Ministerial Visits: Travel Costs

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, there are proprieties and the propriety and ethics team within the Cabinet Office monitors them. Labour Members of this House may be interested to know that there have been a number of complaints by Liberal Democrat MPs about Conservative Ministers visiting their constituencies without prior notice, and at least one from a Conservative MP about a Liberal Democrat Minister visiting her constituency. I am glad to see that some Conservatives are nervous about things like that.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, I want to talk about proprieties because we understand that the Lib Dem part of the coalition is to give its own separate response to the Budget—presumably, in effect, its manifesto. Can the Minister confirm to the House that no Civil Service time, resources or modelling have been employed to produce this party-political statement? Can he clarify whether the effect of this separate statement means that the Lib Dems do or do not support today’s Budget?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, the noble Baroness will be well aware that, in the run-up to an election, officials are prepared to give advice, including to members of opposition parties and the Opposition Front Bench, on preparation. This is not, in any sense, out of the ordinary.

Lobbyists: Register

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Thursday 12th March 2015 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress has been made on the introduction of a statutory register of lobbyists.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, Alison White was appointed as the independent Registrar of Consultant Lobbyists last September. She has consulted, issued guidance and made good progress on practical arrangements for the register. On 26 February, the Government laid the Registration of Consultant Lobbyists Regulations 2015, which completes the statutory framework for the register. The Government are therefore on course to commence the provisions before the general election.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, I tabled a Written Question asking what meetings the Treasury had had with the drinks industry prior to the forthcoming Budget. I was given no Answer but told to look on the website. The latest meeting recorded there was in March last year. We now hear from the Registrar of Consultant Lobbyists that she expects to have only between 50 and 75 people on her register—because, of course, only consultant lobbyists, not in-house lobbyists, are covered—and that even then they will not be on the register by the election because the process is only starting. Does the Minister share my judgment that the register will be a complete failure because it does not include in-house lobbyists and does not provide transparency and will therefore need a radical overhaul?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I do not share that view. From the last four years of dealing with how one implements greater transparency in lobbying, I have learnt that it is impossible to satisfy everyone—indeed, it is very difficult to satisfy anyone. The various associations of professional consultants, lobbyists and others have all in some ways campaigned against it. People have said that MPs and Peers should all be on the register; last week we were told that the Australian system is infinitely inferior to the current British system; et cetera. We are taking a step forward. We have resisted the idea that everyone who lobbies should be on the register, because that would produce a vast register. We are starting by trying to make consultant lobbyists much more transparent about on whose behalf they are lobbying. That is the purpose of the measure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

But it would not be published for a year.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

It would be published in a good deal less than a year.

Deregulation Bill

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to support these amendments, to which I have added my name. As the Minister said, they rather improve the wording which was accepted in principle in my amendments on Report. They are important because they take forward the intention in the Legal Services Act to increase the availability of legal services. As the Minister said, the CLC—an approved regulator for reserved activities, probate and the administration of oaths—has now been accepted to be the regulator for a wider range of legal services. However, it became apparent a bit belatedly that the Act which created the CLC and set out its powers actually restricts it from the enlarged role which it, the Legal Services Board and the MoJ had envisaged. It was then found that the powers in the Legal Services Act were also not sufficient to make the changes. Without these amendments, the CLC would be able to regulate only conveyancers, which means that a lawyer would have first to train as a conveyancer before being regulated by the CLC for other activities.

The other changes which have been mentioned are to simplify appeals so that any appeals against the CLC’s appeals and discipline committee can be heard by the First-tier Tribunal rather than the High Court, and to allow the CLC itself to appeal against determinations. There is also a provision to allow the CLC to suspend the licences of practitioners to protect the public while they await the outcome of disciplinary actions.

As for the CLC’s own governing council, the current requirement is that the number of lay members must exceed the number of professional members by exactly one. That means that if one of the professional members leaves for any reason, the council cannot continue its work. The amendments would allow for the lay majority to be at least one, which will get over that hurdle. Finally, instead of putting the time that the CLC has to determine applications in statute, in future it will be in regulatory rules. These are sensible and welcome changes. I thank the Government for bringing them forward and their work on this excellent drafting.

Amendment 23 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

28: Clause 103, page 81, line 41, at end insert—
“( ) This section does not apply to the following—
(a) Professional Standards Authority,(b) Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, and(c) any persons exercising a regulatory function with respect to health and care service that the Secretary of State specifies by order.( ) An order under this section must be made by statutory instrument.
( ) A statutory instrument containing an order under this section may not be made unless a draft has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, with the leave of the House I will move Amendment 28, which was tabled by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. Our concern is about the impact of the economic growth clauses on these health regulatory bodies and the risk of a negative impact on their overriding responsibility to protect the public. On Report, the Minister denied that that would happen and stated that the economic growth duty would sit alongside the other factors that a regulator must consider. However, “sitting alongside” suggests that it has some—or even the same—weighting and therefore cannot be ignored. The Minister also quoted the draft guidance, but the guidance adds to our concern. It states:

“The growth duty does not automatically take precedence over or supplant existing duties held by regulators”.

The term “not automatically” implies that it is entirely possible that it will take precedence, and that must put the protection of the public at risk.

The two health regulators, the Professional Standards Authority and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, were debated on Report. They are the subject of Amendment 28. My noble friend Lord Hunt questioned whether the Professional Standards Authority is indeed a regulator, given that it oversees nine statutory regulators, including the GMC, but is not itself a regulator. We say that there is no need for it to be covered in the Bill. Can the Minister confirm that the Government do not consider that the PSA is covered by the economic growth clauses because it is not such a regulator?

The HFEA performs a crucial and difficult task. We worry that the economic growth duty could make its task even more challenging. On 24 February this House had an excellent debate on mitochondrial donation and agreed the regulations. However, we did so only on the basis that the HFEA’s regulatory processes were robust. The HFEA—which, as we know, is highly respected as a model for the regulation of fertility and embryology treatments and research—has acknowledged on its website that it is not an economic regulator. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that that is so. However, I hope he will go further and address our concern that any growth duty could impact on the HFEA’s ability to regulate effectively. There is no requirement in the HFE Act to consider growth, thus the new duty could upset the delicate balance on embryo research which has served this country well.

At the centre of the balance is a settlement between science and society which involves a clear set of rules that enable scientists and clinicians to experiment while maintaining public confidence. The existing regime has enabled growth. Surely it is no accident that the UK is the first country in the world to allow mitochondrial donation; it is a by-product of a thriving bioscience sector combined with intelligent regulation. Good rules, flexibly applied, can foster growth. Ironically, the growth duty could upset that balance and even hinder growth in the sector. It risks HFEA decisions being judicially reviewed. For example, those who are against embryo research might argue that the HFEA will favour research because of the growth duty and challenge it on that basis; science-based companies might argue that if it fails to consider growth, it will be failing the growth duty.

I have some questions for the Minister. Do the Government accept that our bioscience sector has thrived and that HFEA regulation has contributed to that success? If so, what is the point of making the growth duty apply to the HFEA? Can the HFEA decide to ignore the growth duty if it is inappropriate in particular cases, for example in respect of patient safety or for new treatments such as mitochondrial donation? Can the Minister assure the House that the HFEA will not be more likely to be judicially reviewed because of the growth duty? Will statutory guidance make this clear so that the HFEA can refer to such guidance if challenged in court? Will the Government commit to exempt the HFEA from the regulation?

Perhaps I may also mention the relationship between the economic growth duty and the EHRC, an issue that has featured not only in this Bill but in the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill. The Minister will be aware of the argument that the EHRC enjoys an A status as a national human rights institution. It is therefore right that the Government should always be crystal clear that it is not appropriate to apply general regulations to the EHRC. The A status is awarded by the UN International Coordinating Committee, which regularly reviews the EHRC’s compliance with the Paris principles, which require the EHRC to be independent. We have to avoid the perception—or the reality—that there is interference in the commission’s ability to perform its functions, and ensure that it is always independent. If that independence were jeopardised, it would jeopardise the A status which is vital to the UK’s international standing.

Last night, in response to these sorts of arguments in this House, the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, agreed to look again at provisions regarding the EHRC in the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill. Will the Minister agree to do the same thing with these two regulators in this Bill? I beg to move.

[The Earl of Lindsay (Con)]

My Lords, I speak to the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, from my perspective as a member of advisory bodies that advised the previous Government on better regulation—the Better Regulation Commission and the Risk and Regulation Advisory Council. I am also a member of a body that advises this Government on regulation—the Better Regulation Strategy Group.

I say immediately that if the growth duty compelled either the PSA or the HFEA, or indeed any other regulator, to pursue growth at the expense of undermining the protection of sensitive sectors or sensitive activities, I would have sympathy with this amendment. However, that is not the case. The growth duty does not compel the HFEA or other regulators, as suggested in the amendment, to pursue growth at the expense of undermining protections in the area that they regulate. What it does do is require regulators to consider the economic impact and any unnecessary, disproportionate or excessive bureaucratic burden that they might be imposing on those whom they regulate when carrying out their regulatory processes, producing guidance and so forth.

From my experience of better regulation, better regulators and better enforcement of, or compliance with, regulation, I can see absolutely no reason why the HFEA cannot consider the burden it is imposing on the businesses and organisations it regulates while continuing to ensure that patient protection remains its primary objective.

The growth duty is not a duty to achieve or pursue economic growth. Therefore, it is not a duty that would require the HFEA to drive growth in the fertility sector, for instance. Nor does it dictate that a regulator must attach a particular weight to growth. Therefore, the HFEA, or any other regulator obliged to have regard to the business and bureaucratic experience of being regulated, may reasonably decide that it will attach little or no weight to business factors in relation to a particular decision and that it must attach more weight to its other duties. In the HFEA’s case, prominent among those other duties would be patient safety. Therefore, the growth duty will not undermine or override regulators’ primary responsibilities in delivering protection.

Applying the growth duty to the HFEA will not affect its robustness as a regulator, and it will not affect its ability to protect the public, which was one of the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness. In that sense, the title of the Bill is, I think, misleading, in that the growth duty is more about better regulation than deregulation. It does not loosen regulation; nor does it remove any regulatory duties or responsibilities. Rather, it enables their delivery and enforcement, when and where appropriate, to be more sensitive and more user-friendly.

Also of relevance to this amendment is the fact that the HFEA is already within the scope of another of the better enforcement programme measures—namely, the Regulators’ Code—as it was with its predecessor, the Regulators’ Compliance Code. The Regulators’ Code is a clearly defined, simple and principles-based framework of good practice for regulators in engaging with those whom they regulate. To my thinking, the HFEA would apply the growth duty in a way that complements the existing requirement to which it is already subject through the Regulators’ Code. More importantly, it would, and can, do so without compromising its rigour as a regulator.

I can understand why exceptions might be made in requiring regulators to adopt this duty where it is an irrelevance to the way they regulate or to the areas they regulate, but I cannot see any sense in exempting the HFEA from the growth duty.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, on Report I committed to giving further consideration to whether the Professional Standards Authority, the PSA, and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, the HFEA, should be within the scope of the growth duty—that is, whether they should be required, in the exercise of their regulatory functions, to have regard to the desirability of promoting economic growth.

Since Report, officials from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills have met with the Department of Health and the PSA to explore whether the functions carried out by the PSA meet the definition of “regulatory function” at Clause 106 of the Deregulation Bill. Officials have also considered the nature of the PSA’s regulatory role as oversight body for the nine statutory regulators of health and social care professionals.

Following those discussions, the Government have concluded that, while the PSA exercises functions that fall within the definition of “regulatory function” as per the Deregulation Bill, its specific role means that the PSA’s regulatory functions are far removed from individual businesses. The PSA would have limited economic impact on business even if it were to apply the growth duty. In the course of taking this Bill through the House and on a number of other occasions, I have learnt to respect the immense diversity of regulatory functions and regulatory bodies, and that is one of the things that the very helpful and positive speech of the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, took us a little further into. Anything that attempts to apply an overview to the vast mass of regulatory bodies is likely to be wrong. The Government therefore do not currently propose to bring the PSA in scope of the duty but will review this decision in the future should the PSA’s regulatory role change.

Moving on to the HFEA, I start by saying that the Government understand that there are aspects of the HFEA’s role that are ethically sensitive and unique, as we have recently debated in this House. Therefore, perhaps I may offer a number of preliminary reassurances and commitments to noble Lords, which I hope will reassure the Opposition Front Bench. I should say that we had an extremely positive and constructive discussion with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and others earlier in the week.

