currently undertaken elsewhere should be locally led, there is no need to place a duty on the Secretary of State to facilitate the sharing of best practice between combined county authorities.
Lord Shipley (LD)
I thank the Minister for her reply. I think the issues raised across the Committee on this group have been understood by the Government, including the concern that audit and scrutiny are seen by the general public to have been properly and appropriately carried out; that is a joint objective that we have. I would now, simply, like to read Hansard tomorrow and see exactly what has been said by everybody. We may have something further that we want to address on Report but, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“(4) A CCA may request that the Secretary of State publishes an assessment of their funding, including in relation to any new functions.”Member’s explanatory statement
This means that a CCA may request that the Secretary of State publishes an assessment of their funding, including in relation to any new functions.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, with the current local authority funding gap running at over £7 billion a year and much of the supposed increase trumpeted by the Government having to come from the pockets of already hard-pressed council tax payers, it is somewhat disappointing, as I have said before in this Chamber, that the Bill seems largely to overlook the underlying issues of the underfunding of local government generally and the fact that funding is not distributed fairly according to need.
That is key to the Bill, because those financial issues represent a barrier to the Government achieving their ambitions of levelling up. Indeed, the current rounds of bidding to get funding for levelling up only further add to the problem, because the authorities with the resources to put together the shiny bids that appear to be favoured are not always the ones with the most need. In that respect the Government are, at worst, turning the whole concept of levelling up upside down, and, at best, are applying sticking plasters to the gaping wounds of underfunding in our communities.
As a local government leader for 17 years, I can say from first-hand experience that the drastic savings that have been imposed on local authorities since 2010 mean that what has been achieved is all the more impressive. All major projects coming before any council are subject to detailed analysis of how the outcomes will be measured and monitored. That includes environmental, legal and equalities impacts and, especially, financial costs. At a time when even our Conservative County Council are announcing that it has exhausted all options in meeting its budget deficit, I hope the Minister will reflect on how we can better enable local councils to level up our areas. We are proposing a number of amendments in an attempt to address this deficit, and the amendments in this group would be the start of that process.
On Amendment 87, with a local government regime that is already incredibly regressive—from the benefit from council tax being skewed to those areas that are already better off to the many recently introduced funding pots which, as I said, enable those authorities with the resources to prepare the best bids regardless of the needs of the area—it is vital that there is a process to ensure the accountability and integrity of funding directed to CCAs. The publication of an annual statement would enable clear scrutiny to take place, both between and within CCA areas. It would also have the effect of making the funding of CCAs far more transparent for public purposes, as it would enable the CCA and the Government to demonstrate what funding had been allocated.
The second part of the amendment would take that transparency one step further, in that it asks for the annual statement to have a cost-benefit analysis to demonstrate whether the funding allocated to the CCA is achieving the stated aims. Again, that would provide a good opportunity for internal scrutiny via the overview and scrutiny committee, which we discussed earlier this afternoon, and for the public to be assured that the funding provided to the CCA was achieving the aims of levelling up and the strategic objectives that the CCA had set for itself.
The national benefit of these statements would be that, once consolidated, they would provide a national picture of funding, the way that funding was allocated and why, and the benefits that were being delivered through that funding. I would like to think that the discipline of reporting on an annual basis would also ensure that, where bidding pots still got allocated—much as I might prefer funding to be done in a different way—there would be clear criteria for and assessment of those bids, with measurable outcomes, so that these could be reported in the annual statement.
On Amendment 123, in the name of my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock, while the clause in the Bill sets out that the Secretary of State may make regulations in relation to requiring the mayor to maintain a fund in relation to receipts arising from, and liabilities incurred in, the exercise of general functions, and about the preparation of an annual budget, it is not clear whether that power for the Secretary of State extends to subsequently scrutinising that budget and fund in Parliament. Our contention is that local government, including any CCAs set up under this Bill, is already subject to extensive scrutiny through the overview and scrutiny committees internally, and externally through the audit process. So we would be grateful for clarification from the Minister on whether there is to be a further layer of scrutiny set up in relation to CCA budgets.
Amendment 172, submitted in my name and in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, talks about this fair funding review—and I feel fairly strongly about this. The fair funding review has been under discussion for at least five years to my knowledge, and probably longer than that. It was delayed again in October 2022. The methodology we currently have for allocations is both flawed and completely out of date. For example, it takes traffic flows from 2011, unemployment data which is 10 years old, highways data which is 20 years old, and census data—and, as we all know, the census is undertaken only every 10 years and so is nearly always too out of date for allocating funding via that formula. Additionally, we all know about the failure to reset property values, which means that we are using property values from 1991.
Average council tax as a share of disposable income in London is the lowest in the UK. That does not mean that there are not areas of deprivation in London, of course—some of the most deprived areas in the country are there—but it is just over half of that in Yorkshire and the Humber, and in the north-east. So, in a dynamic economy and at a time of a cost of living crisis, this outdated and flawed approach, which penalises and exacerbates economic equalities, will not do—it is the exact opposite of levelling up. Our amendment is there to suggest that we need to get on with this fair funding review and get it enacted quickly, because we have got no chance of levelling anything up unless we get this fair funding review completed.
There have been comments from the LGA, which supports the fact that the fair funding review needs to be done. It makes a very good point that there needs to be enough time to allow formal consultation with local authorities, but I cannot believe that, after five years of working on this, that could not be done fairly quickly. When the review does happen, it needs to consider both the data and formulae used to distribute funding, and the Government need to ensure that overall local government funding is sufficient when the new-needs formulae are introduced. That will ensure that no council sees its funding reduced and that there are transitional arrangements for any business rates reset. I beg to move.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I think that these are three very important amendments, and my name appears on Amendment 172. It goes without saying that the fair funding review has been undertaken for too long and that it is reasonable that within one year of this Bill being enacted the publication of the fair funding review should happen. I also think that the other amendments are very important, but Amendment 87 really matters because it says that
“a CCA may request that the Secretary of State publishes an assessment of their funding, including in relation to any new functions”.
In other words, is the right amount of money being given to undertake the tasks which the CCA is due to undertake?
All of this relates to the amendment in the names of my noble friend Lord Scriven and myself that relates to fiscal policy. There is an issue that we need to debate about fiscal policy and the powers of CCAs—we have the concept now of “trailblazer authorities” and I think the trend is a good one. Nevertheless, I want to be reassured that Ministers understand that local authorities cannot be expected to undertake things, and nor can CCAs, unless the local authorities or CCAs are able to fund them. For that reason, all three amendments in this group seem to me to be particularly important.
Lord Stunell (LD)
My Lords, I apologise for not being present on the first group that the Committee discussed today, courtesy of Avanti trains. We now have three very important amendments, which go to the heart of whether levelling up can be achieved. It cannot be achieved unless there is a massive input of finances to local authorities and to CCAs in order to achieve it.
We all know how the system works at the moment. When this place signs off on an Act of Parliament which places new duties and responsibilities on local authorities, government Ministers are always quick to say, “This will all be covered by the new burdens doctrine”. That means that the new cost will be assessed in Whitehall, by some process which is more or less invisible to the general public, and a number will be added to the amount of grant which is then allocated by Whitehall to local authorities. Putting it more accurately, the original amount will be subdivided so that the new burdens are one fraction of it and the reduced grant overall, because of the economic situation, is the other. In other words, there is no extra money at all because the envelope of money has been predetermined by the Treasury and is simply divided one way or another.
Perhaps the key point in what the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, said was about the need for much more transparency on that funding relationship between central government and its decision-makers in Whitehall and the recipients of their decisions—the CCAs and local authorities. These three amendments are ways of establishing a process which would begin to deliver that. I very much hope that, in replying, the noble Earl will be able to give us some comfort that the message has been heard.
I say to the Government Front Bench that, if we could have some assurance that the new burdens doctrine was going to mean a genuine increase of funds for additional processes, we would have much more confidence that the levelling-up process could deliver, rather than simply reapportioning a few crumbs on the side of the plate from one place to another. It is about that process of funding the Government’s ambitions on levelling up; we really need to have some certainty that they have that process clearly in focus and in mind. We shall otherwise pass in due course, no doubt, a Bill that we all know will not provide a route for funding the initiatives which are absolutely essential if it is to succeed.
Turning quickly to the three amendments in front of us, I have characterised the first as a fair funding audit of local authorities which, it seems to me, would reveal at the local level some of the issues that I have just described. Increasingly large burdens are being placed on local authorities and combined authorities to achieve certain outcomes, but the Government are withholding money which would allow the authorities to deliver those.
Amendment 123 is asking about parliamentary oversight. I shall be very interested to hear how the Minister chooses to answer that. There is a great pressure—this was the topic we were talking about on the previous group—on auditing the performance of local authorities when they spend and allocate money, and when they undertake their risk assessments, but there is less investigation of how the Government are handling their side of that equation. Maybe there is indeed scope for enhanced visibility and transparency and parliamentary oversight of that process.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, this group of amendments relates to the budgets and funding of combined county authorities and the scrutiny of them. Amendment 87, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, seeks to place a requirement on the Secretary of State to publish an assessment of a combined county authority’s funding, including in relation to any new functions.
The Government fully recognise the importance of transparency with regard to allocations of funding and regular reporting on the impact of wider and deeper devolution. That is why we introduced a measure to that effect in the Cities and Local Devolution Act 2016. This provision requires the Government to produce an annual report on progress with devolution that covers the areas suggested by the noble Baroness’s amendment; namely, funding and regular progress reporting on devolution of additional public functions. Combined authorities and local authorities are already covered by this provision. We laid a consequential amendment, government Amendment 152, on 9 February that will bring combined county authorities into its scope. I hope that is helpful to the noble Baroness.
It is also worth noting that combined county authorities will be subject to the same accounting and audit provisions as combined authorities and individual local authorities. Government Amendment 151, laid on 9 February, extends the provisions of the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014 to combined county authorities. These provisions include the requirement for them to have locally audited annual accounts available for public inspection on request. Taken together, these measures will ensure that combined county authorities operate in a transparent manner and are held to account for successful delivery in the same way that other institutions in England with devolved powers already are. The Government therefore feel that there are effective, proportionate reporting mechanisms already in place for combined county authorities that will cover what the noble Baroness is seeking to achieve.
I read Amendment 123, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, as probing whether Parliament will be able to scrutinise CCA budgets. I agree with what the noble Baroness said: combined county authority mayors and their budgets should be subject to scrutiny. Where I differ from her is that I believe that it should be a local matter. If it is to be worth the name, devolution should combine strong, empowered local leaders with stronger accountability and transparency. A directly elected leader, such as a mayor, with a fixed term and a clear mandate makes it much easier for local communities to make judgments based on local performance and local delivery, rather than the ebb and flow of national politics.
All combined county authorities will be required to have at least one overview and scrutiny committee and an audit committee. These will be instrumental in holding the authority and the mayor to account for their decisions and activities. The Government will be publishing a new devolution accountability framework to ensure that all devolution deals lead to local leaders and institutions that are transparent and accountable, work closely with local businesses, seek the best value for taxpayers’ money and maintain strong ethical standards. Requiring combined county authorities to lay their budgets before Parliament would be excessive and would also place CCAs on a different footing from combined authorities and all other local government institutions.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I think I said when I moved the amendment that our contention was that local government, including any CCAs, is already subject to extensive scrutiny, so we agree with that. I would be grateful if the noble Earl could clarify that no further layer of scrutiny will be applied to CCA budgets. Was that the content of the his response?
Earl Howe (Con)
In broad terms, yes. But if I can elaborate on that, I will certainly write to the noble Baroness.
Amendment 172, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, seeks to insert a new clause following Clause 76. This proposed new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish the fair funding review. I take this to mean the most recent government consultation on fairer funding for local government, which is the 2018-19 review of relative needs and resources.
The review of relative needs and resources was undertaken in 2018-19. As the noble Baroness rightly pointed out, this assessment is now out of date. It does not take into account more up-to-date census and demographic data. The events of the past five years, including, notably, the Covid-19 pandemic, mean that the world has moved on. I therefore suggest to the noble Baroness that there would be little benefit to publication in its outdated form.
The Government have already set out, in the local government finance policy statement on 12 December, that we would not be implementing the relative review of needs and resources in this spending review period. Instead, that policy statement sets out details of the funding policy that will be maintained for a second year into 2024-25. In making this decision, the Government were clear that now is the time for stability for the sector, not reform, given the turbulence of the Covid-19 pandemic and the more recent economic issues relating to high inflation.
I emphasise that the Government remain committed to improving the local government finance landscape in the next Parliament and beyond. The department is keen to work closely with local partners and to take stock of the challenges and opportunities that they face to build on the work of the review of relative needs and resources and to ensure that plans for reform are contemporary, robust and informed by local insight. Again, this is set out in the local government finance policy statement, published in December. This is an important issue and one that we should certainly discuss in the coming months.
I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, will understand the Government’s reasoning on this, and that she will not feel the need to press this amendment when it is reached.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am very grateful for the responses from the Minister. As was said earlier in the debate, we know that he always listens to the points being put forward, and I thank him for that.
On Amendment 87, which proposes that the CCA can request the publication of fair funding for new functions, I think that it is fair to say that local authorities cannot be expected to undertake bureaucratic burdens such as those. However, we want to see the records of reporting on CCAs, in particular around the cost-benefit analysis of what is being achieved by a CCA.
