UK Net Zero Emissions Target

Debate between Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Henley

Wednesday 12th June 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

I can give my noble friend an assurance. If he had listened carefully to the Statement, he would know that our plans cover net zero for the whole economy, including aviation and shipping. Emissions from domestic flights and shipping are covered by our existing domestic legislation. The Committee on Climate Change accounts for international flights in its advice on setting our interim carbon budgets. This will continue to be the case for the more ambitious target.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

Will the Minister consider seriously the impact assessment for each sector proposed by my noble friend Lord Cunningham of Felling?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, an impact assessment is made by the climate change committee. At this stage, departments—this will involve a whole array of them—have not produced individual ones. As each suggestion is made about where we have to go in each area, appropriate impact assessments will be made.

Nuclear Energy: Small Modular Reactors

Debate between Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Henley

Monday 10th June 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, the point I was making about storage was that it needs further research, because there are potentials there. I acknowledge the noble Lord’s expertise from his former constituency interests, and his interest in Moorside. He knows that we were disappointed that Moorside fell through but the site is still there, and it too might be looked at for small modular reactors.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

My Lords, following up on the question just asked, who would fund an SMR programme at Trawsfynydd?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, that will depend on whatever proposal is put forward.

British Steel

Debate between Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Henley

Wednesday 22nd May 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I can expand a little on procurement. As the noble and learned Lord knows, there are rules that the Government must stick to, but we were able to relax them so as to allow, for example, government procurement to make use of British firms slightly more liberally than was the case in the past. It might be better if I write to the noble and learned Lord in greater detail on that point, but certainly we have been encouraging the government departments that use steel to use British steel wherever possible.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

My Lords, will the Minister confirm that, in the event that Ministers allow British Steel to fail, HS2 rail requirements will be met in Hayange in France as opposed to Scunthorpe?

Draft National Policy Statement for Geological Disposal Infrastructure

Debate between Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Henley

Thursday 6th September 2018 Grand Committee

[Lord Henley]

I am fairly sure that that will be the case. I congratulate the noble Lord on spotting a marginal difference in the two—the noble Lord speaks as a greater expert than I am. I would be grateful for the opportunity to write to the noble Lord in greater detail. It is important that we get these things right. That is why I have made it quite clear that no decisions have been made. This is not an attempt to impose something on Cumbria that it does not want; it is not something to impose on the Thames Valley—I am thinking of community involvement in Staines or Heathrow or wherever. It is not something that we are proposing. We want to find somewhere with the right geology and the right community involvement.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

In 1995, Nirex appealed against the decision of Cumbria County Council to refuse permission for a rock characterisation facility which would have led to the construction of what we are looking at today. Will that report and the evidence taken at that inquiry be fully considered when decisions are taken in dealing with this application when it comes?

[Lord Henley]

The noble Lord will be aware that I have been around for quite a long time and references to that were made earlier. I am not an expert on the Nirex report. I know that it did not rule out Cumbria as being unsuitable geologically, but again it would be right and proper if I wrote to the noble Lord on that point. I welcome him to this debate. Certainly, we will address the point in due course.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

Will the Minister put a copy of the response to me in the Library?

[Lord Henley]

I will make sure that my response is available not only to the noble Lord but, as always, in the Library.

Community involvement and who the community should be were also matters of concern, particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Fox. The Working with Communities policy proposals state that those who have a say in whether the GDF is sited, once we have decided on geology, will be those who would be directly impacted by the construction and operation of the GDF. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, dismissed this as a bribe, but this is a multi-billion pound infrastructure investment—I shall say a little more about costs—that is likely to have a positive effect on the local community. Those benefits will not materialise for decades after the initial interest is shown and will benefit future generations rather than current residents. That is why the Government are making community investment funding available to those communities that participate in the siting process in order to demonstrate that we are serious about the opportunities and benefits that hosting a facility will have and to recognise the efforts of the local community early on in that process.