The growth duty is not a duty that would require the HFEA to drive the growth of one of the industries that it regulates—for example, the fertility sector—and it is not a duty to achieve or pursue economic growth at the expense of patient protections, such as those involved in the sensitive sectors regulated by the HFEA, as the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, has already set out.

I take this opportunity to repeat once again that the growth duty will not impede the independence of regulators and will give them discretion in how to apply the duty. It is certainly not the Government’s intention that the growth duty should weaken the HFEA’s regulatory role. I also assure noble Lords—especially the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, who is not here at the moment but has had helpful meetings with a number of Ministers to discuss this policy—that the duty is about reducing, for example, the regulatory burden of bureaucracy on business. It is not a duty that loosens or undermines important duties of protection. Statutory duties concerning the protection of vulnerable women and men in seeking help in this sector remain of fundamental importance.

The duty requires regulators to have a regard to the desirability of promoting economic growth among those they regulate when they carry out regulatory processes and make regulatory decisions—for example, writing guidance, planning or changing intervention strategies, designing or revising processes, and carrying out inspections of those who are regulated.

The Government commit to continuing to work with regulators, including the HFEA, to ensure that the statutory guidance is fit for purpose, robust and principles-based to assist them in avoiding the risks of challenge. We are all aware of the problem of judicial review and that the HFEA has already been subject to a number of challenges via judicial review. We will therefore make particular efforts to ensure that the guidance is as clear as possible. It will be clear that regulators can have regard to the growth duty, balance it against their other statutory duties and decide not to afford any weight to growth where it is not appropriate or relevant.

I can also give noble Lords the commitment to publish a revised version of the guidance on GOV.UK before or at the time the guidance is laid in draft before Parliament. I should point out that the Government commit also to lay the draft guidance and the draft order, listing the functions to which the duty will apply, before Parliament at the same time for informed debate. Both these, as noble Lords are aware, will be subject to the affirmative resolution in both Houses. There will be continuing engagement with stakeholders to help regulators consider how the duty can be applied, which we hope will help regulators to decide what weight, if any, they should apportion to the growth duty when considering it alongside their protection duties.

Since the Report stage debate, BIS officials have met with the HFEA and the Department of Health to discuss how the growth duty might apply to their specific regulatory role. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Howe for his commitment that the two departments should continue working together and with the HFEA to address any concerns on specific issues as we move forward. I know that some strong concerns were raised on Report about the HFEA’s role in regulating some of the extremely high fees being charged by some fertility clinics. The noble Lord, Lord Winston, talked of a lady, approaching her forties, who went to a clinic in London and was quoted the extremely large sum of £11,000 for three months of fertility treatment.

Having explored the powers that the HFEA has as a non-economic regulator, we found that it has no power to regulate the prices charged in IVF clinics. I understand that the HFEA does want to do more. It has recently decided to provide patients with a feedback mechanism on its website where patients can say whether the costs they actually paid were as originally advertised. I know from discussions with the HFEA that it recognises that costs are a key concern for many patients. However, at present it can only act within its powers. I want to assure the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Winston, and noble Lords here today, that the Government will work with the Department of Health to explore further the matters raised.

As I said, officials from BIS and the Department of Health have met with the HFEA to consider its statutory regulatory functions which are taken from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Acts 1990 and 2008, and other legislation. It is the Government’s view that the HFEA could have regard to growth when exercising these regulatory functions in a way that would not weaken its regulatory role. It could apply to the HFEA in its general course of operation, such as licensing, inspections or the information that centres are required to provide for them. For example, in the HFEA’s overall licensing and inspection of clinics, if it decided to implement a new licensing process, the growth duty requires a consideration of the importance of exercising such regulatory functions in a way which ensures that regulatory action is taken only when it is needed and that any action taken is proportionate. This would encourage the HFEA to consider the impact that this change may have on those it regulates.

The HFEA, as an expert in its respective and expanding field, will decide what weight, if any, to afford growth as part of its decision-making process in each case. In some circumstances it may be appropriate that the HFEA, in making a particular decision, has regard to growth, but makes a reasonable decision not to give it any weight in its decision-making. For example, while exercising its licensing and inspection functions the HFEA may find that a clinic’s ability to provide a safe service was in question. The clinic may have breached the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, its licence conditions or the HFEA’s code of practice to the extent that it is at risk of the suspension of its licence or even having its licence revoked. In this circumstance, where patient safety is clearly an issue, the HFEA may, in considering the facts before it and weighing up its various statutory duties, make a reasonable decision not to apportion any weight to growth in considering whether to continue to license or close the clinic.

It may also be helpful to draw on an example from the pharmaceutical sector to further illustrate the type of mischief that the growth duty seeks to resolve. A pharmaceutical business used an alcohol spray product in bottles which had certification to say it was safe to use for three months. However, the inspector told the business that once opened, it must throw out bottles after 24 hours. Despite the business pointing out the certificate and the three-month agreed safe lifespan, the inspector refused to read the material and imposed the requirement that the company throw out the spray every 24 hours. This clearly placed an unnecessary financial burden on the business, due to the cost of the product. It could no longer afford to use the product or manufacture a particular pharmaceutical product. The growth duty would have required the inspector to have regard to the economic impact of its decision on the business. It would also have ensured that regulatory action was taken only when needed and that the action taken was proportionate. In neither of those cases would the issue of safety have been jeopardised in any way.

The Government are committed to creating a positive business environment right across the economy and applying a growth duty to regulators across a broad range of sectors that will contribute to this. It is, thus, the Government’s view that the HFEA should continue to be included within the scope of the growth duty. I hope that I have clarified the scope and intent of the duty and provided the necessary reassurances on this front.

Finally, in addition to excluding the PSA and the HFEA from the scope of the growth duty, the amendment seeks to give the Secretary of State the power to list by order,

“any persons exercising a regulatory function with respect to health and care service”,

and in that order to exclude them from the scope of the growth duty.

The Department of Health feels that excluding health regulators from the growth duty would be at odds with other departments and inconsistent with the Government’s intent. I hope that I have provided the assurances that the Opposition and others were looking for in this complex area, and I hope that that will enable the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

I thank the Minister for a very thoughtful response, and for all the work and meetings that have clearly taken place. I particularly welcome the fact, if I have his words right, that the Government do not propose to bring the PSA into scope.

Turning to the HFEA, funnily enough I agree with virtually everything that the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, says, except that I do not agree that it is against the amendment in front of us. I think that he is arguing for better regulation and for not putting unnecessary burdens on those being regulated, be they hospitals or laboratories. All the talk about better regulation, not having undue costs and not throwing away bottles after 24 hours is, to me, better regulation and not the same as the growth duty. I think that we are not very far away from that.

I welcome very much the recognition by the Minister that the HFEA is not an economic regulator, his words that it will not be required to drive or pursue economic growth, his willingness to continue this discussion and to use new guidance to try to help avoid the risk of challenge, and his words that the HFEA will decide for itself not to afford that duty in certain cases. We are probably fairly close on this, and the discussions and the new guidance will be helpful. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 28 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

That the Bill do now pass.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, I use this opportunity for a brief moment to pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Stevenson, who, from our side, has guided and marshalled our many Front Bench colleagues, including my noble friends Lady Thornton, Lord Tunnicliffe and Lord McKenzie, through what has been called a “Christmas tree Bill”. Of course, we do not think it is quite such a Bill because it is not full of goodies, but I thank my noble friend Lord Stevenson and, I have to say, our brilliant legislative adviser, Muna Abbas; this was her first such Bill. We think that it has ended up a little better than it arrived.

I thank the Minister and his sometimes expanding, sometimes reducing ministerial team. I also thank the other members of the Bill team who have helped negotiate, redraft, debate and discuss throughout the process, including the setting up of a large number of bilateral meetings, some of which have dealt with some very complex issues. They now deserve a very good holiday, so I suggest that before too long we have a general election so that they may have one.

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)]

My Lords, on behalf of these Benches, I thank my noble friend Lord Wallace for seeing us through this Bill. When we started, we thought that this would be a complete nightmare, but his skill, perseverance and patience have helped that not to be so. I thank also the opposition Benches for their part in seeing this legislation through, and our colleagues in our own office, Giles Derrington and Elizabeth Plummer, who supported us through the business of this Bill.

Recall of MPs Bill

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, I have felt all along that this is a very ill conceived, ill thought-out Bill, and one that does no credit to Parliament in general or to the House of Commons in particular. I have briefly made similar points to those made by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, in previous debates.

I feel that this is such a bad Bill that it is, frankly, unimprovable and unamendable, but I salute the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. He is sometimes a controversial figure but nobody can deny that he is a parliamentarian of real status who is deeply concerned about the reputation of Parliament. He is trying very hard with this amendment and, in so far as anything could improve the Bill, it is probably this, if it were passed, because it would give that chance for another place to think again.

What concerns me more than anything else—I alluded to this a few seconds ago—is the status and standing of Parliament. This great and free country of ours depends above all on two things: the rule of law and the sovereignty of Parliament. In eroding the sovereignty of Parliament, we do no one any service. This Bill is in fact the erosion of the sovereignty of Parliament Bill. This House is clearly not going to stand in the way of the elected House, but it does behove us constantly to remind the Members of that elected House that by their lack of confidence in themselves they are doing no one any service.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, your Lordships will know that we do not support the amendments that stand on the Marshalled List today, despite the arguments that have been made by people who, as I think they all said, fundamentally do not like the Bill.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

Some of them have admitted that they do not like the Bill—we have just heard that it is fundamentally wrong. There is another view, of course: that the status of Parliament depends not simply on the good behaviour of its Members but on the ability of constituents, where there has been serious misdemeanour, to hold their Members to account. That is the thrust and drive of the Bill, and it is for that reason that my party has supported the idea that, where someone has been found—differently from the case in front of us now—guilty and sentenced to imprisonment, or it is found by their peers in the other place that they should be suspended for a time from the House, they should not automatically be able to continue in the job of representing their constituents.

[Lord Hughes of Woodside]

I understand my noble friend’s position as leading for the Opposition, but I know of nowhere in any election manifesto or decision where we stand or fall by a matter of 10 days, 15 days or 20 days. The principle is not being attacked in any sense by this amendment. I beg of her, as I have asked the Minister, at least to think about the possibility—without committing the party at the other end to change its mind—of looking at the matter afresh, just to give it a chance.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

I am coming to the matter of days in a moment. It is right to reiterate what many people outside Parliament feel about when someone is judged to have done something that even their peers in the other place consider inappropriate behaviour. In most other walks of life, one would not automatically be able to continue in one’s job. Therefore, there should be a possibility for recall at that point.

The second point is whether the particular number of days, which is what we are discussing in this amendment, is the right one. A different proposal was made by the coalition Government at the beginning. It was debated in the other place, although it may not have been debated at great length, and it has certainly been debated here, in Committee and on Report. A judgment has always to be made.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

I think that I heard my noble friend say that it was debated in the other place. I defy her to find anywhere in the Hansard report any more than a couple of sentences on the issue of 10 and 20 days.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My point is that it was debated there and the case was made for why it should change. The point I am trying to make is that the proposal for 20 days, 10 days, 15 days, five days or 30 days is a matter of judgment. There is no right or wrong answer. It is a judgment on what is the appropriate connection between a decision in the other place and its Standards Committee and the point at which that should trigger a recall petition. That is a difficult judgment and one that I say needs to be made by the House of Commons, which is where this decision was taken.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

Is that not the whole point—that the House of Commons needs to be able to take a decision? A story in the press over the weekend suggested that people should be expelled from the House of Commons for three days for boorish behaviour. Is it three days or 10 days? What about not declaring an interest? Should that be 10 days or should it be between three and 10 days? By having a broader spectrum, it is possible to provide a sanction that will be seen to be appropriate for the offence. Does she see that it is not about whether it is 10 days or 15 days but the spectrum that is open to the House to show its displeasure when Members behave badly?

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

I do not disagree that it is for the House of Commons to do that, but it has have taken a decision. My noble friends say that the Members did not know what they were doing—I would not make that comment—but they took a decision by 203 votes to 124 that this was the figure that it should be.

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton]

I understand the difficulty that my noble friend is facing, because she has been given a position and she has to try valiantly to defend it, but I do not think that anyone at any stage has explained why 10 days is appropriate. If, as my noble friend on the Front Bench is saying, it is for the House of Commons to make a decision, what is wrong with giving it the opportunity to reflect on this issue again?

