Operation Conifer: Sir Edward Heath

Countess of Mar Excerpts

Monday 12th November 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

It would be hard for me to give the cost of a review of Operation Conifer, given that a review has not been commissioned.

[The Countess of Mar (CB)]

My Lords, several weeks ago I offered to the Minister a contact who has a great deal of information which would entirely refute every one of these seven allegations. Has she made contact with that person?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I am still looking forward to hearing from the noble Countess. If she has sent me an email I have not received it. Perhaps we can catch up on this after this Question.

Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill

Countess of Mar Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 29th October 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 17, I shall speak also to consequential Amendment 30. In doing so I take comfort from the words of the Security Minister on Report that this clause, introduced late in the day, would benefit from discussion in your Lordships’ House and, in particular, from exploration of what he called the reasonable excuse issue. These amendments do not seek to remove the designated area offence but rather to render it more predictable in its application and, in addition, easier to prosecute.

There are three problems in the context of this offence with the wholly general defence of reasonable excuse. First, those few people with good reason to travel to a terrorist war zone will have no assurance in advance that they will not be prosecuted for doing so. Secondly, this troubles some of them considerably, as other noble Lords will know. Thirdly, attempts to prosecute a person for this offence are likely to be met with an ingenious array of excuses to which the jury will be invited to be sympathetic. Without any outer limits on the doctrine of reasonable excuse, the prosecution—which, as the Minister said, still bears the ultimate burden of proof—is likely in practice to have to demonstrate some malign purpose for travel, which is precisely the state of affairs that this offence is designed to avoid.

Amendment 21 contemplates a pre-authorisation system, as operates in Denmark. The Danish counter-terrorism officials, to whom I had an opportunity recently to speak to in Copenhagen, expressed themselves as broadly content with that system. However, the Australian independent national security legislation monitor—the equivalent of our independent reviewer—stated in his careful and positive review of the equivalent Australian offence that,

“an authorisation regime could only be effective to the extent that individual compliance with the authorisation could be properly monitored”.

In place of the reasonable excuse defence, I propose a series of reasons which, if they constitute the sole reason or reasons for entering or remaining in a designated area, will mean that no offence has been committed. On the method to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, referred—the method he commended to me—whatever the scope of the law, no sensible prosecutor would wish to proceed against persons who fall into any of those categories. However, by spelling them out, everyone knows where they stand.

It will be said that no one can predict all the reasons why someone may wish legitimately to travel to a designated area. I give three answers to that. First, the categories of such people are limited and relatively easily defined, in contrast to the categories of person who may have a reasonable excuse to download or access material under Section 58. Secondly, my list is closely based on that which appears in the equivalent Australian legislation, which the Security Minister referred to as a model for this clause. The Australian list was introduced in 2014 by the foreign fighters Act, and it has not been found necessary to substantively amend it since then.

I suggest amending it in only a couple of respects. Proposed new subsection (2)(d) expands on its Australian equivalent, which is providing aid of a humanitarian nature, though limits it to activities conducted through a registered charity. Proposed new subsection (2)(f) replaces the Australian formulation of making a bona fide visit to a family member on the basis that visits to brothers or sisters who are fighting are not to be encouraged and that Latin should not be inflicted upon juries more than is necessary. The third answer to the objection lies in the regulation-making power, which I propose should operate by the affirmative resolution procedure. In four years it has not been found necessary to use a similar power in the Australian law, which noble Lords may find encouraging.

The amendment does not aspire to infallibility but offers a degree of certainty appropriate to the criminal law. It will give assurance for those who travel for good reasons and assist the prosecution of those whose reasons are not so creditable. I beg to move.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Countess of Mar) (CB)]

I have to tell noble Lords that if Amendment 17 is agreed I cannot call Amendment 18 by reason of pre-emption.

Crime (Overseas Production Orders) Bill [HL]

Countess of Mar Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 5th September 2018 Grand Committee

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I have been consulting my noble friend as to whether I should be moving an adjournment so that we can all get a cup of tea or possibly soup, but he thinks that that is a matter for the Government Whip. So I will instead move Amendment 14—I do not think it will be exciting enough to warm us up.