In response to the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, I say that there is a significant difference between the funding we see for initiatives and the funding for core services. There has been a great deal of the former and not so much of the latter in recent years. What happens, as we constantly see in local government, is that core services are undermined, and it hollows out the ability of local authorities to deliver the initiatives. I agree with the noble Lord that, whenever we raise these issues, we always get told that there will be new-burdens funding for things. In effect, while we occasionally see some money coming forward, we get things such as the new homes bonus. That is a good example, because the bonus was simply top-sliced from the rest of local government funding, so, in effect, they did not give us any new money at all; they just gave us our own money back. There are also things such as the Government setting rent policy for local authorities, telling us how much rent we can charge our tenants and placing additional burdens on housing authorities, and then saying, “No, you can’t have any new-burdens funding, because you should have been doing all that in the first place”. So there are problems around the whole issue of the new-burdens regime, and we need a genuine increase in funds in local government.
The points from the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, on how local government is financed, by whom, and how the resources are allocated and so on, were very well made. I would like to see the Government be brave enough to get on with this fair funding review. From the Minister’s response, I feel that it has been pushed into the long grass again. It was set up in 2018; we all understand that the pandemic had an impact on it, and perhaps during the pandemic was not the time to go into a full review of local government funding. It was delayed again in October 2022. Hearing that it has now been moved to the next Parliament is a concern, because this is urgent now. In 2023, we really cannot go much further forward with the system we have, which does not respond to local economic needs or local data, is very slow to respond, and, in many cases, is using data that is between 10 and 20 years old—that is not helping at all with the levelling-up agenda.
I spoke earlier about the difference between initiatives funding and core funding. It is all very well putting money into areas for local initiatives—often that is capital, and we have heard that the Secretary of State has now been stopped from signing off any further capital initiatives, so even that might not happen at the moment—but, if you do not keep the core funding going as well, and make sure that it is rising by inflation at the same time, it will be much more difficult to deliver any levelling-up initiatives whatever. So the amendments are important in making the point that we need to ensure that local government finances are duly and properly taken into consideration in the Bill. As I said earlier, it is disappointing that it is not there in a stronger way and we will look at the government amendments on the reporting on CCA funding to satisfy ourselves that they are right.
In the meantime, I am happy not to press the amendments. However, I hope that the Government are taking the point that we take very seriously this issue of local government finance and its rightful place in the levelling-up agenda; we may come back to it later in the debate.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
“Reports on transfer of NHS responsibilities to local government(1) A Minister of the Crown must prepare reports on proposals for the transfer of NHS functions to local authorities, combined metropolitan authorities, combined county authorities, and mayors as established under sections 15 to 20 of the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016 (combined and local authorities). (2) The first report in relation to subsection (1) must be made within 12 months of the passing of this Act.(3) Subsequent reports in relation to subsection (1) must be made at 24-month intervals following publication of the first report.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and another in this location in the name of Lord Hunt of Kings Heath are probing amendments designed to explore the Government’s commitment to transferring NHS responsibilities to local government as envisaged in the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I have a number of amendments in this group, which ranges very far and wide; at points, it is difficult to know what connects one with another. However, I suppose that they all have something to do with functions to be devolved to local government, which I guess is good enough.
I have tabled three amendments in the group and have added my name to the Clause 59 stand part debate in the name of my noble friend Lord Bach. My first two amendments, Amendments 89 and 90, are very much probing amendments designed to get a feel from the Government as to whether they have any intention of extending the “Devo Manchester” arrangements in relation to the NHS to other parts of the country. I have long believed that local government should have a greater role in the National Health Service. When the NHS was set up in 1948, there had been a huge debate in the Attlee Government as to whether the new NHS should be part of local government or not. In fact, there was a great argument between Nye Bevan and Herbert Morrison. Herbert Morrison, who had been the leader of the London County Council, which had been the largest hospital authority in the world before the war, argued for local government, while Bevan said that he thought that it would be a second-rate, patchy service. He obviously won the argument, although, by the early 1950s, he had changed his mind. Of course, when he introduced the NHS Bill—in this Chamber, of course—he talked about the NHS being a national service, but he stated that most of the decisions would be made locally through hospital management committees. He also made the memorable quote that when a bucket of slops is kicked over in Merthyr Tydfil, its echoes should sound in the Palace of Westminster. I suppose he was expressing the great tension about the NHS, which is that, for all the efforts to try to run it locally, the centre has continually sucked up powers and has attempted the impossible: to run this massive service through a Whitehall system of targets and other methods to try to bring the service into line.
There have been various attempts to break out from that. I was part of a ministerial team led by Alan Milburn that brought in foundation trusts as an attempt, on the providers’ side, to get much greater local ownership. The problem was that, once Alan Milburn left office, there was no one else to champion the concept, because at heart the Department of Health was very unwilling to let go. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley—whom I always tempt into these debates if I can—tried another approach with the establishment of NHS England as a quasi-independent body, again to try to take some of the decision-making away from Ministers and Whitehall. However, I suggest that, post the noble Lord, the appetite for it among his successors was pretty limited.
So we are left with a service that is under great pressure at the moment. We see Ministers scrambling around announcing plan after plan to try to recover it, and, frankly, that is not the way—I almost said, “That ain’t the way to run a railway”, but perhaps that is not quite right for those of us who travel by Avanti on a frequent basis, as the noble Lord said. When George Osborne reached an agreement with Manchester City Council—without, I think, NHS England knowing anything about it—that Greater Manchester would be given powers, in essence, to co-ordinate the running of the NHS in Greater Manchester, I thought that it had great potential.
Rather like for many initiatives, once Mr Osborne moved on it seems that the appetite in Whitehall for developing this idea fell by the wayside. I really wanted to use my first two amendments to probe the Government on whether they can confirm that, in fact, there is no intention to replicate what is happening in Manchester and that they now see integrated care systems as the way forward. If that is the case, the point I make to the Minister is that all the indicators are that local government is being treated as a very junior partner within those integrated care systems.
I want to pray in aid some very good work by the County Councils Network, which will not be so pleased with me when we come back to the issue of district councils in a few weeks’ time. I pay great tribute to its work looking at current experience of working with the NHS. It found some great examples of partnerships but the conclusion of its work is that integrated care systems
“simply do not feel like a paradigm shift towards delivering truly local priorities based on local engagement, and the question remains as to whether they are ‘joint’ endeavours or NHS bodies with some local government participation.”
Noble Lords who took part in debates on the then Health and Care Bill will remember that we spent many happy hours debating these very points and were assured by the Government that they saw local government as full partners within the integrated care systems. But the reality is that particularly the integrated care boards which commission NHS services are seen to operate primarily to tackle immediate NHS issues rather than address local priorities. The County Councils Network concludes across three themes of its research that:
“Accountability structures for ICBs … lead to NHSE and the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and not to local organisations”—
surprise, surprise—that
“Regular directives from ‘the centre’ … require senior ICB leadership to focus on immediate NHS operational issues”,
another surprise; and that there is also
“a ‘command and control’ culture that jars with collaboration and local political leadership”.
That also is a great surprise.
The County Councils Network makes a number of suggestions for improving the involvement of local government. Essentially, it argues that the department of health and NHS England
“need to fundamentally review the levels of centrally mandated activity and targets in policies and funding requirements, particularly in shared policy areas, to ensure that they are consistent with the principle of locally driven strategies.”
I hope the Minister will respond positively to it. If, as I suspect, the Government are not prepared to go down the “Devo Manchester” route, despite some encouraging signs about what it is beginning to achieve, then I think they have to show—as this is essentially a local government Bill—that local government is going to have a greater involvement in the NHS and healthcare in the future. Anyone looking at the challenges we face in health at the moment and the inequalities surely must conclude that, unless we get to grips with chronic ill health and the need to promote a much stronger preventive approach, this will not happen without full participation of local government. That is the only way we can possibly get through the crisis that our health service faces.
Let me move on to a different issue. I come to Clause 58 where, it seems to me, the Government are essentially saying, “You can have devolution, but only on our terms and by adopting this model of directly elected mayors”. I have just heard the Minister comment on this, but why the obsession with directly elected mayors, I do not know. Clause 58 typifies this. At the moment, Part 6 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 provides for public authority functions to be conferred on to a combined authority subject to various requirements about authorities locally consenting. Such functions can then be exercisable by the combined authority or by the mayor personally.
But Clause 58 now amends the current provisions whereby all the local authorities covered by the function to be transferred have to agree. Under this clause, the mayor of a combined authority may make a request to the Secretary of State to make such an order. The mayor is required to consult the constituent councils of the combined authority before making the request and requires the mayor to include within such a request to the Secretary of State a statement that all the constituent councils agree to the making of this order or, if this statement cannot be made, the mayor’s rationale for proceeding. My reading is that, despite a constituent authority not giving consent, the Secretary of State can simply agree to the mayor’s request and override objections from constituent authorities. To me, that is a fundamental change from the current provision. It allows a mayor to act in an extremely high-handed way and is something that we should be very wary of.
For an example of high-handedness, Clause 59 really takes the biscuit. I suppose we should call it the Andy Street clause because it has been put in only because he was very miffed that his proposal to take on the functions of the police and crime commissioner in the West Midlands was turned down by the local authorities in that region, as they have every right to do. At the last elections in the West Midlands, Mr Street was elected mayor and a Labour candidate was elected police and crime commissioner. That was a democratic wish of people in the West Midlands, and for the mayor to come along and say, “Forget that. I want to be the police commissioner”, and the Government to come along with this clause and say they going to take the power to do that, is utterly unacceptable. I hope very much, when it comes to it, we will be able to take this wretched clause out of the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 91 to which I have added my name, and to Amendment 469 in the names of my noble friend Lady Pinnock and myself. I also want to express general support for the amendments in this very disparate group.
On Amendment 91, some noble Lords will be aware that I am also at the moment participating in debates on the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill and the retained EU law Bill. There are some overlapping issues, and one is the role of trade unions and the interaction between the powers of the UK Government and the powers of employers, including, of course, local government as employers.
Last week on the strikes Bill, I raised the issue of the powers of devolved Administrations. The Minister was unable to give assurances that the UK Government—who, by the way, on issues that are devolved are just the English Government—will not simply override the devolved Administrations. Applying that logic to this Bill, which purports to increase devolution within English local government, it is reasonable for us to ask what the status of trade unions within local government will be and whether the UK Government will seek to override English local authorities in the same way as they intend to override devolved Administrations. The lessons are similar in both Bills.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, I start by congratulating the clerks who made up this group—it is an astonishing achievement to have managed to get so many completely separate issues all in one group. I am afraid that I am going to make life more difficult for the Front-Benchers, particularly for the noble Baroness the Minister, by moving from one subject to another—but here we are; I will do my best.
I ought to remind the Committee that I am a former police and crime commissioner for Leicestershire and Rutland. I have a clause stand part notice in my name for Clause 59, which we will not reach for many sessions, probably. I thank noble Lords who have added their names to that notice. My noble friend Lord Hunt, at the end of his speech, talked about Clause 59; I very much hope that the Government will listen. Even if my words are fairly harsh, they are not addressed at Ministers here; obviously it is not their responsibility, as such, but the Government’s responsibility that we are landed with Clause 59, which really is not a worthy clause in a Bill of this kind. It should never have been in this Bill; it is a mean, short clause in a large, important Bill and it has absolutely nothing to do with levelling up or grand plans for the future of our country.
It is for one reason only, as has been stated: merely to ensure that one mayor of the West Midlands Combined Authority—Conservative, as it happens—can become the police and crime commissioner for the West Midlands police force area whenever he really wants to. All he has to do is ask the Government, who are his own party, of course. He does not have to consult with anybody, unlike under Clause 58—for which there is also a stand part notice—where consultation is at least mandatory. In effect, he just has to wake up one morning and say to himself, “Oh, I fancy being police and crime commissioner today; I’ll have a word with a Minister”. Then, without much ado, he will be. In fact, he has, to use modern parlance, fancied it for a long time. Unfortunately, for him, there is a combination of the present law, which demands democratic consent from the combined authority members and from the constituent authorities—the councils that make up the combined authority—and, annoyingly for the mayor, the electorate who have voted on four separate occasions for a Labour police and crime commissioner. “How dare they”, says the mayor, and the Government follow suit by putting in this clause.
First, the present law sought to be amended by Clause 59—namely, the need for majority support from the combined authority and support from all the councils that make up the combined authority, the constituent authorities—was put into the 2009 Act by the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016. For the Government of the day, and for all of us, it represented a sensible, democratic and consensual approach. Of course a mayor can become police and crime commissioner, if he or she has general support—as has happened in Manchester and West Yorkshire. However, it did stop a mayor from grabbing that position without local support. In the West Midlands, that support is not forthcoming. Now, seven years on—only seven years—the same Government wish to change all that and give the mayor a free ride, effectively.
Secondly, the electorate in the West Midlands has voted every time, as it happens, for a Labour police and crime commissioner, most recently in May 2021, on the very same day that they voted for a Conservative mayor. There is no suggestion that the two position holders, the mayor and the police and crime commissioner, have not worked well together. Both were elected, so I ask the Minister, what is the argument for change? What is the argument to nullify the result of an election, effectively, if it does not happen to suit one party?
