Pension Protection Fund (Moratorium and Arrangements and Reconstructions for Companies in Financial Difficulty) Regulations 2020

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Wednesday 16th September 2020 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Stedman-Scott) (Con)]

My Lords, in moving this Motion I should clarify remarks I made during the debate on these regulations, which took place in Grand Committee on Monday, concerning their application to certain charitable incorporated organisations. Following the making and laying of these regulations, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport made the Charitable Incorporated Organisations (Insolvency and Dissolution) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2020, which disapplied Section A51 of the Insolvency Act 1986 in relation to charitable incorporated organisations. Section A51 was cited in the making of the SI before the House, which means that as a result of the DCMS regulations the provisions in this SI have not applied to charitable incorporated organisations since 13 August 2020. This does not affect the validity of the powers used to make these regulations; the powers applied to charitable incorporated organisations at the time this SI was made. Likewise, its application to charitable incorporated organisations until 13 August is not affected.

The legal effect of the DCMS SI is one of implied repeal of the provisions from that date onwards. So far as they apply to charitable incorporated organisations, a legal position, we think, is clear. The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport has since indicated in a memorandum to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments its intention to bring forward legislation, at the next available opportunity, to correct the position to that reflected in the regulations before the House today.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister, but I cannot have been the only one in your Lordships’ House struggling to follow the information she gave to us. I was not 100% clear because she said that the “legal position, we think, is clear”. I do not know whether that means “We are not sure whether it is clear; we only think it is clear”, or whether those who debated this in Committee have been made aware of the information she has brought before your Lordships’ House today.

I have not fully understood the implications of everything she said—I do not know whether other noble Lords have. It may be that it has no material impact, but maybe it does. Before we agree this Motion today, I wonder whether she ought to consult those who were in that Committee so that everyone who debated the regulations is clear that there is no material difference, given the rather lengthy and complex explanation she has given today.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

I am happy to respond to the noble Baroness’s points; this is, indeed, a complex matter. I am confident that the legislation we intend to bring forward at the earliest opportunity will clarify matters, but I will consult with the Members of the Grand Committee to make sure that everybody is clear about the impact of this change.

[The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)]

The Question is that the Motion in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, be agreed to. As many—

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I think that the Minister has just said that, before agreeing it, she will take it back to Members to see if they are happy with it because there is some complication. That was the implication of what she said: she was not going to put it forward for a vote today until she had consulted people.

She is checking with the Clerk so I will keep talking for a second while she gets advice. However, I am still not clear. I thought she said she was agreeing to take it back and consult with Members who were on that Committee.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

I am advised that I am not able to withdraw the Motion, but I am quite happy to make sure that people understand exactly what is meant. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Noble Lords]

Not Content.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I will not necessarily push this to a vote at the moment, but I say to the Minister that the reason why she says it cannot be withdrawn is that it comes into force today. If she has not consulted Members of the Committee on something so complex before bringing a Motion to your Lordships’ House today, there is a serious issue here. Are these “made affirmative” regulations, which come into force whether we debate and agree them or not? I am not clear. I have to be honest that I am completely at a loss as to what is happening at the moment, but it seems that there is some question mark over the validity of this and whether it is correct. I may be wrong and everything may be in order. However, it was complex and I did not fully understand what she was putting forward today.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

I advise that they are “made affirmative” and to be dealt with today. I can only reaffirm what I have said: it is a complex matter but I am confident that the legislation we intend to bring forward at the earliest opportunity will clarify matters.

Unemployment: Disabled People

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Thursday 20th October 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freud]

I want to make it absolutely clear: PIP is a better benefit than the DLA it replaces. More people are receiving the top rates of PIP than they are of DLA: 24% in PIP and 15% in DLA. We have other ways of supporting people who are in work and who have some element of disability but are not eligible for PIP, and we are looking very hard at building up the Access to Work system, and to increasing the numbers who can take advantage of it.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, can the Minister confirm that “disability” also includes those with a learning disability? Secondly, funding for the new work and health programme appears to be just a third of what was available for previous programmes. Can the Minister explain to your Lordships’ House how this funding will be allocated and why the Government consider it adequate?

[Lord Freud]

We are moving the emphasis away from more general support programmes such as the Work Programme towards the work and health programme because many of the people who need support have disability barriers. It is right for the new emphasis to be there. I absolutely accept the noble Baroness’s point about people with learning disabilities. There are some shocking figures on this and it is a key issue. There are some 1.1 million people with learning disabilities and only around 6% of those are getting into work. Clearly, if we want to halve the gap, that is a central group for us to pay attention to.

Pensions: British Citizens Overseas

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Wednesday 24th February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Altmann]

The speculated potential savings, were people to move back to this country, have not been costed, but the costs of full uprating for the state pension in countries where it is currently not uprated would be more than £500 million a year.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, because of accelerated equalisation, many women who had,

“made careful financial plans to ensure their small savings could last them until state pension age … now find that they will be left for up to two years with nothing to live on - despite doing what the Government urges everyone to do and plan ahead for their future”.