Clause 4(1) applies requirements for seeking an overseas production order set out in subsections (2) to (6), and such additional requirements as the Secretary of State adds through regulations. I acknowledge that the regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure but, as I said earlier this afternoon, we all know the problems of scrutinising secondary legislation and the almost insurmountable problem of amending or stopping it. We also know about the importance of protecting against an overweening or out-of-control Executive.

My amendment refers to the characteristics of the additional requirements as being consistent with the provisions of what will be Section 4, because the very fact that no limiting factor is expressed raises the issue. I accept, before the Minister says it, that these are additional requirements, so, in any event, they should comply with subsections (2) to (6).

Amendment 15 would leave out “(so far as applicable)”, because I for one do not understand what,

“additional requirements … specified in regulations … (so far as applicable)”,

means. The words must mean something. If the additional requirements are not applicable, they will not apply, so what are we worried about? I beg to move.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Countess of Mar) (CB)]

I tend to sympathise with the noble Baroness. I was warned to bring my coat in before I came.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, if I were Whip, I would allow a short break if for no reason other than to go and get a hot water bottle. I am still in summer clothes.

Subsections (2) to (6) of Clause 4 set out the substantive requirements for a judge to consider when making an overseas production order. These include the judge being satisfied that there are: reasonable grounds for believing that a person on whom an order is served operates or is based in a country outside the UK with which the UK has a designated international co-operation agreement; reasonable grounds for believing that an indictable offence has been committed and is being investigated—or proceedings have been instituted—or that the application relates to a terrorism investigation; reasonable grounds for believing that the data sought is likely to have substantial value to the proceedings or investigation; and reasonable grounds for believing that it is in the public interest for the electronic data to be produced.

The amendment would ensure that any additional requirements made by way of regulations under Clause 4(1)(b) are consistent with the requirements under Clause 4(2) to (6). Any further requirements made by way of regulations will be in addition to existing requirements already set out in Clause 4. It follows therefore that any additional requirements cannot contradict the provisions already set out, as these will have to be complied with. There will not be a scenario where only additional requirements as set out in regulations are complied with. In every case, the requirements under Clause 4 must be satisfied before granting an order.

In addition, unless there is express provision in the enabling Act, delegated legislation cannot amend or vary it. Therefore, an additional requirement as set out in regulations under this clause could not have the effect of contradicting or undermining the requirements of the Bill. For example, a regulation which sought to change the type of offence as already set out in Clause 4(3) from an indictable offence to a summary offence could not be adopted under the provisions of the Bill.

Furthermore, the scope of secondary legislation is limited by the scope of the enabling legislation. As the power is to provide for “additional” requirements, it follows that those requirements will be compatible with those already in Bill. The power to provide additional requirements and regulations is subject to the affirmative procedure. Should additional regulations be required, the House will have an opportunity to scrutinise the proposed requirements before they come into law.

The language in Clause 4(1), which the noble Baroness is seeking to amend, clarifies that the additional requirements set out in the regulations may not apply in all cases or in every application for an order. There may be international agreements the terms of which do not warrant additional requirements to be specified in regulations to be made by the Secretary of State. This could be because both the UK and the other country participating or party to the arrangement may choose a wide-ranging agreement that does not place any further restrictions on that which is already proposed in the Bill. The clause therefore reflects the reality that in some cases a judge need only be satisfied of the requirements met in Clause 4(2) to (6) without necessarily having regard to all additional requirements that may have been specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State. With those words, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

Immigration Applications

Countess of Mar Excerpts

Wednesday 16th May 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Roberts of Llandudno]

Shall I try? I am afraid that we have to face facts. With the Windrush—

[The Countess of Mar (CB)]

My Lords, may I ask the Leader of the House to read out what it says in the Companion about Questions at Question Time?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I do not have the Companion with me, so I will leave that for another time. The noble Lord rightly makes a point about the number of appeals increasing. Actually, they went down slightly in the past year, but the number of applications is increasing over time and that is something to be mindful of. He also asked about better decision-making. I have several things to say about that. First, the average age of appeals being determined by the First-tier Tribunal is, according to HMCTS statistics, 50 weeks. That is a considerable length of time. The latest data on win rates is certainly not where we would like it to be.

Appeals are allowed for a variety of reasons. Often it is because new evidence is presented before the tribunal that was not available to the decision-maker at the time. Often, the information is presented very shortly before the hearing and too late for the Home Office to withdraw the case. But one specific reason for the higher rate of allowed appeals is that many cases going through the appeal system are now quite old. The average age of a human rights case is over a year. In that time, often appellants have built up new rights.