The noble Lord, Lord Judd, was, I think, worried that, although this might bring jobs, the number of jobs will diminish over time. That is true. In the very long term the number of jobs will go down, but I recommend that he looks at what has been happening at Sellafield with all the cleaning up that is going on there. On my last visit I was assured that the clean-up is going to continue for many years to come—I see the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, nodding—and it is quite likely that those who are going to be involved in the final clean-up at Sellafield have not yet been born. We are talking about a very long timescale on that front, and I think the same will be true of the development of this facility.

The noble Lord, Lord Fox, asked who exactly will be doing this and how we can be sure that they will be there for a long time. Radioactive Waste Management, a wholly-owned subsidiary company of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, is the body involved with the long-term clean-up at Sellafield. As he knows, the NDA is a non-departmental public body responsible for implementing a safe, sustainable and publicly acceptable geological disposal programme. Under the Energy Act 2004, the NDA is required to decommission and clean up designated nuclear sites and is responsible for the operation of the designated facilities for the disposal of hazardous material.

I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, who asked about costs. It is very difficult to speculate on what those long-term costs might be. One remembers the American senator with his “a billion here, a billion there and pretty soon we are talking about real money”. I have a figure—I do not know how accurate it is likely to be—of around £12 billion for legacy waste for the likely inventory that we can foresee at the moment. How long that will last and how accurate that will be will be a matter of speculation. We are in the process of updating the cost estimate in line with the wider update of the programme business case, in line with best practice, and that will need to allow for risk, uncertainty and optimism.

I see time is drawing on. There was one final point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, about post-2018 and the European Union (Withdrawal) Act and whether the spent fuel and radioactive waste directive will cease to exist after exit. The 2018 Act has gone through and preserves most parts of existing law, as the noble Lord will remember from the long discussions. Requirements in Euratom directives do not have direct effect—that is, they do not give rise to enforceable rights for individuals that are not directly preserved by the Act, and that is the case for the relevant part of the spent fuel and radioactive waste directive.

I hope I have answered most of the points that were put before me. I will go carefully through what has been said in the course of this debate and respond to points that noble Lords have made if I feel that I have missed them. I also repeat the offer I made at the beginning, and I hope my officials will bear with me repeating it. If any noble Lord wishes to talk further to officials on this, I am more than happy to make them available and I recommend that noble Lords get in touch with my office to arrange that should they wish to do so.

Motion agreed.

Smart Meters Bill

Debate between Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Henley

Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 15th May 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

My Lords, subsection (5)(b) of the new clause proposed by my noble friend states:

“an assessment of the future developments thought feasible and desirable for the smart meter programme, including monitoring of customer activity so as to deliver least cost tariff benefits combined with the maximum ability to engage with future appliance applications, inter-operability, compatibility with smart phones and tablets, and the encouragement of self-generated capacity in the home”.

I shall concentrate on the word “interoperability”, which I raised in Committee.

I was with some friends last weekend and we had a discussion about smart meters. The general view was that the problem with them is that you cannot switch suppliers. Although we are assured by Ministers that we can switch suppliers, the public believe that that is impossible without losing some information. My friends said that some suppliers refuse to have anything to do with the meters provided by others.

We need today from the Dispatch Box an undertaking that under whatever arrangements are ultimately in place, there will be absolute interoperability whereby, whoever is the supplier, the meter will work and provide information on the number of units consumed, the price per unit and the total paid to that point for the power consumed. The public need the assurance that if they get a smart meter, they can switch between suppliers quite liberally without losing any of the facilities available from an existing meter. I would like that assurance from the Dispatch Box, because I am sure that it would resolve many of the existing concerns in the country on the failure of the equipment to be interoperable.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Henley) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and other noble Lords for introducing their amendments. I think that it was the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, who said that she came late to this debate. That is true of a great many of us—but she is right to say that it has been going on a long time, through a Labour Government, the coalition Government and now under this Government. I believe we are making progress, and I want to correct the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, who implied that only about 300 smart meters had been installed. I hope that was just a slip of the tongue and he was just referring to SMETS 2. As he is aware, some 10 million smart and advanced meters are operating across Great Britain, which are being installed at a rate approaching 500,000 a month—and I hope that figure will go up, as all those first-generation meters are expected to be enrolled within the national infrastructure from later this year.