Those are not my words. Does the Minister still agree with the comments that I took off her personal website today, and can she tell the House what she and other Ministers are doing to alleviate that situation?

[Baroness Altmann]

My Lords, the maximum increase that any woman will face as a result of the 2011 Act changes was reduced from two years to 18 months.

Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Code of Practice for Surveillance Camera Systems and Specification of Relevant Authorities) Order 2013

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Tuesday 30th July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her explanation. I should point out that I am only “Lady Basildon” on Twitter; it is usually Smith, but I am pleased to have the Minister as a follower on Twitter. There are two orders before us today, but she has rightly addressed the one that I raised concerns about. We raised and discussed the other one, about the national security determinations relating to DNA and biometric information, in Committee.

The Minister is quite right that the order which I am speaking about, the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Code of Practice for Surveillance Camera Systems and Specification of Relevant Authorities) Order 2013, was debated in Committee. I am sorry—I say this with regret and not as a criticism—that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, is not here today; not because we are not pleased to see the noble Baroness, but because we discussed this in Committee. I said to him on 7 July that if I remained dissatisfied with the answers to our queries and concerns, then we would look to debate it on the Floor of the House. The noble Lord helpfully wrote to me, seeking to address those concerns, but some remain, which is why we are debating this again today,

As pleased as we are to see the noble Baroness, we therefore regret that the noble Lord is not able to be here today. However, no doubt the noble Baroness will have read the debate, will have seen the letter that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, sent me, and will be aware of the concerns that I raised. She sought to air them today, but I regret that in her short comments she was unable to do so. I do not want to repeat the Committee debate—that would be unwelcome at this time on the last day of term—but I will summarise the concerns and explain why we remain concerned. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to give further information and might seek to address some of the points that have been raised and not fully answered.

The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee made the point that the Government needed to justify how the benefits offset additional bureaucracy, and the wider application of the code. Those two issues stand together. There is significant increased bureaucracy and cost for local authorities and the police, as I outlined previously. This is addressed in the impact assessment. In Committee and in his letter to me, the noble Lord addressed this. He said in his letter that the Local Government Association agreed that it was difficult to assess the costs involved. He then added that it was around £1.6 million each and every year, although given the information on the impact assessment, this is a conservative estimate and could be much higher. The impact assessment suggests that is the best estimate and that it could be as high as £3 million each and every year, and that the best estimate for the one-off transition costs is over £14 million and could be as high as £29 million.

In his letter the noble Lord also stated that the best estimate values had been shared between 350 local authorities and 46 police authorities. However, as both the letter of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, and the impact assessment make clear, the impact assessment assumes that,

“many of the local authorities and police forces … are already operating broadly within its”—

that is, the code’s—

“guiding principles where they relate to existing obligations. Thus the additional burdens and bureaucracy are likely to fall where systems and the accountability for decision-making need to be strengthened to protect the public”.

That implies to me that the conservative estimate of £1.6 million annually and the additional £14 million transition costs are not being shared across all local authorities and police forces because when the costs in the impact assessment were estimated it was done on the basis that many—I think it was 25% to 50%—would not incur any additional costs.

A further difficulty which was raised in Committee but has not been addressed is that this order applies only to the public and not the private sector. The Explanatory Memorandum quotes the policy background and refers to the advantages of CCTV. It also refers to the disadvantages, including,

“the extent to which private lives are exposed to ever greater scrutiny by other individuals, organisations or the State, leading in some instances to a potential exposure to criminality, or more generally, to an erosion of personal privacy”.

The order is therefore being promoted as a protection of civil liberties against the power of individuals, organisations and the state. However, it does not apply to individuals, organisations and the state; it applies only to the state and public institutions. So if these guidelines are so essential to protect civil liberties, why does the policy giving effect to the Government’s principles outlined so boldly in the Explanatory Memorandum only apply to the public sector? Can the noble Baroness tell me what percentage of CCTV cameras the order covers? I know that previously the Minister said that this was because they were in a public place, but so are shopping centres; shop and office cameras look onto the street. Do the same principles apply to those CCTV cameras as to the ones that police and local authorities use? If I am to believe what I see on “Law and Order UK” and other detective programmes on TV, the police often ask for access to the information on these private CCTV cameras to collate evidence of criminal activities. So, in many cases, the use of those cameras and the people they film are identical.

The Government have made much of leaner, slimmer government and fewer regulations—they want to cut quangos—and yet here we have not only a new commissioner but significant additional regulations for local government and the police. I understood that the Government policy was that for each new regulation that was brought in, two would be jettisoned as the overall burden, as the Government call it, of regulation was reduced. I think that is a poor way to make policy. There are serious issues around regulation; it is not a numbers game. In his comments to the Committee, the Minister said that, in terms of bureaucracy and regulations, the rule of “one in and two out” does not apply to the public sector, only to business. That is a new one on me. I had not realised that the Government’s commitment to reducing bureaucracy, as they call it, was qualified. Given that this involves taxpayers’ and council taxpayers’ money, can the Minister tell me why the Government exclude the public sector in this regard?