Gender Equality: Pay

Countess of Mar Excerpts

Wednesday 21st March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I am almost certain that most local authorities will have settled equal pay claims with their employees—mine certainly did. On what more is there to do on equal pay, if women think that they are not being paid the same as men for the same job, they are perfectly entitled to—and should—bring claims forward.

[The Countess of Mar (CB)]

My Lords, when I joined the Civil Service in 1959 as a clerical officer, we had equal pay, and I was horrified to read that this no longer persists in Whitehall. Can the Minister explain why, given that the Act came in in 1970, Her Majesty’s Government and previous Governments have not done something about it?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

As I explained, Her Majesty’s Government have done something about it and encourage people who feel that they have equal pay claims to come forward. That certainly happens at local authority level, and in the Civil Service, we are looking closely at and continue to monitor people whose pay is not equal across the sexes.

Air Guns

Countess of Mar Excerpts

Monday 5th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[The Countess of Mar (CB)]

My Lords, what is the age range of offenders when they are caught? If they are youngsters, as I suspect, would it not be a good idea if parents, who often buy these things as presents for their teenagers, are advised that the present should be accompanied by lessons?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

In terms of the age range, people using guns have to be over 18. I certainly agree with the noble Countess that anyone who is in possession of a gun for whatever legal purpose definitely should be taught how to use it properly.

Health: Ebola

Countess of Mar Excerpts

Wednesday 9th March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, I am sorry if the noble Lord thinks that I did not respond, so I shall try again this time. We are supporting the strengthening of healthcare systems in Sierra Leone and other places. In Sierra Leone in particular we are investing £37 million to strengthen President Koroma’s recovery plan, which will help build up the strength and capacity of local health workers—and, of course, will look at patient safety.

[The Countess of Mar (CB)]

My Lords, I understand that it is possible that Ebola will become endemic in some of the populations that have been affected in the recent crisis. Can the Minister tell us what assistance is being given to these countries to monitor their people and make sure that we do not have such a huge epidemic as we had before?

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, I am pleased to say that so far we are now looking towards 16 March as being the zero-plus-42 days since the last outbreak of Ebola, but we continue to monitor. Sierra Leone has active surveillance activities. Throughout the communities, health workers, health facilities and community surveillance programmes are continuing, even though we are coming to a zero point.

International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Bill

Countess of Mar Excerpts

Friday 6th February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lawson of Blaby (Con)]

My Lords, I regret and apologise for the fact that I was unable to be here in the House for the Second Reading of this Liberal Democrat Private Member’s Bill. However, my regret is somewhat tempered by the fact that contributions were limited to five minutes. This is a very important subject; it is an extremely complex subject; and there is no way that justice can be done to it in five minutes. So I hope that we shall have a little bit more time today.

It is a thoroughly bad Bill. It represents the triumph of gesture politics over good government.

[The Countess of Mar (CB)]

My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will not mind me interrupting, but this is Committee stage and, although the noble Lord did not come for the Second Reading, I hope that he is not going to make a Second Reading speech and that he will attend to the amendment in hand.

[Lord Lawson of Blaby]

I am speaking to the amendment. It is a very modest amendment: it just introduces the word “a”. The purpose of the amendment is to give the Secretary of State slightly greater flexibility which can be used in the light of changing circumstances as they evolve in the future. That is clearly desirable.

It is one of a number of amendments and I must explain to the noble Countess why it is necessary to look more broadly. A large number of amendments are down on the Marshalled List, which noble Lords will have recognised. None of them is a wrecking amendment. They are all designed to make the Bill somewhat less bad. I hope that that is a proper exercise for this Committee to be engaged in.

Noble Lords will have noticed that pretty much all the signatories to the amendments on the Marshalled List were members of the Economic Affairs Committee of this House under the excellent chairmanship of my noble friend Lord MacGregor when we produced our report in 2012 on the economic effectiveness of development aid. We produced a unanimous, all-party report based entirely on the evidence, which was overwhelming. I reassure the noble Countess that I am not going to make this speech on each of the amendments, but this is the first one and it is necessary to explain why we have put down all these different amendments to try to make the Bill slightly less bad.