This clause is there only, I submit, for the West Midlands mayor. Ironically, if he becomes police and crime commissioner, he will no doubt appoint a deputy who will do most of the work but will not have been elected by anybody. Police and crime commissioners, whether we like them or loathe them, were actually set up by the Government of the day to do a particular job for their public. One of the selling points by the Government when this controversial Bill was put before Parliament was that it would be the public who would elect police and crime commissioners, and that gave them some mandate. This clause represents a real lessening of democracy. It is usually only authoritarian regimes that make laws to abolish the results of democratic elections that they do not happen to like or do not suit them. Surely, we are better than that.
At Second Reading, the Minister did not have time to deal with the points I am making now. In no way is that a criticism: she had much too much to do, given the number of speakers and different points that were made at Second Reading. Now we are in Committee, I would be grateful if she would be kind enough to listen to the following questions and give me answers. First, what is the purpose of this clause if it is not to nullify the results of an election held 22 months ago? Secondly, what is wrong with the principle of having broad consent for change, which was the Government’s policy right up to now? Thirdly, why is there no consultation for the mayor before he makes his application? He does not need to consult under the new provision. Lastly, should the Government not think again about how undemocratic, chilling and unnecessary this clause looks? Its departure from the Bill would, I believe, be well received by all people of good will who believe in local democracy and think it rather shocking that an election result can be overturned merely because the party that lost it does not like it.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I rise very briefly to support the probing Amendments 89 and 90, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, about the role of local government and the NHS. I speak as somebody who has been an NHS manager—I think I said previously that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, was in the higher echelons of NHS management when I was a mere trainee. I have also been a local government council leader and recently I have been an NHS non-executive director.
There were clear issues as we went through the Health and Care Act. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, it seems like we are having the same discussion. It is not that we want to say, “We told you so”, but the structures that have been set up and the cultures and behaviours of the two organisations mean that they are incompatible with what we all want to achieve, which is a localised and systematic approach to dealing with people who go through the NHS and care system to improve health and reduce health inequalities between areas.
The NHS, by structure, looks up. It looks up to NHS England and the department. The way that the funding goes means that the levers that the Secretary of State or the senior directors of NHS England can pull will mean that NHS staff, in terms of managers and leaders, will look up and will respond to a top-down approach. The culture within the NHS is top-down, top-down, top-down. Local authorities, and particularly local councillors, look out. They look out to their area: that is who they serve, that is who, predominantly, gives them their marching orders—not somebody above them from a national organisation and a central ministerial area of government.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, very briefly, because time presses, my name is attached to the stand part debates on Clauses 58 and 59. I do not seek to repeat what has been said already about those two clauses, but I hope the Minister will give clear evidence for the need for both clauses, because I am unconvinced that they are necessary. I will make a further point in relation to what the noble Lord, Lord Bach, said a moment ago: that the whole principle behind police and crime commissioners was that they were directly elected. If the ballot box is the main means for a police and crime commissioner to be appointed to their job, I do not think that that system can be meddled with in the way that the Government appear to want to meddle with it.
Indeed, to develop what the noble Lord, Lord Bach, said, of course a mayor with PCC powers can appoint a deputy mayor to have the PCC powers on behalf of the mayor. Actually, when we read the Bill very carefully—indeed, we debated this in earlier stages of consideration of the Bill—the deputy can also pass powers on to “any other person”. There are some restrictions in the Bill as to what that might mean, but the fact is that the words “any other person” simply take away the power of the electorate to make a decision as to who is the police and crime commissioner. For that reason, I support the propositions on Clauses 58 and 59 not standing part.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, this is another really important group of amendments to do with the extent of devolution: what are the limits that the Government are putting on that? The only areas we have explored, very important though they are, are the National Health Service, policing, transport services—buses, in particular—and general functions. I have great sympathy with all the amendments in this group, particularly those introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, asking where the National Health Service fits in with the notion of devolution to local areas.
As the noble Lord explored, currently the NHS does not fit in. A move was made in the Greater Manchester Combined Authority for the mayor to take the provision of health and care services—which we have not referred to so far—under his powers. That was accepted but has not made much progress. One of the biggest challenges, as has been said time and again in this Chamber in debates relating to other Bills, is the absolute importance of connecting the National Health Service and the social care system. Enabling devolution of NHS services to a mayoral combined authority would enable social care and NHS services to be properly linked. The result of no progress being made in this area is before our eyes; we have too many older people staying in hospital for too long, which harms their health, and they are not discharged into the social care service because the two are not linked. The Government have failed to do this time and again. Well, okay, devolve it—pass it on to local mayoral authorities so that we can see what progress they can make. I repeat every sympathy, and support what has been said. I do hope it will be pursued at later stages of consideration of this Bill because it is so important for the health and well-being of the people we serve.
I will also wholeheartedly support the Clauses 58 and 59 stand part notices, for the reasons that have been said. I will give the example of West Yorkshire, where it was determined that the police and crime commissioner role would be combined with that of our elected mayor. Now we no longer have an elected police and crime commissioner because that role is unelected; they are appointed by the West Yorkshire mayor. That was her right; I am not saying she has done anything wrong. But who is now called to account for failings in policing in West Yorkshire? There have been a number of examples across the country where police and crime commissioners have, for various reasons, been found wanting and have been held accountable for their actions. How does that work in a combined mayoral authority where the mayor appoints the police and crime commissioner? Does the mayor have to be held accountable for the decisions and actions of their appointed deputy? That is the only way that accountability can take place. The attempt by the Government to undermine an elected process is undemocratic. How do the Government think that local people will feel about the very important role of holding policing in the West Midlands to account when an elected police and crime commissioner there is somehow unelected? Those two big issues are very important. It is about whether we are talking about devolution to local areas or still talking about centralised systems where there is delegation to combined authorities—which leads nicely to buses.
I cannot add to my noble friend Lady Randerson’s description of what has happened to the bus services and how important they are to any hope of levelling up for many parts of the country. As she said, if you cannot get a bus in order to access employment then, for many people, it is financially impossible to do other than stay at home. Mayoral authorities need to be given the powers to control bus services, as bus services should be encompassed in mayoral authorities. In giving another local example, I should point out that it was done before the mayoral authority was set up. Nevertheless, it comes from the centre of West Yorkshire where, in my own area, we have a number of small villages where the bus services were poor and people could not get about. Fortunately, there was not only one bus a week—like the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, has, I think—but services were poor throughout the day. We managed to get a subsidy for what I call a small hopper bus—a 15-seater—to go around the various parts of the Spen Valley area and pick up older people, take them into town to do their shopping, collect them and go back again. After a bit, because it was so popular, it has become a self-financing bus service. With local initiatives comes success because local areas know what would probably work for their patches. That is why enabling mayoral combined authorities to have control over bus services is so vital.
Any notion of levelling up will not work without the aspect of transport. There has been too much focus on rail services, which are very important but do not feature in a lot of people’s options for transport. I repeat that my noble friend Lady Randerson made a powerful case for ensuring that mayoral combined authorities can run bus services. Without that, many people—especially in rural areas, but not only in rural areas—will find that they cannot access the services and jobs they need to if levelling up is to be anything other than a slogan.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, as others have said, this has certainly been a mixed bag of amendments, but clearly they all look at the extent of devolution, the powers and the different functions involved. We have two probing amendments in this group. First, in Clause 19, my Amendment 91 probes
“whether the Government will cooperate with trade unions representing employees of CCAs.”
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for her support and for her excellent speech on this matter. At the moment, Clause 19—“Integrated Transport Authority and Passenger Transport Executive”—does not consider the people who work for the CCAs. We believe they should be able to be part of any decision-making process. This is also why we believe it is important for the Government to co-operate with trade union representatives.
Lord Stunell (LD)
Has the noble Baroness given any consideration to one of the provisions here about the statement that the mayor must make on consent by the constituent councils? I think she said that it would be only if they gave their unanimous consent but, on page 51 of the Bill, subsection (4)(b) says that,
“if the mayor is unable to make that statement, the reasons why the mayor considers the order should be made even though not all of the constituent councils agree to it being made”.
So it is not even the case that all constituent councils are engaged; indeed, it does not even say that it should be a majority. It would appear that the mayor has absolute discretion to make a statement, regardless of constituent councils’ support.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Absolutely; the noble Lord is completely correct. I was trying to get across that there should be unanimous consent for anything as serious as that matter; I thank the noble Lord for drawing attention to it.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, this group of amendments covers a number of matters relating to combined county authorities, combined authorities and local authorities, including NHS functions, the conferral of additional functions on combined authority mayors, the fair funding review, trade union liaison and bus services.
I start with Amendments 89 and 90, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. Together, they would require the Secretary of State to publish reports on proposals for the devolution of health functions to authorities and subsequent reports at 24-month intervals. I hope I can reassure the noble Lord and other noble Lords that the existing provisions for reporting on the conferral of health functions on to a local authority, combined authority or combined county authority are sufficient. The regulations that would confer health functions on to a local area would be accompanied by an Explanatory Memorandum setting out why the functions are to be conferred. The regulations also require parliamentary approval, giving Parliament the opportunity to consider the impact of such a conferral of functions. Also, under Section 1 of the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act, the Secretary of State has to publish an annual report about devolution, including listing any functions—including health functions—devolved to areas in the preceding 12 months.
The noble Lord’s explanatory statements say that these amendments are intended to probe our
“commitment to transferring NHS responsibilities to local government”.
To clarify, our devolution legislation is enabling legislation. Where an area is interested in the conferral of health functions on to a combined authority, local authority or combined county authority, it is possible to do this via secondary legislation. To date, the only area that has taken up this opportunity is the Greater Manchester combined authority, as we have debated; however, in principle, other devolution bids can include these same requests.
Section 18 of the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016 sets out which health functions can and cannot be devolved. As noble Lords have mentioned, the kinds of functions that can be devolved include the joint local commissioning of health services. In contrast, the kinds of functions that cannot be devolved include, as noble Lords might expect, health service regulatory functions vested in national regulatory bodies responsible for such functions. Let me be clear: the devolution of health functions does not alter the Secretary of State’s core duties in relation to the NHS. As this Government have consistently made clear, they are and remain a priority for us.
Amendment 91, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, would require the Government to co-operate with trade unions representing employees of combined county authorities that have responsibilities for transport. I support the noble Baroness’s sentiment here that it is important that we engage with trade unions representing transport employees of CCAs. It will, however, be the combined county authority itself as the employer that will be involved in recognising and collectively bargaining with any trade union representing staff at that workplace.
The Secretary of State will not be party to that relationship. Therefore, placing an additional requirement on the Secretary of State to co-operate with a trade union representing those staff risks undermining the relationship between the combined county authority, as the employer, and the trade union. I do not think that this would be appropriate; it is for local agreement. More generally, the Secretary of State consults with a large number of groups, including trade unions, on issues that affect local transport in combined county authority areas.
I shall move on to the Clause 58 stand part debate. Turning to the issues raised by the noble Lords, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, Lord Shipley and Lord Bach, and other noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, Clause 58 introduces a new process enabling mayors of combined authorities to take on new public authority functions via a request to the Secretary of State to deepen devolution, in order to remove barriers and give our local leaders more powers to drive the economic, social and environmental improvements locally that their residents, businesses and areas need. It is, however, deliberately limited in scope.
The provision relates only to the transfer of other public authority functions; namely, those currently carried out and funded by organisations other than local authorities such as government departments or their agencies. It makes no change to the consent regime for the transfer of local authority functions, as set out in the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016, because we fully recognise that local agreement is key to successfully transferring such functions either to be delivered across a wider geographical area by a combined authority or, in some circumstances, to be exercised by the mayor individually.
We have also included an additional safeguard on the use of this provision to make sure that the voice of local authorities is still heard. In making any request for new functions to the Secretary of State, mayors will need to set out the views of their constituent councils and then provide a rationale for proceeding, if any of them disagree. More broadly, this clause also retains the long-established principle that we have had for all combined authority legislation that deepens devolution through new powers; that is, that it must be subject to what has often been referred to as to the triple-lock of consents. It must be consented to locally—in this case, by the mayor with the input from the constituent councils—agreed by the Secretary of State and approved by Parliament. I hope my explanation provides noble Lords with further information such that they could reconsider their opposition to this clause.
On Clause 59, raised by the noble Lords, Lord Bach, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Shipley, and many others, the levelling up White Paper, which was consulted on widely, included reference to mayors of combined authorities taking on police and crime commissioner functions where policing boundaries were coterminous with those of the combined authority. It also committed the Government to taking steps to remove the barriers to more combined authority mayors taking on PCC functions. Clause 59 amends the existing provision by removing the requirements of consent from the combined authority and its constituent councils to the transfer of the PCC functions to be exercised by the mayor. This will enable the Secretary of State to make an order providing for a combined authority mayor to take on PCC functions for the combined authority’s area, subject to mayoral consent only.
PCC functions can be exercised only by the mayor. Combined authorities and their constituent councils have no role in the exercise of PCC functions. Therefore, the clause makes it clear that only mayoral consent is required for a transfer. These changes are designed to enable more mayors to take on PCC functions where this has been agreed; for example, within a devolution deal, in line with our White Paper commitment. The transfer of PCC functions to a combined authority mayor would not only preserve the democratic accountability established by the PCC model but can also offer wider levers to prevent crime. Powerful local mayors—
Lord Bach (Lab)
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister. I thank her for what she has said so far, but I want to ask her why there is no need for consultation of any kind under Clause 59. She praised the consultation that was necessary under Clause 58 and made it part of her argument. Why is there none in Clause 59?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, that is because, as I said, the role of the PCC does not impinge on the roles of the constituency councils. It is purely a role for the mayor. When you are looking at things to do with health, you are probably including the care roles of many councils.