A second point I have raised before and on which I am still not clear—perhaps the noble Baroness can help me—is that when I raised the issue of compliance with the principles the Minister’s response was that the legislation to establish the new Surveillance Camera Commissioner limited the commissioner’s role to encouraging compliance and that the legislation provided no enforcement powers even though it was the Government’s legislation. At an annual cost of £250,000, the Government are therefore setting up a commissioner to encourage local authorities and the police to comply with the new regulations, which will not apply to the private sector. However, although there is a statutory duty, there is no way that this commissioner, at a cost of £250,000—a quarter of a million—can enforce the regulations.

When I raised this in Grand Committee, the Minister sought to give me some assurances, but his answers gave me more cause for concern. To my question about enforcement he responded:

“Local authorities and the police will be under a duty to have regard to the code when exercising their functions…When a local authority or police force fails to do so, it will be vulnerable to judicial review for a breach of that statutory duty. The possibility of being subject to such a legal challenge will incentivise local authorities and the police to adhere to that statutory duty”.—[Official Report, 17/7/13; col. GC293.]

There are 12 guiding principles within the code, seven of which are considered not to have any cost. Each one of those places an additional bureaucratic obligation on the police and local authority. Therefore, non-compliance with any of those 12 criteria or principles opens up the possibility of a judicial review, and judicial reviews do not come cheap. This statutory instrument allows for any public sector CCTV installation to be subject to a judicial review. I am not sure if the noble Baroness is aware of this, but local authorities are understandably becoming more risk-averse whenever there is a possibility of legal action or judicial review because they fear the costs. Experience tells us that the threat of a judicial review can lead local authorities to avoid decisions that can lead to a JR, even when they are likely to win, just because of the huge costs that are involved.

The Government themselves recognise this problem. They say they want to reduce the number of judicial reviews. The Justice Secretary, Chris Grayling, claimed that:

“The system is becoming mired in large numbers of applications, many of which are weak or ill-founded, and they are taking up large amounts of judicial time, costing the court system money and can be hugely frustrating for the bodies involved in them”.

The Government’s policy is to reduce the number of judicial reviews, but the Home Office policy is to give 12 grounds on which any CCTV application can be challenged by judicial review. I am really not comfortable with the threat of a JR being the only effective means of enforcement. I fear that the policy may well have the opposite effect to that which the Government intend by reducing the number of CCTV cameras, as councils seek to avoid risk.

We come back to the basic question that was asked in Committee, and I am still not clear on the answer: is this necessary? The impact assessment states that many of these bodies—local authorities and police—are already employing and using those guiding principles. The point was made by the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, who is in his place today, when he said in Committee that,

“many of the issues that do matter in this are covered by the Data Protection Act, for instance accurate databases and things like that. So they are already covered elsewhere. Will having an extra commissioner really make a difference?”.—[Official Report, 17/7/13; col. GC286.]

The noble Lord’s letter to me also refers to the Information Commissioner’s role in CCTV. There is a lack of clarity here. The judicial review only refers to the 12 principles; if there is a role for the Information Commissioner and for judicial review, which could be from either the camera commissioner or a member of the public, could there be a case where there are two actions against the local authority or the police, one via judicial review and one via the Information Commissioner?

I am certainly not against oversight. We support oversight, but I come back to the first point I made, and the point made by ourselves and the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, in Committee, and by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee: do the benefits justify the costs, or are there other ways in which this can be achieved?

I urge the noble Baroness to take this back and please think again. I am sure that we all want to avoid unnecessary burdens and unintended consequences, but I fear that this order could achieve both.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon. My apologies for using her Twitter moniker in the Chamber; I will avoid doing that again.

During the passage of the Protection of Freedoms Act, Parliament debated and agreed the function of the commissioner and the scope and nature of the CCTV code of practice in so far as it applies only to the police, local authorities and other designated bodies. As we made clear then, the Government believe that the CCTV code will ensure that CCTV is deployed and used transparently, proportionately, and effectively. We want the police and local authorities to use CCTV to help cut crime. During our consultation, we received widespread support for it: 80% of respondents supported it. The Information Commissioner was also positive in his response, as was ACPO.

It might be worth me reading out a brief quote from ACPO’s response to the consultation on this code. ACPO said that the code,

“will help to bring in a consistent approach to dealing with the use of surveillance cameras. The use of twelve guiding principles sets out the Code in a straightforward way, which can be easily understood and implemented. The focus on transparency, access to and the security of images, as well as operational, technical and competency standards, making systems available to the police and the encouragement of the use of surveillance cameras as a forensic process, are all important facets of the proposed Code”.

The Government believe that it is an important step in ensuring the right balance between the rights of the public and the pressing need to fight crime.

The noble Baroness asked why the code covers only public authorities such as the police and local authorities, and some other enforcement agencies that are listed in the order. The list of relevant authorities is set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act, which was debated and approved by Parliament. Therefore, Parliament agreed that the project should begin on a limited basis, effectively covering local authorities and the police. The fact that it is limited in this way does not arise out of this order or the code of practice, but was in the original Act that was passed by Parliament. The code will be mandatory for only a relatively small proportion of CCTV cameras but we believe that it is right and proportionate for others to be encouraged to adopt the code because it is in their interests rather than to be obliged to at this stage.