The Economic Affairs Committee report had a number of findings. First, it found that the 0.7% target should not be a plank, let alone the main plank, of British aid policy. Secondly, it found that the,

“Government should therefore drop its commitment”,

to establish in law the requirement to spend 0.7% of GNI on aid. Thirdly, it found that,

“the evidence that aid makes a contribution to growth in recipient countries is inconclusive”.

But aid certainly makes a great contribution to corruption in recipient countries. This is a major problem which comes up time and again and was most recently identified in the report of the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee earlier this week.

Since this is a Liberal Democrat Bill, if the Committee will allow me, I will quote from a letter written to me by—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lawson of Blaby]

I am making a speech which puts the context, which is essential for all the amendments on the Marshalled List. I am sorry that noble Lords are terrified of the argument. They realise that this is an absurd Bill. They are not prepared to listen to any arguments against it. Noble Lords will want to read the report of the Economic Affairs Committee. We have ample evidence of all the corruption there is.

Let me make two things absolutely clear. First, we are not discussing humanitarian aid. My view is that it would be good for us to do more than we do at present in humanitarian aid, but 90% of the British aid programme is so-called development aid, and that is what we are debating today in this Bill. Secondly, I am not at all opposed to the great cause of alleviating poverty in the poorest countries of the world. Indeed, I have always been strongly supportive of that and was lucky enough to be in a position to do something about aid. Some noble Lords will remember the so-called Toronto terms of 1988, which were called the Toronto terms because they were finally agreed at the G7 summit in Toronto. Their aim was to give debt relief to the poorest of the poor countries.

[The Countess of Mar]

The noble Lord is not listening to the Committee. Will he please address whichever “the” or “a” it is in line 2, give us a reason to change it and then sit down?

[Lord Lawson of Blaby]

The reason for changing the Bill in this way to make it less bad is the contents of the Bill. The contents of the Bill are highly relevant. If I may quote—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My noble friend Lord Lawson made an interesting speech. It did not command the total agreement of your Lordships in every aspect but it focused on some important points. It is a small, very neat, amendment but it raises implications. I beg those who are bringing forward and supporting the Bill, with the noblest intentions, to heed some of the points that are made because it will result in a better Bill.

I also apologise for not being able to join in at Second Reading—I had other commitments—and for the fact that, although I spoke frequently on Foreign Office and Commonwealth Affairs aspects of development aid from both sides of the Dispatch Box over a period of 10 years, I have not spoken on these issues from the Back Benches. However, I have been deeply concerned with development issues over a period of 50 years, going back to the era of the Colonial Development Corporation, the original CDC, before its efforts were later wrecked, I am sorry to say; and with the founding of the first Overseas Development Institute, before we even had a department of development. I regard development as the highest priority for this country and anything which gets in its way concerns me. We ought to try to clear out the obstacles. I am proud that we have become what Sir John Major called the development hub. It is a marvellous role for this country and we should pursue it in the smartest, cleverest and most effective way we can.

It worries me that without this amendment, by making it “the” duty—the first priority, in effect—of the Secretary of State to adhere to this 0.7% target, we are distorting and damaging the development cause, which has moved into a completely new phase. I read with great care the Second Reading debate—

[The Countess of Mar]

I understood the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, to say that he meant to say that it was the second “the” that was being changed, not the first one. So it would still be the duty of the Secretary of State.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I appreciate what the noble Countess is saying but the point is central regardless of which “the” the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, intended to remove. This is the sensible debate we should to have.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Countess of Mar]

The Committee has been very patient. This is a Second Reading speech and these are arguments that should have been developed at that stage, not in Committee. May I ask the noble Lord to cut short his speech and just to attend to the amendment on the Marshalled List?

[Noble Lords]

Hear, hear!

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, with some trepidation I rise to speak to this amendment. Perhaps I should make it absolutely clear that I am not against the Government spending 0.7%, 0.8% or 1% of gross national income on aid. I am not opposed to aid; indeed, I have raised quite a lot of money for women in India. For me, the central argument is what we are trying to do here. I hope that I can avoid the noble Countess calling me to order in speaking to this amendment.

By the way, I do not know why there is confusion about which “the” it is. The amendment says:

“Page 1, line 2, leave out first ‘the’ and insert ‘a’”.