I also thank the noble Lords, Lord Grantchester and Lord Stevenson, the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, and the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for the way they have co-operated on this Bill, and the constructive approach they have taken to its scrutiny. I hope that, as a result, we will fairly quickly be able to move on to other matters and then, once the legislation is finished with, get on with the programme and meet the aims shared by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and I. We have heard concerns about how well the smart metering programme will deliver benefits for consumers. I hope that in due course we will be able to address the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours.

I am convinced, perhaps because I am one of those eternal optimists, that the programme will be a success. The noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, smiles at me because she thinks I am too much of an optimist—or too much of a Tigger—in these matters, but it is better to be a Tigger on this occasion than an Eeyore. I shall continue to do so, and I hope the noble Baroness will accept that progress is on the way.

I recognise the spirit in which the amendments have been proposed. While I cannot accept them, I want to set out several commitments that the Government are making, which I hope will address noble Lords’ concerns.

I turn, first, to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, which would require the Secretary of State to establish and put into regulations a national plan for smart meters with associated implementation requirements. We believe we have the right strategy in place for ensuring that the smart metering programme is delivered cost-effectively and that consumer benefits are optimised. The Bill, in seeking an extension to the duration of the Secretary of State’s regulatory powers, recognises that the Government are accountable for delivering the benefits of smart metering and that we need to maintain close oversight of implementation.

There are various aspects of what is proposed that duplicate work that the Government already have in place, which we do not believe would ultimately work in the best interests of consumers. However, we have reflected closely on the concerns that the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, has expressed regarding the programme, and have concluded that there is more we can do to address his concerns to help the programme succeed. We have identified three actions we are prepared to commit to as a result.

I recognise that there is an appetite for the Government to do more to ensure that we are transparent with consumers and Parliament in monitoring and tracking delivery. The programme already publishes quarterly rollout statistics, and we have committed in the other place to publish more substantial reports on programme delivery. I can further commit to publishing, by the end of 2018, as part of our annual report on progress, a forward plan of activity. This will show that the Government have a clear plan for resolving the remaining technical and operational challenges to delivering the programme. The report will be placed in the Library of the House.

I sympathise with noble Lords’ desire for further assurance that the Government have a firm hand on the tiller on all aspects of the programme. I therefore commit to publishing, by spring 2019, a report that will provide a stocktake of progress towards delivering the consumer benefits of the programme. We will take evidence from consumer representative bodies and Ofgem in preparing the progress report. The planned National Audit Office inquiry on the smart metering programme, which we currently expect to report by the end of this year, will be another important strand of evidence. It is right that Parliament should have an opportunity to scrutinise the report. The Government will therefore bring forward a ministerial Statement on the final report, allowing some sort of debate in both Houses of Parliament.

We believe that smart meters will be game-changing for how consumers engage with their energy use and the market. The amendment seeks an assessment of how well the programme is future-proofed and we recognise that there are merits in undertaking an assessment of the smart meter platform in support of this. I therefore commit to publishing a paper by the end of this year that will draw out and promote the potential of the data offered by smart meters for future innovative consumer technologies and services.

The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, raised interoperability and claimed that it is difficult to switch between suppliers. It will be important for suppliers to communicate to consumers that they can switch supplier without risk of losing services. From later this year, the enrolment of SMETS 1 meters is expected to take about a year. All SMETS 2 meters will be fully interoperable from the outset. If the noble Lord requires anything further, I am more than happy to write to him.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

My Lords, in the event that a second supplier takes over, will the information on the meter provided by the first supplier be equally made available by the second?

[Lord Henley]

I think the noble Lord is correct, but if not I will write to him on that matter.