The noble Baroness asked what proportion of CCTV cameras will be covered by the code. Although it will be small to start with, because it will be limited to the police and local authorities, the Government believe that all cameras operating in the public space owned by public bodies should be used openly, transparently and effectively, in line with the code. The Surveillance Camera Commissioner will review the implementation of the code, including its take-up by private bodies, and report to the Home Secretary and Parliament in 2015. Indeed, we expect the police and local authorities to be able to demonstrate the benefits of the code and to help raise awareness of it among those who would voluntarily adopt it.

The noble Baroness asked about costs. The Government believe that the costs of implementing the code are minimal. As she said, the costs cited in the impact assessment are estimated at £1.6 million per year across 350 local authorities; in other words, about £20,000 per year per local authority and £23,000 per year per police force. These costs are minimal in comparison to the budgets of these bodies. They are also average costs and will vary depending on the size and nature of the locality. The noble Baroness asked about how costs might vary from force to force and authority to authority. I do not have those details at this time but, as the impact assessment makes clear, we have based the costs per authority and per force on an average that has been acknowledged by the LGA.

We think that these modest costs are worth while in terms of the expected benefits that they will bring of better quality images to help investigate crime and bring criminals to justice, and greater public confidence. It might be worth me referring to a recent incident to do with the use of automatic number plate recognition in Royston in order to illustrate the benefits of the code and how the relationship between the Information Commissioner and the new Surveillance Camera Commissioner might work. Earlier this month, the Information Commissioner issued an enforcement notice against Hertfordshire Constabulary and its use of automatic number plate recognition. The ICO has ordered the force to review its use of ANPR cameras around Royston. It says that it has created a ring of steel that means no one can drive their car in or out without a record being kept. Although this predates this code, the Surveillance Camera Code of Practice will provide guidance for the police and others and enable the public to hold them directly to account for the proportionality and effectiveness of ANPR and CCTV. We understand that in this example Hertfordshire Constabulary will be working closely with the ICO to ensure that any future deployment of ANPR in and around Royston is proportionate in meeting a clearly stated and justified purpose.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

The Minister has raised a very interesting point, but I think she clarified herself when she said what is happening in a relationship between the Information Commissioner and the police. That is happening now, before this order comes into force, so is the order necessary?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

Yes, the order is necessary. The reason I used that example to illustrate the point is that the Information Commissioner retains all his enforcement responsibilities regarding the Data Protection Act, both in respect of ANPR and CCTV. The point I was going to make is that the relationship between the Surveillance Camera Commissioner and the Information Commissioner has been set out in a memorandum of understanding. If there were any issue around enforcement in the use of data protection, which was the example that I gave from Royston, then enforcement would remain the responsibility of the ICO.

The purpose of this code is to go further than enforcement. It is about ensuring that CCTV cameras, which make an important contribution to helping to cut crime, are used in the most effective way. It is about ensuring that the public can have confidence in the way in which cameras are deployed and can see that, in times of reduced budgets and competing priorities, each police force uses this very expensive equipment in the most effective way that it can.

The noble Baroness raised points about enforcement and judicial review. In terms of enforcement, the Information Commissioner retains his responsibility. The code itself is self-regulating. We did not want to bring in this code and introduce additional burdens unnecessarily on local authorities or on police forces. We wanted the code to ensure good practice and that the best use possible was made of CCTV. The Surveillance Camera Commissioner will be required to provide an annual report to the Home Office and that will be laid before Parliament. He will be able, through his transparent way of monitoring performance, to report to the public on how this equipment is being used.

Judicial review will operate in the same way as in any other context. A judicial review can be brought only by an individual who is directly affected by the public authority’s actions or decisions in relation to CCTV or by an interest group representing such individuals. The Protection of Freedoms Act makes no reference to the commissioner initiating legal challenges against public authorities and therefore this will not form part of the commissioner’s function or role.

As I said at the beginning, the purpose of this code is to strike the right balance between protecting the public and upholding civil liberties. We believe that it will help to ensure that the purpose of CCTV is clear to the public and that it will help to deliver the results that they have every right to expect.

Police: Neighbourhood Policing

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd July 2013 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the finding by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary that neighbourhood policing is at risk of being eroded by budget cuts.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, the Government welcome HMIC’s report, which finds that police forces are rising to the challenge of reduced budgets. Crime is down by more than 10%, victim satisfaction is up and the proportion of police officers on the front line has increased. This Government have introduced a range of new measures to tackle community crimes and have empowered forces to respond to the needs and priorities of local communities. Decisions on how neighbourhood policing teams are resourced and deployed are now for each chief constable and their PCC.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, that slightly complacent Answer does not really address the Question I asked. The HMIC said that neighbourhood policing is the cornerstone of British policing, not something that it is simply nice to have. As police forces struggle with a further £2.4 billion of cuts, the remaining police are spending more time on paperwork and investigations and less in the community. The Police Federation fears that this leads to crimes not being prevented or reported. Do the Government value neighbourhood policing? If they do, how will they deal with this problem?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, as I said, neighbourhood policing is indeed very important but it is right that police chiefs, in consultation with their elected PCCs, decide on the priorities for their area. Crime is down and satisfaction is up. Another thing that this Government have done to ensure that the public are able to hold their police forces to account is to give them greater information about the performance of their local police forces so that they can properly assess that performance and hold those police chiefs to account.

