Charities Act 2006 (Principal Regulators of Exempt Charities) Regulations 2011

Baroness Verma Excerpts

Tuesday 5th July 2011 Grand Committee

Moved By

[Baroness Verma]

That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Charities Act 2006 (Principal Regulators of Exempt Charities) Regulations 2011.

Relevant document: 23rd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, I shall take together this order and the Charities Act 2006 (Changes in Exempt Charities) Order 2011. The two instruments relate to the regulation as charities of three classes of state-funded educational charity: academies, sixth-form colleges, and foundation and voluntary schools.

The changes in the exempt charities order will reconfer exempt-charity status on sixth-form colleges and foundation and voluntary schools. Academies are charities and will become exempt charities from 1 August 2011 by virtue of the Academies Act 2010.

The principal regulator regulations will appoint principal regulators for all three groups of exempt charities, with the duty to promote their charity law compliance. Exempt charities have not been regulated in the same way as other charities. The general law of charity applies to exempt charities, but they are exempt from many provisions of the Charities Acts, cannot register with the Charity Commission and are exempt from its supervisory powers. The categories of exempt institutions, in so far as they are charities, are mostly set out in Schedule 2 to the Charities Act 1993.

Historically, exempt status was usually conferred by legislation on charities that were already regulated, so additional supervision by the Charity Commission was considered unnecessary. However, this was challenged in 2002 by the then Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit, which found that the position was anomalous, confusing for the public, and potentially risked the integrity of charitable status.

Most respondents to a public consultation in 2003 agreed that exempt charities benefiting from the advantages of charitable status should come under some form of regulatory oversight as charities, but concerns were expressed that duplication or new regulatory burdens should be avoided.

The Charities Act 2006 marked a new approach. Wherever possible, a body that already has oversight responsibility will become the main or “principal” regulator for an exempt charity or group of exempt charities. Principal regulators have a new duty to promote charity law compliance in the charities for which they are responsible. They have two key roles: first, providing tailored advice for their sector or signposting to relevant guidance to help trustees meet their legal obligations; and, secondly, stepping in where something goes wrong. In serious cases, it is likely that the Charity Commission will also need to be involved.

The aim of the principal regulator approach is for smarter regulation that maintains trust and confidence in charities but avoids regulatory duplication by using the regulator’s existing processes and procedures to promote charity law compliance. Where it is not possible to identify a principal regulator for a charity or group of charities, they will cease to be exempt and, if their income exceeds a £100,000 annual income threshold, will be required to register with the commission.

Although that is not the case for any of the charities we are considering today, since 2006 there has been phased implementation of this new approach. In some cases the 2006 Act itself removed exempt status from groups of charities, but it also provides the Minister for the Cabinet Office with a power in Section 11 to remove, or to confer, exempt charity status from a charity or class of charities. This power can be exercised only if the Minister is satisfied that the change is desirable in the interest of ensuring appropriate or effective charity regulation of the charities or charity concerned. In addition, the 2006 Act provides the Minister with the power in Section 13 to appoint a principal regulator for an exempt charity or class of exempt charities.

The 2006 Act increases the extent to which exempt charities are subject to the Charity Commission’s regulatory jurisdiction in Sections 12 and 14 and Schedule 5. But importantly, the Charity Commission cannot exercise its regulatory compliance powers in relation to an exempt charity without first consulting the exempt charity’s principal regulator—in Section 14 —and it cannot open a statutory inquiry into an exempt charity unless invited to do so by the principal regulator listed in Schedule 5.

I will now summarise the changes that these instruments will bring about, which were announced to Parliament in a Written Ministerial Statement on 30 March this year by the Minister for Civil Society, Nick Hurd MP, and the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the Minister responsible for schools, my noble friend Lord Hill.

Taking each of the three categories in turn, I will deal first with academies. Academies will, from 1 August this year, be exempt charities when Section 12(4) of the Academies Act 2010 is commenced. As of 1 July there were 801 academies in England. There are no academies in Wales.

During the debate on the Academies Act 2010 it was proposed that the Young People’s Learning Agency should be appointed as the principal regulator of academies. However, following the review of public bodies, the YPLA will, subject to parliamentary approval, be succeeded next year by the Education Funding Agency, an executive agency of the Department for Education. Therefore it is now considered more appropriate to appoint the Secretary of State for Education as principal regulator of academies, because he has existing funding and regulatory roles.

In practice, the YPLA and its proposed successor, the EFA, would carry out much of the necessary information gathering which would then be used to report to and advise the Secretary of State on his principal regulatory role. The principal regulator regulations therefore appoint the Secretary of State as principal regulator of academies.

The second category is what I have referred to as foundation and voluntary schools. In fact, it includes the following bodies: the governing bodies of foundation, voluntary and foundation special schools, foundation bodies established under Section 21 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, and connected institutions.

There are believed to be over 8,100 of these charities in England, and 175 in Wales. Historically they have been exempt charities, but in January 2009 they ceased to be exempt, although transitional provisions pending a final decision on their status have meant that they continue to be treated as if they are exempt. These transitional provisions are due to expire on 1 September, having already been extended twice.

In 2010 the Cabinet Office consulted on the proposal to reconfer exempt charity status on foundation and voluntary schools, and appoint an appropriate principal regulator. Responses strongly supported the proposal to reconfer exempt charity status, although views differed over which personal body should be appointed as principal regulator.

The Department for Education regulates these charities under education law, so is ideally placed to take on the role of principal regulator. This ensures compliance with charity law while avoiding regulatory duplication, in line with the Government’s commitment to reducing the burden of regulation on schools.

The changes in the exempt charities order reconfers exempt charity status on these foundation and voluntary school charities. The principal regulator regulations appoint the Secretary of State for Education as principal regulator of these charities in England and Welsh Ministers as principal regulator of these charities in Wales.

Following detailed analysis by the Cabinet Office, working with the Charity Commission, the Department for Education and Welsh Assembly Government, these arrangements are considered to provide the most appropriate regulatory oversight of foundation and voluntary schools as charities, while keeping the burden of regulation to a minimum.

The third and final category is sixth-form college corporations. There are currently 94 sixth-form college corporations in England and none in Wales. They were created following amendments made to the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 by the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009. It was always intended that they would be exempt charities, as this was the status of the institutions that became sixth-form college corporations in April 2010. For this reason, the commission has not required sixth-form college corporations to register.

As with foundation and voluntary schools, the Department for Education has an existing regulatory oversight role under education law. It is ideally placed to take on the principal regulator role, promoting compliance with charity law through existing procedures without additional regulatory requirements. The Charities Act 2006 (Changes in Exempt Charities) Order confers exempt status, as was intended from the outset, and the principal regulators regulations appoint the Secretary of State for Education as their principal regulator.

I should add that we also propose to appoint the Secretary of State for Education as principal regulator of certain exempt charities connected to academies and sixth-form colleges. This will have to be done separately by a negative procedure statutory instrument, as regrettably these charities were overlooked when the instruments before us were laid.

The duty imposed by the Charities Act 2006 on principal regulators of exempt charities is forward looking. This means that they are required only to promote compliance by the charity trustees with charity law obligations arising on or after, or ongoing on, the commencement date. Principal regulators will not be required to take action relating to matters which occur before the commencement date and in connection with which no charity law obligation is continuing at that date.

The Office for Civil Society and the Charity Commission have worked closely with the Department for Education, the YPLA and the Welsh Assembly Government on these proposals, and key representative bodies of the schools and colleges have been kept informed of progress. No significant concerns have been raised about the forthcoming changes or the instruments that will give effect to them.

For exempt charities under the principal regulator regime, there will be little, if any, noticeable impact on a day-to-day basis. They will continue, as now, under their existing regulatory regime, albeit with their regulator also promoting charity law compliance.

For academies and sixth-form colleges, the YPLA will continue to have a role. The principal regulator regulations make provision for this by amending the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 to enable the YPLA to assist, advise or provide information to the Secretary of State for Education as principal regulator. An impact is likely to be felt only when something goes badly wrong and the regulators need to intervene.

The Charity Commission is currently developing memoranda of understanding to formalise the details of the relationship between the principal regulators and the commission. It is also setting up a committee of principal regulators which will meet annually to share best practice.

The impact of the changes made by these instruments will be reviewed within three years of commencement. Although a statutory review of the 2006 Act will begin later this year and will include an evaluation of the changes made by the Act to exempt charities, this will be too soon to properly consider the impact of the changes made by these instruments.