We are talking about “a” duty of the Secretary of State rather than “the” duty.

[The Countess of Mar]

I apologise to the noble Lord, but his noble friend sitting next to him said that he got the wrong “the”.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

Very occasionally, my noble friend gets things wrong. I thought that we should speak to the amendment on the Marshalled List. If the noble Countess wishes me to speak to the other amendment, I can make the same speech because I want to focus on what duty we are placing on the Secretary of State and what is the target.

[The Countess of Mar]

The noble Lord’s noble friend—the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale—reminded the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, that the Lord Speaker said the second “the” when she proposed the amendment. Would the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, like to speak to that one?

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

In which case my noble friend got it right and that is what we will discuss. If we are to talk about the target, that is what I want to address. My understanding of the Bill and its genesis—the idea was included in our manifesto as something that we would do in the first Session of this Parliament; the timetable has slipped a little—was that we wanted to enshrine in statute the UN target of 0.7%. That is what I thought we were trying to do. The UN resolution made in 1970 in respect of the target that we are apparently signing up to said:

“In recognition of the special importance of the role which can be fulfilled only by official development assistance, a major part of financial resource transfers to the developing countries should be provided in the form of official development assistance. Each economically advanced country will progressively increase its official development assistance to the developing countries and will exert its best efforts to reach a minimum net amount of 0.7 per cent of its gross national product at market prices by the middle of the Decade”.

That would have been in 1975, so we are some 40 years behind that deadline. I point out that the target was 0.7% of “gross national product”, but the Bill before us sets a target for a percentage of gross national income. That is not the same thing.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Countess of Mar]

No.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

The noble Countess says no. I could go through the whole of the report strengthening the point about targets. I am picking up only headline points. For example:

“The Department added activities at short notice in 2013 which constrained choice … The activities the Department added in 2013 reduced its available budget at the start of 2014, and contributed to the delay of some of its planned activities”.

What that means is that the fact that it had been given a statutory target meant that some people in desperate need around the world had their projects cancelled because of the financial management difficulties imposed by having a target.

The NAO also found:

“The limited flexibility in the target led to the Department rescheduling payments in 2013, first to increase outturn, and then to reduce it … The Department phased its contributions to 2 key multilateral organisations to increase 2013 ODA”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ramsbotham]

All I would say is that if we are talking about 0.7%, it should include every contribution made by every ministry.

[The Countess of Mar]

My Lords, before we go any further, can I just get something clear? Are we talking about “a” duty of “a” Secretary of State for “a” target, because we seem to be debating all three at the moment, or just one of those “a”s, and if so, which one? Can we have that made absolutely clear?

[The Chairman of Committees (Lord Sewel)]

My Lords, I recognise that it is unusual for the Chair to make an intervention in Committee like this, but I understand that clarification is needed. The advice that I have received is that the amendment before us should read:

“Page 1, line 2, leave out the third “the” and insert “a””.

I hope that is of help to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lawson of Blaby]

My Lords, we have had an interesting debate so far. I would like to reply to some of the points that have been made, not least by my noble friend Lord Purvis, who has just sat down. First, though, I thank the noble Lord the Lord Chairman of Committees for his very helpful clarification of precisely what it is that we are debating in this amendment. The question of the amendment goes deeper, though, because what it is about—some of the later amendments are also about this—is introducing a degree of flexibility into the Bill. The reasons why that is necessary have been set out very well by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, and my noble friend Lord MacGregor.

It is quite impossible to debate this amendment without explaining why it is that, for a good Government, a degree of flexibility is necessary. The fact is that the 0.7% target is an anachronism. As my noble friend Lord Purvis mentioned, it was set in 1970, but the world has changed dramatically since then. What has changed it most is, in a word, globalisation: that is to say, the huge increase in both trade flows, which are the most important aspects for the developing world—I am strongly in favour of reducing barriers to imports from the developing world; that is what it needs and that is what we should do for it—and the huge increase in private capital flows, which my noble friend Lord Howell mentioned, and which are vital. Today, totally unlike the case in 1970, ODA is only 1/10th of the total amount of capital flows to the developing world. As the distinguished development economist Paul Collier said in evidence to us, aid is now “almost a sideshow”, although as my noble friend Lord Forsyth and others, and indeed our report, have pointed out, it has a much bigger effect on the extent of corruption in the developing world, for which the evidence is incontrovertible. One noble Lord has already mentioned the report by the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee on the so-called Private Infrastructure Development Group, which was produced this week in only the latest example.