Human Trafficking

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Thursday 21st March 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I am very grateful to my noble friend for raising the subject of the work done by Mr Anthony Steen. I will certainly ensure that my colleagues in the Home Office are properly reminded of it after today’s Question Time.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for the answers that she has given at the Dispatch Box today. This issue unites rather than divides the House. However, the scale of the problem is shocking. We are talking about children sold into slavery or prostitution, or who disappear altogether. Bearing in mind the Government’s proposal to withdraw from the policing and justice provisions of the European Union, will she discuss with her colleagues how we will continue our co-operation with other European countries, given that, as she said, European and worldwide co-operation is so important in tackling this issue?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

As the noble Baroness will be aware, we have signed up to the European directive on human trafficking and will be fully compliant by next month. We attach such importance to this issue that we wanted to ensure that the work that we are doing to co-operate across all boundaries was properly reflected by our subscription to that EU directive. There is no suggestion that we would want to do anything to weaken our commitment in that area.

Children: Child Protection

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Thursday 22nd November 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I listened carefully to the Minister’s answer to the noble Baroness on the Liberal Democrat Benches about the Government’s response to the Children’s Commissioner’s report. It makes extremely grim and worrying reading that thousands of children and young people have or are being sexually abused, or are at risk of sexual exploitation. I am not sure that I heard the Minister condemn the Government’s source’s response to the report as being “hysterical” and I hope that she is able to do so. Does she agree with the comments in the report that many parents feel that they are ignored, or are assumed somehow to be at fault, if their child has been sexually exploited? Parents also must be involved in the solution.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I absolutely agree with the noble Baroness that the parents of those who have been abused have an important role to play in helping us to tackle this serious crime. Certainly, the recommendations made by the Office of the Children’s Commissioner in this report will be taken very seriously. We want to address this absolutely dreadful behaviour. We certainly will, as we already are, do everything that we can to make sure that this is addressed properly.

Late Night Levy (Application and Administration) Regulations 2012

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Monday 8th October 2012 Grand Committee

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, during the passage of the Act we debated the inflexibility regarding the fact that the levy, if it is applied, applies only to a whole local authority area, notwithstanding that the area is most unlikely to be homogenous. Few local authorities comprise only town centres; in fact, I am not sure that any do—I cannot think of any. Few local authorities comprise only rural areas. Open areas include suburbs, and they are very different from the central entertainment district area. Indeed, town centres in the same local authority area can be quite different. However, that is a matter of history—living history, to be sure, but it is fixed.

I understand that work has progressed and continues to progress on the exemption categories, and that is welcome, but exempting by type rather than geography does not deal with all the issues. One possible category floated during the consultation was “business improvement districts”, but Birmingham has been mentioned to me as having seven or eight BIDs, only two of which focus on the night-time economy, so it is not possible there to look at all the BIDs as if they raise the same issues.

I was quite startled to see that the number of responses to the consultation mentioned by the Explanatory Memorandum was 631, so I went on to the Home Office website—our old friend—to see what the Government’s response was to this. The first response from the website was, “There are too many pending search requests”. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, looks as if she had a similar experience. I do not want to keep on whingeing but it is worth putting on the record that these things are noted. I rather doubted that the problems were a result of all the people who were planning to speak in this debate. I do not know whether the issue was too many requests overall or just to a particular part of the site, but the problems with the Home Office website are still being felt. However, I eventually got through and I am glad that I did because, to put the positive point, I could see that a lot of work had been done by the Home Office in pursuing the detail of these regulations and their application. With regard to BIDs, the government response indicates that we will have to await guidance on the eligibility of particular BIDs for exemption.

Given the concern not to have local authorities exercising their judgment over whether particular premises are operated responsibly, I was interested that premises within a business improvement district may be exempt if the BID has,

“a satisfactory crime and disorder focus”.

I am interested in how that judgment is to be made and in the point about discretion. Community premises must not only have had the designated premises supervisor requirement removed but have,

“demonstrated that they operate responsibly”,

which again seems to require a judgment by the local authority. I welcome the discretion given to licensing authorities in this area, but I wonder at the rather patchy provision for the application of that discretion.

On more specific points regarding the regulations—I warned the Minister that I was going to raise these points—under Regulation 7.3, the licensing authority has a discretion with regard to the reduction when the late-night authorisation lapses or is prohibited. Why should it have a discretion? Secondly, in Regulation 4.2, premises under construction are to go into one specific band, band C, apparently regardless of size. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain the thinking behind this. I would have thought that there would be a valuation and the attribution to a band after construction and before the premises were operating, so I do not understand the need to attribute a band when premises are under construction if they are not operating, nor why it should be the same band. There is no cost of the sort which the late night levy is aimed at meeting—no night-time economy cost.