Lord Bach (Lab)
Each district council has to have a community safety committee, which is made up of district councillors, others and the local police—it is very much involved in policing. As has been said earlier, and used as an argument by the Government, every police and crime panel must have someone from each district council in the police force area. There is a clear link between the constituent councils. Given that link is so important, how can the Minister really argue that on Clause 58 consultation is necessary but on Clause 59 it has nothing to do with the districts or the county?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I did not say it has nothing to do with the districts or the county—
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
I apologise to the Minister. I just thought I would add to the questions now and not interrupt further.
Is this an admission by the Government that the current system of independently elected police and crime commissioners has not been effective? I cannot think of any other reason why the two separate roles should be combined unless it is felt that the separate role of the police and crime commissioner has not been as effective as the Government wished.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
In the interests of making life easier for the noble Baroness, perhaps I could add my question. What assessment have the Government done of the crossover of funding between local authorities and police services for community safety work and partnerships? That is a frequent model. When the noble Baroness says that the police and crime commissioner role has no impact on local authorities, surely, that funding flow is relevant.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I did not say that the councils do not have any concerns or interest in the role of the PCC. Of course, they do, as we have heard, with community safety committees et cetera. What I said was that the councils do not deliver any of the services required by the PCC. That is the job of the local police. Therefore, there is no crossover in that way.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I do not know where that information has come from about councils not delivering community safety-related services. It is just not the case. We look at anti-social behaviour; we look at domestic abuse. In my own local authority, we have a very big and effective domestic abuse service, and we work with our colleagues in the police. We have issues related to local area policing. We set our priorities with our local policing teams and deliver services jointly to address those priorities. I could go on—I know the noble Baroness will know some of this from her own experience in local government. It is just not the case that local government does not deliver community safety services in the same way that we deliver health prevention services and so on.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I think we are going to disagree on this, and there is a fine line. I also want to answer the questions from the noble Lord, Lord Bach, that I did not answer at Second Reading, for which I apologise—I am conscious of that—but because the amount of information I have is not sufficient to answer them today, I will write to him and talk to Home Office colleagues as well, because I think it is important we get their views. I will also write more about the responsibilities of the PCC and the local authorities, because it is important that we get this right and that noble Lords understand the reasons why we are doing this.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
I am struggling with this logic. The combined authority mayor can appoint a deputy to be responsible for police and crime, but the elected mayor will take the accountability if things go wrong. Why, then, can we not have an elected police and crime commissioner? That is the logic of what the Minister is saying.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
That is not the logic. It is an opportunity for the directly elected mayor to be able to join up all these issues within their geographic area and deliver more joined-up services by working with others.
Lord Scriven (LD)
Do the Government therefore suggest that, at a local level, a council leader could appoint their own cabinet rather than taking from elected councillors? That is the logic of what the Minister is saying.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
That is not the logic. It takes the whole issue too far. Cabinet members will come from the elected members. That is required in the legislation.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The one thing that this has not answered is the issue of the politics, looking at the West Midlands. Does the Minister not think that, if a mayor can appoint a deputy mayor to take over the PCC functions and the existing PCC is then not there, that deputy should be of the same political persuasion as the elected PCC? The people voted for someone from that party, that part of the spectrum. Should it not be specified if that is the direction that the Government are going in?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
No, I do not think so. I will make it very clear: these amendments are nothing to do with the West Midlands. These amendments were in the White Paper a number of years ago and were fully consulted on. I will take the noble Baroness’s point, but that is not what normally happens. You would normally have one of your team as a deputy mayor responsible for one thing or another, as you do in London. In this case, it could be for police and crime. I do not know what West Yorkshire will do.
I would also add that Parliament’s approval is needed for a combined authority to take on any new function. PCC functions can be conferred on a combined authority mayor by secondary legislation only, which needs parliamentary approval before it can be made.
Finally in this group is Amendment 469, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Randerson. This would confer new powers on local authorities to run their own bus services, which we believe is premature. The national bus strategy states that the Government would review whether it remains right that local authorities cannot set up new bus companies. Any consideration of change to the operation of the local bus market needs to be conducted in an orderly manner, with all views and potential impacts, positive and negative, considered. We therefore intend to wait until the review of the bus strategy comes out.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
Following the Minister’s earlier remarks about the mayor being able to appoint a deputy to be responsible for policing, I was wondering: are there powers for them to appoint a deputy to be responsible for buses?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I do not know about buses, but I imagine that there may be the ability for a mayor to appoint somebody to be responsible for transport in a large area. I will check that, but I am sure that it is within their powers. It is probably a very good thing to have in large geographical area, as the mayor cannot do everything in detail there. I hope that that satisfies noble Lords.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I have a question on the issue of buses. We have seen millions of bus miles removed from the system altogether. The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, has very carefully and thoroughly articulated why they are so essential. It is really important that we get this bus strategy as quickly as possible so that we can start to get a sense of how local authorities can play a part in restoring some of the bus services that we have lost. Can the Minister give us any idea of how quickly that will come about? It would seem that the Bill is an ideal opportunity to put that into place. Otherwise, we will have to go through the same discussions again in a few months, a year or two years’ time to give local authorities that power. Why not use the Bill as the ideal opportunity to reinstate what we used to have back in the day? I remember a very good bus service in my own area before the powers were taken away from councils.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
This is the responsibility of the Department for Transport. I will be in touch with the relevant Minister to explain the Committee’s deep concern about the issue of bus services and say that an early solution to this would be considered appropriate by the Committee. I will also find out how long it will be before we get this strategy in place. I will write that at the end of the letter, which will go to all noble Lords in Committee. I hope that noble Lords will withdraw their amendments.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, this has been an interesting debate. The Minister made an interesting comment at the end when she said that basically a lot of the services we are talking about are the responsibility of other government departments. That seems to me to go to the heart of one of the problems of this legislation: is it not about devolution at all. If it were really about devolution, the Government would have a concerted approach to widespread devolution, which of course would involve bus services. It is a ludicrous proposition that under this grand new devolution and regeneration system you cannot run your own buses.
On health, what the Minister said was helpful up to a point in that she said there is no legal impediment to what is happening in Greater Manchester being extended, but I do not see any drive whatever. What I see is her own department taking a depressingly narrow view of what local government should do instead of embracing the whole government machinery to say, “We are serious about this.”
The clarification on Clause 58 was very helpful, and I am very grateful to the Minister. On Clause 59, I am pretty speechless. I spoke for the Opposition when the concept of police commissioners was coming through. We opposed it. Frankly, I still have great reservations about the system. My noble friend was an excellent example but, my goodness me, the evidence of poor behaviour by some police and crime commissioners is legion. None the less, we were promised directly elected police commissioners, that the public would decide who was going to be the police commissioner and there would then be accountability through the ballot box, but it seems that this is not to apply now in a number of places. From what the Minister said, it seems that the principle of coterminosity applies to many parts of the country in terms of future mayors and police commissioner areas.
I shall make two points. You cannot exclude local authorities. They form the police and crime panel. They have a direct interest in the precept which is set and have to consult on it. It is a big move to get rid of the police and crime commissioner and simply give it to the mayor—we know the mayor will appoint a deputy and will not really be accountable because the mayor has got other things to do—without consulting the constituent local authorities which play an important role in this whole area, not just in sitting on the police and crime panel. If we are serious about wanting our criminal justice system to be more effective, the local authority has a pivotal role to play in working with the police at local level.
I urge my noble friend on the Front Bench to bring this back on Report because I believe we should take out this clause. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
“(6) The Secretary of State must prepare and publish an annual report setting out—(a) any differences in integrated transport authority functions conferred on CCAs,(b) the reasons for those differences, and(c) the extent to which economic, social and environmental well-being factors were considered in coming to decisions to confer different powers.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish an annual report explaining any differences in integrated transport authority functions conferred on CCAs.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I have a number of amendments in this group, all to do with transport. I am sure noble Lords will remember that one of the missions is on transport and that that mission says:
“By 2030, local public transport connectivity across the country will be significantly closer to the standards of London, with improved services, simpler fares and integrated ticketing”,
and that:
“The success of this mission will be measured through indicators on commuting modal share and average journey time to centres of employment. New connectivity metrics that account for population density with distance travelled will help identify where the standards are being met.”
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on her comprehensive introduction in moving this amendment about transport. I agree with everything she said. One depressing thing last week was a headline from the Government in a Written Statement, which said that they will be investing £40 billion in transport but in fact, when you look at the small print, you see that they are going to cut bits of HS2 for two years. Worse still, they have cut the investment in cycling and walking by more than half, having said that they are going to invest. There is an awfully big difference between what it says on the bit of paper and what happens on the ground.
When it comes to buses, my noble friend is absolutely right. We have to hear from the Minister, but we do have an Oral Question on Thursday, in the name of my noble friend Lord Snape, asking the Government
“what plans they have to support the bus industry in England following the end of the current bus subsidy arrangements.”
If that is not urgent, I have a message from the people who run the community transport service in Northern Ireland, saying that the Northern Ireland Executive have stopped all funding of community transport buses from the end of April. All the staff will be made redundant and there will be no community transport services in Northern Ireland. So much for making it easier for people; I hope that we will get some answers on that.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I have put my name to Amendments 92 and 98 but, in truth, I could have put it to every single amendment in this group. The amendments in my name, however, are designed to demonstrate the fundamental importance of transport functions to the effectiveness of the CCAs. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, has outlined that very comprehensively and ably.
I subscribe to the view that bigger is not necessarily better in many examples of local government, but it is undoubtedly the case that larger local authorities give you the opportunity to plan strategically for public transport and, indeed, for every strand of transport. Without powers to provide a comprehensive and strategic approach to transport, CCAs will be asked to deliver their job with one hand tied behind their backs. They will not be able to do the levelling-up job in any meaningful way.
This series of amendments asks vital questions about the powers over transport infrastructure. Powers without funding are meaningless as a tool for levelling up. The amendments also address the issue of sustainability. That is important in relation to transport, which is responsible for about one-third of our emissions.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I offer Green support for the direction of travel of this whole group of amendments. I was not able to be here for the previous group, but I offer support for Amendment 469 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Randerson, about allowing local authorities to run their own bus services.
I turn to the specific points in some of the amendments in this group. We have already heard the case set out. I agree with pretty well everything that has been said by the previous speakers about the parlous state of local transport in the UK, particularly in England, and the way in which we are so badly trailing other parts of the world. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, talked about electric buses. I was just looking up the stats. The most recent ones I could find for the EU are from the end of 2021. There were 8,500 electric buses in the EU then, and I have no doubt that that figure has grown significantly. That is based on my own experience of arriving in a number of small European cities and finding that a line of little electric hopper buses, as we might call them, taking people from the bus station to the train station or around the city is just normal—yet for us that would be a rare and amazing pilot scheme.
I shall pick up some specific points. Amendment 93, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, would allow residents of the combined county authority to petition their authority and the Government for new transport infrastructure. Creating that democratic framework, explicitly putting it in the Bill, would be useful. We know how much hunger there is in local communities. Mostly they are trying to defend the bus services that they are about to lose, but in many places if people saw the potential for a route towards a new service that everyone knew was needed, the petition would provide a mechanism for that.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, said, Amendment 94 refers to the assessment of the sustainability of transport infrastructure. With 27% of our total emissions coming from transport, and 91% of those from road vehicles, heading towards public transport and indeed active transport—cycling and pedestrian routes—is crucial. To ask the CCAs to put down on paper where they are at and where they are aiming to go is also crucial.
Sustainability also means looking at the issue of resilience. We are in the age of shocks, climate and other, and as I was listening this to this debate I was thinking about the situation at Dawlish and the number of times that we have seen that crucial rail route cut off. That first really came to public attention in 2018, and we have got precisely nowhere on that issue since.
Amendment 97, which we have not yet heard formally introduced, would mean that CCAs could formally designate rail, bus and particularly cycle paths as key routes. If we are going to have the kind of modal shift that we need to see in transport then bus routes and cycle paths are crucial. We need to give CCAs the power to take control over those, see the way forward and make sure that they are secured and treated as important in the same way that we do, far too often, with the main road network.
This is all fine detail and not the kind of stuff that is ever likely to set the headlines ablaze, but it is crucial if this levelling-up Bill is going to go anywhere towards delivering what the Government say is its aim.
Lord Stunell (LD)
My Lords, this has been rather a depressing afternoon. We have had a long debate about where money was coming from, and the answer is, “There isn’t any”. Now we are on to a debate about another vital aspect of levelling up: you need the money, but you also need a transport policy that works. Reference has been made to the mission statement. I am becoming increasingly concerned that in every debate we essentially get the same message: the Bill is not about implementing the mission statement, delivering on the five pillars or any of the stuff that was in the White Paper, but about something completely different—and so far it has completely eluded me what the something completely different is. Here we have an opportunity to put a bit of substance in the Bill, which this set of amendments would certainly do.