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My judgment is that it would come to the same view.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords—

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

Could I finish what I was saying? Whatever it finally decides, the point is that it has taken that decision. The argument has not been made to my satisfaction that its view is so wrong and our view so right that it is only us who are right and not it.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My noble friend is very kind to give way. She says that the House of Commons has taken that decision and she thinks that it would take the same decision again. In the figures that she just gave, less than half the Members of the House of Commons voted. Is it not the role of this House to invite the other place to think again in appropriate circumstances? Is that not exactly what we should be doing here?

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

As many noble Lords will know, I have helped defeat the Government and sent stuff back where I have believed that the other House was wrong and I wanted it to rethink. We have done that on a number of Bills. We have had victories. We have sent things back and occasionally there has been movement. It is always a judgment call. On this issue, however, my view is that we have the right figure. As I have said before in this House, it is a very delicate balance. What we do not want is such a low number—

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

Before my noble friend sits down—

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

She is a long way from sitting down by the sound of things.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

She says she has the right figure. Let me put to her a scenario. Imagine a case of non-declaration of interests that is worthy of a penalty of more than 10 days but not 20 days. I can remember some pretty difficult cases of non-declaration of interests. Are we saying that in such a case we should invoke a procedure which could lead to a by-election that costs hundreds of thousands of pounds both to the political party and the local authorities, with all the inconvenience of bringing in vast numbers of party workers to defend the party interest, because of a case of non-declaration where the Member’s defence may be that they simply made a mistake but where the committee realises that it has to invoke a punishment of at least 10 days?

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

The answer is yes. If the MP’s own colleagues—I do not want to use the word “peers”, as it is a bit confusing—believe that the issue is serious enough for a suspension of at least 10 days, they would do so, although I find it hard to believe that they would so for a mistake. That is what this Bill is all about. The trigger may be 10 days or my noble friend may be right and perhaps it should be 12 days or nine days—I do not know exactly because it is a judgment call—but this Bill is about saying that, where their fellow Members of Parliament consider that the issue is serious enough, that is the trigger for a recall.

It is also important that the figure is not so low that we undermine in any way either the sort of normal protest that could happen in the House of Commons or the mistake—although I doubt that it would apply for a mistake—or misdemeanour that so offends other MPs that they take the MP to the Standards Committee. The essence of the Bill is that a recall will be triggered when the suspension is for a certain length of time.

There is another, separate point. Whether the threshold is five, 10, 15 or indeed 40 days, there will always be the difficulty—as happens when magistrates hear cases—where the knowledge that the decision can trigger a by-election will add an extra dimension to the judgments that are taken. That applies both to magistrates in a court case, if it is about whether there should be a sentence of imprisonment rather than a fine, and to those dealing with these situations. That is tough. Decision-making is tough. I recognise that, but I do not think that the number of days minimises that effect.

We will deal later with a very helpful amendment from my noble friend about the Standards Committee, which I hope will address some of the challenges that will be before members of the Standards Committee. On this amendment, the decision has been taken by the other place and I think it is right. I hope that my noble friend will withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I pay tribute to the commitment and care with which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, has pursued this issue. The Government have of course therefore actively considered it over some period of time.

I have to say that I do not recognise what the noble Lord described as the widespread anger in the Commons over all this. I have just been checking with my noble friend Lord Gardiner and thinking that through. During the period when the Bill has been going through its Lords stages, I have met members of my own party in the Commons and my noble friend Lord Gardiner has met members of his own party there. We have met people from the Labour Party, our opposite numbers and the Bill managers within the Commons on a number of occasions. It is remarkable to me that what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, has heard has not managed to reach our ears. It has been relatively public knowledge that we were indeed managing the Bill through this House.

The suggestion that the House of Commons voted on a substantial change to the Bill without understanding what it was doing seems to be stretching matters a little. It may be that this was a catastrophic mistake of the Labour Party in the Commons, as the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, said. I recognise the strength of feeling among a number of Labour Peers within this House that it was a catastrophic mistake by their own party. All I can say is that this has not reached the Government’s ears. We have not had protests, or suggestions that we need to save the Commons from itself in the way proposed.

The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, talked about eroding the sovereignty of Parliament and how we have again to protect that dimension. However, all those of us who have been out campaigning in recent weeks know that what those of us who are attached to the traditions of the British constitution think of as the sovereignty of Parliament is thought by too many of those on whose doors we knock as the Westminster bubble. We have great difficulty in persuading them that it is worth voting at all. They think that all politicians are in here for themselves. This is part of why the recall Bill has gone through a series of consultations over the last three years and is now going, not hastily, through both Houses.

We have considered at length this question of the proper period of suspension which should trigger recall in this House and in other discussions outside the House. We do not see a strong case for reversing the decision which the House of Commons took on an amendment from the Labour Opposition and, having considered it, we are therefore not willing to accept the noble Lord’s amendment.

The decision of the other place was clearly based on the precedent of past suspensions for misconduct recommended by the Standards Committee. The Standards Committee has in the past recommended 10-day suspensions for receiving payment to ask questions in the House, misuse of access to the House and breaching the Code of Conduct—cases which should undoubtedly be considered as serious wrongdoing. We are not considering cases of innocence or unproven allegation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

My Lords, I am sorry to part company from my noble friend Lord Howarth of Newport, but I support Amendment 5. Perhaps it is a bit of a selfish reason as to why, which is that it helps facilitate the alternative approach that I put forward on Report. The amendment says that the committee should have,

“a number of members who are not Members of Parliament at least equal to the number of members of that Committee who are Members of Parliament”.

Of course, had the arrangement that I proposed on Report been in place, there would be more lay members of the committee than ordinary members. That falls precisely within the definition set out in this amendment, in that Ministers could actually introduce the scheme that I was suggesting in legislation—or indeed the House could, but it would need legislative support.

To remind Members of what that scheme was, essentially there would be 10 members of the committee, with seven lay and three elected. The three elected members would enjoy parliamentary privilege because they are elected. The seven lay members would be effectively advising the committee. They vote and make their recommendation, but it is for the three elected members to decide whether to reject or accept the recommendation of the lay members. The elected members essentially have charge—a responsibility for approving the recommendations so that they can be submitted to the full House of Commons. For that reason I accept the amendment. It takes us partially down the route that I want to go down, and I hope that the Government, at some stage in the future, will finally select that route.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, this has been an interesting debate—and not simply because it is an easier one to respond to. As I said when we discussed this subject in Committee, or possibly on Report, we strongly support having more lay members on the Standards Committee. We believe that it is crucial for that body to have the confidence of the public, so opening up its work to people who are not MPs is an excellent step towards gaining that confidence. In other areas of life—in the medical profession, the legal profession and other professions—outside independent members are now the norm in any disciplinary process. That gives confidence to patients and clients that someone other than the cohort of those whose behaviour is being judged is involved in the decisions. Indeed, I think I am right in saying that in most of those other professions there is now a lay chair of the relevant disciplinary body.

As my honourable friend on the Front Bench in the other place said, we want to see a,

“radical overhaul of the Committee. That would include the removal of the Government’s majority and an increase in the role and authority of its lay members. We propose that at least half the Committee should be lay members and that the Chair of the Committee should not be a Member of Parliament”.—[Official Report, Commons, 27/10/14; col. 69.]

It is encouraging that today there has been backing from all sides of the House on the need to move forward in this respect. The Government may say that the Bill is not the appropriate place to make such a change—although I note the astute amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and others—but whether that is the case or not, we are sending an important message that all the political parties are determined to see the Standards Committee work effectively, fairly and transparently, and in a way that gives voters confidence in its work.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, for his references back to the historical developments. My brief says that there is a record of lay members serving on a Commons committee as far back as 1836, and that it was in 1876 that Erskine May laid down that while it was perfectly acceptable for lay members to serve on Commons committees it was not acceptable, within the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, for them to vote on such committees. I understand that that is the position that we still hold. There have been lay members of Commons committees in the past and there are now three on the Standards Committee, whose recent report suggests that the number should increase to seven.

The noble Lord, Lord Howarth, and the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, have taken us back to Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights and a range of other things. I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, that I am currently reading Professor David Carpenter’s very helpful, and massive, book on Magna Carta, and I am becoming a little more doubtful about the beauty of Magna Carta, fully put, than I was. Its treatment of women and Jews, for example, is not exactly in line with modern habits—just as, if one reads the Bill of Rights carefully, as I have also done, one learns that its assumptions about Roman Catholics are not ones that would meet with automatic approval in the 21st century.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, I think this is a sensible compromise. I, too, supported the view that the excessive period was unnecessary. Once we had in place the flexibility on places for signing to take account of geography and demography in areas such as the one I know and the one the noble Baroness knows, it was a very sensible thing to move. I do not accept that a further, more drastic reduction to three or four weeks would really have been very practical. After all, this is not going to be an anticipated event in the same way that a general election is. There will be an extension of postal involvement in the process, and therefore six weeks is a reasonable period. A further reduction would be wrong. This is a good compromise, and I am grateful to my noble friend.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

I add my thanks to the Minister for tabling this amendment, to which we have added our names. I also congratulate my noble friend Lord Howarth of Newport, who argued persuasively both on Report and today. Given the move from four to 10 signing places, we really did not need the lengthy period of eight weeks. I hope that, for costs and other reasons, there will now be less need for people to apply for postal votes, and it will be easier for people to arrange to meet one of the signing places. While we would not want to rush the petition, we think that both the MP and the constituents deserve to have as swift a result as possible so that the MP is not taken away from their normal parliamentary duties for an inordinate period, as has been outlined by my noble friend Lord Howarth. We see six weeks as being an improvement on eight and look forward to this amendment passing shortly.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, this has been a short but important debate. I am glad that we have been able to reach what I think is a sensible arrangement, after compelling arguments. I beg to move.

Deregulation Bill

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Wednesday 11th February 2015 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 45 and 45A before moving on to Amendment 46. Amendments 45 and 45A have been tabled in response to a recent court case, Charalambous v Ng 2014, and an unreported county court case, Cooper v Collins, which have created uncertainty in the private rented sector.

Amendment 45 clarifies that, where a letting agent has received a deposit on behalf of a landlord, the letting agent’s contact details can be given in the prescribed information instead of the landlord’s details. It makes detailed amendments to the Housing (Tenancy Deposits) (Prescribed Information) Order 2007—the order that lists the prescribed information that a landlord must give to a tenant—to make absolutely clear when a letting agent’s details may be provided instead of the landlord’s. The amendments to the order are retrospective, making clear that it is and always has been the case that a letting agent’s details may be provided in the prescribed information instead of the landlord’s. In speaking to these amendments and those that follow, I declare my interest as a landlord.

To ensure fairness, provision is also being made that would prevent the reopening of out of court settlements or court cases that have been finally determined on the basis of this issue. The amendments will apply in cases where legal proceedings are under way at the time the provisions come into force, but tenants will be protected from paying their landlord’s legal costs where the court subsequently decides against the tenant in the light of these provisions. This strikes the right balance between ensuring that tenants do not suffer financially as a result of the retrospective legislation and ensuring that landlords are not penalised where they have followed government advice.

Amendment 45A has been tabled in response to the Court of Appeal’s judgment in the case of Charalambous v Ng 2014, which concerned a landlord who received a tenancy deposit prior to the coming into force of the tenancy deposit legislation in 2007. The tenancy in question became periodic prior to the date that the tenancy deposit legislation came into force and has continued as such ever since. The court ruled that the tenancy deposit legislation should apply to all landlords in this position and that they would therefore need to protect deposits if they wished to rely on the no-fault ground for eviction known as Section 21. It was never the intention, either in 2007 or following amendments made to the tenancy deposit legislation in 2012, that it should apply in this way. The amendments that we propose will make absolutely clear that, although landlords affected by the judgment will need to protect deposits if they wish to rely on Section 21, they will not be at risk of financial penalties should they fail to protect.

Moving on to Amendment 46, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, for her desire to clarify “prescribed information” in relation to lettings, to which I have just spoken. Her amendment makes provisions along similar lines to those that I just outlined on Amendment 45. While the Government agree with the noble Baroness on this point, we believe that Amendment 45 addresses the issues in a more detailed way than Amendment 46. I hope that the noble Baroness will be sufficiently satisfied not to move her amendment.