There is a more fundamental problem about the 0.7% target, and it is development aid. I should respond to the very impassioned contribution from my noble friend Lord Fowler: this is not about humanitarian aid. As I said in my opening remarks, I believe that the case for increasing humanitarian aid is strong. This is about so-called development aid, aid for economic development, which is 90% of the DfID budget while humanitarian aid is a tiny part. Humanitarian aid needs the support of Governments; it is not exclusively for them, as charities and churches do good work in this area, but it is still a very strong responsibility of government, whereas capital flows, as my noble friend Lord Howell said, are now overwhelmingly private capital flows. The 0.7% target is therefore completely obsolete. That is no doubt why no other major country has the slightest intention of observing it. The G7, which consists of the major economies of the world—

[The Countess of Mar]

My Lords, I am afraid the noble Lord is slipping into Second Reading mode again. Would he kindly address the amendment?

[Lord Lawson of Blaby]

This is the necessary background to the amendment. I repeat what my noble friend Lord MacGregor said: it is not my intention to go over this in the course of subsequent amendments. If it is felt better to take more time in subsequent amendments—if that is the will of the House—I will do so, but that is not my intention. I think it is more coherent, a more efficient use of time and more helpful to the House if the argument is made on this, the first amendment that we are discussing today.

As I say, I know that the noble Countess obviously does not want to hear this, but I am afraid that it is a fact that in the G7 countries, the amount of aid that the other six give ranges from 0.4% in the case of France and Germany to 0.2% in the case of Italy and the United States. None of them has the slightest intention of increasing that, and certainly they have no intention of making it legally binding.

Children and Families Bill

Countess of Mar Excerpts

Monday 18th November 2013 Grand Committee

[Baroness Northover]

My Lords, this is an important debate about the role of English local authorities in securing early-years provision free of charge for young children and about sufficient childcare. In responding, I will also speak to government Amendment 240R.

The Government are as determined as other noble Lords that parents should have a wide choice of early education and childcare places, and that places are of the highest quality possible. Clause 76 will remove the requirement on local authorities to assess the sufficiency of childcare provision every three years. We recognise the concerns raised by my noble friend Lady Tyler and the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, and I hope that I can provide some reassurance.

There are two duties on local authorities relating to the sufficiency of childcare: the duty to secure sufficient childcare under Section 6 of the Childcare Act 2006; and the duty to make an assessment of sufficiency of childcare every three years under Section 11 of the same Act, which is what we have just been addressing. The first of these duties is paramount. The duty of the local authority to secure sufficiency of childcare remains in place; it is the other element that we are talking about here. We are clear that local authorities should take steps to ensure that parents can access the childcare they need.

To satisfy themselves that there is sufficient childcare in their area—my noble friend Lady Tyler is right—local authorities do indeed need to collect information on the availability of, and demand for, childcare. Our statutory guidance makes it clear that local authorities should report to elected members annually on the steps they are taking to address any gaps in childcare provision. The annual report should also be made available to parents, allowing them to hold local authorities to account for ensuring that there is high-quality, affordable childcare in their area. The noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, mentioned a simpler annual report. We are more in agreement here than perhaps it may have appeared from our initial discussions. There will need to be an assessment because those kinds of data are required, and there will need to be an annual report.

The decision to repeal the sufficiency assessment—that three-yearly, very lengthy document—was taken after public consultation. The majority of respondents supported the repeal and the proposals that local authorities should prepare and publish an annual report on the sufficiency of childcare. The noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, referred to that consultation and suggested that perhaps we did not ask whether the duty should be repealed. Perhaps I misunderstood her—it looks as if I did not—but the department did indeed ask this. The question was: “Do you support the repeal of Section 11 and the revocation of the supporting regulations?”. That was directly asked of people, and 62% supported it; only 10% said they did not.

The consultation took place between November 2010 and February 2012, and the Government published their response in May 2011; it is available on the Department for Education website. The feeling came through that what was needed was to ensure that there were sufficient places and that too much focus was perhaps going on this rather lengthy document, produced every three years, which required a lot of effort to put together and was not easy for parents to access, and so on.