These instruments will ensure that academies, foundation and voluntary schools and sixth-form colleges are regulated appropriately and effectively as charities but through existing oversight mechanisms to ensure that regulation is proportionate. I therefore commend this order to the Committee.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for that introduction. I broadly welcome the regulations. I have one specific, rather gritty point to put to her. I have given notice of it to her officials, so I hope that it may be possible for an answer to be available today. I have one general point on which I would be very interested in her response and then another general point which needs to be made in the light of the regulations.

I shall deal with the gritty point as quickly as I can. It arises out of the statutory instrument dealing with principal regulators. Regulation 7 introduces a new section, Section 71A, into the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009. New subsection (1) gives a discretion to the Young People’s Learning Agency to provide the principal regulator, the Secretary of State, with information that he or she may need in order more effectively to carry out his or her duty as regulator. We have already heard today that the YPLA is likely to be replaced in not too long a time by the education funding agency. I hope that that does not mean that we shall need further amending legislation to substitute EFA for YPLA. But why only a discretion? Surely the YPLA should be under an obligation to provide assistance, information or advice to the principal regulator, so long as it is a reasonable request. The Minister might like to comment on that.

My first general observation relates to the particular character of a government department as a principal regulator. There is growing anxiety within the charity sector about the preservation of what is an absolutely fundamental characteristic of any charity: its independence. It is often not understood among the wider public that one of the bedrock guarantors of the integrity of each and every charity—however small or large it is, whether it has trustees appointed by outsiders or not, and whether it is funded from a particular source or not—is that it has absolute independence and responsibility for its own affairs. Its trustees have one sole purpose in life, which is to forward its charitable purposes to the best of their ability for the benefit of the public.

Having the Secretary of State for Education as the principal regulator is sure to involve conflicts of interest all along the way. Whatever Government are in power, they will have their own agenda. The voluntary sector is a very important part of the provision of education generally. The measure seems to warrant a little more thought. I do not for a moment propose to question the Secretary of State for Education being principal regulator in these statutory instruments, but the concern is germane and relevant. Perhaps the Minister will take back to the Government the need for some informal, internal consideration of the independence factor, as I call it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Verma]

I am grateful for the extremely knowledgeable contributions of noble Lords this afternoon. I start by thanking my noble friends Lord Phillips and Lord Hodgson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, for their warm welcome to these regulations. Many questions have been thrown at me; I shall try to respond to them in the order in which they were asked. I thank my noble friend Lord Phillips for prior notification of his questions. I passed his notes to the civil servants. I hope that, through my response, he will be reassured that we have taken his concerns seriously. I am pleased that my noble friend Lord Hodgson’s train arrived on time so that he was able to tease out of me further details of an extremely complex area of law.

In response to my noble friend Lord Phillips, the YPLA is fully committed to supporting the Secretary of State in his or her role as the principal regulator. The consultation went across all the agencies, all of which agreed that the Secretary of State would be ideally positioned to be the regulator. The YPLA has worked closely with the EFA, the Department for Education, the Cabinet Office and the Charity Commission on the development of the Secretary of State’s role as the principal regulator. Much of what the YPLA will do will be to support the Secretary of State as part of the existing day-to-day functions of the regulator. In practice, I am not sure that we should see the YPLA refusing any reasonable request from the Secretary of State for advice and information. I hope my noble friend is reassured that the YPLA, when it is replaced by the EFA, will continue to fulfil its role of supporting the Secretary of State.

I come to independence, on which I think my noble friend is about to challenge me.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

I am grateful for what the noble Baroness said but why can the regulations not just say that the YPLA “shall” provide reasonable assistance, information and advice. Why not “shall” instead of “may”?

[Baroness Verma]

Since this is a legal and technical matter, perhaps I could write to my noble friend. I know that such words can change the law very quickly, and I shall not be drawn into that trap by my noble friend today.

On the issue of independence, both the Charity Commission and the Cabinet Office are satisfied that the appointment of the Secretary of State for Education and the Welsh Minister as principal regulators will not give rise to an inherent conflict of interest. The commission and the principal regulator will work together to ensure that a charity’s independence is maintained. The functioning roles already have accountability. There is no conflict, since assurance is largely derived from the funding function and both roles require similar levels of assurance.

We all accept that the law on exempt charities is an incredibly complex area with a complex history. More than anybody else in this Committee, my noble friend is aware of the difficulties that this law raises. I accept that we would rather be in a better position, but we are where we are and it is difficult to unpick some of the complexities. As a result, we should go for a simpler legal regulatory framework for exempt charities. It has always been intended for exempt charities to be exempt. When the ASCL Bill was enacted, it was agreed that this would be done through exempt-charity SIs. That is what these instruments do.

My noble friend Lord Hodgson spoke on the MOUs. Principal regulators are not expected to be experts in charity law. It is not their job to be, nor is it their duty to promote charity law unless charity law compliance requires it. Expertise in charity law lies with the Charity Commission. That is why the commission has investigation and enforcement powers in relation to exempt charities.

My noble friend also asked why the Education Funding Agency is not the regulator. As I said to my noble friend Lord Phillips, the EFA will be an agency of the Secretary of State. It will not have a separate legal personality, so it cannot be appointed as the principal regulator.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

Will the MOU be in place when the regulations come into force on 1 August?

[Baroness Verma]

I have been told by my experts behind me that it will be shortly afterwards.

The noble Baroness, Lady Royall, reminded us of the effectiveness of the regulators. The principal regulator approach will not mean less effective regulation. It will be entirely valid to use different models of regulation to fit the circumstances so that we end up with smarter regulation that maintains trust and confidence in charities. Using an existing regulator’s processes and procedures to oversee charity compliance avoids costly and wasteful duplication.

The noble Baroness asked also about free schools. Free schools are a type of academy. They are charities in the same way as other academies. She asked also about the MOUs between the Charity Commission and principal regulators. MOUs will be published on the Charity Commission website. We are happy to deposit copies in the House Library.

I suspect that I have not given satisfactory answers to my noble friends who are experts in this area. I hope that they can be assured that I will provide written responses to questions to which they feel they have not answers.

The regulations are about making the system leaner and smarter. I therefore commend them to the House.

Motion agreed.

Female Genital Mutilation

Baroness Verma Excerpts

Thursday 30th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, I join all noble Lords in paying tribute to the dedication of the noble Baroness, Lady Rendell, to this cause and her widely respected work towards the elimination of female genital mutilation. The noble Baroness illustrated so vividly the horrors of this practice and I hope that I will have time to respond to the noble Baroness and other noble Lords’ questions. If time does not permit, I will write to noble Lords.

This debate is absolutely crucial for women and girls across the world. Female genital mutilation is a form of child abuse which this Government are committed to eradicating. Similarly, the UN Committee on the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women has clearly denounced the practice of FGM in its general recommendation No. 14 on female circumcision. The UN General Assembly’s resolution of January 2002 on traditional or customary practices affecting the health of women and girls called upon all states to ratify or accede to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and to adopt national measures to prohibit harmful traditional practices such as FGM.

We have to protect girls from this abuse and ensure that all those living with the consequences of FGM are given the care and support they deserve and so badly need. Front-line professionals who have responsibilities to safeguard children and protect adults from the abuses associated with FGM play a vital role in identifying children and young women who are at risk or who have been subjected to FGM. It is unlikely that any single agency will be able to meet the multiple needs of someone affected by FGM and therefore it demands a multiagency response.

Similarly, the coalition Government have recognised the need for a joined-up approach to tackle FGM and this method has been successful in drawing together, co-ordinating and driving work from a number of government departments. We are trying to raise awareness of this barbaric practice and have made progress. However, our key focus is prevention and we have undertaken considerable work in the past year across and between nine government departments to advance efforts to prevent and tackle FGM in the UK and around the world. In February, the Government launched multiagency practice guidelines on female genital mutilation for front-line professionals such as teachers, GPs and nurses. The guidelines aim to raise awareness of FGM, highlight the risks of the practice and set out clearly the steps that should be taken to safeguard children and women from this abuse. This is a key step towards ensuring that professionals are able and confident to intervene to protect girls at risk.