Amendment 2, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, relates to SMETS 2 testing. I recognise that at the heart of the amendment is a concern that the Government are pushing ahead with transition to SMETS 2 meters without adequate checks and balances. We want to transition to SMETS 2 meters as they are better for energy consumers. As I made clear, they offer full interoperability from the outset, cost advantages and support for energy network planning and investment decisions, from which efficiencies and consumer energy cost savings can flow. This is why we will put in place a SMETS 1 end date to drive the transition to SMETS 2 meters.

I reassure the noble Lord that we are not driving this transition blindly. We have thorough and mature industry-wide monitoring and governance that allows us actively to scrutinise this transition. We closely monitor energy supplier and DCC operational capability, meter availability and reliability and supply chain maturity. That is underpinned by a robust testing regime across the end-to-end system set out in the regulatory framework via the Smart Energy Code. It requires, and provides assurance, that the DCC’s systems and services meet requirements; that suppliers and other DCC users are capable of using the services that are provided by the DCC; and that the metering equipment which suppliers enrol with the DCC is interoperable with the DCC’s systems and compliant with the relevant technical specifications. This is backed by device certification via the National Cyber Security Centre’s commercial product assurance scheme.

After undertaking their own thorough testing, leading energy suppliers are now rolling out SMETS 2 meters to real customers at low volumes, demonstrating their confidence in the preceding testing. We think it is right to continue to press other energy suppliers to make the same transition, on the back of their own testing. We are in close dialogue with the DCC and suppliers, and if it was shown not to be in the interests of energy consumers, we would provide further time for the transition.

In light of those assurances, and given the substantive commitments to further government action and information that will be made available to both Houses, I hope the concerns of the noble Lord and all other noble Lords who took part in the debate have been dealt with, and I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Smart Meters Bill

Debate between Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Henley

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 24th April 2018 Grand Committee

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

I was engaged in debates on these matters with the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, 10 years ago, when the original legislation was put through. I am unable to understand what pressure is on the Government to get on with this before the National Audit Office produces its report. I would have thought that that report was critical in all this, as it may well make recommendations that do not fit within the proposals of this legislation. What is the pressure? Could we not have waited for another six months? What would have happened if we had?

[Lord Henley]

I have been criticised for the Government going rather slowly on something that was introduced in 2006 by the Government of whom the noble Lord was a supporter. As the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said, this has continued through the length of two world wars and a bit more; I asked him not to specify any further wars. The NAO has already reported three times. As I said, we will respond to the NAO’s report, but I do not see why we should not continue with what we are doing at the moment. As far as I know, we are all in full agreement on the general benefits of a smart metering programme and of getting as many people as possible on to it, so that they will be wiser about their use of energy and more able to consider which energy supplier to choose—I am just giving all the benefits of smart meters. I do not think that there is any need to pause for the NAO report. As I said, we will consider it and respond as appropriate.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

Has the NAO expressed a view on whether the legislation should have been delayed? It will have a view. Is it happy for us to proceed with legislation without its report?

[Lord Henley]

I am not aware that the NAO has asked for any delay, but the noble Lord can look at its three reports, including the most recent one, which I have referred to. I will leave that to him.

As I said, we published our prospectus document in 2011, which established a framework for the rollout and was the basis for the regulatory framework through which the rollout is now being delivered. It is right that we have progressed from planning to implementation. Both the Government and Ofgem are focused on monitoring the rollout to ensure that it delivers in a timely way—albeit, as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, put it, slightly less timely than he would have liked. Where our monitoring activity identifies areas where the course of the rollout needs to be adjusted, we will of course take action.

In due course, we want smart metering to be business as usual in a competitive retail market. The Government will then be able to step back when it is right so to do. However, in the short to medium term, the Government do not intend to step back from their leadership role. Through the powers in the Bill, we will sustain our active engagement with the industry to ensure that any risks to meeting the 2020 deadline are identified and addressed as quickly as possible. I repeat what I said about hoping to have ongoing discussions with the noble Lord and others, but I hope that in the meantime he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

I ask a consumer question: if someone wanted to know now whether it was possible for their meter to be hacked, who would they ask? Who could tell them?