No doubt in the first place the provision was made for the best possible reasons and I fully understand why it should be there, but the purpose is to try to secure sufficient childcare and to have a mechanism of putting pressure on local authorities to ensure that that happens. That is why the department is in favour of moving to an annual assessment and giving that annual report to the councillors who are accountable. I hope that noble Lords will be reassured.

[The Countess of Mar (CB)]

Perhaps I might ask the noble Baroness to check the dates she gave us for the consultation. It sounds as though the Government’s response came a year before the consultation was complete, if I heard her right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Northover]

Perhaps I may answer the noble Countess, Lady Mar. The consultation went from November 2010 to February 2011—which, I agree, is a much more normal length of time for a consultation.

[The Countess of Mar]

It shows we are listening.

[Baroness Northover]

I am very flattered. I will come back to the noble Countess in a moment very precisely on her point, because obviously it is very important.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ramsbotham (CB)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 245 in particular. In doing so, I hope that the Committee will allow me to reflect on the comparisons between the commissioner and my own former position as Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons.

Unlike the other inspectors of public sector organisations, the Chief Inspector of Prisons deliberately does not come from that service, in order to ensure complete objectivity and independence. The Chief Inspector of Constabulary is a policeman; the Chief Inspector of Probation has been a probation person, and so on. What was also interesting was that I was a Crown servant, not a civil servant, which gave me another degree of independence. I would like to see the Children’s Commissioner given exactly the same status in order to emphasise that point. It does not in any way lessen your responsibilities and it certainly does not lessen your access.

It is also important to realise that, again in parallel with the Chief Inspector of Prisons, you are the quality assurer. You are there to assure the quality of the delivery of children’s rights in this particular case. Quality assurance carries with it a certain amount of responsibility but it also carries a requirement to have sufficient resources to be able to do that. I have to say that, after talking to the Children’s Commissioner and looking at her responsibilities, I do not think that she is adequately resourced to be able to carry out effectively the role of quality assurer of children’s rights.

I have just come from taking part in the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill, where we are talking about injunctions for children aged 10 and upwards, in addition to the anti-social behaviour orders for children aged 10 and upwards, and the importance of ensuring that there is no postcode lottery in that and that they are overseen fairly and consistently by local government around the country. Who is going to do that? It seems to me that the one person who is, and will have the responsibility to do so, is the Children’s Commissioner. I do not see why it could not be added to his or her responsibilities. Having seen some of the excellent reports that have come out recently from the Office of the Children’s Commissioner—in particular the one about the effects of acquired brain injury and neurodevelopment, which I think is a model; not to mention the very effective report on the work of mother and baby units in women’s prisons—I think it is very important that someone should look in greater detail than I think the Dunford report did at some of the peripherals that come with the responsibility for quality assurance.

I welcome the other amendments in this group, which seek to do that, but I am just a little nervous about the Children’s Commissioner having to report to too many separate committees in the other place. Yes, of course, human rights are involved but in dealing with children we are dealing not just with education but with health, justice and the Department for Work and Pensions because of various payments; we are also dealing with the Department for Communities and Local Government. It worries me that we should be specifying two particular committees out of many. I do not think we want to complicate the chain of reporting for the quality assurer on children’s rights. We ought to tease this out in this Committee, and possibly make recommendations about the clear chain that we see through to the Minister, to whom the commissioner will be reporting.

I am slightly concerned about the suggestion that the reporting annually to Parliament should not go through a Minister. The reason for that is that when the prisons inspectorate was set up there was a requirement for the Home Secretary to publish a reply to every list of recommendations made by the chief inspector. For the Children’s Commissioner to be properly effective, the Minister must reply so that one can see what is going to be done to maintain the momentum of improvements and observations that the commissioner makes.

[The Countess of Mar]

I support the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, in his contention. We have a Minister for Children, and the Children’s Commissioner should report to that Minister.

[Baroness Walmsley]

My Lords, I will not speak in detail about the amendments but I should like to express my general support for anything that strengthens the independence of the Children’s Commissioner. The commissioner is not completely independent. He or she will have their powers very much diluted, which would be a pity because the Bill considerably improves the powers and duties of the commissioner. I very much welcome that.