We know that FGM causes significant harm to the physical and mental health of girls in many ways, which many noble Lords have raised today, and increases the risk of life threatening complications during childbirth for both the mother and baby. There are 15 specialist clinics in the NHS which treat women and girls who have been subjected to FGM. These clinics all have trained and culturally sensitive staff who offer a range of healthcare services for women and girls, including the commonly called “reversal” surgery. A clinic based in the Guy’s and St. Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust in London sees more than 300 clients per year and carries out between two and three reversals of FGM per week. It may surprise noble Lords—although I suspect it does not from listening to the contributions—that 30 to 40 per cent of those clients are British nationals.

The Royal College of Midwives has identified FGM as a key issue to its members and is conducting a survey of midwives to understand more about the numbers of women being seen by health services and the training needs of health staff. The results will be used by the Royal College of Midwives to input into national strategies and plans, and to provide better support to midwives by way of providing information and appropriate educational resources. We applaud this and other such initiatives.

Communications about FGM are key to bringing the issue to people’s attention. More than 40,000 leaflets and posters have been circulated to schools, health services, charities and community groups around the country. This is not the only method we are using to raise awareness and we know that it is not an end in itself but a foundation on which to build. Guidance has also been issued to British embassies and high commissions to protect British girls and women at risk of FGM overseas. We must be clear that the long-term and systematic eradication of FGM in the UK will require practising communities to abandon the practice themselves.

Through the regular government-chaired female genital mutilation forum, we will work with the well established network of FGM civil society organisations to co-ordinate activities and input into government policy-making as well as to examine how we can support and facilitate their engagement with practising communities in the UK. We have reached out to work with a range of charities and civil society partners active in this area. Their wealth of experience has been absolutely crucial in shaping our work and we thank them for their input and for sharing their expertise with us. It has been an excellent example of partnership working that we are keen to continue going forward.

Looking forward, we will continue to examine how FGM can best be included in existing statutory training for professionals, and to offer other areas of specific, tailored training to the relevant agencies, both of which are key to the prevention and tackling of female genital mutilation. There have also been some successful initiatives from the police. The Metropolitan Police’s Project Azure work at Heathrow, which speaks to families potentially taking the girls overseas for FGM, has strengthened our last line of defence for these girls.

The noble Baroness, Lady Rendell, referred to the interesting work being done with the Metropolitan Police at the Lilian Baylis Technology School in Vauxhall, which was approached to take part in a female genital mutilation film project. In further illustrating the project, it was decided to hand the film production over to a group of young people to decide how this sensitive subject should be presented to their peers. The school’s well-being group was thought to be the ideal place for the project. The group included girls from Eritrea and Somalia, two of whom had already been “cut” and who shared their experiences and knowledge with group members. One pupil revealed that her father had refused to allow her to be cut despite her mother being keen for her to have FGM. The film should be ready for delivery to schools in September. I think that it will be a very powerful tool in a crucially important area, for we know that the education and safeguarding sectors play a vital role in identifying and intervening when girls are suspected of being at risk of FGM. I think that the idea of directly involving children, including those who have already sadly experienced the horror of FGM, is a brave and innovative idea.

We need to tackle this issue at its root. By reaching out to children directly, we can hope to change the mindset of our future generations to ensure that when these girls become mothers they will abandon the practice for good. While FGM needs to be addressed in a comprehensive manner by all parts of society, change must come from the communities which carry out this practice, and we commend and applaud communities which have taken a strong stance on this issue. Internationally, we recognise that FGM is a serious problem and the Government’s aid programme is committed to empowering women and girls, including preventing violence against women and girls, including FGM where appropriate.

The Government will support sensitive measures to counter all forms of gender-based violence internationally and will support measures to eliminate FGM indirectly through their core funding of the key UN agencies that address FGM—namely, the United Nations Population Fund, the United Nations Children's Fund and the World Health Organisation—as well as supporting NGOs which focus on tackling FGM. Closer to home, we will also work with other EU member states and EU institutions to examine how and where the EU can add value to global efforts to tackle FGM.

The Government are frustrated by the lack of prosecutions in the 25 years that female genital mutilation has been illegal in the UK but the success of the legislation cannot be measured only by the number of prosecutions. We hear anecdotally that the legislation has been a deterrent, stopping families from proceeding with their plans to have FGM performed on their daughters.

Legislation alone cannot eliminate the practice altogether. Families and communities need to take ownership of the issue and must help to stop committing this terrible crime. Prosecution after the fact, although desirable, does not relieve the victim of a lifetime of pain and discomfort. We want to prevent FGM from happening in the first place. Despite the lack of prosecutions, the Act is intended to deter this unacceptable practice and anecdotal evidence suggests that it has had some deterrent effect. The Act has also provided an impetus for outreach work with the practising communities and has been widely used to raise awareness among the police, judiciary, health professionals, social services departments and education sector so that FGM is treated with the seriousness that it deserves.

Research suggests that the most likely barrier to prosecution is the pressure from the family or wider community that leads to cases going unreported. Victims may be too young and vulnerable or too afraid to report offences to the police or to give evidence in court. Family and community pressure can make it very difficult for girls to come forward to notify the police about what has happened to them. We recognise that more needs to be done.

The Crown Prosecution Service will shortly issue new guidelines for prosecutors on FGM to ensure that the CPS is able to prosecute cases of female genital mutilation that satisfy the evidential and public interest tests within the Code for Crown Prosecutors. Together with police training, we hope that every case of FGM can be investigated and, if it meets the relevant evidential and public interest tests, prosecuted to ensure that perpetrators are brought to justice. We hope that the publication of these guidelines will be the first step towards a successful prosecution in the UK really to press home the point that we will not tolerate the unacceptable abuse of girls and women in this way.

I can see from the clock that I will run out of time. I made a heap of notes and I now undertake to write to noble Lords. I conclude by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Rendell, for initiating this debate. I hope that it is noted and goes some way to ensuring that this important issue remains on the agenda in order that girls and women are protected and this unacceptable form of abuse is eliminated for good. As always, this subject highlights the expertise and the passion for which this House is known and respected across the globe.

International Widows Day

Baroness Verma Excerpts

Wednesday 15th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Loomba]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to mark the first United Nations International Widows Day on 23 June.

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, while the Government are not planning a specific event on International Widows Day, we continue to work with our UN partners to raise awareness of the issues facing widows. We take a proactive role in promoting gender equality through engaging in International Women’s Day. The Government of course recognise that widows of all ages are among the poorest and most vulnerable in societies across the world. That is why, in our country programmes, we continue to provide support to widows.

[Lord Loomba]

My Lords, I am disappointed with the reply. My foundation—I declare an interest as the founder member of the Loomba Foundation—commissioned international research that concluded that there are more than 245 million widows supporting nearly 500 million children who are disadvantaged and living in poverty. The issue has been identified by the United Nations, which has designated 23 June as International Widows Day. It surely should have been possible to ring-fence funds. The issue should at least have been included in the millennium development goals. Why has this not happened?

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, I start by congratulating my noble friend on the vital work of the Loomba Foundation in supporting widows. I declare an interest as a trustee of one of my noble friend’s charitable organisations. The UK takes a leadership role through our diplomatic and development work in supporting poor and vulnerable women and promoting their economic, social and political empowerment. We support widows through broader programmes working on women’s empowerment, asset ownership and inheritance rights, and, through this, the targeting of cash-transfer programmes. The Government are targeting all women, including widows.

[Baroness Greengross]

Widows in post-conflict situations, particularly in many countries in Africa and the Middle East, are in a particularly vulnerable position. Some of the widows are extremely young, many are in reality punished for the death of their husbands, and their future is very bleak. Will the Minister assure us that their needs will be taken fully into consideration?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Verma]

The noble Baroness of course raises a number of very important issues. Through DfID, as she is aware, we are making sure that our work in each country programme has a focus on trying to ensure that women and girls get the right directions, and the means and support, to be able to engage in both civic and political involvement. For example, we are working to increase the number, influence and capacity of women in Afghan public life, through the Afghanistan Sub-national Governance Programme. In this way, we feel that they will be in charge of their own destinies while receiving support from us.

[Baroness Goudie]

The Minister is well aware that if we had more women at the peace table in post-conflict times, we know that widows would be taken care of much better. At present, it is men on both sides who say that they do not want women at the peace table. If there were women at the peace table, we would be able to ensure that women and widows in post-conflict areas would have schools for their children, proper medical aid for them and the chance of getting work through investment into those countries. At present, none of that is happening, except in a very few areas. It is very important that our representatives at the UN and in post-conflict areas do that.