Thirdly, under Regulation 4(4), when there are two or more hereditaments, the rateable value is not the aggregate, which would seem to be a common-sense response to that. However, I am sure that there is some more sophisticated thinking behind that. The noble Baroness ended by saying that she hoped that noble Lords would accept that this was a proper way to implement the provisions of the primary legislation. I certainly assure her that for my part I do.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, to her new responsibilities. If the change from her previous responsibilities was done in an attempt to avoid my questions, I must commiserate with her as I think that we will face one another across the Dispatch Box on a number of occasions. I welcome her to her new position as she always takes great care to look at and respond to issues raised by noble Lords. I am grateful to her for her explanation of these regulations as I wish to raise some concerns and questions with her.

Few could disagree with the necessity of trying to find ways to support a safe night-time economy and take action against irresponsible drinking, which is a serious nuisance to others and can deter people from using other facilities in the evening, as the noble Baroness will understand. It is a hard issue to tackle. The previous Government looked at the establishment of alcohol disorder zones, which the noble Baroness tactfully did not mention, but that did not achieve the desired result. I have concerns around the detail of these regulations and wonder whether they will make a significant difference. Even the Government’s own impact assessment identifies a serious risk that they will not be used very much. Of the 349 licensing authorities in England and Wales, the Government’s own impact assessment gives a best estimate of 16 and a likely range of between eight and 40 using early morning restriction orders, so there is a question mark over how effective these measures will be if they are not used very much. The impact assessment also estimates that the loss of late-night alcohol sales in the area affected by the EMRO is a net total of £9.3 million but says that this is subject to considerable uncertainty. That makes me question whether the measure we are discussing is all that it is cracked up to be. Will it do the job that needs to be done? I am not necessarily criticising the measure. I merely ask that question as I recognise how difficult it is to address this issue. As the noble Baroness said in her opening comments, the measure is only a tool that can be used by local authorities if they wish to do so.

I wish to raise a number of questions. Given the uncertainty reflected in the impact assessment, to which she has referred, I welcome the Government’s commitment to review the operation of the regulations and the levy. I experienced problems trying to access information on the Home Office website. Unfortunately, we will frequently return to that point. Over the weekend I was not able to access the Government’s response to the consultation. However, I was able to ascertain that the Government intend to review and assess the levy after a minimum of five years. I welcome that commitment to review the operation, which is a positive step forward. However, a minimum of five years could mean that it is reviewed in 10 years’ time. What timescale does the Minister envisage we are talking about before a review takes place?

The Government have responded to the LGA and ACPO submissions to the consultation. The two bodies questioned the 30/70 split. The Local Government Association was concerned about the admin costs. It said that if there is a 30/70 split, with 30% of the revenue going to local government and 70% to the police, admin expenses would of necessity come out of the 30%. I want to clarify that because my understanding of what the noble Baroness has said is different from my understanding of the relevant documentation. My understanding was that the Government had accepted the representations from the Local Government Association that the 70/30 split would be net and that the admin expenses would be taken out prior to the 30/70 split, not out of the 30%. If the Minister could clarify that, that would be helpful. That creates a problem, because it was said at the beginning that the police would get at least 70% of the amount. Now it is going to be 70% of the net amount—less than 70%—it having been said that it would be at least 70%.

It would be helpful if there was some guidance on what would be reasonable expenses to come out of the levy. What can local authorities expect to be able to identify as reasonable charges? It would clearly be unacceptable if one local authority was charging five or 10 times as much as another on admin before the money taken by the levy was spent on services such as the Minister identified. Will there be any guidance on what are reasonable admin expenses, will that information be published and will there be any monitoring of how the money is spent on both admin and the provision of services?

I think that what the Government are seeking to address is that both local authorities and the police incur additional expenditure when there are problems caused by late-night drinking and anti-social behaviour. Publication and complete openness about where the money is spent would be useful for those businesses which will be paying the levy. They are currently already paying licensing fees and council tax, which they have been told for many years includes a proportion for the police. If the expenditure figures are published, it will be clear to them why the additional tax is needed—or otherwise.

One reason why I ask for that is that we are all aware of the financial pressures on local authorities and on the police. The danger is that the levy will not be an additional source of revenue for local authorities or the police but one to make up revenue that they have lost where they have cut services, so that it will be not new but replacement expenditure.

Judith Woodman is a councillor in Cardiff who in March was the deputy leader of Cardiff Council with responsibility for community safety. Over Christmas, they conducted something called Operation Mistletoe in conjunction with the police. She said how fantastic it was and that she wanted it to continue, but that it came at a cost. With further cuts to follow to the council’s budget, she could not say that they would definitely be able to carry it on. That is why, she said,

“the Late-Night Levy might prove very useful for us”.