The Government’s amendments will make welcome clarifications to the tenancy deposit legislation. I beg to move.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that. He will not be surprised that I am delighted that the Government have seen sense and tabled their amendments, which are in far more correct language than I managed. They implement the amendment that I moved in Committee, which, as he said, appears in the Marshalled List as Amendment 46.

In Committee the Minister said that my amendment was unnecessary but, to be fair to him, he ensured that discussions took place with the tenancy deposit scheme, which had raised concerns about whether having the letting agent’s name in the paperwork, rather than the landlord’s, was sufficient. Clearly, those discussions persuaded officials that the change was necessary. I congratulate the Minister and the draftsmen on producing Amendment 45 in time for Report. For obvious reasons, we heartily support this and I will not move Amendment 46 when called.

Amendment 45 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

Yes, I agree with the principle. None of us likes rogue landlords. We do not want some of the present landlords owning the properties that they have because they are making life difficult for others. But those of us who actually support the principle of the amendment do want it to work.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, we are very happy to support the Government’s amendment. That is hardly surprising given that, as the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, reminded the House, my noble friend Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and I tabled a very similar amendment to this—Amendment 50E to the Consumer Rights Bill—precisely to protect tenants against retaliatory eviction. Indeed, had the Government accepted it in principle at that stage, we would have had lots of time to discuss any tweaks and details. Furthermore, of course, that was the appropriate piece of legislation for it. It is exactly something that lives in a Consumer Rights Bill. It is quite hard to think why it should be in the Deregulation Bill but anyway it is here and we welcome the fact of it, and it is clearly the way the Government prefer it.

It is good to see the change of heart because when we moved that amendment in November, the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, who was dealing with it, said that the Government did not think it was necessary because it would not,

“add anything further to the guidance that is already available”.—[Official Report, 24/11/14; col. 761.]

To be fair, she supported the Private Member’s Bill in the other place and the Government have now decided to introduce this legislation, albeit perhaps not in the best vehicle, given that the Consumer Rights Bill is still in Parliament.

It is a shame that the Liberal Democrats who have added their names to the amendment did not share our concerns earlier. The noble Baroness spoke in favour of one of my other amendments, but it would have been nice to have their support when we tried to make letting agents belong to an ombudsman scheme. We got it through but without their help; nor did they support my attempts to get letting agents to put tenants’ rent into protected bank accounts, which would have safeguarded landlords as much as—if not more than—tenants, because when letting agents go walkies with the money it is usually the landlords who pay, but of course it is the tenants’ money that goes. But hey, I guess there is an election coming so now they are on the side of the tenants, and we welcome that support, belated though it might be.

We particularly welcome the Government’s view on this and their bringing forward these amendments. We know that it will please those who have campaigned a long time for this, including Crisis and Shelter, which have been mentioned, and the Brighton and Hove “Home Sweet Home” campaign, which has been working for a better and fairer private rented sector. Its members campaign on behalf of local tenants who are often too scared to speak out or to ask their landlords for repairs because they fear losing their homes. In places such as Brighton, that is not a joke; it does happen. As for the idea that there are rogue tenants—actually, the experience we have is of landlords mistreating their tenants.

These amendments give much-needed protection to tenants, as landlords will no longer be able to evict them in response to a valid complaint about their home. Tenants will no longer have to choose between living in poor conditions and losing their home. Unfortunately, revenge eviction has become a major cause of insecurity, not just in Brighton but elsewhere where there is a lot of pressure on the private rented sector. We want people to feel safe and secure in their own home, creating a fairer system for both tenants and landlords. We believe that these amendments will help achieve that.

We have one slight disappointment. As the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, said, the hazard awareness notices are not included in these amendments, although they were in the Private Member’s Bill. We have some concerns that without these the protection risks being patchy. Some extra assurance on that would be welcome.

We are also pleased that, from what the Minister said in his introduction, the Government do not seem minded to accept Amendment 46AA in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, which would extend the period that a tenant can wait before contacting the council from 14 to 28 days. Twenty-eight days is too long for a tenant to wait before legitimately contacting the council. None of us would wait that long if it was our home, especially if it was over Christmas. Therefore, where there is a serious problem that needs seeing to, we agree with the Minister that 14 days is the right balance.

I also pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Best, who has saved me from having to give a very robust response to those who fear that these amendments will achieve things that are too much in favour of the tenants and not of the landlords. We think that it is a fair deal between the two sides—although often, as people have said, they are not sides; it is a good relationship.

Meanwhile, given that the Government have decided—perhaps a bit late—to do something to help “generation rent”, it is a shame that it is not part of a wider strategy to ensure that tenants get a fair deal from landlords. We have undertaken to legislate for three-year tenancies, to give renters a stable home and landlords the confidence to invest. We will also stop letting agents charging fees to tenants, which we tried to do in the Consumer Rights Bill, but sadly that bit has not been brought over. However, I should not be churlish. We are delighted with the amendments that the Government have brought forward and we have pleasure in giving them our full support.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have participated in this debate. Again, it demonstrates the great expertise and interest in your Lordships’ House in this important issue. I will seek to answer all the questions that have been raised but if there are specific, technical questions, I add the caveat that I shall of course review all contributions and write accordingly to cover any points that perhaps I have not been able to cover in my response this evening.

I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for his support for the government amendments. He always speaks with great expertise on housing issues across the board, so his support is most welcome. I hope it continues for the later part of the evening but we shall come to that shortly. I also thank my noble friends Lady Bakewell and Lord Stoneham for their support for the Government’s position. In thanking other noble friends who perhaps have not been totally supportive, I of course recognise the concerns that have been expressed across a range of issues and hope that I can address most of them in my response.

My noble friend Lord Howard asked about tenants who stop paying rent once they have made a complaint. I assure my noble friend that in this regard the amendment under no circumstances permits the tenant to stop paying rent, and the tenant will be obliged to pay. It provides that a Section 21 eviction notice can be invalidated only if a tenant’s complaint is supported by confirmation from the local authority. Indeed, if a Section 21 eviction notice cannot be served for a specified period, the tenant is still contractually obliged to continue paying rent. Failure to do so, as I said in my opening remarks, would leave them liable to eviction under Section 8 of the Housing Act 1988.

Recall of MPs Bill

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2015 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

1: Clause 1, page 1, line 10, at end insert—
“( ) In this Act the signing of a recall petition constitutes a public act and the information of each person who signs a recall petition will be accessible in a marked electoral register, if requested.”

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 1, I shall also speak to Amendment 15. Together these amendments, tabled by me and my noble friend Lord Kennedy of Southwark, would enshrine in the Bill that a recall petition is a public act—an open declaration of one’s wish to recall an MP. We have moved to this position since Committee, in the belief that there is an urgent need for clarity on this issue.

At Second Reading and in Committee, we discussed whether signing a recall petition is to be secret or a public act. If it were the latter, we noted that people must be aware before they sign that their identity could become known in due course. We then waited for the Government to decide whether to attempt to keep this a secret act, and therefore bring in different rules from those for general elections regarding access to the marked register, or to acknowledge that secrecy cannot be maintained and therefore to make it clear that signing a petition would be, as with any other petition, a public statement.

Alas, the Government are still all over the place. In response to our Constitution Committee, they say they will set out in regulations—which we have not yet seen—how to address the issue of keeping names secret, yet they must surely realise that, at the very least, the MP and the agent are bound to have access to the marked register, as is anyone who thinks someone may have signed in their place. Little thought seems to have been given to how in this respect a recall petition differs from elections, and from referendums—that is, where signing is only a one-way act—and its implications for the rest of the process.

Nor have the Government consulted stakeholders on this issue, be they local government, the Electoral Commission, political parties, the Electoral Reform Society or the Association of Electoral Administrators. Even in the briefing yesterday, the Electoral Commission still did not told us whether it advised the Government that it should be open or secret.

Instead of consultation, the Government have simply tried to cut and paste bits from the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act and the Representation of the People Act without thinking through the implications of what they are proposing. A recall petition is neither an election nor a referendum, as in both cases the choice is indicated by the voter rather than being a one-way act. If we consider the history and character of petitions, we would see the difference from normal elections. Take the rules on public petitions in the other place. There are three requirements of signatories of petitions. They must openly declare their name, the petition must be signed by them and they must state their address. There is no doubt that, as our Constitution Committee said,

“signing a recall petition is a public act”.

Even the Government conceded that,

“whereas at an election the way in which a person has voted remains secret, this secrecy cannot be maintained absolutely through the process of signing this petition as there is only one way in which a person may sign”.

The Government’s almost unbelievable suggestion that people should apply to sign by post to maintain their confidentiality is not only flawed in practice—because of the marked register—but, importantly, it is flawed in principle. Postal votes were never designed to safeguard the secret ballot but to enable those who, for whatever reason, cannot make it to the polling station. The unavoidable truth is that, for a petition, going into a polling station, or returning a postal petition, immediately identifies your intentions. The Minister said in Committee that the Government were,

“considering what limitations there should be on access to the marked register”.—[Official Report, 19/1/15; col. 1113.]

However placing restrictions on the normal access is probably impossible, as the police and others must have access to check on allegations of double or improper signing. Therefore, the consequent openness of the marked register must be reflected in communication with potential signatories. It must be clear from the start, on the notification sent to constituents, that this is different from elections or referendums, and that the fact they have called for recall may become public.

Indeed, it is not simply a question of the marked register, but of all the staff at signing places over eight weeks, party reps standing outside such places, journalists and their cameras hanging around, scrutineers and polling clerks. Are they all to be bound to secrecy? Of course that is not possible.

It is our view is that it is crucial that a clear decision is taken by Parliament so that everyone understands the position. Furthermore, we have come to realise that the only way forward is for it to be a public petition. It is too important a part of the recall process for this decision to be left to regulation or to the next Parliament, or—even worse—to those having to administer the first ever such petition. Our amendments remove any ambiguity, and would make it clear to potential signatories, to petition officers and their staff, and to campaigners that calling for recall is a public act.

The first amendment therefore asserts that a petition will be entirely open. Amendment 15 would require a petition officer to make the marked register available as normal, if requested, at the end of the process. It would also ensure that potential signatories are made aware that this is an open process, with a notice on the petition card warning that the fact that an elector had signed could become available on the marked register.

Without our amendments, we would be left with considerable uncertainty because of the Government’s inability to make up their mind about a fundamental aspect of the Bill. Recall is different from a choice between competing parties or competing views on European membership or devolution, where one can vote yes or no. The fact of signing means that one has voted only one way. If it cannot be kept secret that someone has signed—and our belief is that such secrecy could not be maintained—that must be clear to one and all. It is Parliament that must decide on this vital issue. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hughes of Woodside (Lab)]

My Lords, I am puzzled by what the Minister just said: that signing a petition is somehow—what was the word he used?—“delicate” or “difficult”. I am astonished. My understanding is that, once the election is past, the marked register is available to be purchased by election agents and political parties. He talked about the marked register being a campaigning tool. We are obviously all totally against names being made available while the petition period is going on, but surely to goodness, if a citizen of this country is asked to determine the fate of a Member of Parliament, he or she should not sign that petition carelessly, without thought to the possible repercussions. I really think that the Minister is quite wrong on the attempted secrecy of the marked register. I hope he will reflect, because he is not doing democracy any good whatever.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, I thank those who contributed to this short, but very important, debate. The Minister responded only on one bit of it, in respect of possible intimidation. There is another issue, which is the openness of this new democratic process. He has not really addressed that. He has not addressed whether journalists standing outside a council office where there is a signing will be able to write in the newspaper the names of the people who have signed, or whether they are all suddenly meant to be unable to report what they have seen.

Somebody who is known could go in to sign. The journalist could say, “I saw Hayter going in to sign”, and presumably that would be completely legal. The Minister seems unworried by that. It is not just the marked register. Either this is open or it is not—and that is something that Parliament must decide. I may not have put it down the right way—perhaps I should have had an “either/or” approach, which is not here, asking whether we want it open or closed. As the Government have left it, it will effectively be open. If that is the case, that should be in the Bill, and I wish to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, it is always fun to watch the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, having a go at his own side and at one of the Government Ministers. Apart from that, I think it has been an interesting and useful debate, particularly on Amendment 2 about widening the kind of behaviour which could trigger a by-election. As an old campaigner on drinking and driving, this warmed the cockles of my heart and I thought it would have a great impact on the leisure behaviour of MPs, but maybe that is looking at it slightly too narrowly.