[Lord Henley]

The first people to ask would be the suppliers of that meter, to ask them what evidence they have and to take it from there. The same is true for any IT equipment that the noble Lord buys for any purpose. None of us can give any absolutely cast-iron guarantees as to what can and cannot be done by nefarious people.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

This is one of the reasons why the amendment asking for this sort of national plan would have been interesting. Those are the kinds of questions that the consumer would expect to find in a report of that nature. I would not ask my supplier; I would ask the manufacturer whether its equipment could be hacked. If it said that it could be, I would want assurances as to how that would be dealt with. I am not altogether convinced that manufacturers have been asked, or whether GCHQ has been asked that question for it to appraise separately. It is on the list; I presume it too has been asked about the system that is being introduced.

[Lord Henley]

The point I am making to the noble Lord is that it would be wrong for anyone to give an absolute cast-iron guarantee of any sort with equipment of this sort. I can think of a whole range of other questions on other subjects. I remember that it used to be said that if you went to a school and asked about its policy on bullying and were told there was no bullying, you should immediately reject that school because quite obviously it had no idea of what was going on. Similarly, if someone offered a cast-iron guarantee that their equipment was unhackable, I would have some doubts about it. They could say that they had done everything possible to make sure it was unhackable, but we have the right processes in place with suppliers and others to make sure that checks can be done—which is what I have set out—to make metering as secure as possible. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, who dealt with privacy, that is why we have also had consultations with the privacy commissioner. I think that we have all the appropriate checks in place—but if I offered the noble Lord the guarantee he is asking for, he would know that I was a charlatan.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

There is another question that would have been answered in this report. It is the question that the public ask all the time. If I have a supplier and I have a piece of equipment installed, will I be able to change supplier? Most people in this Room probably know the answer about retaining that equipment, but the great public outside do not know the answer, and that is what they worry about. So it is essential to the Government’s case to make it clear when and in what circumstances that problem will no longer arise.

[Lord Henley]

I fully understand what the noble Lord is saying and the need to provide the public with as much reassurance as possible, and clearly to explain the range of steps that the Government have taken with security experts, including GCHQ, which I mentioned earlier, to provide robust security for the smart metering system. We worked in partnership with GCHQ on the blog on smart metering infrastructure. We will continue to support Smart Energy GB, among others, to provide a clear and reassuring message to the public on smart metering security. We will do all we can. Everyone else will do all they can. All I am saying is that one can never get beyond that 99.9% security up to 100%.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, drew a distinction between transferability and interoperability. The question I am asking is what the public are asking. When will they be given assurances that it will be possible to change supplier and retain their smart meter? It is a very simple question, and I do not think you will find the answer anywhere at the moment as far as the public are concerned.

[Lord Henley]

The noble Lord is moving on to another question.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

This is one of the amendments.

[Lord Henley]

The noble Lord asked what assurance we can give to the public about security, and I think I have given as much assurance as I can. I acknowledge that it is important for the Government to continue to give as much assurance as possible. That is why we talked to GCHQ and others. With regard to changing supplier—is it changing the meter or changing supplier? They are two different matters.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

One is the consequence of the other, as I understand it. That is the problem. When you change your supplier, I understand that on occasion you have to change the meter. Am I not correct?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Henley]

This is going back in history. The past is another country. I do not think I want to go there just for the moment. I do not know the answer to that. If I can find out more, I will certainly let the noble Baroness know.