[Baroness Verma]

The noble Baroness has made some absolutely valid points; in fact, she has answered her own question for me. The noble Baroness is absolutely right. That is why, through DfID, the FCO and the MoD, we try to work to ensure that there is full representation through all our programmes and that in all we are doing the presence of women is visible. We are of course aware that there are places where that is much more difficult, but we will continue to work with Governments to ensure that, through our support, they are able to do that.

[Baroness Jenkin of Kennington]

My Lords, what steps are the Government taking to encourage, support and increase the political participation of women in the Arab spring?

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, that follows on very neatly from the question from the Benches opposite. We remain concerned that women seem not to be present in the negotiations and at the forefront of political life, whereas they were very present during the revolution and demonstrations. DfID and FCO have committed to more than £110 million over four years to support political and economic reform across the region. Our department will be looking at how gender will be represented there.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, our widows are also international widows. This year, the War Widows’ Association of Great Britain celebrates its 40th anniversary. I suggest to the Minister that those extraordinary women, to whom we owe so much because their partners have paid the ultimate sacrifice, might wish to mark the first United Nations International Widows Day with a clear statement from the Government that they will not seek to overturn the amendment passed in this House on the Office of the Chief Coroner, a role of great importance to war widows and their bereaved families.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, I accept that the question is very important; I need to take it away and write to the noble Baroness in response.

[The Earl of Listowel]

My Lords, does the Minister recognise that in bringing up children an important problem for many mothers, including widows, is finding good male role models, perhaps particularly for their sons? Will she take this opportunity to pay tribute to the men who step into those roles, particularly male school teachers and perhaps male physical education teachers?

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, the noble Earl is absolutely right. Issues regarding gender will never be resolved unless we take on board the important work and commitment undertaken by both men and women. I completely accept what the noble Earl says. By and large, we are trying to work closely to ensure that the engagement is not just with women and girls but with boys and men too.

[Lord Chidgey]

My Lords, I emphasise the point made by several other noble Lords, the importance of dealing with the needs of tens of thousands of widowed women as a result of decades of conflict in central Africa, in the Congo and elsewhere. What specifically are the Government doing in relation to the educational needs in the civic development of those women so that they can participate in the full life of their communities and protect the future of their children?

[Baroness Verma]

As my noble friend knows through our meetings with DfID, every programme we have in every country that we are supporting has mainstreaming of gender. I think he agrees that it will take time to see the results. We are very aware that we have an uphill struggle and that it will be hard, but we will persevere.

Women: Special Operations Executive

Baroness Verma Excerpts

Monday 6th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, this has been an exceptional debate. Noble Lords’ contributions have shown why this House is so hugely respected across the globe. I, too, join all noble Lords in paying tribute to our friend the late Baroness Park of Monmouth. She was a fabulous woman. It was only when I came to this House that I learnt of the huge work that she had done during those very difficult years during World War 2.

The Special Operations Executive employed or controlled just over 13,000 people during the Second World War, about 3,200 of whom were women, and it operated in several countries. France was its largest theatre of operations. It had five sections there—including an escape section and a section working with Polish immigrants—involving 1,000 British, French and Polish agents in the field. F Section, which operated under exclusive British control, sent out, as mentioned, 39 female agents, of whom 13 gave their lives.

I know that I might repeat some of the excellent points made today, but I really do think that they are worth repeating. Not all of the women who fought were British, as has been poignantly brought out today. Some, for example, came from New Zealand, France, the USA and Poland. Noor Inayat Khan was born in Moscow, her father came from an Indian princely family famous for fighting against the British, and her mother was American. As noble Lords have said, however, this was not about where you came from; it was about fighting evil and protecting people.

France was by no means the only country where female agents operated. Women distinguished themselves in the Low Countries, Yugoslavia and Italy. Besides “official” SOE agents, tens of thousands of women worked in SOE-sponsored networks throughout Europe, for example keeping safe houses for people fleeing Nazi oppression or helping escaping RAF air crews.

Many women in Britain undertook key work to liberate the world from Nazi oppression, from those who organised agents’ missions—as the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, mentioned—or who trained agents, to those who belonged to organisations that remained unknown for many years. It was an honour to hear my noble friend Lady Trumpington speak in this debate tonight. I am sure that noble Lords will want to pay tribute to her vital service at Bletchley Park, whose code breakers gave the allies a huge advantage by decoding enemy radio messages. I also recommend that noble Lords visit YouTube, where they can see and hear my noble friend Lady Trumpington giving an interview. She truly is a member of the 21st century.

All of us present will have been moved by recalling the heroism of the women of many nationalities and backgrounds who volunteered to face danger, torture and death in their determination to play their part in the fight of ordinary people of all ages against one of the worst and cruellest tyrants in history.

Women agents have been rightly honoured and commemorated. As mentioned, the highest decorations were given to several of these women. However, they were not the only ones to be given high public recognition. Noble Lords may well applaud Pearl Witherington, who—as my noble friend Lady Trumpington pointed out—commanded a unit of 3,000 men and refused the MBE (civil section) on the grounds that she,

“had done nothing remotely civil”.

She was later awarded the military MBE.

These women have also been commemorated in ways that made them literally household names—in films, books, television programmes and official histories. The greatest authority on all aspects of SOE’s work is Professor MRD Foot, who I believe is taking a close interest in this debate, and who has written so eloquently on the heroism of many women in SOE in France, Holland and beyond.

Others have more recently been added to this very public roll of honour, such as Eileen Nearne, who was decorated with the MBE and the Croix de Guerre. She recalled her deeds in a television programme in 1997, and her death in September 2010 gave rise to much wider public recognition, including a funeral with full military honours.

There are many official and unofficial memorials. The Franco-British memorial at Valençay to the 104 agents of SOE’s F Section killed in France was inaugurated by Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother in 1991. Britain contributed 30 per cent towards its cost, including a grant from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Pearl Witherington was one of the two moving spirits who inspired the memorial in Valençay. This memorial remains a focal point for remembrance to this day. On 6 May this year, there were special celebrations for the 70th anniversary of the first agent dropped in Valençay in the presence of the Princess Royal and Sir Peter Westmacott, the British ambassador to France.

In Whitehall stands the memorial to women of World War Two. The noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, who was instrumental in its establishment, made sure that SOE women were invited to its unveiling by Her Majesty the Queen in July 2005. In Westminster Abbey is a memorial plaque for members of all nationalities of the SOE, which was unveiled in 1996 by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother. A recent memorial was erected on the Albert Embankment in 2009, organised by a registered charity, which my noble friend Lord Selborne mentioned. It features the bust of Violette Szabo and honours SOE agents, specifically those who went to France and Norway. It was unveiled by the Duke of Wellington, with a speech by my noble friend Lord Selborne and a wreath-laying by the Norwegian ambassador. We can also welcome the memorial that is being planned for Noor Inayat Khan in Gordon Square near to where she used to live. Noor used to play in Gordon Square in her childhood and later, as a talented scholar, she would walk to the British Museum and its library. She was the first female wireless operator of F Section sent to France. After being arrested, she was shot in 1944.

F Section’s agents are still among us today. We can pay tribute to Nancy Wake and Yvonne Burney, who live in London; to Sonya d’Artois, in Canada; and to Odette de Strugo, in Buenos Aires. They encapsulate the broad international participation in the struggle for freedom directed from London. The Government and this House will wish to pay tribute to the bravery and sacrifice of SOE agents such as these sent overseas during the Second World War and to whom we are for ever indebted. Ever since the end of the war, when the deeds of the women of SOE first became publicly known, their heroism has been rightly honoured. It is far from clear that they themselves wanted to be singled out for different treatment. Many, like Pearl Witherington, wished to be recognised by the nation as combatants on the same basis as men.

SOE agents have rightly been recognised in a proper and dignified fashion, and debates such as this allow the Government further to put their gratitude on record, but official recognition is not the final word. In the course of this debate, the courage and selflessness of the women of the SOE have been movingly recalled, with interesting suggestions for further honouring and perpetuating their memory today. The noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, is right that local authorities, for example, and a range of interested bodies, both public and private, may well wish to continue to give special commemoration to individuals or events with which they have special links, most obviously to honour people who were born or who lived close by. Local authorities have named buildings in housing estates after SOE heroines and put up blue plaques. Not far from this House a plaque on 64 Baker Street commemorates the headquarters of the Special Operations Executive.