I really do not think that having just any criminal conviction is what our manifestos, the coalition agreement, the Government or indeed the House of Commons intended when they brought forward the recall Bill. Nor do I think it is what the public expected—and I was a member of the public rather than in your Lordships’ House when the misdemeanours that we have talked about happened—of the promise that where MPs were found guilty of deliberately falsifying their expenses claims or were sentenced to imprisonment, they should no longer automatically return to work after their sentence. Rather, I think recall was seen as a chance for the MP to explain himself or herself, to apologise or to ask for forbearance, and for the chance for voters to decide whether, despite the sentence, the MP was fit to continue to represent them in Parliament. Lowering the bar so that it covers any conviction risks a rush of petitions, perhaps over quite minor issues, which would take MPs away from their duties in the House for months. It would involve large sums of money, and importantly it would devalue the serious nature of a recall petition.

Incidentally, given that it is JPs—magistrates—who deal with 90% of crime, it is likely to be them rather than judges who will be dealing with these sorts of offences. As my noble friend Lord Howarth of Newport reminds us, the recall thus triggered could easily become a vote of confidence in the Government or a referendum on fracking rather than actually seeking the electorate’s opinion of their MP’s behaviour, which was the purpose of this Bill and the reason that we support it. There has to be a sensible balance as to what can constitute a trigger. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester suggests, being sentenced to prison, whether suspended or not, seems to be the right place to draw that line.

Amendment 3 would remove any role for Parliament via its Standards Committee and a subsequent vote in the Commons to trigger a recall petition. This seems very hard to support. It does two things. First, it would absolve MPs in the Commons from a role in self-regulation and from any responsibility for policing the behaviour of their own colleagues. That is something which I do not think is right either in principle or in practice. Secondly, it would leave only criminal convictions and not gross unparliamentary behaviour such as breaches of the Code of Conduct or a failure to undertake democratic duties as the trigger for potential recall. The other place may need to make changes to its Standards Committee in order to build public trust, but that is probably not a matter for the Recall of MPs Bill. I know that my Labour colleagues in the other place support a radical overhaul of the committee, in particular to remove the government majority and to increase the role and authority of its lay members. Indeed, Labour has proposed considering whether with at least half the members being lay, there should also be a chair who is no longer an MP.

However, improving the way this trigger would act is different from removing the trigger. It was clearly the will of the Commons to include this trigger, which gives the Commons a role in the Bill, and we should respect that decision for its willingness to accept some collective responsibility for the behaviour of its Members. Furthermore, we should remember that without the second trigger, a number of non-criminal offences could occur without MPs having to face a possible recall, such as cash for questions or the failure to declare serious conflicts of interest. It would be a very radical suggestion to delete an entire trigger from the clause at this stage in the Bill when it was overwhelmingly agreed at the other end, and it would possibly go beyond our normal role of scrutinising legislation. However, that is not my reason for opposing it. I do so because it must surely be right that Members of the Commons should take some responsibility for their own behaviour and that of their colleagues and they should not wash their hands of their role in this.

Amendment 6 has been tabled by my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours, and we happily support it. We have encouraged the inclusion of lay members on the committee. Indeed, as I have said, we floated the idea of one of them being the chair and of lay members being the majority. While the Government may not feel that this is a matter for the Bill, we hope they will join us in supporting the principle and commit themselves to further moves in the direction I have outlined.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, this debate has ranged very widely. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, for raising the Bill of Rights. I was thinking about it last week when looking at Magna Carta and how these various things pull together. The British constitution has parliamentary privilege as one of its core elements, and we recognise that in this Bill we are walking a delicate line between the maintenance of parliamentary privilege and the inclusion of a greater degree of popular sovereignty alongside parliamentary sovereignty. It is a delicate balance that we all wish to maintain.

Perhaps I may say what a pleasure it is to see the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, again. He told me in the corridor that he had been lying in his hospital bed at two o’clock in the morning watching Lords debates on his iPad. What he did not tell me was whether they kept him awake or provided him with a cure for insomnia.

As I understand the Standards Committee report, which I have not had a chance to read in full yet, it takes us rather closer towards the model which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, would like than we have been before. It is a progression to move from a lay minority to an equal proportion of lay members and MPs, which is probably what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, would regard as moving in the right direction. It is a progression but not a reversal; it is not a radical overhaul of the entire Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Soley (Lab)]

It is entirely right that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, has drawn attention to the real problem underlying all this—the lack of self-confidence within the House of Commons. It is rather tragic that we have the Bill before us. I am slightly worried at his reminding people that one could be hung for various things. A number of people would like to hang MPs, and I remind him that when I was chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party and it was heard that I might come to this place, one member of the PLP said that they had the ideal reform for the House of Lords, with one Peer for every lamp-post. I do not use that example too often.

However, I intervene briefly and seriously. My noble friends Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Howarth both made a strong case on this issue. My view is, and remains, that the Bill is a mess and should not have been brought forward but, precisely because of the nature of the mess here and the report to which my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours referred, the Government ought to say that they will take this issue away, look at it in some detail and come back with a proposal involving a return to the 20-day period. I would sign up to that. The Bill is not in a coherent state. It would be bad news for the House of Commons, and I suspect that it is unlikely to be used or be used very much. It is undesirable to have legislation in a mess such as this, especially when there is a report of the type that has been referred to that indicates why we ought to have the 20-day solution. The Government have a duty to this House and the other place to say that they will go back, consult and come back with a proposal that is more likely to work in a coherent way.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, your Lordships will not be surprised that we do not support these amendments for the reasons given by my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours—well, no, actually, not for the reasons given by him. The amendments would reverse the very changes that Labour won with wholehearted—or should I say widespread?—support in the Commons.

The coalition Government had proposed what my noble friend now wants, which is that MPs would need to be suspended for more than four sitting weeks for the threshold to trigger a recall petition. However, no matter how much we cut that period, only rarely would that trigger be reached. Importantly, it would mean that some serious offences in the House would virtually never trigger a recall petition, which may be the intention of the amendment—or not; but that would be its effect. It would emasculate the role of the Commons in regulating its Members.

We believe that the House of Commons decision to suspend a Member should be able to act as a trigger and that four weeks’ suspension is simply too long. It makes the trigger too high for what constituents would expect. When all this was happening, I was not in Parliament; I was outside. If one asked now how serious an offence should be before someone should face a recall, I should say that being suspended for two weeks is about the right amount. We would not want the threshold to be so lowered that it would allow mischievous claims to be made in the other place. We also recognise that parliamentary dissent is part of our democratic heritage, and that an MP standing up for their beliefs in the other place should not find their right peacefully to protest compromised by unnecessary recall petitions. There is a balance to be struck. However, none of those suspended for protesting would be caught by the new threshold, which was agreed overwhelmingly in the Commons by 210 to 124 votes. In the words of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, if we are to trust the House of Commons, that vote is one that we should hear.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

Can the noble Baroness explain where the other half of MPs were?

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

Obviously, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, will not appreciate that on a one-line Whip an awful lot of them disappear, as he has never been in the House of Commons.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

He was there; that was a joke.

[Noble Lords]

Joke? No!

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

It was a joke. It is called irony. It does not work in Hansard; maybe it could use italics. I was explaining that I have never been there. Forget it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

I really do not think it is for me to tell the House of Commons how best to call its votes. What I do say is that if we are to trust the House of Commons then hearing that it agreed this by 203 votes to 124 on a one-line Whip is a fairly ringing endorsement of its decision. However, I am concerned about the discussion of this amendment rather than the wording of it. Some of the discussion has been more about the pressure on the decision-makers involved—be that the Standards Committee as it is or as it is going to be—than whether the number of days is correct and whether the electorate should be able to petition following the wrongdoing of a Member of the House of Commons. I do not think pressure on decision-makers ought to be higher in our minds than the rights of electors. I say this as someone who has been a magistrate, has had to send people to prison and has sat as a lay adjudicator on all sorts of disputes in other professions when they have lay members in, including removing people completely from their profession. I have been in those sorts of positions. Noble Lords, particularly those on the Cross Benches who have been judges, have taken even bigger decisions than I have. People have backbones and I do not believe that the worry of the pressures on these good people should be uppermost, over and above the rights of the electors to take an opinion on their MP where they have obviously done something serious enough to be suspended by their colleagues in the other place.

The Bill as it stands strikes the right balance on this issue. It strengthens the right of constituents to consider recall without jeopardising parliamentary democracy. I think the other place got it right and we should support it.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, triggering the opening of a recall after a 10-day suspension rather than 20 or 21 days certainly means there is the potential for petitions to open in a wider range of circumstances. My calculation, which I hope I got correct, of what would have happened over the past 15 years during all the rumbling expenses scandal is that on a 10-day suspension trigger some seven Members of the House of Commons in 15 years would have come under it and on a 20-day suspension only two.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Norton of Louth]

My Lords, I have considerable sympathy with this amendment, and the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has come up with an ingenious way of bringing it forward. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, indicated, it raises an important issue of principle, which is the freedom of choice of the electors. This is something to which I keep referring and it is why I opposed attempts to ban dual mandate. My view is that if electors wish to put somebody into assemblies, it is entirely a matter for the electors. It might be impractical, but that is not for us to say. It is for us to allow electors to do that. So I agree with the point that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, made. It may be that the court says, “You have committed an offence”, but if the electors feel it is important that that person should be returned to represent them, then it is entirely a matter for them.

We keep bringing forward rules that restrict the freedom of electors. We should be looking at it the other way, trying to open up our process as much as possible and leaving it up to electors. If they want somebody to represent them, that is a matter for them. Leave it to the electors. Do not impose restrictions on them. For that reason, I have considerable sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, is trying to achieve. Certainly, I am all in favour of reviewing that provision and perhaps even widening it, for the reasons I have given, to look more broadly at how we can protect electors in making the choice that they wish to make, having whom they wish to elect and not being restricted in that.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, as my noble friends have spelt out, the Bill raises the interesting question not just of the interplay between this process and that of the election court but also of what I think is the Government's slap-dash drafting of the Bill, with their cut-and-paste from other legislation, without actually thinking through the best way of dealing with allegations of wrongdoing. As I have said, and as the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner of Kimble, has echoed, we do not want ever to see this Bill used. We hope that MPs will never find themselves in the position of triggering a recall petition. However, if it happens, we need to be sure that the most appropriate mechanisms and penalties are available to suit the particular misconduct. We may have it in this Bill, but we may not; it may not be right. Indeed, on the reverse side, it might be much better for other misconduct to trigger a recall petition rather than straight expulsion, as my noble friend Lord Dubs suggested. The proposal of a report to consider this in the round and come forward with proposals on that basis seems eminently sensible. I hope that the Government will support this amendment.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, behind this issue are some large questions about the role of election courts and the seriousness of electoral offences such as electoral fraud. The role of election courts is to assess whether electoral fraud has taken place and to determine whether it has had a material impact on the outcome of an election. I know that what happened to Phil Woolas preoccupies a number of noble Lords on the Labour Benches. I went back and looked at that sad history and I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, suggested in Committee that he be acquitted on appeal. He was indeed acquitted of one of the three offences but the other two were affirmed.

Electoral fraud is a serious business. I can think of other potential occasions where we could find ourselves with contested results of elections. We had a contested issue in east London in local elections where the severity of what is pled or what might perhaps have happened is not—as I think is being suggested here—something less serious than other potential misconduct. I understand the noble Lord’s intentions in tabling his amendment but I am not persuaded that, after two years, a particular fact will have come to light which would necessarily cause the Government of the day to reappraise the role of election courts, which is what this is really about.

I am also concerned that granting election courts the discretion to initiate a recall petition risks sending a confused message about the seriousness of electoral fraud as such. At present, there is a public expectation that those who commit offences that breach electoral law should face the appropriate penalty and that the appropriate penalty is set. Those offences are particularly relevant to the MP’s democratic mandate, and they are intended to affect the MP’s democratic mandate because, thankfully in this country, we have a very low level of electoral misconduct during campaigns and of electoral fraud; but we are conscious that the potential is always there. In the event that fraud has been committed by a sitting MP, his or her constituents might be confused if they were asked to sign a recall petition, knowing that an election court had already identified proven wrongdoing on the MP’s part.