So she is saying that this is not a new initiative that the late-night levy will fund; it is replacement expenditure for something that is to be cut. I am concerned that all businesses in the council area will be paying for something caused by a few when everybody is already paying.

In Essex, by 2014, my local police force will be losing one in 10 of our frontline officers. The previous Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said that the Government were introducing the levy for a clear and specific purpose, but if it is a success and money comes in, the temptation to plug existing spending gaps will be forced on the police and local authorities. That is why publishing that information and making it easy to access— that means not on the Home Office website—will clarify the justification for the levy: that it will be something extra, not replacement funding.

How many additional police officers does the Minister expect to be employed as a result of the levy? I appreciate that we do not know how many local authorities will be involved, but the Government’s estimate is between eight and 40, expecting about 16. If 70% of the money that comes in will be spent by the police, how many additional police officers can we expect to see employed as a result?

I am also slightly puzzled about the system of exemptions. It seems to apply to all licensed premises that have a late licence between the hours of 12 and six—or whenever the levy applies. What if those premises are open late at night only a couple of times a year on special occasions and for special events, not counting New Year’s Eve, which I know is covered? Say that there are two or three occasions on which they want a late-night licence. Will they be forced to pay in the same way as those that have a regular late-night licence? Will premises that have no history of ever causing problems, which consider that through their licence fees and their council tax they already pay for these services, also be expected to pay? So this concerns those that have an occasional licence to open late and those where there is no history of problems being caused.

The reason why I raise this is that the Minister was very specific in her opening comments about irresponsible licensed premises. My understanding is that the levy would be there to target irresponsible licensed premises but, if I understand correctly what has been said now, it would cover all licensed premises for those specific times when they were open in a council area. Would it include restaurants, for example? Also, if the Minister could say anything about the adjustments to payments in the order, I would be very grateful, because I got completely lost in that part of the order. Some further explanation would be helpful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, for her contribution, as well as my noble friend Lady Hamwee. I will seek to address the points that have been raised. I start by saying clearly that the late-night levy does not affect any pub or club that is open during standard opening hours—that is, not open beyond midnight. We are talking only about premises that are going to be late-night premises. It is important that I restate that because often, when we get into debates of this kind, when we are talking we quite naturally assume that everyone else knows that this relates only to a specific portion of a particular sector rather than to everyone.

I thank the noble Baroness for her warm welcome. In fact, one of the few things that have not changed in my range of responsibilities in the past few weeks is being Home Office Whip, so in fact I am staying put on this one. It is always a pleasure to face the noble Baroness at the Dispatch Box. I will try to address her points before I turn to my noble friend’s, which cover more specific points of detail, and it might be the simplest thing to take them in order.

The noble Baroness welcomed our commitment to review how the levy worked but asked why we said that we would do so a minimum of five years after it had taken place. To commit now to when we will conduct that review would be premature because we need to see how it operates before we can say that. However, I take the point on board; if the levy is not operating correctly, then we will need to review it sooner rather than later.

The noble Baroness asked about the 70:30 revenue split between the police and the local authority. I can confirm that the cost will be removed from the revenue before that split takes place. As to whether there will be any guidelines, or publication around those guidelines, so that a local authority prescribes costs at a reasonable level, we will specify in separate regulations the type of expenses that may be deducted by the licensing authority. There is a power in the regulations for a limit to be placed on the amount that licensing authorities can charge for certain administrative costs under the late-night levy, and this would be used only if it became clear that there was widespread overcharging of expenses by the licensing authorities.

I understand the noble Baroness’s wider point concerning transparency in how the money is spent, and people will want to see that. With regard to the use made by the police of the money they receive, I would expect the local police and crime commissioners, once they are in place and as part of their responsibility to make public how the police budgets are being used, to include some reference to this. However, that will obviously be a matter for them.

The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, asked how many police officers will be employed as a result of the late-night levy. It is not possible for me to be specific on that but I would reiterate a point that I made earlier. While, as I have said and she has acknowledged, the late-night levy is being introduced as a way of contributing to a range of measures to tackle late-night binge-drinking and all its effects, we are not expecting it to cover all policing costs around the late-night economy. It will make a contribution.

The noble Baroness asked about premises which are not currently open between midnight and 6 am, or which may want to take advantage of the window that will be open to them. Some establishments may decide to change their opening hours in order not to be caught by the levy, and there will be an opportunity for them to do so without incurring any costs. However, if there are premises whose licences allow them to open only prior to whatever time period the local authority decides to introduce, they will be able to apply for temporary extension notices for occasional events, as they do now.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

In those circumstances, I assume that they would not have to pay the late-night levy.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

That is correct. The noble Baroness asked who is covered by the exemptions—a point also referred to by my noble friend Lady Hamwee. For the sake of accuracy, it is worth saying that the exemptions and reductions are not covered by these regulations; they are part of another set of regulations. However, the noble Baroness asked whether restaurants in particular would be exempt. A restaurant selling alcohol that was open during the period during which the local authority deemed the late-night levy would apply would be caught by the levy. However, excluded under the exemptions would be a hotel with overnight accommodation whose bar was open only to residents during the period of late-night levy that might be operational in another part of the authority. That hotel would not be caught.