The noble Baroness also raised the question of smart meters working with solar panels and spoke about the information she had received from one of her noble friends. As I understand it, all SMETS-compliant electricity meters must be capable of both measuring the amount of energy the household consumes or imports from the grid and recording the electricity generated by solar panels or other microgeneration technologies that is fed back or exported to the grid. We are not aware of any technical reasons why smart meters cannot be installed in premises with microgeneration technologies. However, some suppliers may start installing for these customers later in the rollout. If the noble Baroness would like to go back to her unnamed noble friend—perhaps it was not a noble friend, perhaps it was someone misleading the noble Baroness—and get back to me, I will take this up and find out what the real answer is. The initial response is that we feel that this should not be the case, but I will respond when the noble Baroness gives me more information.

Amendment 7 was spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone. The rollout of smart meters offers an opportunity for consumers to take control of their energy use and realise significant savings as soon as the meter is installed. Like any infrastructure project, the smart metering programme involves some investment, but it will enable a net reduction in consumers’ energy bills over time. Amendment 7 would give the Secretary of State power to modify licence conditions and industry codes so as to require energy suppliers to pass the savings they make from the rollout on to consumers.

We expect that competitive pressures will encourage energy suppliers to pass on the cost savings they make from the rollout of smart meters. If energy suppliers do not pass on the savings to their customers, their customers, as we all know, can switch to a better deal among an increasing number of competitors. As noble Lords will be aware, there is an increasing number of competitors and it is quite simple to switch. We recognise that the market is not working for all customers. That is why we have introduced to Parliament the Domestic Gas and Electricity (Tariff Cap) Bill—it is in another place at the moment—which will require Ofgem to set a cap that protects existing and future domestic customers who pay standard variable and default rates. The cap will last until 2020, and it may be extended annually, up until 2023, if it is assessed that the conditions for effective competition are not yet in place. In setting the cap, we expect Ofgem to take into account the benefits that energy suppliers will achieve from the rollout.

Smart meters are themselves an enabler to greater competition in the energy retail market. Smart meters provide near real-time information to consumers on their energy consumption and how much it is costing them, giving consumers greater awareness, which in turn is expected to further increase consumer switching. The signs on this are encouraging. According to a report on consumer engagement in the energy market, published by Ofgem in 2017, 23% of consumers who say they have a smart meter have switched supplier in the past 12 months, compared with 17% of those who say they do not have a smart meter. It is worth pointing out that we would expect the level of engagement from consumers to help inform Ofgem’s review into whether the conditions for effective competition are in place.

I turn now to the final two amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson—Amendments 12 and 13. The Government want consumers to benefit as soon as possible from the advantages of smart meters. That is why we continually review the rollout and take action to remove any barriers to effective delivery. The amendments would require, as a condition of extending powers that the Secretary of State has to amend or introduce new regulation for the purposes of smart metering, one of two conditions are met first before those powers can commence. The noble Lord suggested either 500,000 second generation—SMETS 2—meters must have been installed or a review of the programme, focused on consumer satisfaction and value for money, must be complete. We do not believe that either of those conditions for commencing the extended regulatory powers are warranted or necessary. We are also concerned that the effect of those amendments would be to leave the Government without powers to intervene to unlock delivery barriers and ensure consumer benefits are being realised.

I will take each condition in turn. I shall deal, first, with the noble Lord’s SMETS 2 target of 500,000. Like the noble Lord, we want to see the SMETS 2 meter installation accelerated. It is very small at the moment, but in the near term this should happen only if it is in the best interests of consumers. Setting a target would remove suppliers’ flexibility to plan and manage the rollout efficiently in order to serve their customers effectively in a competitive market and could lead to unintended consequences. We are assured that larger energy suppliers have commercial and financial incentives to drive them to install SMETS 2 meters as soon as is practicable. SMETS 2 meters unlock more of the customer base, supporting more cost-effective marketing approaches. They also include capability for load control and additional support for consumer access devices, thereby supporting service offers in line with energy suppliers’ potential future business strategies. These incentives align with regulatory imperatives to make progress, not least that our current expectations are that from later this year the installation of SMETS 1 meters will no longer count towards an energy supplier’s rollout obligations. We intend to include in future quarterly statistical publications—subject to sufficient supplier anonymisation—information about the number of SMETS 2 meters that have been installed, allowing for progress to be tracked and transparent.