The Government do not consider that this Bill should be a vehicle for the election court’s functions to be adapted, or for the consequences of established electoral offences to be altered; that is a different and other serious set of issues. There is also a risk that an MP, having been subjected to a recall petition by the election court, could then be prosecuted and sentenced in the criminal courts for an offence of which the election court had found him or her guilty. If the MP had held on to his or her seat following the first recall petition and were then sentenced to a period of imprisonment of 12 months or less, this could trigger another recall petition under the first recall condition.

There are some complicated issues here, but I end where I started. Election fraud or an election offence during a campaign that materially affects the outcome of that election are serious offences. That is the role of election courts. However, the Government are not persuaded that we should now downgrade the severity of that offence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Norton of Louth]

My Lords, I, too, very much welcome this amendment. It is a step in the right direction. I have just one question for my noble friend. Why was the consultation to which he referred not undertaken before the Bill was introduced?

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

I am going to be a little more generous than the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and thank the Minister for listening to the debate on the amendment that we moved in Committee. He will not be surprised that we are delighted with this. Not only is it the right answer in itself, but I also think that it will reduce the demand for postal votes. That will save the resources of the petition officer—their time, their staff and their money—because there will be less need for people to apply for postal votes. So we are very happy to support this government amendment.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, I am most grateful for the generous comments that have been made. As I said, this has come forward because it makes practical sense. If there is an unfortunate instance of recall, it is important that constituents, wherever they are from—the islands or the large constituencies—have the ability to sign if they so wish. So far as my noble friend Lord Norton is concerned, as I said at the beginning, our basis for the maximum of four signing places was because that was what the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee had recommended. If I have further particulars on that, I will of course write to him, but that was the basis for four. However, what has happened in the other place and in your Lordships’ House has ensured that sense has prevailed, so I commend the amendment to your Lordships.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Norton of Louth]

My Lords, I, too, support this amendment for the reasons we discussed in Committee. I argued then that the number of signing places should be expanded and the period of time in which you can sign reduced. The Government have got half way there, so I hope that they will now go the rest of the way as well, for the reasons that have been well advanced.

Like other noble Lords, I cannot understand the rationale for eight weeks. As the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, said, it is much longer than an election campaign. In the case of one election, the Prime Minister announced it and it took place four weeks to the day after that. However, here we are saying that twice as long should be available for people to reflect on whether they should sign a petition—eight weeks. Why on earth should anyone take eight weeks to think about whether they should sign a petition or not? The news about the Member being eligible will be out quickly. It will be in the news and, as has been touched on, it will then cease to be newsworthy after a matter of days, if that. Why are we going to linger for weeks with people sat at polling stations twiddling their thumbs waiting for people to turn up and sign? I can see no argument for that length of time. It is not even as if we are still in the period where it took days for news to reach people and they then had to rely on some slow means of transport to get somewhere to actually sign something. Even if we were in that period, they could do it in less than eight weeks. Why nowadays, with instant communication and the ability to get to one of potentially 10 places to sign fairly quickly, do we need as long as eight weeks? It may be an arbitrary figure, but why eight rather than, say, six?

The noble Lord, Lord Howarth, said that he is flexible and that it could be four or five weeks. I thought he was, if anything, generous in saying three weeks. Why on earth would you need three weeks to reflect? Are you going to call the family together to hold great deliberations about whether you should sign it or not? Once you know about it, you think about it and then you decide whether you are going to make the effort to go and sign the petition—you go and sign and that is it. That could be quite easily achieved within a period of three weeks and, to be honest, one could achieve it with a much shorter period.

As I said, the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, is being quite generous in putting down that figure. Had he not put down his amendment, I would have put one down to reduce the period and would probably have chosen an even shorter period. The argument for his amendment is eminently rational. It does not raise any serious issue of principle in terms of recall per se, so I see no reason why the Government, having moved on the number of places where signing can take place, could not be moved just as easily on this. It makes perfect sense. There is also the practical point that was touched on about people having to staff the places at which signing can take place. There is a cost to the public purse, and we should not lose sight of that.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Howarth of Newport has made a good case for considering whether and why eight weeks is somehow the perfect period for the petition to run. We remain unclear on the question that my noble friend Lord Hughes raised as to why the Government chose this period—a question to which they never gave a clear answer in Committee. As I said before, two weeks, as it was then, did seem too short a period if it was to include the run-up to the signing period—in other words, the time to get the signing issues out and for everyone to get to know about them as well as the signing period itself.

The Electoral Commission thinks eight weeks is, in its words, a relatively “long signing period”. Certainly, in democratic terms, two months is a long period for an MP to be effectively out of the Commons and fighting to retain his or her seat. However, the period does have to be sufficient for people to know about it, to hear the debate and to come to a view, and three weeks probably is too short if it is to cover the whole of the public awareness period—I do not like the word campaign—as well as the actual signing period. Amendment 12, as it stands, might not be the right one, but it will be very interesting to hear whether the Government can give us any reason why they chose eight weeks and, even more interestingly, whether they are willing to consider some movement on this.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for tabling this amendment; we have had a very interesting debate. I appreciate that an eight-week period may seem lengthy, but the main reason why it was considered appropriate is that we thought it was important that constituents are given sufficient time to consider any available information from the Member of Parliament or from those concerned with the petition. I very much hope, as I said before, that we do not have these recall petitions. I hope and expect that the behaviour of Members of Parliament will be of the highest standard, and that this will not happen.

Recall of MPs Bill

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2015 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

21: Clause 16, page 11, line 37, at end insert—
“( ) A donation in relation to a recall petition may only be made by a permissible donor.”

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 21, I will speak to Amendments 22 and 23 as well. Amendment 21, in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, is an extremely important amendment. Amendments 21 and 22 together would restrict donations to all campaigners in the recall process to our normal rules. Thus it would forbid non-permitted—essentially foreign—donors flooding a constituency with money that they would be banned from giving to political parties. These amendments are not an attempt to restrict the activity of non-accredited campaigners who could have an important role to play in a recall but to ensure that this group of campaigners does not have access to funds from individuals or companies not domiciled here, funds which, quite rightly, are barred to MPs and political parties. Amendment 21 would ensure that all donations to both accredited and non-accredited campaigners are allowed only from permissible donors as defined in Schedule 4 Part 1 of the Bill. Amendment 22 would ensure that donations to non-accredited campaigns are treated the same as for accredited campaigns and covered by PPERA.

In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner of Kimble, stated that all campaigners will be subject to rules on the content of their literature, including imprints, as well as rules on acting in concert, notional petition expenses and pre-election expenses. We welcome this but it leaves the key matter of donations unregulated. Let me paint a picture for noble Lords and indeed the Electoral Commission, which in a rather odd briefing to us yesterday said:

“It is not clear what … benefit there would be to control the source of donations over £500 to campaigners who are only allowed to spend up to £500 on a petition”.

It must have read the amendment wrong because Amendment 21 would control all donations, not just those over £500. I shall explain why this amendment is needed. As the Bill stands, 20 separate donations of £500 could be given to individuals or campaigns all from foreign donors completely under the radar, equating to the same amount that could be spent by the one accredited campaign of the MP concerned who, of course, can take no such money.

In Committee the Minister indicated that he did not want overburdensome regulations for smaller, non-accredited campaigns. While I appreciate this, I think the Government have gone too far the other way by allowing these campaigns to spend up to £500 without any restriction on the source of their funds, possibly all of which could come from non-permissible donations. Stopping money from abroad is important in itself, while reporting the source of donations should surely be expected of all campaigners during such an important democratic process that the Government have said they want to be open and transparent. I hope that the Government will therefore accept the amendment to rule out the possibility of donations which would not be allowed during a general election, or indeed at any other time, being suddenly allowed during this significant period—the petition to sack an MP. The Electoral Commission somehow has bought, without query, the Government’s assumption that a petition would not,

“attract significant amounts of spending”.

Neither it nor the Government seem concerned that perhaps that assumption is misguided. The lack of control over donations is a glaring omission from the Bill, which we seek to rectify.

Amendment 23 is about fairness. It would take big money out of the equation and have just two accredited campaigns—one in favour of recall and one against. It would create a level playing field for the two sides, allowing voters to hold their MP to account while allowing that MP to make the case for remaining their representative. The wording of the amendment, which would limit the number of accredited campaigns to two—a pro and an anti-recall—is modelled on legislation governing the Scottish referendum. In that case, which we are not seeking to repeat, an equal monetary amount was prescribed for each side. That we regard as entirely sensible and fair, and it should be replicated during a recall—not the giving of money to both sides but ensuring an equality of arms between them so that they can each make their case: one for a by-election and one against. There are just two sides to the argument and they should be equally matched. There can be no case, on the grounds of fairness, against that.

Without Amendment 23 there is no limit on the number of pro-recall accredited campaigns, each of which could spend £10,000, against the MP’s single £10,000, so that one side could outspend the other five or even 10 times over. For example, an MP in a three or four-way marginal could face the three or more parties defeated at the previous election, each of them able to spend £10,000 to force a by-election, and that is before any local or national group decided to take an interest in the matter. We surely have to regulate against this, otherwise the reasons behind a recall being triggered will be thrown out of the window and the issue will become one of asking, “Do we want a by-election?”. If it is a marginal seat or if the Government have a majority of one, the answer will be driven by that and not by the behaviour of the incumbent MP. Therefore, voters will not be signing to hold their representative to account for his or her actions but it will be a referendum on the popularity of the Government, the surge of support for a new, emergent party, a campaign on fracking or whatever. Money and broader politics will count, not the record of the MP concerned.

A recall petition will have been triggered by a single event—say, a sentence of imprisonment or 10 days’ suspension from the House. However, multiple groups could then run individual campaigns on grounds entirely different from the reasons behind the recall. These could be the voting record or beliefs of the MP, or the availability of a national platform to launch a campaign on some topical issue—Europe comes to mind, should a promised referendum not materialise. Without a limit on the pro-by-election campaign, myriad groups could make their case, each spending £10,000 on the back of their MP’s misbehaviour.

I note that the Electoral Commission, in its briefing, does not feel that it,

“should be given the responsibility of registering campaigners at an event that is confined to only one constituency”.

I do not think that it is for the commission to decide whether it is up to it, but if Parliament accepts the fairness of this amendment then either the Electoral Commission should do this to ensure that our politics are kept clean of big money or we can ask some other body to do so.

We support the recall process, as it follows a finding about an MP’s behaviour and gives the local electorate the chance to decide whether, in the light of that conduct, they still want the MP to be their representative in Parliament. However, that process must be fair. Our amendment would introduce a crucial element of fairness, an equality of arms and a top limit on the total expenditure permitted in the constituency during this process. It would also make sure that we had control over foreign money coming in during the recall process. I beg to move.

[Lord Hughes of Woodside (Lab)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend’s amendment. At an early stage this evening, the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, said that he thought and hoped that the recall process would be effective and be conducted politely in a civilised manner. I wish that that were the case. I think that what divides us across the Chamber throughout this Bill is not so much the principle—I think we all agree with the principle—but how it will be approached. Some people may think there has been exaggeration of how bodies coming from outside the constituency to fight against the MP are calling for recall on issues unconnected with his or her particular misdemeanour; the fact is that that is what happens.

I will refer to something that happened a long time ago about how foreign Governments and parties can become involved in a British political event. When I was a councillor in the city of Aberdeen, I persuaded the town council to have a contract compliance clause in which no South African goods would be accepted. It was purely symbolic. If you bought a bottle of sherry a year, you were doing very well. It was an issue of principle. That clause went through. Unbeknown to me, the local shipyard had a contract to build two trawlers for a South African company. The next thing that happened was that on the scene came an organisation called the South Africa Foundation. I should say that the South Africa Foundation of the 1960s is quite different from any South African foundations today, which serve good, charitable purposes, so let there be no misunderstanding. At that time, the foundation said that unless the council rescinded that decision, it would have the contract cancelled. Imagine what the local press thought of that. I went down to the shipyard and spoke to about 300 workers. They said that they were going to build the ships. I said, “I didn’t ask you not to build the ships”. They said, “But it will stop the contract”. I said that the South African company was bluffing, and that, in any event, the South Africa Foundation was simply a front organisation for the South African Government. I did not deny that the South Africa Foundation and the South African Government had reason to come and challenge the views of Aberdeen. That was fair enough; their interests were at stake. But that was quite a different matter from trying to unseat an MP in a competition based on something else.