I appeal to the Government just to join up some of the dots in their own levelling-up White Paper and their own set of mission statements, and to look at this piece of legislation as a way of delivering, or at least of outlining how they intend to deliver, these challenging targets. The mission statements have dates attached to them, yet we have already heard that the financial review is going to be quite a long way ahead—probably in the next Parliament, let us be honest. The transport amendments here would give the new CCAs some powers, chances and opportunities to begin to help the Government to deliver on their mission statement. I cannot say I am hoping, but I must surely have some expectation, that the Government are going to rise to that challenge.
I want to remind the Government that one of these aims is to have a similar level of public transport outside London as there now is in London, by an end date. I will leave aside whether that was a promise that could ever be fulfilled, but it would certainly be easier to achieve if you started now rather than starting in two years’ time or whenever the next big Bill or funding round comes.
In light of that government ambition, the Built Environment Committee, of which I was at that point a member, published a report called Public Transport in Towns and Cities outside London at the end of last year. We took a lot of evidence on what the impact of the pressures of single-pot funding are on transport authorities around the country, and some were much more successful than others. As somebody who lives in the area of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority and Transport for Greater Manchester, I rejoice in the fact that we usually do pretty well out of all this. But you have only to look across the Pennines to other transport authorities to see some that do not. We took evidence that they have essentially given up bidding because every bid that they have made, which costs money, has been unsuccessful, and they do not get the feedback that they need to improve or find a way through the system. It is single-pot funding which is not delivering levelling up in the way that it should do.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, mentioned Northern Powerhouse Rail and Transport for the North. Plenty of work is going on pointing out to the Government what they could and should do, and how it could be delivered to achieve outside London that London level of public transport. Yet these opportunities are being missed again and again, so I say to the Government that these amendments are a way of getting that process started.
In Greater Manchester, the mayor—not of my political persuasion but certainly with a strong mandate—has been pushing ahead to get public transport to operate in a co-ordinated and fully functioning way across that city. Successive Conservative Transport Ministers have been deeply sceptical of what Greater Manchester has been trying to achieve, and I have challenged the Government on two or three occasions about whether they were or were not actively supporting the model of Greater Manchester and encouraging others to do so. The evidence that was given by the then Transport Minister to the committee was that the Government are completely neutral about all these funding models, and that it is entirely up to anyone to do what they want—except that the Government prefer that they do not do it the Greater Manchester way. Sometimes the Government seem incapable of learning from the practical experience of what works, and allowing or indeed encouraging others to take advantage of the experience that has been developed on the ground. Obviously we see this in Committee, and will see this all the way through it—“If it is not invented here, it cannot be any good.”
From that point of view, I dare say that the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, are doomed to fail today, but I ask the Minister to take a look and go back to the Department for Transport, and whoever else needs to be talked to, picking up the point the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, made. Please can the Government, and not just the department, put some guts into the Bill and make it deliver on the missions and objectives that they have set out, that they are so proud to boast about, and which these amendments could facilitate the delivery for?
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, this group of amendments relates, as we have heard, to transport functions and associated arrangements of combined county authorities. Before I address the amendments, I say to the Committee in response to those noble Lords who question the Government’s commitment to levelling up in the area of transport—in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, but also the noble Lords, Lord Berkeley and Lord Stunell, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Randerson and Lady Bennett—that the Government are committed to delivering improvements to transport across the north and across the piece. Let there be no doubt about that. We are committed to supporting all forms of transport. Indeed, between 2020-21 and 2022-23 we have invested over £850 million in active travel alone. The Transpennine Route Upgrade is the Government’s biggest single investment in upgrading the country’s existing railway, and is part of our continuing commitment to transforming rail connectivity across the north of the country. I plead with noble Lords to have some faith in the Government’s commitment in this area.
Amendment 92 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, looks to place a requirement on the Secretary of State to publish an annual report on any differences in integrated transport authority functions conferred on combined county authorities, and the rationale behind them. It is of course important to help interested parties understand differences in conferral of transport functions between CCAs. Once established, the combined county authority will become the local transport authority responsible for managing public transport in the CCA’s area.
The functions conferred on combined county authorities from an integrated transport authority to enable the CCA to be the local transport authority will be a merger of those currently possessed by the CCA’s constituent local authorities, with their agreement and consent. These will be agreed with the local authorities as the combined county authorities are established, and this approach will be consistent across all CCAs. Therefore, as this clause relates only to powers already held locally, there is no need for the Secretary of State to produce such an annual report because there will be consistency across CCAs. The Explanatory Memorandums to the secondary legislation will also provide an explanation of transport powers that the combined county authority will be responsible for.
Amendment 93, tabled by the noble Baroness, seeks to allow residents in the area of a combined county authority with transport functions to be able to petition their CCA and the Government for new transport infrastructure. We support residents having the ability to push for new transport infrastructure for their area; indeed, this is already possible. The residents of an area with transport functions are already able to petition their local authorities, including for transport infrastructure, and this will be the same for combined county authorities once created. Therefore, creating this additional requirement relating to transport specifically for CCAs is unnecessary.
I come now to Amendment 94, tabled by the noble Baroness to require a combined county authority to publish an assessment within 90 days, if they are transferred certain functions, on whether transport infrastructure in their area is sustainable. An assessment of infrastructure sustainability in a CCA’s area already forms part of a local transport plan. Where a CCA has been given transport functions, it will include this assessment as part of its local transport plan anyway, so we feel there is no need for a separate time-limited assessment.
Amendment 95 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, would require a combined county authority to undertake an assessment of any company operating a train franchise in its area. There are already contractual reporting arrangements between train operators and the Government, and the train operating companies report their performance publicly on their websites and with key strategic partners, such as CCAs. In line with the Government’s commitment to not create additional bureaucratic burdens, we would not expect to mandate a report on any CCAs. Furthermore, if the CCA feels that it wishes to undertake such an assessment, we would expect it to utilise the existing reporting mechanisms. Given the existing reporting already in place, I hope that she will feel satisfied that the measures are sufficient.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I am wondering how this fits in with local government reporting, in the context of Britain’s legally binding net-zero obligations. This brings to my mind a broader question, but I will understand if the Minister wants to write to me later. How do the actions of the CCA fit within the overall framework of delivering net zero?
Earl Howe (Con)
If the noble Baroness will allow me, I will write to her on that, because I do not have an answer that would satisfy her in my brief.
Amendment 96, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, would require combined county authorities to notify the Secretary of State of any plans to begin a local travel survey within 30 days of being transferred functions under Clause 19. There is no legal requirement surrounding a combined county authority’s use of local travel surveys. Creating a legal requirement on CCAs for the reporting of their use within 30 days to the Secretary of State would, I suggest, place an unnecessary burden on CCAs, relative to the benefit.
Noble Lords may be interested to know that the Department for Transport conducts a national travel survey. We would expect CCAs to conduct further work locally to gather evidence in developing their local transport plans. However, we feel that mandating the use of local surveys in this way would be disproportionate, so I am afraid we do not feel we can accept this amendment.
I turn to Amendment 97, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage. It would allow the Secretary of State to make regulations to confer on a combined county authority a power to designate railways, bus routes and cycle paths as key routes. The purpose of a CCA designating a route as part of its key route network is to enable the mayor to direct local councils in how they should use their powers as the highway authority for that route, if they are not carrying out actions agreed under the local area transport plan. For example, a combined county authority mayor might direct local authorities to build a particular bus lane on part of the key route network, which would have strategic, area-wide benefits for the CCA as a whole.
CCAs will already be able to designate bus and cycle lanes that form part of a highway in their area as part of the key route network under the existing Clause 22. The powers that local authorities have as highway authorities do not extend to railways, so allowing CCAs to designate them as key routes would have no effect on their operation. Given that CCAs will be responsible for the local transport plan for their region, we would expect them to identify their key transport routes and plan how to manage these, including railways.
Amendment 98, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, would enable the Secretary of State to confer a power on a combined county authorities to designate their area’s transport infrastructure as in need of regeneration. I would like to reassure her that, once established, combined county authorities, like existing local authorities, will have multiple means through which to petition the Government for improved transport infrastructure for their region. For example, Network Rail is responsible for maintaining the railway and for any renewals to ensure a safe and efficient-running railway. When it comes to enhancements being sought for railway improvements, we follow the rail network enhancements pipeline policy, which sets out how areas can engage with government on rail improvements.
On local roads, the Department for Transport provides local highways maintenance funding through the highways maintenance block and the potholes fund, which provide annual funding for eligible local highways authorities, including future combined county authorities, to locally prioritise investment in local roads and associated infrastructure, such as bridges and lighting columns. The Department for Transport will also maintain regular contact with combined authority areas, which will provide ample opportunity for areas to make the case for transport infrastructure improvements.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for what he said about roads and railways, and the control and leadership—if you can call it that—that the Department for Transport has in the pipeline, as he calls it, and everything else. However, I have seen examples of where Network Rail has been unable to paint the railings in one station because it had to go to the Treasury for approval. My noble friend’s amendments are designed to give some local control and accountability, rather than having everything controlled by the Treasury and the Department for Transport, who clearly think that they know best about everything, but some of us have our doubts.
Earl Howe (Con)
Well, I note the noble Lord’s scepticism, which is long-standing, and can only say that I will relay his comments to the appropriate quarter.
I hope that the explanations I have given will be helpful to noble Lords opposite and that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, will feel able to withdraw her Amendment 92. As always, I would of course welcome conversations outside the Chamber if she feels those would be useful.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I will be brief as I think everyone is looking forward to the dinner break. I thank the Minister for his very thorough response to my amendments and for his offer at the end. That is extremely helpful and I appreciate it.
I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for supporting my amendments, which is much appreciated. I will make just one suggestion: if the Government are genuinely committed to levelling up transport in the north, could the next stage of HS2 start from the north and then work down? But at the moment, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Carriers’ Liability (Amendment) Regulations 2023
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Berkeley
That this House regrets that the Carriers’ Liability (Amendment) Regulations 2023 (SI 2023/29) and Carriers’ Liability (Clandestine Entrants) (Level of Penalty: Code of Practice) Order 2023 (SI 2023/30) impose a series of unfair penalties on road carriers for the carriage of clandestine illegal immigrants or asylum seekers; and calls on His Majesty’s Government to introduce a coherent and holistic policy for dealing with migrants and asylum seekers regardless of how they seek to enter the United Kingdom.
Relevant document: 27th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to have a short debate on these carriers’ liability amendment instruments, SI 2023/29 and SI 2023/30, which the 27th report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has drawn to your Lordships’ attention.
My purpose in raising this was to be able to reflect with the Government and other colleagues on the balance between the very strict and tight regulations which will be applied to the road freight and bus industries, in respect of clandestine or illegal immigrants, and the risk and demand and, as we have seen more recently, the very large number of people who have come across the Channel in small boats. It seems that we have a situation where the penalty very much depends on the mode of entry.
For trucks and buses, whether they are going on ferries or through the Channel Tunnel, the penalty is about £10,000 per entry for the so-called responsible person. It is not quite clear what penalty is payable if people smuggle themselves on freight trains—there are regulations going back many years on that—or whether that applies to trucks on trains. With people in small boats, as we have seen in the press quite a lot recently, it does not seem that anybody gets penalised, because the perpetrators cannot be found. You can see on that basis why the organisers, if there are some, have chosen the small boat route. But if we go back quite a few years, before the small boat revolution—if we can call it that—on the Calais to Dover route, a lot of people were being smuggled on trains and in lorries. One can conclude from this that most of the problems are solved, to the benefit of the people who want to manage these things and take people across, by removing the risk of being caught.
It would be useful therefore if the Minister could start by helping me and maybe other noble Lords with definitions. What does “clandestine” mean? What does “illegal” mean in the case of immigrants? Some of them may be asylum seekers. Does it actually mean everyone apart from visitors? Some people seek asylum and I believe that you have to set foot in the UK before you can. Some people obviously melt away.
However, there are other ways in, for example small boats and other places. The documentation mentions big boats and ships; we have talked about buses and trucks and other vehicles through the Channel Tunnel. But where do they have to come from? In other words, are the same regulations going to apply if you are coming from the Republic of Ireland, either by sea or by air, or going across the frontier into Northern Ireland?
It is not my intention to debate the rights and wrongs of who comes from where, but to try to point out the difference in the way the people organising it and some of those who are suffering are being treated by different modes. The report says that 3,838 people came smuggled in lorries last year, whereas the government website says the total was about 45,000. I would be interested to know how many people were smuggled on rail freight through the tunnel and how many came in, as I mentioned earlier, from the Republic of Ireland. Do these instruments apply there? How many people come across the land frontiers? Equally important for these other modes is how many people are caught and fined in the trucks and buses—maybe we do not know. It would be very good to know why the road freight and bus industries are being singled out for some pretty tight regulations in these SIs.
The Explanatory Memorandum says, in paragraph 10.2 on the consultation:
“Most respondents said the levels of penalty for the existing offence should either be unchanged or should be reduced. Stakeholders also emphasised possible adverse impacts on trade if penalty levels were too high”.
However, the Government are doing the opposite. There was certainly a report which I read, I think last week, about the rather short supply of vegetables from Morocco. The customers were diverting the freight to Belgium and Holland to avoid getting caught in the problems coming into the UK.
I would be interested to know why the Government think that the small number—about 4,000—of people allegedly coming in by truck or bus, compared with the 45,000 who are coming in small boats, justify the present pretty draconian penalties, which will only increase the costs of cross-channel freight. I look forward to the Minister’s comments.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, the usual channels on the Opposition Benches have just had a quick word with me, saying that the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, will be able to contribute to the debate.