It is interesting to see how the example set by these courageous women over 60 years ago still resonates today and inspires new initiatives. For example, last September the former Olympic gymnast Suzanne Dando led a charity trek in the Pyrenees with young people on behalf of the Royal British Legion, following, literally, in the footsteps of SOE agent Nancy Wake along the escape route on which she and thousands of civilians and servicemen walked to freedom. One of the women taking part recalled:

“To walk Le Chemin de la Liberté is to experience … at least some of the dangers and hardships faced by those men and women who used this high mountain escape route during the war”.

Events like this are testament to the fact that the deeds of the women of the SOE are not just recorded in books or inscribed on memorials but are kept alive and still inspire the actions of young women today. The memory of these brave women has been, and is, rightly honoured and kept prominent in the national memory. As we have heard in this debate, there are many ways to keep that memory fresh and many of the most powerful come from spontaneous initiatives. The Government applaud all initiatives of this kind.

Your Lordships’ House and I are indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, for raising this debate. Her speech, so eloquently and passionately delivered, of course rightly raises the question of what to do next. The brave men and women who laid down enormous sacrifices for our liberties must always be remembered and recognised. Through this most world-changing period of our history, the role of many must be a reminder to us all and to generations to come that we owe a great deal to the bravery and sacrifice of those before us.

In the final two minutes, I will attempt to respond to some of the points raised. The noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, talked about commemorative stamps. I have been informed by my officials that anyone can put forward suggestions for commemorative stamps to the Royal Mail and that MPs and Peers often make such an approach, which is much better than a state-sponsored event. My noble friend Lady Randerson referred to de Gaulle being ungrateful. That may have been so but that was rectified with the memorial at Valençay, which was unveiled in May 1991. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, talked about re-evaluating the medals awarded. I do not have an answer to that, and I am not sure of the policy or protocol, but I undertake to write to her.

The noble Viscount, Lord Slim, spoke about the Special Forces Club keeping the memory and knowledge of the SOE alive and well, which is absolutely right, but that does not mean we should leave it just to that club. It is incumbent on us all, wherever we can, to raise the issues and to ensure, as the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, said, that generations coming forward are informed of the important work undertaken by those brave men and women during that most awful, dark time of our history.

The noble Baroness, Lady Dean, spoke about the neglect of Eileen Nearne. I am advised that she cherished her anonymity. She received much support from the Special Forces Club and in 1997 spoke about her life in a television interview. As my noble friend Lady Trumpington said, often it was about women keeping the oath and not speaking about the work that they undertook during that time. They took it so seriously that many of them preferred to take what they did to the grave rather than tell everyone about the work that they undertook.

I thank all noble Lords, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, for raising this debate. I hope that it will be read widely in order to ensure that the memories of these fantastic women always live on.

9.18 pm

Abyei

Baroness Verma Excerpts

Wednesday 25th May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the implications of the occupation of Abyei by Northern Sudanese forces.

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, we condemn the recent attack on Abyei town by the Sudanese armed forces on 21 May and the attack by the SPLA on a joint Sudanese armed forces and UN convoy on 19 May. These incidents violate the comprehensive peace agreement and cannot be justified. We urge the parties to make good use of the good offices of President Mbeki’s African Union High-Level Implementation Panel and to negotiate a peaceful and durable resolution of all outstanding issues.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

My Lords, has the noble Baroness had a chance to study today’s BBC reports, which quote the United States ambassador to the United Nations talking about horrific reports of looting and burning in Abyei? Does this not point to the need to use Chapter VII powers in order to get UNMIS to put a peacekeeping force into Abyei in the short term, but also in the long term to deal with the up to 60 outstanding questions in the comprehensive peace agreement? Thinking back both to the civil war over border disputes between Eritrea and Ethiopia and to the civil war in Sudan itself, which led to the deaths of some 2 million people, as we look forward to the independence of Southern Sudan on 9 July, is there not a real danger that what is happening in Abyei, in Southern Kordofan and indeed on the Blue Nile could lead to a repetition of history?

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, the noble Lord raises some very serious concerns about yesterday’s incident, which, of course, was not helpful to the process of independence on 9 July, but we want to ensure that we do not lose sight of those negotiations. We will continue to urge both sides towards peaceful means. We have Chapter VII already in place and the noble Lord will be reassured that we are looking at the situation very carefully. It is on the Richter scale of the entire international community.

[Lord Chidgey]

Can my noble friend say when the referendum on Abyei joining the south, which has been postponed since January, is now expected to take place? In that regard, what steps have been taken to resolve the disputes between the Ngok Dinka and the Misseriya on voter registration?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Verma]

My noble friend raises the important point of Abyei being able to hold the referendum. We are urging both sides to come back to the negotiating table. It is crucial that the people of Abyei have a say. Unfortunately, the current circumstances make that incredibly difficult, but we will, through the international community and the UN and UNMIS, continue to urge both sides to come to the table.

[Baroness Cox]

Is the noble Baroness aware that when I visited Southern Kordofan last year the people there were so terrified of their future under Khartoum—they are in a very similar situation to Abyei—that they believed that they might have to take a pre-emptive strike? Does she agree that any further conflict will further undermine the stability of Southern Sudan as it prepares for its independence? What reassurance can be given to the people of all these marginalised areas—Southern Kordofan, Blue Nile and Abyei—that their future rights and their security and protection will be provided?

[Baroness Verma]

The noble Baroness is absolutely right that the people of those regions have to feel that they are part and parcel of the negotiations and that currently they feel marginalised. We urge, through President Mbeki’s AU High-Level Implementation Panel and the United Nations and UNMIS, that these issues are resolved peacefully, but we realise that it is a difficult area. We are going back to the international community time and again to ensure that the concerns that the noble Baroness and others raise are always at the table.

[Lord Avebury]

My Lords, will the Government take the opportunity of President Obama’s visit to discuss with him how we can best reinforce the demand made by the Security Council that the troops of north and south Sudan withdraw immediately from the town of Abyei? What has been the response of the northern Sudan Government to the Secretary-General’s call for an investigation into the attack on UN troops in Goli, the raid on a UN-escorted convoy a week ago today and the shelling of the UN compound in Abyei?

[Baroness Verma]

I am sure that my noble friend will urge both the President of the United States and our Prime Minister to ensure that Sudan is part of the talks that they will have. I am aware that United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon is also concerned. He made a strong statement yesterday urging leaders from both sides to demonstrate the political will not just to resolve the situation in Abyei but also to talk about the communities that feel marginalised and out of the discussions at the moment.

[Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead]

My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that it is very dangerous at this time to take our eye off the situation in South Kordofan? There have just been deeply flawed elections in that province, which, with its oil field, sits on the still undefined north-south border. What exactly is the troika doing beyond just urging the two sides to work together? Surely on Abyei and South Kordofan this is a very faint hope.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Verma]

The noble Baroness is of course aware, as the former Minister for Africa, that these situations are incredibly complex, difficult and delicate. While we are urging all the organisations to work together constructively in negotiations to bring peace, these are difficult times. We can only do what we can through diplomatic processes and that is what we will urge the leaders of both south and north Sudan to do as well.

[The Duke of Montrose]

My Lords, can my noble friend confirm the information that I have received that there has been a build-up of northern troops on the borders of Upper Nile province as well? Do we see this as a future conflict point?

[Baroness Verma]

My noble friend raises the issue of the mounting number of troops, but I reassure him that we are all mindful of this and are urging the African Union and the United Nations and UNMIS to take strong steps to ensure that people on the ground are safe. Through its aid budget, DfID is also ensuring that humanitarian supplies are in place to help all those people who find themselves in difficulty.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

The Minister says that she is urging the United Nations. Surely the danger that the CPA will unravel because of the large number of unresolved issues is such that this issue should be put back to the Security Council at the earliest possible stage. Will she take such an initiative?

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, I will take the noble Lord’s suggestion back to the department. In fact, my noble friend is here and I am sure that he has heard exactly what the noble Lord has said.

Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Monetary Penalty Notices and Consents for Interceptions) Regulations 2011

Baroness Verma Excerpts

Tuesday 24th May 2011 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Verma]

That the draft regulations laid before the House on 6 April be approved.

Relevant documents: 20th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 17 May.

Motion agreed.

Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Monetary Penalty Notices and Consents for Interceptions) Regulations 2011

Baroness Verma Excerpts

Tuesday 17th May 2011 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Verma]

That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Monetary Penalty Notices and Consents for Interceptions) Regulations 2011.

Relevant documents: 20th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, the Government are pleased to bring forward these regulations which, through amendments to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, will provide additional protection for the users of electronic communications. The regulations address concerns expressed by the European Commission that the UK had failed adequately to transpose EU law requirements concerning the confidentiality of electronic communications, specifically concerning the interception of communications.

RIPA provides that interception of communications can be lawfully undertaken either in accordance with a warrant signed by the Secretary of State or, in other specified circumstances, without a warrant. The changes brought about by these regulations will impact on interception without a warrant.

Communications service providers may lawfully and legitimately intercept communications when it is necessary for them to do so—for example, in order to manage their networks. Where businesses choose to carry out interception to provide value-added services, an activity that is carried out at the discretion of service providers, RIPA requires the consent of both the sender and the recipient of the communications that will be intercepted. RIPA also provides for criminal sanctions against the intended, unlawful interception of communications.

However, to address deficiencies in the statutory regime identified by the European Commission, these regulations amend RIPA in two significant respects. First, they create a civil sanction for the unlawful interception of electronic communications that does not constitute an offence under Section 1 of RIPA. In other words, we are establishing a sanction for unintentional and unlawful interception of electronic communications. Fines of up to £50,000 can be imposed, together with a requirement that activity that has been determined to be unlawful under these regulations must stop. Secondly, the regulations clarify the nature of the consent that must be given by a party consenting to the interception of a communication in order to render that interception lawful. Reasonable grounds for believing that consent has been obtained will no longer be sufficient.

Under the regulations, the administration of the new civil sanction will be undertaken by the Interception of Communications Commissioner, whose expertise and independence will ensure that the new requirements are rigorously and fairly applied. He will be able to draw on technical assistance from Ofcom as and when required.

The regulations also provide for a comprehensive appeals process to the first tier tribunal. This will deal with appeals against the imposition of either monetary penalties or a requirement to stop an activity that the commissioner has determined is unlawful. The regulations reinforce and clarify the statutory regime under which interception of communications can be carried out lawfully and with proper respect for a person’s right to a private life. When interception is carried out unlawfully, appropriate penalties will be imposed. The regulations address the two main concerns raised during the consultation on these issues with communications service providers, civil liberties groups and others. They provide for an appropriate maximum monetary penalty for the new civil sanction and ensure that the scope of the sanction is sufficiently broad to cover all instances of relevant unlawful interception.

We expect any business impact on communications service providers to be minimal. The regulations will not stop activities that providers wish to undertake—for example, providing value-added services to their customers. However, when such activity amounts to the interception of communications, the regulations strengthen the requirement that the interception must be consensual and that there must be evidence of the consent of those affected. This will provide welcome reassurance to customers that their privacy is being properly respected, together with greater clarity to the industry on how to ensure that its activities are lawful.

We have worked constructively with the European Commission to ensure that its concerns have been addressed. The regulations will provide confidence that interception of communications is in all circumstances carried out lawfully and with due respect for fundamental rights. Where such respect is not observed and interception is unlawful, appropriate penalties can be imposed. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, first I thank the Minister for explaining in detail the regulations and their purpose. The main reason for this instrument, and for the stronger wording and stiffer penalties that it provides, appears to be the desire to meet the concerns of the European Commission that the United Kingdom has failed to incorporate properly into national law the European Union's privacy and electronic communications directive. It has been claimed that concerns were prompted by complaints received by the Commission from BT customers after it conducted unannounced, targeted advert trials through a software company that used its technology to intercept and monitor the web activity of BT customers to match adverts to the interests of users.

The Crown Prosecution Service recently decided not to proceed with action against BT and the software company as it did not consider that there was enough evidence to convict. However, last September the Commission referred the United Kingdom to the European Court of Justice, citing concerns that our laws did not adequately protect against intrusion into personal privacy. The concerns were that we had not created a sanction for all unlawful interception, only for intentional interception; that we had not created an independent authority responsible for the supervision of all interception activities; and that we had wrongly made it lawful to intercept a communication where the interceptor had a reasonable belief in the other party's consent to the interception.

On the basis of what the Minister said, the Government acknowledged the first and third points, but not the second on the independent authority. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that. Perhaps she could also say whether the Government regard the provisions in this regulation are likely to bring to an end any proceedings at the European Court of Justice.

The Government proposed amendments to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act last November, and the outcome of the consultation showed strong support among the 39 respondents for the adoption of what were described as “unambiguous measures”, making it clear that users have to grant consent before companies can intrude on their communications, and that it should no longer be sufficient to maintain that including relevant information within the general terms and conditions of privacy policies would allow for a sufficient expression of consent. We note that guidance will be provided by the office of the Interception of Communications Commissioner and we understand the reasons for this statutory instrument. I also take it from the words used by the Minister that the Government are perfectly happy to proceed with this revision of the Act. They do not regard it as an example of what they would describe as unnecessary bureaucracy and regulation, and they do not regard themselves as having to do this simply because the European Commission has told them they ought to do it. I had the impression from what the noble Baroness said that the Government themselves believe that this is the appropriate action to take. I would be grateful if she would confirm what I believe she said in her introductory comments.

I conclude by asking when the guidance will be provided by the office of the Interception of Communications Commissioner. Will she also confirm that the anticipated additional workload and costs on the public purse is effectively nil?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Verma]

I am grateful to noble Lords for their thoughtful consideration of and warm welcome for the regulations. The regulations will provide additional protection by ensuring that users consent to the interception of their communications if obtained in circumstances where such consent is required. I will elaborate a little further. A new sanction for the unintentional unlawful interception of electronic communications will provide an important and additional reassurance to users that their privacy will be respected.

I will try to respond to some of the questions that noble Lords have asked. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked if we were forced by the EU to take on this extra instrument to protect users. We agree that we had to correct the transposition of the privacy and data protection directives in two respects. We have welcomed the opportunity to be able to provide members of the public with that additional protection.

The noble Lord asked when guidance would be produced. The Interception Commissioner is producing guidance, and we understand that it will be ready in approximately three weeks’ time.

The noble Lord asked why we did not accept that Article 28 of the data protection directive required us to establish an independent supervisory body to deal with unlawful interception. We are confident that the Interception Commissioner’s new role will provide oversight of unlawful interception and—excuse me, I am trying to read my official’s writing; I told them to write big because I cannot see—that this will satisfy the Commission.

I thank my noble friend Lord Shipley for giving me prior notice of his questions. He asked why the regulations had taken so long. It is because they are complex and we wanted to make sure that they fulfilled the transposition of the EU directives correctly. Furthermore, not only were we in discussion with the European Commission, we carried out a consultation to ensure that we listened to parties likely to be affected by these regulations.

Noble Lords asked whether the Information Commissioner was happy with the regulations and the consultation. He concluded in his response to the consultation that he recognised the need to make these changes to the legislation and welcomed the proposed amendments. He added:

“It is hoped these will provide some much needed clarification of the nature of consent required for lawful interceptions”.

Noble Lords should be assured that the Information Commissioner is very much satisfied and on side with the regulations and the powers that they undertake to ensure that the protection of users is at the forefront of what we are trying to achieve.

What form of consent was required by users? We have deleted the reference in RIPA to reasonable grounds for believing that users’ consent has been obtained. It will now be necessary for CSPs to satisfy themselves that they have required consent. Therefore, a greater onus is on them to ensure that they have met all the necessary safeguards to ensure that they are not breaking the law. The EU privacy directive requires that consent should be freely given, specific and informed.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked: what are the additional costs to the commissioner’s office? They are likely to be minimal and, in the first instance, we do not expect there to be any requirement for additional resources.

Noble Lords asked whether I can confirm that infraction issues have been resolved to the satisfaction of the Commission. The Commission referred the UK to the European Court in September 2010. We have been in dialogue with the Commission to resolve those matters, and we believe that we have done all that is required to ensure that the effective transposition of the relevant EU directives has taken place.

If I have failed to answer noble Lords’ questions, because this is a hugely technical issue, I turn to my officials while I promise that we will write to noble Lords, but the regulations will ensure that we responsibly meet our obligations under EU law. I thank noble Lords for their warm words about the regulations, and I put on record my appreciation to my officials—who let me down slightly at the last minute with their small writing—who have shown me great patience and skill in helping me to navigate incredibly difficult, complex and technical details. I commend the Motion.