We agree with the noble Lord that the programme should understand its impact during operations, in terms of consumer satisfaction and value for money. As regards consumer satisfaction, the department commissions and receives, including via Smart Energy GB, regular survey updates on smart meter consumer satisfaction. I have referred to some of them, and the satisfaction levels that have been achieved. In terms of value for money, my right honourable friend the Minister for Business and Energy, Claire Perry, has committed, as part of the Bill’s passage in another place, to undertaking and publishing an updated cost-benefit analysis in 2019, which will reflect, among other things, the real benefit for consumers. On this basis, the noble Lord’s condition would be duplicative and risks undermining the powers that the Government need to ensure the rollout is progressed smoothly and in consumers’ best interests.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

Can I just ask again a rather simple question? I understand that we are not the only country in Europe with a smart meter installation programme. The French claim that they have done it for half the price of the programme in the United Kingdom. They claim it is going to cost them €5.5 billion, whereas we are potentially spending £11 billion. Is there any truth in that? Is our equipment the same as what the French are introducing? Is there some explanation for this suggestion that we are paying rather a lot for our equipment?

[Lord Henley]

I do not necessarily take all claims from France as seriously as the noble Lord does. I will certainly have a look at that claim being made by the French, but I believe we are doing reasonably well. Obviously, I will have a look at what they are doing and, if there are things that we can learn from that, we should do so. Just as we will continue to monitor delivery in this country, we will study and look at what is happening abroad. I have received advice about what is happening and whether we are sharing our experience with other countries and whether other countries have shared their experience with us. We have looked not just at what is happening throughout Europe—we have met representatives from Ireland, Sweden, Spain, Malta and, I understand, France—but we have looked further afield to India, Australia and the United States. Lessons we have learned include the importance of consumer engagement. That is why I emphasised earlier what we have done on consumer engagement.

On the actual costs, the advice I have received is that the EU average comes in at £181, compared with our figure of around £155 for a single-fuel electricity installation. So that is somewhat lower. On that front we are doing better. If there is anything further I can add about gas distribution grids in Malta or Italy that might be of use or even of interest to the noble Lord, I will pass it on. Another matter that came up was a concern about privacy, which is something that the noble Lord is concerned about and we discussed earlier.

In conclusion, we will continue to monitor the delivery of the programme and will continue to provide updates in annual reports and an updated cost-benefit analysis. I do not think the amendments add much. They risk duplicating those processes and could result, as I said, in unintended consequences that might delay getting the benefits to the consumer. I hope, therefore, that the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Henley]

We are going ahead to SMETS 2. The noble Lord is right there. We will see benefits from that, just as we have seen benefits from SMETS 1. That process will continue. I am suggesting to noble Lords and the rest of the Committee that we will provide appropriate reports back as to how that goes in due course, but I cannot provide any figures on exactly how fast that is likely to go, particularly in the initial stage this year.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

I shall put it another way: what would happen if, having fitted 500,000, we found that there was a problem?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I do not believe in crossing bridges until we get to them. When we get to that stage, if there is a problem, I will come back to the noble Lord.

Companies (Disclosure of Address) (Amendment) Regulations 2018

Debate between Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Henley

Monday 16th April 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I am sorry that we could not continue with the same attitude as we had to the previous order, other than in relation to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. I am grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, described this as a pragmatic balance. That is exactly what we have tried to achieve in providing protection for the individual but still making sure that certain public things continue to be public.