On these Benches, we welcome the opportunity that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has given us to debate the regulations and the code of practice. He has comprehensively and usefully set out his concerns. We are concerned that—first, through these sanctions on drivers, and, secondly, in the new Illegal Migration Bill, which is still being debated in the other place—the Government are failing to target the criminal gangs exploiting vulnerable people. Their actions never seem to go upstream to get at the smugglers and traffickers. Does the Minister agree that the Government should be focusing on stopping dangerous crossings by whichever means, whether in the back of lorries or on small boats in the channel, by exercising criminal investigations and prosecutions in co-operation with our European partners? Does the Minister agree that providing safe and legal routes to sanctuary is one way of undermining the criminal gangs involved in people smuggling and trafficking?
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, talked about the need for a “coherent and holistic policy”. That theme is shared by many critics of the Government’s many actions on what they call “illegal” asylum seekers, but what my Benches and I would call “irregular” asylum seekers. The Government are flailing around all the time; they never address the need for safe routes and the need to work in partnership to target the criminal gangs. In addition, can the Minister provide an update on what investment the Government are making in officers, training and technology to prevent irregular entry at Britain’s borders?
On the specifics of the code of practice and the regulations, does the Minister recognise the validity of some of the concerns expressed by the Road Haulage Association on the clandestine vehicle checklist? I take the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, that “clandestine” is not defined. The RHA says that the clandestine vehicle checklist is too vague and requires clarity to be of use to operators. That is in the light of the comment in the Explanatory Memorandum to the regulations, that, in response to the consultation:
“Stakeholders welcomed the review of the current vehicle security Code of Practice and supported looking to articulate the required standards more clearly.”
Certainly, in the view of one of the main trade associations, the Road Haulage Association, that aim has not been fulfilled, and I will quote some of the specific points it raises. The first is that
“checking beneath HGVs is not always easy or safe especially if a vehicle has low axles”—
I presume that means, in layman’s terms, that you are expected to crawl underneath an enormous lorry, which sounds not only difficult but potentially unsafe. Then it points out:
“The section that calls for ‘checks inside vehicle for signs of unauthorised access’ is too vague, as it does not list whether trailers should be empty before loading.”
The RHA also says:
“Some checks would also be difficult to carry out with temperature-controlled vehicles as opening them requires a refrigerated environment.”
That seems a fair point. Are drivers expected to carry out checks on a refrigerated vehicle in the middle of a July or August day in France? The fourth point the RHA makes is that
“trailers filled with boxes make it impossible to check the roof for signs of forced entry, due to the impossibility of opening the … doors while on the road.”
Those objections all seem reasonable, understandable and eminently sensible, and I look forward to the Minister addressing them.
Finally, I ask the Minister about the fact that, apparently, the only statutory defence would be duress, as
“it will no longer be a statutory defence to say that an effective system for preventing the carriage of clandestine entrants was in operation”.
In quite a lot of scenarios for regulated activities, the emphasis is often on whether you have an adequate policy and a system, so that, if something happens that should not have happened, you can show that you had all the preparation, systems and safeguards necessary. But apparently that would not apply in this situation; the only defence would be if the driver could show that they were put under duress, even if they had done everything reasonable in the circumstances. It is a very narrow basis for a defence.
I look forward to the Minister responding to as many of my points as possible.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, we in the Labour Party support these statutory instruments because we believe we need stronger action to tackle dangerous lorry crossings, crack down on criminal smuggler gangs and secure the UK’s borders. Given that the maximum penalty levels have not risen since 2002, we believe it is right to look at these levels as we are now.
However, the Government have said that these measures are being put in place to tackle negligence rather than criminality. Given this, what do the Government plan to do to tackle criminal smuggling and trafficking gangs using lorries to transport migrants? How many of the 3,838 incidents during the previous financial year do the Government believe have been caused by negligence rather than criminality? How many incidents do the Government estimate these new penalty levels will prevent? How many convictions have the Government secured in the previous year against criminal gangs organising vehicle crossings of migrants? Some hauliers have said that there is little more they can do to ask their drivers to better secure their vehicles while maintaining health and safety regulations. How will the Government ensure that these fines target those who are being genuinely negligent?
The Earl of Erroll (CB)
My Lords, would it be all right for me to say a few words because the last point on duress interests me? I happened to catch a bit of a programme the other night on the Border Force. They had found some people in the back of a curtain-sided lorry. What is interesting is how they got in there. You would not have been able to detect that if the driver or no one else had been present when they got in. They had very cunningly cut the wire. Once they were in, they put it back together again. It was undetectable. I would have thought it would have been very reasonable for the driver to say that he had absolutely no idea that they were in there. In fact, the Border Force said the same to him and that they were not going to go after him as the people were very cunning.
This is the trouble. There will be certain types of lorry where it will be virtually impossible for the driver to detect that people have got in. I do not think that you should have a single defence, virtually an absolute defence. Life is complicated. You have got to be able to have a reasonable excuse.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Murray of Blidworth) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate and acknowledge the particular concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. The measures in these two instruments form part of the Government’s overall efforts to crack down on illegal migration. I look forward in time to debating the latest part of the work, the new Illegal Migration Bill, which noble Lords have referred to and which, of course, is presently being debated in the other place.
The regulations that are the basis of today’s discussions reform the clandestine entrant civil penalties scheme, which has existed since 1999 under the previous Labour Administration. The scheme has not been reformed, as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, rightly observed, and the maximum penalty levels have not changed, in over 20 years. The scheme is designed to complement law enforcement activity against criminals. It does this through tackling negligence by people who are not criminals but whose carelessness none the less means that they are responsible for a clandestine entrant gaining access to a vehicle.
Illegal migration is facilitated by serious organised criminals exploiting people and profiting from human misery. A significant number of people who arrive in the UK by tourist and freight transport routes through concealment in vehicles have had their entry illegally facilitated by organised criminal gangs. This method of entry continues and endangers the lives of those involved. In many cases, this is a result of criminal gangs and opportunistic migrants taking advantage of unsecured, or poorly secured, vehicles to smuggle people into the UK clandestinely. To respond to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, raised, “clandestine” and other terms are defined in statute in Sections 31A and 32 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. To answer the noble Lord’s second question: yes, this applies to those travelling from the Republic of Ireland.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, that we need to stop the dangerous crossings. That is the purpose of the proposed legislation. Sadly, safe and legal routes themselves are no answer as a deterrent. The Government were concerned that the existing clandestine entrant civil penalty scheme was not having the required effect. The data showed that drivers and other responsible persons frequently neglected to take the steps required to secure vehicles and that clandestine entrants continued to use these routes to come to the UK. Action was needed to remedy this.
These measures will disrupt the attempts by organised criminal gangs and opportunistic clandestine migrants to take advantage of unsecured or poorly secured vehicles to enter the United Kingdom illegally. Instead, this may prompt potential clandestine migrants to claim asylum in a safe country and to get quicker access to any help and support that they may require.
On the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, we continue to have productive dialogue with the Road Haulage Association, and I can confirm that our officials are speaking at one of its conferences on 22 March.
We have made it clear that, where checks cannot be carried out, they do not have to be carried out. The checklist that we have created covers all eventualities; some of them will not be relevant in particular circumstances.
As the noble Earl rightly observed, duress remains a statutory defence. That was reflected in the original scheme in 1999. We will consider whether drivers and companies carried out adequate checks as part of mitigation, which could see the level of fine reduced. This would cover the circumstances such as those described by the noble Earl.
I am of course grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for these regulations. It is for the reasons that I have already described that the United Kingdom operates a scheme to tackle illegal migration. The scheme means that, when clandestine entrants are found in a vehicle, a penalty can be imposed on any responsible person connected to the vehicle in question. In response to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley: yes, these measures match the risk and demand.
The reforms set out in the regulations are born out of the Government’s concern that the scheme is not having enough of an effect. I say that because, during the financial year 2020-21, there were 3,145 incidents where clandestine entrants were detected concealed in vehicles, despite the Covid-19 pandemic causing a lower volume of traffic. This rose to 3,838 incidents during the financial year 2021-22.
Drivers are not taking all the steps required to secure vehicles, and clandestine entrants are continuing to use these routes to enter the UK. It is for this reason that the Government committed to reviewing and overhauling the scheme as part of their New Plan for Immigration. A public consultation on that plan was held from 24 March to 6 May 2021. The Government, as noble Lords will recall, then introduced changes to the scheme through primary legislation in the Nationality and Borders Act 2022. The changes in that primary legislation narrowed the statutory defences available to those who had carried a clandestine entrant. In Committee on that Bill, those measures were the subject of an amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who is not in her place today. That matter was canvassed during the passage of the Bill.
The 2022 Act introduced a new civil penalty for failing adequately to secure a goods vehicle, regardless of whether a clandestine entrant has been found. The final changes brought into effect by these regulations were made following a further public consultation held between 18 July and 12 September 2022. The Government carefully considered representations made by respondents about the possible impact of our proposed reforms, including on trade, supply routes and recruitment. The Government are committed to working with individuals and companies to support growth while delivering a strong and effective border. In short, we think it is appropriate to increase the maximum penalty levels for the existing offence of carrying clandestine entrants, as they have not changed, as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, rightly observed, since 2002. It is also appropriate to set meaningful levels of penalty for the new offence of failing to secure a goods vehicle, to incentivise compliance with our security standards.
Both reforms have been designed with a view to cracking down on repeated instances of negligence, as opposed to unfairly penalising those who have striven to comply with the regulations. For this reason, the reformed scheme has introduced a strikes system for both offences, geared at targeting repeat offenders, with the highest penalty levels being applied only in cases where repeated instances of negligence are evident. Where a person or company is being fined, we have set out in a new statutory code of practice the mitigating circumstances in which they could be eligible for a reduction in the level of their penalty.
The maximum penalty for an individual responsible person for a first incident of carrying a clandestine entrant will be £6,000 per clandestine entrant. This rises to a maximum of £10,000 for a second and any subsequent incidents in the past five years. The maximum penalties in aggregate will be £12,000 and £20,000 for each offence respectively. The maximum penalty for an individual responsible person for a first incident of failing to adequately secure a goods vehicle will be £1,500. This will rise to a maximum of £3,000 for a second incident in the past five years, and to a maximum of £6,000 for a third and any subsequent incidents in the past five years. The maximum penalties in aggregate will be £3,000, £6,000 and £12,000.
A responsible person being fined for carrying a clandestine entrant could be eligible for a reduction of 50% in the level of their penalty if they have complied with the security regulations. A further reduction of 50% could be applied if they are a member of the civil penalty accreditation scheme. In respect of failing adequately to secure a goods vehicle, a responsible person who is not the driver and who was not present during the journey of the vehicle or the detached trailer to the UK could be eligible for a 50% reduction in their penalty if they acted to ensure compliance with the security regulations. I hope these measures go some way to assuage the concerns that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, elucidated. A further reduction of 50% could be applied if the responsible person is a member of the civil penalty accreditation scheme.
For both offences, individuals and companies will be able to apply for means testing to be applied when their level of penalty is being determined. The Secretary of State will be able to take into account those and any other factors they think appropriate in finalising the level of penalty to be levied. Indeed, they will retain a discretion not to impose a penalty at all in appropriate cases. The Government want people and companies to avoid being fined, and they can do so by complying with the security standards. We have set these in the new statutory regulations presently before the House. We have promoted adherence to the standards through further engagement with drivers and industry. This includes relaunching the civil penalty accreditation scheme I just mentioned, through which members are eligible for a potential 50% reduction in any fine.
The Government believe that this package of measures strikes the right balance between recognising the impact of penalties on individuals, companies and industry and incentivising compliance with our security standards and protecting border security. We are focused on delivering a fair and effective immigration system and, as I have said, these measures will allow us to strike the right balance in pursuit of that aim. With all that, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his Motion.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for his fairly comprehensive response and to colleagues who have contributed to this short debate. I am certainly not against updating the penalties, because penalties are necessary, but there are one or two things about this that still concern me. The Minister summarised all the different people who could be involved in receiving penalties, if offences can be proved, and that reflects the different organisations that the logistics industry has these days, which I think we all accept.
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill
Monday 13th March 2023
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 View all Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 84-V Fifth marshalled list for Committee - (13 Mar 2023)
“(e) as to the holding of by-elections for mayoral vacancies.”Member's explanatory statement
This is to probe the possibility of Mayoral by-elections.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak also to my Amendments 115, 118 and 119 and Amendments 116, 117 and 125 in the name of my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock.
In general terms, these amendments have been tabled to probe some of the issues around what appears to be a democratic deficit in both the existing elected mayoral system and the new provisions proposed in the Bill. They also consider how the Secretary of State will deal with the financial consequences of the powers given to him or her in the Bill to transfer functions to the mayor, as well as some further issues around the communication of issues relating to the mayoral system to members of the public in the area that he or she represents.
I know that communication has been covered extensively in our previous debates in Committee—we have heard extensive responses from the Minister and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, on that subject—so I will be brief. However, if the new CCAs that choose to go down the route of an elected mayor are to be successful, it will be vital that all matters relating to the mayoralty are set out clearly and communicated effectively to the public in the area concerned.