Motion agreed.

Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Monetary Penalty Notices and Consents for Interceptions) Regulations 2011

Baroness Verma Excerpts

Tuesday 17th May 2011 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Verma]

That consideration of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Monetary Penalty Notices and Consents for Interceptions) Regulations 2011 be postponed until after consideration of the Water Industry (Schemes for Adoption of Private Sewers) Regulations 2011.

Motion agreed.

Crown Prosecution Service

Baroness Verma Excerpts

Thursday 12th May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Whitaker]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether, given the reported intention of the Home Secretary to transfer decisions about whether to charge a suspect from the Crown Prosecution Service back to the police, the same officers will carry out investigations and take decisions to prosecute.

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, the proposals build on existing practice and are designed further to improve charging efficiency. The police already have responsibility for charging decisions in 67 per cent of cases. Custody officers, who play no part in investigations, will continue to make the decisions, in accordance with the provisions in the guidance of the Director of Public Prosecutions, on whether to refer cases to the Crown Prosecution Service.

[Baroness Whitaker]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that half-satisfactory reply. However, is she aware that, when I was a magistrate and the decision was made to set up the CPS and give it responsibility for prosecutions, it was universally greeted as a great step forward, not least because it removed the incentive, or perceived incentive, from the prosecutor to tailor the investigation so as to fit it for a charge—I am trying not to use the word “fit”, advisedly? How will HMG guard against that perception?

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, the noble Baroness has raised a number of interesting points. However, the point is that, through modernising our charging programme, we are building on the trust that we have with our police forces and also making sure that we build in greater efficiency and reduce bureaucracy.

[Lord Dear]

Is the Minister aware, as I am, of the steady growth of the use of fixed-penalty tickets by the police in an expanding range of offences, which now includes theft and assault, as well as perhaps traffic offences, and which is giving rise to some disquiet, not least among the judiciary? Does the Minister agree that we have reached a point where it would be proper, and indeed sensible, to institute a full inquiry into this practice and to consider whether we have gone too far?

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Lord that we are going down a route from which we cannot back-track. We are monitoring everything we do. However, there are of course offences where it is best to go through fixed-penalty processes, and that reduces the queue of serious cases to be heard at trial in court.

[Lord Goldsmith]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that what she said about charging creates some disquiet? The present position in relation to charging approved by this House and the whole of Parliament, under which the Crown Prosecution Service makes the decisions, was recommended by an independent criminal judge—one of our most senior—and was followed by pilots, which demonstrated its efficiency and effectiveness? Is she also aware that there will be some concern, particularly in the light of anxieties already expressed in this House about the potential politicisation of the police, if independent prosecuting decisions are not still taken by the prosecutors? Can she assure us that what she has told us about the present system is not just the thin end of the wedge?

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord is also aware that the greater powers that the police have to charge came about under the previous Administration. We are just following through and building on that programme. The noble and learned Lord will also be aware that the CPS will keep control over serious offences but it will also have an overview of every single case that goes through the legal system.

[Lord Macdonald of River Glaven]

Is my noble friend aware that, when charging was transferred from the police to prosecutors seven years ago, attrition rates declined rapidly, pleas of guilty soared by some 40 per cent and the conviction rate rose? Does she recall that the reason for those improvements was that, when the police were responsible for charging in the old days, the courts were invariably expensively stuffed with too many badly flawed cases that were always going to fail? Why does she think that the situation is going to be any different seven years on?

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, I can only repeat to my noble friend that serious cases will remain with the CPS, which will still have an overview of every single case that comes through the courts. However, what we are doing is leading to reductions in bureaucracy and, I hope, an increase in the efficient use of police time. The piloted programmes have indicated a saving of 50,000 police hours. Building on that, by June of this year a further 40,000 police hours will be saved.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, will the noble Baroness address the second point raised by my noble and learned friend that it is the combination of the police being given prosecution powers on the one hand and the Government’s proposal for elected party-political commissioners on the other that brings a great deal of fear? Why are the Government pursuing these two policies, which will undermine confidence in the police force?

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, I completely disagree with the noble Lord. As he is aware, we are trying to introduce efficiencies to the way in which charges are brought. First and foremost the lesser charges are with the police because it is much easier and quicker for them to deal with them. The serious cases will be with the CPS. As to the noble Lord’s second point, he knows exactly where we stand on that.

[Baroness Seccombe]

My Lords, in 2010, 20 per cent of the abandoned cases came about because the CPS failed to review the cases before they came to trial. This obviously caused great distress for victims but was also very wasteful. Can my noble friend say what is being done to put that right?

[Baroness Verma]

My noble friend raises an extremely poignant point. Police charging of some offences will clearly cut out that time-wasting and it will also help do away with the duplication of case preparation. The need for the police and the CPS to co-operate and work together from a very early stage is crucial as it will ensure that victims, who are at the heart of this, can feel assured that achieving justice is not weighted against them.

[Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate]

My Lords—

[Lord Pannick]

My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether the Director of Public Prosecutions was consulted about these proposals? If so, will she place a copy of the director’s response in the Library?

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, we have probably consulted an awful lot of people, including the director. However, to ensure that I am completely safeguarded on that, I will write to the noble Lord.

Charities Bill [HL]

Baroness Verma Excerpts

Thursday 5th May 2011 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Verma]

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, the Bill will bring together provisions of the main legislation on charities in England and Wales into a single piece of legislation; simplify the structure of the existing legislation, making it more accessible to the lay person; and replace the Recreational Charities Act 1958, the Charities Act 1993 and relevant provisions of the Charities Act 2006.

As a consolidation Bill, it brings together provisions of the main charity legislation into a single piece of legislation. Importantly, it does not and cannot introduce new policy, nor open up existing policy for amendment.

The Bill has been drawn up by the Law Commission, working closely with the Office for Civil Society in the Cabinet Office and the Charity Commission. As a Law Commission consolidation Bill it will go through the special parliamentary procedure for Law Commission consolidation Bills, with the detailed parliamentary scrutiny undertaken by the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

Although Ministry of Justice Ministers usually take consolidation Bills through Parliament as Law Commission sponsors, in this case it was decided that a Minister with responsibility for the relevant policy area should pilot the Bill through Parliament. I am pleased to be piloting this Bill through the House of Lords.

Due to the fragmentation of charity legislation over many years, it has become increasing difficult to navigate the law in this area, not least because the Charities Act 2006 made extensive amendments to the Charities Act 1993. Although lawyers and government officials can be expected to keep track of the moving legislative landscape, the same cannot be said of the huge army of volunteer trustees who are the lifeblood of charities large and small throughout England and Wales.

During parliamentary scrutiny of the Bill that became the Charities Act 2006, the Joint Committee on the Bill recommended that charity law be consolidated. It summed up the complexity of the legislative landscape well when it said that,

“small charities—run by volunteers from the proverbial kitchen table—will have to study three different Acts and the relationship between them in order to know the current state of statute law”.

During debates on the Bill, the Joint Committee’s recommendation was endorsed by several noble Lords, who agreed that charity legislation should be consolidated to make it easier to follow.

Although the Bill does not seek to make changes to policy regarding charity law, some minor changes to the existing legislation are being dealt with in a pre-consolidation amendments order. The order, which is made under a specific power in Section 76 of the Charities Act 2006, was considered by this House on 27 April this year. It makes minor changes to the existing legislation which will facilitate the consolidation but which cannot be made in the Bill itself.

As is usual practice, the Cabinet Office conducted a full consultation on the proposed Bill and the pre-consolidation amendments order. Respondents were broadly in support of the consolidation and no substantive concerns were raised about the Bill itself. To address points raised by respondents, some additions were made to the pre-consolidation amendments order where these were within the scope of the power in Section 76 of the 2006 Act. A number of minor drafting changes were also made to the Bill in the light of those responses.

There have been calls by some parties, including some of the consultation respondents, to include in the Bill the 2006 Act provisions relating to fundraising. This was carefully considered but rejected for two good reasons. First, the Bill consolidates the law relating to charities. The fundraising provisions go much wider, covering fundraising for charitable, philanthropic and benevolent purposes, and professional fundraisers and commercial companies undertaking charity promotions. They are therefore beyond the scope of a Bill to consolidate the law relating to charities.