My noble friend asked about exemptions. As I said, those are not strictly covered by these regulations, but I think that one of her points was to question why the exemptions are not by geographic area but by types of establishment—perhaps expressing her disappointment is a better way to define it. That is because it would be very difficult for the licensing authority to introduce the levy in that way. One of the things that we are trying to achieve is to make sure that this is the least burdensome that it can possibly be in terms of administrative cost. If a venue operating in a part of the licensing authority was caught by the levy charges, had opened in that levy’s time and had attracted any kind of policing need, policing costs would be involved by the very nature of the police probably having to leave the town centre to go to that area. However, there are specific exemptions, as my noble friend acknowledged. Venues such as country village pubs would fall under that heading.

The noble Baroness asked about the business improvement districts and how in particular they are caught by the exemptions. These matters are not the subject of the regulations today but we have made provision in separate regulations that business improvement districts with a crime prevention objective will be capable of being exempt from the levy, which addresses her concern on that. She also asked whether the licensing authority would have discretion on community premises. The authority will not have to make a new decision on community premises because they are already defined as a group of premises under the Licensing Act. If somebody’s premises fall under that heading, they are already identified as being premises of that kind.

Before I turn to the detail of my noble friend’s questions, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, asked how many authorities we expect to introduce the levy. I think I am right in saying that the number she was referring me to was actually for the EMROs. As far as the late-night levy is concerned, we expect about 94 licensing authorities to take advantage of it.

As to the specific questions raised by my noble friend on why the licensing authority has discretion under Regulation 7(3), we believe that licensing authorities should have the discretion to adjust a holder’s liability if the licence is surrendered—for instance, because the licence holder ceases to trade. There is good reason for this. The availability of such discretion reflects the fact that the circumstances in which a licence holder may surrender the licence will vary considerably from case to case. For instance, a licensing authority might choose to exercise this discretion where the surrender is as a result of the licence holder suffering a long-term illness, but not in a case where a licence holder surrendered the licence in anticipation of it being revoked at a review hearing. We believe that it should be open to a licensing authority to decide that holders whose licences are revoked for contravening the licensing objectives should not be eligible for a reduction in their liability to the levy.

My noble friend also asked why premises under construction are to go into band C—a single band regardless of size—in Regulation 4(2). Premises that have a rateable value will be placed in the appropriate band. Regulation 4(2) addresses only those cases where there is no rateable value. Some premises, such as public parks or agricultural land, are exempt from rating. Where this is the reason that there is no rating, the premises are treated as being in the lowest band, band A. Where the premises have no rateable value because they are under construction, the premises are placed in band C.

Finally, my noble friend asked why, when there are two or more hereditaments, the rateable value is not the aggregate. The use of the higher band in Regulation 4(4), as opposed to the aggregate, is intended to reflect the way such a case would be treated under the current fees regulations as a matter of administrative convenience. It should be noted that this is expected to be a rare and temporary circumstance. Where there is identity of occupation, the premises will form a single hereditament.

I think I have covered the points that have been raised today. In conclusion, the levy is a key part of our work to rebalance the Licensing Act in favour of local communities. I am sure the Committee will agree that it is right that those businesses that benefit from selling alcohol late at night should make a reasonable contribution to late-night policing costs.

I am grateful for the support that has been voiced today by noble Lords.

Welfare Reform

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Monday 11th October 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freud]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, for concentrating on the important issue of what good health and ill health are, which is extraordinarily difficult to pin down. I am sure that he believes as I do that the well-springs of health are around basic social skills and a sense of meaning and community. When we put people on inactive benefits, we are taking away from them the well-springs of health. It is vital that we help people back into work, which is such an important contributor to their psychosocial well-being. We will watch the WCA very closely to make sure that it does its job, so that we can have the opportunity to get people back to work.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I apologise to the Minister for missing the beginning of this Statement, but I have listened with great care to what he has said in response to questions. I think that all of us in this House will share the objective of supporting back into work those who are able to work. However, all this is predicated on jobs being available. The Minister spoke about 600,000 jobs having been taken out of the economy already. The Government’s own policies, particularly public service expenditure cuts, are destined to lead at a conservative estimate to about half a million jobs being lost, with an equivalent knock-on effect in the private sector. There is some difficulty therefore in encouraging people to go back to work while the Government are taking away the very jobs that they can do. What discussions has the Minister had with ministerial colleagues? What discussions has the Secretary of State, Iain Duncan Smith, had with his ministerial and Cabinet colleagues not on job cuts, which we know have taken place, but on job creation?

[Lord Freud]

I thank the noble Baroness for that question. The state of the economy is a fluid entity in terms of where jobs are. While jobs may be lost in some areas, new ones are created elsewhere. We have already seen a good pick-up: 280,000 people went back to work in the last quarter. Independent forecasts for the next couple of years from organisations such as the IMF and OBR are for 2 to 2.5 per cent growth. That would create net new jobs. The jobs will be there, but they may be different jobs.