Amendment 103 is intended to probe the possibility of mayoral by-elections. We need clarity in relation to what would happen in the event that a CCA mayor resigned or left office for any reason. Does there need to be specific provision in the Bill to enable a mayoral by-election should this happen? As the current proposal seems to be that the deputy mayor is simply appointed by the mayor, it does not seem appropriate for an unelected deputy mayor to step in and take over until the next cycle of mayoral elections is due. Can the Minister clarify whether it is the Government’s intention that a mayoral by-election should possible if the mayor is unable or unwilling to carry on in their role in a period that is not close to the date in the normal cycle of mayoral elections?
Amendment 115 would insert:
“The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision as to the scrutiny of deputy mayor appointments.”
This amendment has been supported by the Local Government Association, which thinks it gives greater power to combined authority members to hold the mayor, and the mayor’s choice of deputy mayor, to account. We heard a great deal earlier this afternoon about the flaws in the process for appointing deputy mayors. The current system of appointment by the mayor to the role of deputy mayor seems to leave a gaping hole in any democratic process in this respect. Deputy mayors have powerful roles within the executive and administration of the CCA. As we have heard, they could potentially take the role of the current police and crime commissioner. They also receive remuneration from the CCA, which can be at a significant cost to the taxpayer. But this can be done without any provision in the Bill for scrutiny either by the overview and scrutiny committee or by an equivalent body, let alone any external scrutiny, which seems to set those roles apart from both the democratic process, in that they are not elected by the public, and the provisions that would be made in a local authority, for example, for the appointment of a senior member of staff. Would the Minister give consideration to any further provisions and safeguards that could be built into the Bill to ensure that CCA members and the public can hold the mayor to account for the appointment of deputy mayors?
Amendment 116, tabled by my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock, would mean the Secretary of State must publish a statement confirming what additional funds will be made available to a mayor when making regulations under Clause 28, so we are back to funding again. This amendment is supported by the LGA. The clause gives the Secretary of State significant powers to transfer responsibilities for certain functions and activities to the mayor and the CCA. In some circumstances, we accept, this may be subject to the normal process of new burdens funding, although that process in itself has its own challenges. We would be more concerned that devolution may be used as an excuse to reduce funding for services, particularly core services. We absolutely support the transfer of powers from central government to local leaders, but of course these powers must be accompanied by appropriate funding levels. Our amendment would ensure that the Secretary of State would confirm what funding was being allocated along with any new powers that are conferred. The LGA agrees with that opinion, saying that
“powers must be accompanied by appropriate funding levels, and devolution should not be used as an excuse to reducing funding”.
So, on that amendment, we have the support of the LGA.
Amendment 117, again in the name of my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock, is on an annual summit of CCA mayors. This is similar to earlier amendments we laid down around the sharing of good practice. It is a probing amendment designed to explore how CCA mayors will share information on the implementation of the new types of combined authorities and best practice. It would give them a forum to enable them to discuss any issues arising from the operation of the CCAs, and liaison and co-operation between them and the Government, and to understand how different models of CCA are working—for example, those that have taken the powers of police and crime commissioners. We appreciate that there may be a role for the LGA. We discussed that earlier this afternoon; we can discuss it further in later stages of the Bill. Other bodies may have an interest in this area in relation to CCAs, but it is certainly not clear from the Bill how joint working, sharing of good practice and achieving an agreed stance where issues arise on policy matters around the structure of CCAs and so on would happen.
Amendment 118 is a probing amendment which would prevent the Secretary of State from conferring only partial police and crime commissioner functions on the mayor. This relates very much to the discussion that we had earlier under other amendments. I hope that it is not related to the issue raised by my noble friend Lord Hunt earlier, where a mayor does not agree with decisions made by a PCC of a different political persuasion—or even the same one, if you are in one of those types of political arrangements and they have had a fallout. It seems strange to have provision in the Bill which could lead to the possibility of a patchwork of different policing responsibilities being conferred on CCA mayors. This begs a further question about the role of police and crime commissioners in those circumstances.
This probing amendment seeks to understand the Government’s view on whether they would prefer the default position to be to transfer all the functions of police and crime commissioners to mayors in most circumstances, except where the CCA particularly expresses a wish not to transfer any of those powers, or whether it is to be left to CCAs at local level to determine which functions will be transferred to the mayor. Can the Minister please clarify this point? Policing is just too important in our communities to see it haggled over between different bits of local authorities. I hope we can have a clear line on this.
Amendment 119 is a probing amendment to allow the person appointed deputy mayor to be appointed as the deputy mayor for policing and crime. Again, we had a very long discussion about this earlier today, but it is certainly not clear in the Bill whether it is the intention that a deputy mayor should never take the function of a deputy mayor for policing and crime. We have raised other amendments, and under those is our concern about the democratic deficit in the appointment of deputy mayors. However, if and only if the issues around accountability for those appointments can be resolved, it would seem perverse for the mayor not to be able to delegate this part of their responsibility. Indeed, in practice, it almost certainly would happen. Can the Minister comment on how this aspect of the Bill might be clarified to make that issue clearer?
Lastly, Amendment 125, in the name of my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock, would mean that a change in the mayoral title must be communicated to residents. We agree with Amendment 124 by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley: a list of possible alternative titles for mayors is really unnecessary, as the CCA already has powers to choose alternative titles if it wishes. My noble friend’s amendment is intended to make sure that, if there is a change to the title, that is communicated to the public—to residents—and that that should be written into the process for any mayoral change of title. I beg to move.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, my name is attached to Amendment 124 in this group, which relates to Clause 40, “Alternative mayoral titles”. I challenge the notion that a choice of titles is required on the face of the Bill. Powers to decide a title already lie with the CCA, under Clause 40, in line 25 of page 35, and to attempt to define possible titles is an unnecessary addition.
The titles suggested are,
“county commissioner … county governor … elected leader … governor.”
I am not clear where those four titles came from. I guess we could all add some more, but it is confusing since everybody else is using the word “mayor”. I do not understand why another title is necessary. If I look at the word “governor”, I immediately think of a school governor, the governor of a US state or the governor of a prison. I am not sure it helps public understanding of what is proposed with a combined county authority to have a mixture of titles for roles. The public will have great difficulty engaging with them, because the titles could be different in one place from another. The power is there for people on the CCA to decide what title they want but, frankly, if I had my way it would be “mayor” because that has become the term. For the West Midlands, Greater Manchester, Merseyside, Tees Valley and so on, the word is “mayor” and I am not sure it helps to have suggestions that they could be called “governors” or “county commissioners.” I hope the Minister may be able to look at that and come up with an explanation about why the Government want to confuse things so much.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
I thank my noble friend Lord Shipley and the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, for raising issues in detail regarding mayoral names—or not—and some aspects of elections and powers, because that points to the fact that although we have a very long Bill with a huge number of clauses, a lot of the detail is insufficient for us to understand completely what the Government seek to do and how they hope these new CCAs and mayors—or not mayors—will operate.
An important issue is in Amendment 103, about what happens if the current mayor stands down for whatever reason. That would be worth knowing for all of us who live in combined authorities.
The second important thing is about the scrutiny of deputy mayor appointments. One would hope that a panel of members who are not of the same party as the mayor would interview and scrutinise the appointment of the person, who will have significant powers conferred on them simply because they are a mate of the mayor; that never seems appropriate. There are a number of other probing amendments in this group, including that of my noble friend about “governors”. It will be interesting to hear what the Minister has to say, but it points to the fact that the Bill has not been as well thought through as it might have been.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)
My Lords, this group of amendments relates to some detailed mayoral matters including by-elections, the scrutiny of mayoral appointments, police and crime commissioner functions, deputy mayoral roles and alternative titles for the mayor. I thank noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate.
Turning to Amendment 103 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, I assure her that there are provisions which will enable a by-election if the position of the mayor of a combined authority becomes vacant. Paragraph 3(d) of Schedule 2 provides that the Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the filling of vacancies in the office of the mayor of a combined county authority. This would include provision for a by-election where that is the appropriate mechanism for filling the vacancy.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
If I heard right, the answer to the question of what would happen if the mayoral position were vacant was that the Secretary of State would, by regulation, have the power to decide whether it would be filled by an election or not. What would the “or not” mean? Did I misunderstand that point?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
No, the noble Baroness did not misunderstand. It is important that we wait for those regulations to come out. There could be a point where the mayor stood down a month before an election; there may be a period of time when there has to be a decision, as you would not have two elections close together. The regulations are what is important here. We will wait to see further detail that is being worked up, but I assure her that it is expected that there would be a by-election.
Lord Stunell (LD)
The Minister has mentioned that we should wait for the regulations. It might be helpful in this instance and several others if it were possible to bring forward some draft regulations to help us understand the direction of thought that the Government are taking. We are all well aware that, by the time regulations are laid before the two Houses, the opportunity for parliamentarians to make informed and useful comments will be very limited. A quick look at the Government’s direction of travel on this and, I may say, many other matters, in the way of draft or outline regulations would be helpful.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
That is understood. I will take that back and do what I can; I will see what we have already.
On Amendment 115 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, I agree with her that the decisions of a mayor of a combined county authority should be—as I said earlier—subject to effective scrutiny, as should those of any leader of any council. Devolution should combine strong, empowered local leaders with strong accountability, but also transparency. The Government will publish a new devolution accountability framework to ensure that all devolution deals lead to local leaders and institutions that are transparent and accountable.
Schedule 1 provides that a combined county authority will be required to have at least one overview and scrutiny committee, as we discussed earlier, which can review and scrutinise decisions made or actions taken by the combined county authority and the mayor. The schedule provides that the Secretary of State may make regulations about the overview and scrutiny committee, including membership, voting rights, payment of allowances, chair, appointments of scrutiny officers, circumstances in which matters may be referred to the committee, and the obligations on persons to attend and respond to reports that the committee issues. This will ensure a robust framework within which overview and scrutiny committees will operate.
We think that this gives sufficient scope for local scrutiny on decisions taken by the CCA or mayor, such as the appointment of a deputy mayor by the mayor from among the combined county authority’s membership, if that is considered appropriate. I make it clear that the statutory deputy mayor will have to come from the members of the CCA—from those local authorities. It is not the same as a deputy mayor for police and crime, who could come from somewhere else, because they would possibly be required to have different experience and background. I hope that makes sense. It is quite important that we have those two deputies separated.
On Amendment 116, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, we agree that information on funding should be available, and I can reassure the noble Baroness that that will be the case. Information on the funding available to a combined county authority and mayor will be in the public domain. The deal agreed between the Government and the area sets out both the funding arrangements and the powers to be conferred on the combined county authority and the mayor. The deal document is published and therefore publicly available. There must also be a public consultation locally on the area’s proposal to establish a combined county authority. We expect this to set out how the CCA will work and include the powers to be conferred on the CCA and the mayor and the funding available. The final proposal, which must be accompanied by a summary of the consultation, will constitute the formal submission to the Secretary of State seeking the establishment of the CCA.
In Amendment 117, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, probes whether there should be an annual summit of the CCA mayors. The existing combined authority mayors have themselves established the M10 group to enable them to work together. The Government engage with this group on a regular basis. We expect the M10 and the new combined county authority mayors to consider how best to work together. We think a locally led arrangement is better than a centrally imposed approach, and I expect it will evolve as more areas agree devolution deals.
In tabling Amendment 118 to Schedule 3, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, is seeking to prevent a combined county authority taking on part of the police and crime commissioner role. Schedule 3 provides further detail, setting out the matters on which the Secretary of State either may or must make regulations to enable a transfer of police and crime commissioner functions to a combined county authority mayor. It provides the framework and arrangements for the mayor to exercise these PCC functions on a day-to-day basis.
The amendment would limit the ability of the Secretary of State to determine an appropriate limited scope to the conferral of PCC functions to combined county authority mayors. Combined county authority and combined authority mayors should have parity where possible to ensure that all areas of England have the same options. The schedule achieves this consistency by mirroring the scope of regulations that govern the conferral and exercise of police and crime commissioner functions by combined authority mayors, as set out in Schedule 5C to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. The amendment would create an inconsistency between the schedule governing the making of regulations related to combined county authority mayors’ exercise of PCC functions compared with its equivalent for combined authority mayors, leading to unnecessary inconsistency in the legislative framework for the PCC model.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am still a bit confused about this. The Bill says that some mayors taking on police and crime commissioner powers can take certain powers to themselves and others can take others, so you end up with a picture around the country where they have different powers in different places. That was my concern, not that there would be an inconsistency between police and crime commissioners and mayors. What I wanted to understand with the amendment was whether, if the powers of the police and crime commissioner are transferred to the mayor, they will all be transferred. We do not want a different picture around the country depending on which powers of the police and crime commissioner have been moved over.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
All the powers will go. There will not be half a PCC left. Does that make sense?
Amendment 119, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, seeks to allow the person appointed as statutory deputy mayor of the combined county authority to also be appointed as the deputy mayor for policing and crime. Schedule 3 prevents this because the deputy mayor and deputy mayor for policing and crime are two distinct, separate, and weighty roles. The role of the statutory deputy mayor is to step in and act as mayor should the mayor be unable to act or if the office of mayor is vacant for a time, as well as assisting across a whole range of general mayoral functions where applicable.