Secondly, there is some doubt about when the public charitable collections provisions of the Charities Act 2006 will be implemented. The provisions create a new regime for licensing and regulating charitable collections conducted in the street or house-to-house, replacing existing legislation that dates back almost 100 years. It has not been possible to implement the new regime for several reasons. Questions have been raised about whether the regime, instead of being deregulatory as intended, will add to the regulatory burden of charities—something that we are very keen to avoid. There is also the issue of cost-effectiveness. The new regime would give the Charity Commission a major new role, but with no new funding to deliver it, at a time when pressure on resources means that the commission has to focus on its core regulatory functions. Finally, the new regime would remove decision-making powers from local authorities, running counter to our plans to devolve more power to local communities. We now believe that the most sensible course of action will be to consider the regulation of public charitable collections as part of the wider review of the Charities Act 2006, which is due to begin later this year.

It is worth saying a bit more about the review of the Charities Act 2006. The review, which is required under Section 73 of the Charities Act 2006, will be a good opportunity to look at the effectiveness of the 2006 Act and the underlying policies, and to consider whether other changes to the legal and regulatory framework for charities could usefully be made.

This consolidation Bill will provide a very clear basis from which to conduct the review—that is, once the legislation is more clearly laid out, it will be easier to assess how well implementation of the legislation is working. Any suggested policy changes or substantive amendments to existing charity law will be considered as part of the review. There are some who will say, “Let’s wait to consolidate until the review of the Charities Act has concluded”. However, any recommendations for legislative change that come out of that review would require primary legislation and could not be achieved through a consolidation Bill. They could also happen only after proper consultation with the charity sector, which would take time, and there is no telling at this stage whether or when there would be the opportunity to legislate. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, who in welcoming this Bill was reported as saying that if we waited for the perfect moment to consolidate, perhaps we would wait for ever.

The Bill represents a small but important step in making charity law simpler to navigate and supports the Government’s aim of making it easier to set up and run a charity as it will make charity law more accessible to the lay charity trustee. We have a window of opportunity to tidy up what has become a confusing and messy legislative landscape and I commend this Bill to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Baroness and all noble Lords for the warm welcome for this Bill. I absolutely agree with the noble Baroness that this House has been seen at its best today, with the breadth of knowledge and expertise—and especially the way in which my noble friend Lord Phillips navigated us around some of the most complicated legal speak that I have ever come across.

Charity is a subject that resonates with all Members of this House, where we have such a broad range of knowledge and experience of the charitable sector, as we have seen from this afternoon’s contributions. I thank all those who have spoken and will try to respond to all the points raised. I am grateful for the speech of my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbots. I know that he played a significant part in this House’s scrutiny of the Charity Act 2006 and was one of those who called for the consolidation of charity legislation at that time. He is now taking forward important work in leading the cutting red tape task force, which is shortly to make its recommendations on how we can cut the thicket of red tape that holds charities back. I understand that the task force has looked at certain barriers to social investment as part of its work, and I look forward to seeing his recommendations on this fairly complex area.

The Government are committed to encouraging and facilitating social investment wherever appropriate, and to making the regulation of charities less burdensome while preserving trust and confidence in the sector. The review of the Charities Act 2006, which is due to start later this year, will present the right opportunity to consider the charity law implications of these recommendations.

I note my noble friend’s points about making permanent endowment much easier. I sympathise with his concerns about the complexity of the schedule of appeal and review rights in the Charities Act 1993. That is not something that we can address in the consolidation Bill but it is an issue that shall be considered as part of the review of the Charities Act 2006. There certainly appears to be a case for simplifying the current complicated system.

My noble friend also raised the issue of public benefit. As the matter of public benefit is now before the Upper Tribunal, I do not really want to comment at this stage other than to say that we would welcome clarification of the law. The review of the 2006 Act will be able to take tribunal decisions into account.

I turn to my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury’s point. I am grateful for the knowledge and experience of charities of my noble friend, who was a key contributor to the Charities Act 2006 and who has applied his keen eye to the Bill and the pre-consolidation amendments order that we considered in Grand Committee last week. I hope that I will be able to provide him with some reassurance on the points that he raised during last week’s Moses Room debate on the pre-consolidation amendments order, particularly his concerns about the pre-consolidation amendments to Section 79 of the Charities Act 1993. I have written to him with a response on his points about Section 79 but would be happy to arrange a meeting with the Bill team and the drafter if he has any remaining concerns on those points.

I have some sympathy with my noble friend’s frustrations that in places the drafting of the Bill inherits some of the complexity of the existing legislation. However, one must bear in mind the main constraint of the consolidation process itself, which is that it must not involve any change in the law other than those that can be achieved by way of the power to make pre-consolidation amendments. What to the untrained eye might appear to be a straightforward improvement in drafting could in fact change the meaning, which we must be careful to preserve.

I am sorry that my noble friend is disappointed by the decision to exclude the fundraising provisions of the Charities Acts of 1992 and 2006. As I said in my opening speech, the decision not to include those provisions was taken for good reasons. I know that in its response to the consultation on the draft consolidation Bill the Charity Law Association called for the inclusion of the fundraising provisions, but it is important to point out that some of the other consultation respondents agreed with the decision to exclude those provisions.

I recognise that both my noble friends Lord Phillips and Lord Hodgson also have a number of detailed points about the Bill itself, notably about Part 1 relating to the meaning of “charity” and “charitable purposes”. I understand that my noble friend Lord Phillips has written to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Carswell, the chairman of the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, and that the points that he has raised are receiving proper attention, so I hope that he will not be too disappointed if I do not deal with those detailed and complex points today.

My noble friend Lord Sheikh rightly pointed out that this country has a proud record of many thousands of volunteers who work tirelessly for charity and social enterprise day in, day out. I welcome his warm welcome to the Bill and congratulate him on the work that he does. My noble friend is right that the big society sits at the heart of highlighting the ability of individuals to engage and deliver such necessary and valuable contributions. He also mentioned gift aid. Her Majesty’s Treasury leads on all tax issues, including gift aid. The Government recognise the importance of gift aid, which is now worth nearly £1 billion a year to charities. The Budget announced a package of measures to support charities. This included the introduction of a new gift aid small donations scheme from 2013. That will permit a gift aid-style payment to be claimed on many small donations without the need for a charity to obtain gift aid declarations. These measures will increase funding to charities by around £600 million over the lifetime of this Parliament.

The noble Lord also talked about support for volunteering and giving. The Government have issued a giving Green Paper, which sought to encourage a debate on making social action the norm for all ages. The Office for Civil Society is also working on creating a civic service, encouraging civil servants to volunteer, and a range of initiatives related to the European Year of Volunteering this year.

The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, asked about consultation responses. A summary of them is now available on the Cabinet Office website, as of this morning. She also asked about CIOs. They will be implemented later this year, although availability of the CIO to existing charities will have to be phased to help the Charity Commission manage the demand. She also spoke of Charity Commission funding. All government departments are facing tough decisions about priorities; the Charity Commission is no exception. It is currently undertaking a strategic review to focus on key priorities for its future work, including seeking the views of the public and other stakeholders. The public consultation phase of the commission’s strategic review has now been completed, and is now focusing on the detail of the changes it will need to make.

The commission’s strategic review will feed into the statutory review of the Charities Act 2006, which is due to begin later this year and will consider potential changes to the legislative framework for charities and the commission. The commission’s chief executive has said about its strategic review:

“I am quite convinced that even with the reduced resources we can be a very good and effective regulator, but we are going to have to be smart and we are going to have to be tough about what we do and don't do”.

In conclusion, I once again thank all noble Lords for giving their time and consideration to this Bill. This is clearly a subject close to many of your Lordships’ hearts, and I welcome the well informed comments that have been made. I look forward to the full and thorough review of the Charities Act 2006 later this year, which will pick up on many comments made by noble Lords today. In the mean time, I hope that noble Lords will agree that the consolidation Bill is a positive step to tidying up what has become a confusing area of legislation. The Government are firmly committed to making it easier to set up and run a charity. I look forward to the recommendations from the taskforce of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, on cutting red tape in the sector. I am also pleased that, later this year, the first ever legal structure designed specifically for the needs of charities, the charitable incorporated organisation, will be available.

I, too, will read Hansard very carefully tomorrow. If there are points—I am sure that there must be—that I have failed to address this afternoon, I undertake to write to noble Lords and place a copy of the letter in the Library.

Bill read a second time.