In the event, although I declared the South Africa Foundation a front for the South African Government, and it threatened to sue—I must say, that gave me some sleepless nights—it abandoned that when I pointed out that the organisation had on its letter heading South African Railways and Harbours Board, South Africa Marine, Eskom and all the South African industries which, in those days, were publicly owned and called parastatals. So that was dropped. That was simply one example of how they could come in. Had they decided to come in, with a lot of money, to unseat an MP—I think they would have done—that could distort the whole purpose of this recall Bill.

Although I share the views of many in this House who have declared that the Bill is unworkable and inflexible, nevertheless, I accept the general principle that MPs should not be totally free to do what they like. That has never been my position, nor is it, I believe, the position of Members on this side of the House. So, on the issue of funding, if there were strict control of funding in the general election, there would have to be at least the same limit on funding and a recall petition. It is straightforward and simple. I cannot believe that the Government would oppose this amendment in any way, as it is perfectly sensible and reasonable. So I hope that your Lordships will not think that those of us who oppose the Bill are taking rather fanciful, overblown or overdramatic views of the situation. Having been at the coalface for 27 years, I know how different bodies can go at things.

I want to say something that has nothing whatever to do with the Bill. I see in the press that the coalition is considering devolving abortion matters to the Scottish Parliament. I beg the Government not to do so. It is the most divisive issue of all in Scotland. What we need in this case is unity and some sense of proportion. However, perhaps the Minister will draw that to the attention of his colleague, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury.

Having got that off my chest, what we want to do—and we are all in favour of it—is to strengthen the House of Commons and Members of Parliament. We must try to regain—I was going to say the high regard that people had for MPs but I do not think people ever had a high regard for MPs. I think there was a misunderstanding. I think that MPs had some respect, which is a different matter altogether. We are reaching a stage in this Bill where, if we do not put this right, it will be a shambles. I hope that the Government accept this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I understand that. It is a one-horse race, of course. The other does not have a horse at all, so to speak. The Government are not prepared to designate a single lead campaigner on either side. We are not persuaded that an overall limit is practical or measurable, but that is one of the things we will come to in Amendment 24. There are several issues in this, as I well understand, including the question of foreign non-permissible donations, which we will come to in Amendment 24.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, it is interesting that it was the Minister himself who mentioned the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill. Not everyone was here for that, but once charities go into a single campaign they have to take responsibility for the expenditure of others; they have to nominate a lead, and the expenditure of a small charity goes against the upper limit on what a big charity can spend. The Government were very happy to do that but somehow this is different.

This is really a nonsense. It is not about the MP having lots of people on their side. If it was a Labour person who had been kept out of the House for 10 days, the Conservatives, the Lib Dems, UKIP and the Greens would all be voting for a by-election. Each could spend £10,000 and the Minister is clearly content with that.

I am even more unhappy about the Minister’s complete acceptance that foreign money up to £500 can come in, not controlled in the way that we control donations —very sensibly and rightly—to the political process from those who have no skin in the game as far as our elections are concerned. We will have non-doms, tax evaders, anyone—all giving up to £500, and the Government are quite content with that. It is for that reason that I ask the Government to go through the Lobbies and vote for the continuation of this Bill, which will allow foreign money up to £500 to be given. I beg to test the opinion of the House so that people outside can see that that is what the Government are content with.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Grocott]

I would have preferred the amendment of my noble friend Lord Soley, but this one is eminently sensible. The idea of a review after six years appeals to me. I put in an early bid to be a member of the reviewing committee, so that I could have the great pleasure of pointing out that the whole operation really was a waste of time, and being able to employ my favourite phrase: “I told you so”.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, I am now trying to think what would tempt the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, to vote with us. It does not work when I say the same thing as our Back-Benchers; it does not work when I say the same as the Government. I am not sure that I am ever going to get him into our voting Lobby.

[Lord Rennard]

It presumably works when I agree with the noble Baroness’s arguments. Sadly, I may not on this amendment.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

There may have been others when the noble Lord did.

As we said earlier, the idea of reviewing the Bill—in that case it was to see how it fitted with the cases taken to the electoral court—seems entirely sensible. It is a new part of our democratic structure and one that could impact both on how MPs see their role and how constituents view their ability to hold MPs to account. While the Act is new, we will need to see whether it achieves the aims set for it. We must also review whether, as we fear and as the House has heard, big money could enter the equation; or, failing that, whether local electors who participated in a recall feel empowered by it or cheated by it, or that it was not what they expected. Anyway, we think that all Bills should be subject to some post-legislative scrutiny to ensure that they solve whatever they were set up to meet, and we support a review once the process has been used.

What surprises me is that the noble Lords, Lord Norton and Lord Tyler, who is not in his place, should want a review in the hands of a committee with an in-built Commons majority. As my noble friend Lord Kennedy said just now, we foresee a bigger role for an independent organisation, the Electoral Commission, in reviewing the workings of the Act, should it ever be used. Therefore, I am particularly surprised that an eminent academic, the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, does not want a more vigorous and independent look at the operation of the Act. I am equally surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, who in Committee argued for an independent trigger out of the hands of MPs, now wants a review conducted by a Committee with a majority of MPs. Sadly, he is not here to explain himself.

[Baroness Maddock (LD)]

Can I please explain why my noble friend is not here? He has not been well of late, and he was advised that he should not stay late tonight.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

I thank the noble Baroness for that. In return, I send our good wishes for his rapid return—not necessarily to voting, perhaps, as we never approve of the way in which he votes, but we like to hear his voice. He has our good wishes for a speedy recovery.

The principle of reviewing this new part of our democratic institution, which could be a significant part, is right. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will say something positive—although he never says anything positive to me—about the possibility of a proper review of this measure, once it has been put into use.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, the Government are fully persuaded of the merits of post-legislative scrutiny as a general principle. There are frequently valuable lessons to be learnt for the future, and the Government are always happy to listen to and consider recommendations arising from such reviews.

As noble Lords have said, the Government have included review clauses in several of their Acts this Parliament, including ones affecting constitutional or electoral matters. However, the Government have some reservations in this case. My noble friend’s amendment commits to a review after five years. That is a reasonable period in some respects, but it is of course by no means certain that there will have been a recall petition by that point. In fact, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, was getting very close to that. A review of an Act which has not had the opportunity to operate as intended would be severely limited in its usefulness. It would be unable to consider the operation of the recall process, and its conclusions would have to be to some extent hypothetical.

Recall does not have to be regularly used for the power to be a good addition to democracy. Indeed, as I have said before—and I hope noble Lords will understand my good intent—the Government fervently hope that no petition is triggered because Members’ conduct is of the highest standard expected. I am sure that noble Lords would not suggest that Parliament’s disciplinary powers should lapse simply because Members’ behaviour does not cause them to be used.

It is, of course, open to Parliament and to the Government of the day to review legislation on their own initiative, without a statutory requirement to do so. It would be entirely appropriate for a parliamentary committee to conduct its own post-legislative scrutiny at such a point as it felt that it would be useful to do so. I am sure that the Government of the day would be more than happy to reflect on any considerations that might be brought forward in that case.

I hope that we will not have a recall because the standards of Members of Parliament are very high, so will not need a review. The Government are not happy about my noble friend’s amendment and we ask him to withdraw it, because in this case we are not convinced that it would be of the use that we know he intends. If there has not been a trigger, it would not be the sort of valuable review that we would like were we to have reviews. I hope that he feels able to withdraw his amendment.

Deregulation Bill

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Thursday 5th February 2015 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

34: After Clause 83, insert the following new Clause—
“Recognised bodies
(1) The Administration of Justice Act 1985 is amended as follows.
(2) In the title of section 32 (provision of conveyancing services by recognised bodies) after “conveyancing” insert “or other”.
(3) In section 32—
(a) in subsection (1)(a) after “conveyancing services bodies” insert “or CLC practitioner services bodies”;(b) in subsection (1)(b)—(i) for “such bodies” substitute “conveyancing services bodies”;(ii) for the words from “to undertake” to the end substitute—“(a) the provision of conveyancing services,(b) the administration of oaths,(c) the exercise of a right of audience,(d) the conduct of litigation,(e) probate activities, or(f) the provision of other relevant legal services;”;(c) after subsection (1)(b) insert—“(bza) prescribing the circumstances in which CLC practitioner services bodies may be recognised by the Council as being suitable bodies to undertake—(i) the administration of oaths,(ii) the exercise of a right of audience,(iii) the conduct of litigation,(iv) probate activities, or(v) the provision of other relevant legal services;”;(d) in subsection (1)(ba) for the words from “carry on” to the end substitute—“(i) reserved instrument activities, where the recognised body is a conveyancing services body,(ii) the administration of oaths,(iii) the exercise of a right of audience,(iv) the conduct of litigation,(v) probate activities, or(vi) other relevant legal services;”;(e) in subsection (3)(e) after “those bodies” insert “(including information about disciplinary measures taken)”;(f) in subsection (3C) after paragraph (a) insert—“(aa) conditions restricting the kinds of CLC practititioner services that may be provided by the body;”; and(g) for subsection (8) substitute—“(8) In this section—
“administration of oaths” has the same meaning as in the Legal Services Act 2007 (see section 12 of, and Schedule 2 to, that Act);
“CLC practitioner services” has the meaning given by section 32B;
“CLC practitioner services body” has the meaning given by section 32B;
“conduct of litigation” has the same meaning as in the Legal Services Act 2007 (see section 12 of, and Schedule 2 to, that Act);
“conveyancing services body” has the meaning given by section 32A;
“probate activities” has the same meaning as in the Legal Services Act 2007 (see section 12 of, and Schedule 2 to, that Act);
“relevant legal services”—
(a) in relation to a conveyancing services body, has the meaning given by section 32A; and(b) in relation to a CLC practitioner services body, has the meaning given by section 32B;“reserved instrument activities” has the same meaning as in the Legal Services Act 2007 (see section 12 of, and Schedule 2 to, that Act);
“right of audience” has the same meaning as in the Legal Services Act 2007 (see section 12 of, and Schedule 2 to, that Act).”
(4) After section 32A (conveyancing services bodies) insert—
“32B CLC practitioner services bodies
(1) For the purposes of section 32, a “CLC practitioner services body” means a body (corporate or unincorporate) in respect of which—
(a) the management and control condition,(b) the services condition, and(c) the authorised person condition,are satisfied.(2) The management and control condition is satisfied in the case of a partnership if at least one of the partners is a licensed conveyancer or a licensed CLC practitioner.
(3) The management and control condition is satisfied in the case of an unincorporated body (other than a partnership), or a body corporate which is managed by its members, if at least one of those members is a licensed conveyancer or a licensed CLC practitioner.
(4) The management and control condition is satisfied in the case of any other body corporate if at least one director of the body is a licensed conveyancer or a licensed CLC practitioner.
(5) The services condition is satisfied in respect of a body if—
(a) the body is carrying on a business consisting of the provision of—(i) CLC practitioner services; or(ii) CLC practitioner services and other relevant legal services; and(b) the body does not provide conveyancing services.(6) The authorised person condition is satisfied if the licensed conveyancer or licensed CLC practitioner by reference to whom the management and control condition is satisfied, or one of the persons by reference to whom that condition is satisfied, is an authorised person in respect of any of the CLC practitioner services that are provided by the body.
(7) For the purposes of this section—
(a) a reference to CLC practitioner services is a reference to those of the following reserved legal activities in relation to which the Council is designated as an approved regulator—(i) the administration of oaths,(ii) the exercise of a right of audience,(iii) the conduct of litigation, and(iv) probate activities;(b) a reference to designation as an approved regulator is a reference to designation as an approved regulator—(i) by Part 1 of Schedule 4 to the Legal Services Act 2007, by virtue of an order under paragraph 5 of Schedule 22 to that Act; or(ii) under Part 2 of Schedule 4 to that Act;(c) a person has an interest in a body if the person has an interest in the body within the meaning of Part 5 of the Legal Services Act 2007 (see sections 72 and 109 of that Act).(8) In this section—
“administration of oaths” has the same meaning as in the Legal Services Act 2007 (see section 12 of, and Schedule 2 to, that Act);
“authorised person” means an authorised person in relation to an activity which is a reserved legal activity (within the meaning of the Legal Services Act 2007);
“conduct of litigation” has the same meaning as in the Legal Services Act 2007 (see section 12 of, and Schedule 2 to, that Act);
“probate activities” has the same meaning as in the Legal Services Act 2007 (see section 12 of, and Schedule 2 to, that Act);
“relevant legal services”, in relation to a CLC practitioner services body, means—
(a) CLC practitioner services; and(b) where authorised persons are managers or employees of, or have an interest in the body, such services as are provided by individuals practising as such authorised persons (whether or not those services involve the carrying on of reserved legal activities), except for conveyancing services;“reserved legal activity” has the same meaning as in the Legal Services Act 2007 (see section 12 of, and Schedule 2 to, that Act);
“right of audience” has the same meaning as in the Legal Services Act 2007 (see section 12 of, and Schedule 2 to, that Act).””