Of course, it is also important that the commissioner has appropriate resources with which to carry out those improved powers and duties. The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, has clearly shown the link between independence and money. If the Government are controlling exactly how the commissioner spends his or her money, where is the independence? Her amendment should therefore be carefully considered.

Children and Families Bill

Countess of Mar Excerpts

Wednesday 30th October 2013 Grand Committee

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as my sister is a BSL interpreter at a university in the UK and I worked in the higher education sector for 20 years. I will pick up on the last point of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. Part of the problem in the HE sector is that there is not always consistency. “Care leaver” can be defined by an individual institution. There are usually generous grants, and they are usually on top of any SEN support, but the definition of care can be quite limited. Certainly it would not always cover guardianship or kinship carers, where children have come out of care. Those are some of the issues that remain.

The reason that I wanted to speak to these amendments is that I absolutely applaud the sentiment behind them. If we are truly to have an SEN offer that covers young people to the age of 25, it is ridiculous that an entire sector of education is not covered by it. My fear is that this amendment tries to tack universities on to a much more local offer, thereby causing problems. I will ask the Minister a couple of questions on this later.

The university provision can be very generous. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Lingfield, outlined, for some students, where there is perhaps the possibility to have diverse views, such as with dyspraxia, dyslexia or one of a number of other SENs, it can be very difficult to get past the first hurdle. I would welcome a transition arrangement, as we have for young people with learning disabilities and social care support moving from child support into adult services, for those with special educational needs entering universities. At the moment they stand completely separate, and frankly that is where the holes start to appear. If a child has a statement under the old system, or an EHC under the new system, they should have that information passed on automatically, along with the level of support that they have had in the past, providing the young person is happy for that to happen.

I notice that the Minister in the Commons said that he would provide further detail as to the proposed contents of the code of practice relating to the transition to university, and made a commitment to consult widely with practitioners in university in drafting the code. I think that that would be extremely helpful. I would also welcome further details from the Minister—perhaps in writing as it is not directly within her field—as to what action the Government will take to ensure disabled students have disability support in place as soon as possible in their course of study. In particular, there needs to be a commitment for the code of practice to recommend that local authorities support and encourage DSA applications as soon as possible the year before entry, and that such support in applying for the DSA is stipulated in the plans of young people intending to study at university. The problem is that that conflicts with the current timescale for young people to be encouraged to apply through student finance, which most people do not do until they are well into their final exams in the summer term before they plan to go up to university. That is too late for students with statements and support because there is not enough time for receiving universities to do the research necessary to provide the right support.

I have said before that I am concerned about local authorities having a duty to secure a place in higher education for students, as would be the implication of this group of amendments. I would encourage mechanisms, perhaps through an alternative amendment, to make sure that there is dialogue so that not just the statement is carried through. If the student has concerns, the local authority may know and understand the case better, and sometimes it is useful if the young person is not the only one arguing their case.

I have probably covered it all. I regret not being able to support these amendments but there may be scope for something that ensures that these young people studying in higher education, whether in college or at university, have as smooth a transition as possible and the continuing level of support without having to reargue the case from scratch.

[The Countess of Mar (CB)]

My Lords, about a fortnight ago I forwarded to the Minister an e-mail I had from a young man who is autistic, questioning the fact that this Bill prevents local authorities from funding university education for SEN young people. I asked the Minister for clarification. Would it be possible to get that today? Are local authorities still able to fund young people to go to university or has the Bill blocked that funding?

[Lord Low of Dalston (CB)]

My Lords, I speak to Amendment 155 in my name. Clause 38(3) sets out the types of institution that may be named in an education, health and care plan. Ministers have stressed the importance of a joined-up approach and that a system that goes from nought to 25 will improve the lives of children and young people with special educational needs. I was therefore a bit surprised to see that higher education institutions were omitted from the list. That means that if a young person with a special educational need decides that they wish to pursue a university education, they must do so without the support of an education, health and care plan.

Disabled young people and those with special educational needs need all the support they can get to go to university. Disabled graduates are much more likely to get a job than those without a degree. In 2012, 71% of disabled graduates were in employment compared with only 42% of disabled non-graduates. Yet disabled young people are less likely to go on to higher education than their non-disabled peers: in 2009-10, it was 33% of disabled as against 41% of non-disabled young people aged 19.