The deputy mayor of a combined authority is typically also a council leader, and we anticipate this will likely also be the case in combined county authorities. This would mean that this person is already accountable for the decisions and activities of the council they lead, in addition to their combined county authority responsibilities, where they will be accountable collectively, and possibly personally, for some of the CCA decisions, including personally for the mayor’s functions if the mayor cannot act. The role of the deputy mayor for policing and crime is to dedicate constant focus and attention to crime and policing and is usually a full-time role. Clearly, both the roles of deputy mayor and deputy mayor for policing and crime are significant and we believe that they should remain separate and distinct.
Amendment 124, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, seeks to allow CCA mayors to be called by their choice of alternative title. Clauses 40 and 41 already enable mayoral combined county authorities to resolve or choose to use an alternative title to “mayor” for their directly elected mayor. They can choose from a shortlist of titles listed in the Bill, or a different title not on the list, having regard to other titles used in the area. I understand where the noble Lord is coming from regarding the fact that the title “mayor” is beginning to take on some level of credence within the country, but if you come from a particularly rural county area—I counted last night that where I was leader of a council, we already had 16 mayors—an elected mayor would be confusing for some people. The role of a mayor in some rural areas is seen as a civic role, rather than a leadership role, which is very different.
Lord Shipley (LD)
I say to the Minister that the problem applies in urban areas too; it is not specifically a rural issue. If you look at Merseyside and Liverpool, you will see a mayor, a ceremonial mayor and a combined authority mayor—you have three already. The public work with that, but what I am challenging is whether people being able to choose their own title for their area will not be more confusing, because if you use the word “governor” or a variation on that theme, the question then arises: “What are those powers?”. People at least have some idea what a combined authority mayor is actually about.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
These decisions, as with many, have to be taken locally because local people will understand better than anybody what is right for their area. I have given the Committee my personal views from when we were considering mayors—I just thought it would be confusing.
Lord Stunell (LD)
I approached it from the opposite direction: if indeed it should be a matter for local people to decide because they are best equipped to understand what terminology might be appropriate, why does the Minister feel that it is sensible or suitable to have a defined list from which they must choose, rather than doing exactly as she said by exercising their discretion in relation to their own area and locality?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
It is not a defined list, as I said. There is a list which I assume probably came from consultation on the White Paper, and things that people have already said they might like to use. They can choose from that shortlist, but they can also have a different title that is not on the list. The choice is theirs.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her detailed responses and the other noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, mentioned that the detail in the Bill is insufficient on how CCAs operate. That goes to the heart of a lot of these amendments. We have tabled a lot of probing amendments to try to find out some of the detail about how all this is going to work.
In relation to Amendment 103 and the appointment of deputy mayors, in local government we have an appointments committee, as the Minister will know, which oversees the appointment to local authorities of any senior post. When we tabled the amendment, we had not understood that it was going to be essential that the deputy mayor would be one of the councillor members of the CCA. I hope that we have been able to clarify that through the submission of this amendment.
Matters of governance and constitution are essential. I would normally say I understand that we have to wait for regulations, statutory instruments and so on, but as this will be such a major change for our areas, it is important that both the local authorities and the members who will enact this legislation—and the members of the public who are going to live in the new CCA areas—understand in great detail how it is going to work before we go into the new system. The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, made a comment about having some draft regulations in front of us before we get to the end of the Bill. That would be incredibly helpful.
On provisions for by-elections, I understand the Minister’s comments about that being in the schedule. However, it sounds as if it will be a little in the hands of the Secretary of State as to whether to call for an election. That gives me a bit of concern because if a local councillor resigns midterm, you have to hold a by-election if the members of the electorate call for it. Unless it is very close to an upcoming local election, you have to do that between elections. I do not see any problem with having something further in the Bill so that we could understand how that works. It would be the same process, in effect, as for a local councillor.
On Amendment 115, I understand the responses. But would the accountability include the PCC or the mayor as PCC? The Minister mentioned a whole raft of accountabilities that the mayor comes under. Would it include the PCC and the mayoral role as PCC? I would like to understand that a little better. Is the whole policing element of the mayor’s role going to be undertaken a bit under the radar, as it is now, by a local policing committee?
On Amendment 116, the noble Baroness said that the deal agreed sets out the funding arrangements and that it is a public document. It was helpful to have that clarified. Her response to Amendment 117 was that there is an existing body, the M10 group of CCA mayors, and it is helpful to know that the Government expect mayors to participate in some kind of forum.
On Amendment 118, the schedule sets out the functions. Thanks to the responses we have had, we now know that they would be the same options, whether it was going to be a police and crime commissioner or the mayor undertaking those duties. I want to just ask one further question: does that mean that the deputy mayor for crime and policing does not have to be a councillor member of the CCA? Could that person be just appointed from outside the CCA? We would take an interest if that was the case.
On the list of titles, we just disagree. The amendment states quite clearly that we think it should just be left to authorities to determine that; there is no need for a list of titles on the face of the Bill. We have been told over and again that we do not need so much detail in the Bill, but in this case we have a whole list on the face of the Bill that we think is entirely unnecessary.
I am grateful for the points about communication because it is really important that, with a new system like this, the public understand exactly what is happening. If there is to be change to the title that should be communicated. “Communicated” is not as effective as I would like it to be. I would like them to be consulted on it, but communication is better than nothing.
That said, I am happy to withdraw my amendment for now. I stress the point that the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, made about having some draft regulations in front of us so that we can understand very clearly exactly what the provisions are. If the noble Baroness could write to us about the issue of the deputy mayor with responsibility for police and crime functions and whether that person is going to be a councillor or not, that would be helpful.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I am happy to answer that straight away. That person does not have to be a councillor. The statutory deputy mayor needs to be a councillor and the police and crime one does not.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
“(4) Until the coming into force of paragraph 5 of Schedule 8 to the Elections Act 2022 (amendment of paragraph 8(3) of Schedule 5B to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 relating to candidacy rights of EU citizens), sub-paragraph (3) has effect as if for the definition of “qualifying citizen” there were substituted—““qualifying citizen” means a person who is a qualifying Commonwealth citizen or a citizen of the Republic of Ireland or a relevant citizen of the Union, within the meaning given in section 79 of the Local Government Act 1972;”.” Member's explanatory statement
This amendment reflects the fact that the definition of “qualifying citizen” in paragraph 7(3) of Schedule 2 follows the definition of that term in paragraph 8(3) of Schedule 5B to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 as amended by paragraph 5 of Schedule 8 to the Elections Act 2022, which is not yet in force. It therefore ensures that the definition in the Bill tracks that in the 2009 Act while the amendment to the latter by the 2022 Act is not force.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, we have tabled a number of consequential, minor and technical amendments for combined county authorities. The consequential amendments are to existing legislation, to ensure that it applies to combined county authorities where necessary. This will mean that the CCA model can work in practice as a local government institution. It will also mean that CCAs have parity with combined authorities where it is required to make the model a viable alternative to areas with two-tier local government.
The other minor and technical amendments are to amend the Bill to update references to legislation that gained Royal Assent in 2022, including the Elections Act and the Local Government (Disqualification) Act, which will affect the combined county authorities. Though they amend other Acts, these amendments do not extend provisions any further than the remit of the previous clauses. Given their importance to enabling the combined county authority model to work effectively in practice, I hope noble Lords will support these amendments.
Lord Stunell (LD)
I will speak very briefly; I will certainly not debate with the Minister all 35 amendments. I am taking on a brief inspection that these are indeed just minor and consequential. I want to use this as the opportunity to say that the Minister has written to us today, advising us of a whole range of further amendments that the Government will table. While most of them flow from the debates we have had so far, one particular amendment relating to the building safety regulator is completely off-piste, as far as I can see. In responding, can the Minister—perhaps being grateful for me not debating all 35 amendments—assure us that sufficient time will be given for us to think through some of the new amendments the Government have tabled today?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am sure that the Minister will be pleased to know that I too will not debate all 35 amendments. They are largely consequential and drafting amendments. I noted that, earlier in today’s debate, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, referred to the consultation provisions contained in Amendments 151 and 152, so we will have a closer look at those, and we may write to the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, if we have any further concerns on that.
I have one tiny question—forgive me: I know that it is late—on Amendment 143. The proposed new paragraph 7ZB in Schedule A1 to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states:
“If the Secretary of State … thinks that a constituent planning authority are failing or omitting to do anything it is necessary for them to do in connection with the preparation, revision or adoption of a development plan document, and (b) invites the combined county authority to prepare or revise the document, the combined county authority may prepare or revise (as the case may be) the development plan document.”
I do not necessarily need an answer now, but I would be grateful if the Minister could write to me. Is it the Secretary of State or the constituent planning authority who invites the CCA to intervene in the preparation or revision of the document? That was not clear. The amendment also makes provision for the CCA to charge the non-constituent authority for work done on the development plan. Would those charges be agreed between both parties in advance, subject to a fee scale or limited fixed charges? I ask that question because it may be that the financial position of the constituent planning authority was the reason for the delay in the first place. It may be that, either in preparing the plan or if the recruitment of planning staff in the area is difficult, the authority is not in a position to increase salaries and so on, so if there were to be a massive charge to it from the CCA, that might be an issue. I am happy to take a written response to that question in due course.
Other than that, I have no questions or comments on the amendments.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her offer; I would prefer to give a written answer to that question, because it was quite complicated, and I do not want to give the wrong answer.
On the question of sufficient time for the new government amendments, I will ensure that I talk to the usual people to give plenty of time for noble Lords to look into them, because they were more substantive than this group of amendments. Saying that, I beg to move.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment and the amendments in the name of Baroness Scott of Bybrook at page 259, line 25, page 259, line 27 and page 259, line 28 correct drafting errors, in that references to various kinds of regulations should be references to various kinds of order.
Member's explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the amendment in the name of Baroness Scott of Bybrook at page 259, line 24.
Member's explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the amendment in the name of Baroness Scott of Bybrook at page 259, line 24.
Member's explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the amendment in the name of Baroness Scott of Bybrook at page 259, line 24.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment corrects a cross-reference, which should be to section 114A of the Representation of the People Act 1983 rather than to section 115 of that Act.
“(3) Until the coming into force of paragraph 6 of Schedule 5 to the Elections Act 2022 (amendment of paragraph 9(1) of Schedule 5B to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 relating to undue influence), sub-paragraph (1) has effect as if paragraph (e) were omitted.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment reflects the fact that paragraph (e) of paragraph 8(1) of Schedule 2 matches paragraph (e) of paragraph 9(1) of Schedule 5B to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 as inserted by paragraph 6 of Schedule 5 to the Elections Act 2022, which is not yet in force. It therefore ensures that paragraph 8(1) of Schedule 2 to the Bill tracks paragraph 9(1) of Schedule 5B to the 2009 Act while the amendment to the latter by the 2022 Act is not force.
“8A “(1) A person is disqualified for being elected or holding office as the mayor for the area of a CCA if the person is subject to—(a) any relevant notification requirements, or(b) a relevant order.(2) In this paragraph “relevant notification requirements” mean—(a) the notification requirements of Part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003;(b) the notification requirements of Part 2 of the Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010;(c) the notification requirements of Part 2 of the Criminal Justice (Sex Offenders and Miscellaneous Provisions) (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law 2013;(d) the notification requirements of Schedule 1 to the Criminal Justice Act 2001 (an Act of Tynwald: c 4).(3) In this paragraph “relevant order” means—(a) a sexual harm prevention order under section 345 of the Sentencing Code;(b) a sexual harm prevention order under section 103A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003;(c) a sexual offences prevention order under section 104 of that Act;(d) a sexual risk order under section 122A of that Act;(e) a risk of sexual harm order under section 123 of that Act;(f) a risk of sexual harm order under section 2 of the Protection of Children and Prevention of Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2005;(g) a sexual risk order under section 27 of the Abusive Behaviour and Sexual Harm (Scotland) Act 2016;(h) a restraining order under Article 10 of the Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010;(i) a child protection order under Article 11 of that Law;(j) a sexual offences prevention order under section 18 of that Law;(k) a risk of sexual harm order under section 22 of that Law;(l) a sexual offences prevention order under section 1 of the Sex Offenders Act 2006 (an Act of Tynwald: c 20);(m) a risk of sexual harm order under section 5 of that Act. (4) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(a), a person who is subject to any relevant notification requirements is not to be regarded as disqualified until—(a) the expiry of the ordinary period allowed for making an appeal or application against the conviction, finding, caution, order or certification in respect of which the person is subject to the relevant notification requirements, or(b) if such an appeal or application is made, the date on which it is finally disposed of or abandoned or fails because it is not prosecuted.(5) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(b), a person who is subject to a relevant order is not to be regarded as disqualified until—(a) the expiry of the ordinary period allowed for making an appeal against the relevant order, or(b) if such an appeal is made, the date on which it is finally disposed of or abandoned or fails because it is not prosecuted.(6) This paragraph does not have the effect of disqualifying a person for being elected or holding office as the mayor for the area of a CCA by reason of the person becoming subject to—(a) any relevant notification requirements, or(b) a relevant order,before the day on which this paragraph comes into force.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment makes provision for a person to be disqualified from being the mayor of a CCA in certain circumstances. The provisions correspond to the provision made about the mayors of combined authorities by the Local Government (Disqualification) Act 2022.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment corrects a cross-reference, which should be to paragraph 11(2)(c) of Schedule 2 to the Bill rather than to paragraph 11(2)(a) of that Schedule.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the second amendment in the name of Baroness Scott of Bybrook at page 260, line 10.