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendments 34 to 40 are tabled to help the Government, the Legal Services Board and the CLC out of a tiny hole, which is why I anticipate that they will shortly be accepted in principle.

Under the Legal Services Act 2007, the Council for Licensed Conveyancers is an approved regulator for reserved activities, probate and administration of oaths. It was designated a licensing authority for alternative business structures in 2011. However, it has recently been realised that the Administration of Justice Act 1985, which created the CLC and set out its powers, restricts the CLC from achieving its full regulatory ambitions and those of the 2007 Act. In particular, the CLC can regulate only licensed conveyancers. Therefore, potential probate lawyers would first have to qualify as conveyancers for the CLC to be able to regulate them. We know that that was never the intention, so the Ministry of Justice prepared the necessary draft secondary legislation to amend the CLC framework under the Legal Services Act. However, the MoJ then realised that the Legal Services Act did not provide the power to amend the 1985 Act. The change therefore needed primary legislation, hence these amendments.

The first piece of tidying-up would enable the CLC to regulate conveyancing bodies for all reserved legal activities for which it is designated, including enabling it to continue to regulate probate services, which it currently does under the transitional period in the Legal Services Act. The second would allow the CLC to regulate individuals and entities for the provision of legal services without them first having to be regulated for conveyancing. At the moment, the only reserved legal activity other than conveyancing is probate. It would seem a nonsense for someone who wants to do probate first to have to qualify as a licensed conveyancer if they had no intention of ever doing that work.

There are two further changes to simplify the appeals process against determinations by the CLC’s discipline and appeals committee. The first would allow appeals to the First-tier Tribunal instead of the High Court; the second would allow the CLC to appeal against its discipline and appeals committee’s determinations. In these amendments there is also a measure to allow the CLC automatically to suspend—not to revoke—the licences of practitioners, to protect clients and the public while the outcome of investigations and disciplinary action is awaited.

Finally, on the governing council of the CLC, there is presently a requirement that the number of lay members must exceed professional members by exactly one. To avoid any problems that may arise—for example, by the loss of one of the professional members for any reason—it would seem sensible for the lay majority to be expressed as “at least one”, so that the council’s work could continue with a larger lay majority should one of the professional members be unavailable.

The CLC undertook public consultation on all these changes last year. No objections to this were raised by anyone. I know that the changes have the support of the Legal Services Board and the Ministry of Justice. However, they cannot be achieved via Section 69 of the 2007 Act, hence these amendments, which I beg to move.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness. On this Bill, she wins first prize for length, technical detail and complexity of amendments, with a gold star for achieving this on two groups of amendments on entirely differently topics. I wondered, as I read through both of them and did my best to understand their complexity and technicality, whether the two groups were pushing in different directions: resisting a loosening of regulations on insolvency practitioners, but promoting a loosening of regulations on conveyancers.

The Government welcome the principles behind the amendment and are in full agreement with the noble Baroness that these restrictions should be removed. The Government also agree that the other measures are sensible and proportionate. However, we have some reservations about the exact terms of the amendment and would very much like to take it away and tweak it in various ways, returning with a government amendment at Third Reading. I therefore commit to coming forward with our own amendments at Third Reading to achieve the aims of the noble Baroness’s amendments. I hope that, with that assurance, she will feel able to withdraw her amendment at this stage.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

Provided that the Minister does not expect me to read through the whole of his new amendments in great detail to check that they are correct, I am very happy to accept that we will deal with this at Third Reading, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 34 withdrawn.

Deregulation Bill

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, it is perhaps fair to say that four years ago this amendment would have been tabled by the Government, as David Cameron was at that point in favour of minimum unit pricing, not necessarily at 50p but perhaps at 60p or some other figure. Given the Government’s change of heart on that, we have instead the amendments tabled by some of the country’s greatest experts on the damage caused by alcohol: two eminent doctors, a bishop who sees the problems caused to families as well as to the health of heavy drinkers themselves, and my noble friend Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, who has campaigned for so many years on this issue.

We debate this on the day that Professor Neil Greenberg, the lead on military health at the Royal College of Psychiatrists has said that the Government’s strategy for combating alcohol abuse in the Armed Forces is ineffective. As he says,

“we know that alcohol education doesn’t really work at all, and the evidence from the civilian population is that it’s a terribly ineffective way of stopping people from drinking”.

His words echo those of the Commons Defence Select Committee that the Government’s strategy has not made any noticeable impact on the high levels of excessive drinking in the Armed Forces. Critics argue that the problem is made worse by prices of less than £2 a pint in some military bars. That is, of course, £1 per unit for regular beer, but this amendment seeks a minimum of only half that amount.

Price by itself is, of course, not the answer, as my noble friend Lord Brooke said, and Labour has a wider vision for reducing alcohol-related harm. We want communities to be able to stop their high streets being overrun with new bars and a licensing system which enhances the voice of local communities in licensing decisions. We should look at whether councils should have more power to strengthen conditions on licensed premises and, importantly, we want to make public health a mandatory factor to be taken into account in all licensing. However, this was rejected by the Government when we proposed making public health a licensing condition in 2011.

Although at present local authorities can take account of the prevention of crime or nuisance, public safety and child protection in deciding on licence applications, they cannot consider public health consequences. Labour would make public health a licensing objective and include the director of public health as a key consultee in the creation of a licensing statement. We want public health engrained throughout the licensing system so that measures promoting health, which could include action against high-strength, low-cost products, are included in the licensing statement, and we want to tackle the public health problems associated with drinking by children, some of whom will be at the very functions at which the clause allows alcohol to be sold.

I look forward, as ever, to hearing the Minister trying to wriggle his way out of David Cameron’s decision to drop his commitment to minimum unit pricing. While he is on his feet, perhaps he could also explain why the Chief Medical Officer’s review of safe drinking levels, which was promised in the summer, has yet to appear. Perhaps that is another ducking of the issue. Most of all, I would welcome his assurance that, with hindsight, the Government accept the case for public health being a licensing consideration and his support for that objective.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, as I was having my supper, with my glass of water, it occurred to me that when I first joined the House of Lords, we often had the phenomenon of the after-dinner speech in which someone, very often from the Conservative side of the House, would deliver an extremely florid speech with high rhetorical flourishes. This Chamber has improved quite considerably over the past 15 years in its attitude to alcohol.

I am sorry to have to tell the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, that my noble friend Lord Gardiner tells me that President Putin has just announced that he is lowering the duty on alcohol in Russia, presumably for the reason that alcohol is what people wish to take refuge in when they are miserable for all sorts of reasons, and there are a lot of reasons why people in Russia are miserable at present.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

Or perhaps elections are coming, as they are in this country.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I was not aware that the Government were thinking about lowering the duty.

The Government recognise that the whole issue of alcohol abuse is a very serious one for this country and that it feeds into public order, public health and a whole range of other issues. I travel into Leeds on Saturday nights, and there are many other cities in Yorkshire where, of a Saturday evening, I often wonder whether the younger generation will die of alcohol abuse or hypothermia first, since they wear almost nothing when they go out on to the streets. I do not know how on earth they manage to get drunk and not break their ankles when their shoes are so impractical. That is the sort of problem we face. I recognise, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, remarked, that we have a growing middle-age—or even over-middle-age—problem, but that binge-drinking among the young is one of the problems we have, and it feeds directly into A&E late on Saturday evening. I spent an afternoon with Leeds city police during which all that was made very firmly clear to me.

On the question of selling liquor below cost price, I think we are all aware that supermarkets are the biggest single part of the problem, as they sell loss leaders and cheap alcohol, be that cheap wine or cider below cost price. My answer on this set of amendments to this Bill is that, while I recognise the argument which we all need to have about how best to pursue further the Government’s alcohol strategy, and how we move towards minimum unit pricing, this is not the place to do it. Here, we propose relaxation in two specific small areas. The first is that of small hotels and bed and breakfast accommodation, where we are talking about a nightcap in the evening, which would probably be included in the overall bill—so at that point the question of the price is hard to get at. Then there are events of the sort which I occasionally go to in village barns or community centres, which usually have licences that allow them to sell alcohol only 12 to 15 times a year, when there is a community event. Therefore we are dealing specifically with ancillary sellers and community groups. That is not where alcohol problems come from.

In the part of Yorkshire in which I spend my weekends, there is a great revival of brewing, but of good-quality beer, which is not the sort of thing people get wildly drunk on. On a very cold Saturday last weekend, I asked whether the pub I had gone into had any “winter warmer”—which has a rather higher level of alcohol one can get at this time of year. However, they said, “No, we don’t brew that any longer”, but then offered me a great variety of extremely tasty local 3.5% beers, of which my wife and I consumed a certain amount. That is light years away from the problems that we have with large-scale alcohol abuse. Of course, the third element of alcohol abuse is abuse by those who are mentally disturbed or depressed, which is the Buckie or cheap cider end of the market.

I stress that the Government have not abandoned their alcohol strategy; minimum unit price was only ever part of that strategy. The noble Lord is right to say that the Government are watching the appeal in Scotland and waiting until that has been settled before we move further on minimum unit pricing within England. The Scots Government are themselves awaiting the outcome of the ECJ appeal. As an interim measure, the Government have introduced a ban on selling alcohol again in supermarkets—the biggest single part of the problem—below the cost of duty and VAT combined. Some were selling it as a loss leader below that level. The University of Sheffield has estimated that, in the first year of the ban on sales below duty plus VAT, there will be 100 fewer alcohol-related hospital admissions per year—and, as it got under way, 500 fewer per year, 14 fewer alcohol-related deaths per year, and so on. That is small beer—if noble Lords will excuse me—and a small achievement compared with what minimum alcohol pricing may offer, but it is a small step in what I hope noble Lords will recognise is the right direction.

Alcohol abuse is a real problem for this country. The question of alcohol pricing—in particular of loss-leader pricing—is one which we are much concerned about. This is not a matter for bed and breakfast and community events. It is a matter for city centre clubs at the weekend. It is a very serious matter for supermarkets. That is the direction in which the Government are looking. Therefore, on this particular issue, I cannot give the noble Lord much comfort, because we are dealing here with social drinking of a moderate level. The case where we need to look at minimum unit pricing and alcohol abuse is in a much broader context and in a different context from the average bed and breakfast in Upper Airedale or Upper Wharfedale, which is what we are talking about here—let alone the village barn in Cotterstock, or wherever it may be. For that reason, I am unable to satisfy the noble Lord on this issue.

Nevertheless, I recognise the deep concerns the noble Lord has about the alcohol issue as a whole. I would love to talk further with him about the development of alcoholic sorbets—which, I have to say, I have never yet seen, let alone tasted—and how those are being promoted. As we know, there are also some very serious concerns about the combination of sugar and alcohol in pop drinks for young people, which combines alcohol abuse and the making people obese at the same time. Let us continue to discuss those issues further. Those are the areas on which an alcohol abuse strategy needs to focus—not, I suggest, bed and breakfasts or community barns.

Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Tuesday 27th January 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, the noble Lord demonstrates that his conservatism on constitutional matters is as deep as that of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott. It was in the Labour Party’s manifesto for the last election that it would legislate on a fixed-term Parliament—as indeed in others. This transfer of, what was after all, executive power to Parliament was, one would have thought, an extension of our democratic system and a limit on prime ministerial power.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister said that it is too soon to decide whether this is a good thing. The sad thing is that the other place seems to be working part-time, so why are the Government not using their planning for better use of Parliament during the extended period?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, that is something that we need to learn about five-year Parliaments. There are some very good proposals from the Institute for Government and from the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee about how best to use the fifth year of a Parliament to discuss some of the issues that any Government will have to deal with—for example, Green Papers on the future of the National Health Service, et cetera. That is something which, in a future five-year Parliament, perhaps with another stable coalition Government, we might do. We have delivered stable government through difficult economic times for five years, unlike the Labour Governments of 1974 to 1979, and others. That is a very major advantage.