The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, objected to the lack of consultation for something as important as this, saying that there was a lack of consultation and a lack of an impact statement. I will write to him in further detail on the lack of consultation but I assure him that we have received a number of inquiries— around 3,000, I am told. As the Minister who deals with letters from Members of another place on their constituents’ concerns, I have had to sign a number of letters relating to their concerns over not being able to get something removed. It is depressing that I often have to say, “I’m terribly sorry, there is nothing we can do at this stage”, so I was grateful that we could do something quickly and without the necessary consultation. Since individual companies are not required to do anything—or stop doing anything—an impact statement is not necessary. All the regulations do is give people the option of applying to have residential address information suppressed, if they so choose. There is no impact on Companies House, as the application fee will cover the costs of processing the application. In those circumstances, an impact assessment—whether coloured in for the noble Lord or in black and white—is not necessary.

The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, picked up on the problem with microfiches. I understand that deleting something from a microfiche can affect it. Now that one can move things on to CDs, the process is somewhat easier, but the important thing is that the microfiches will be kept. From a historical point of view, we will still keep records from the past. I will write to him in greater detail about public authorities and how they get appropriate authority, but that will not change as a result of this order. The issue—the mere fact that it comes in immediately—does not affect companies and there will be no burden, so the lack of a commencement date is not a problem. As always, I note what the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, said about the desirability of sticking to common commencement dates and will try to stick to that in future.

The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, asked rather a technical question about the category relating to constables in a police force. Under Regulation 5 of the 2009 regulations, on disclosing a residential address to a credit reference agency, one of the grounds for applying to the registrar is that a person is or has been employed by a police force. We are concerned that this may not cover constables because they are technically officeholders rather than employees. The draft regulations merely make it clear that police constables may apply to prevent disclosure under Regulation 5.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

Why would they want that exemption?

[Lord Henley]

That would be a matter for the police constables themselves. It would probably be best, rather than ad-libbing an answer, if I wrote in greater detail to the noble Lord on that point.

Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Fox, asked about the criteria to be used by Companies House in considering this. The regulations merely allow a person to apply to have their residential address and information suppressed without having to give any reason. The criteria are not relevant in this case; they do not have to give a reason for their application, whereas in the past they did. That therefore simplifies matters and, I hope, continues to meet that pragmatic balance that the noble Lord so warmly welcomed. I hope that deals with all the points that were made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

I drew attention to half a postcode being published.

[Lord Henley]

I will possibly add this to my response to the noble Lord, but I suspect that giving half a postcode provides, as it were, some information without giving details. In other words, if someone added CA6 to my name one would know that I lived somewhere not so far from the noble Lord in Cumberland, but it would not say precisely where I live because it would not give the address. As the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, said, there are other ways of finding out people’s addresses. We are just trying to provide appropriate protection.

Energy: Home Battery Storage

Debate between Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Henley

Monday 4th December 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, at this stage, I do not want to get into the wider question of Hinkley C costs. I think it would be rather dangerous for me to go down that route. My noble friend is right to say that increased use of home battery storage, possible greater use of batteries in cars as a means of storage in years to come and greater use of other forms of storage, which the noble Baroness and my noble friend referred to—he is probably aware that we already have about 5 gigawatts of storage in the system, which is mainly pumped hydroelectricity—have implications for costs throughout the grid, which will need to be addressed.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

Has an audit been carried out of lithium resources worldwide or has it all been left to market forces?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, so far, we have seen the cost of lithium-ion batteries drop by some 50% over the last five years, since 2012. That implies that resources of lithium are more or less okay and that market forces are driving costs down. I do not have the figures on long-term estimates of quantities of lithium, but that will be taken into account by the market in due course.

Businesses: Start-ups

Debate between Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Henley

Monday 20th November 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

I am grateful to my noble friend for quoting all the figures that I would have wanted to put before the House, and I thoroughly endorse his doing so. I am also grateful to him for bringing the attention of the House to Rishi Sunak’s report, A New Era for Retail Bonds, which I am aware of. He would not expect me to comment on it in detail at this stage, but it is certainly interesting and the Government will certainly want to have a look at it.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

My Lords, is not reference to 660,000 start-up companies and this entrepreneurial revolution peddling a myth when a large chunk of that number is made up of personal service companies, the objective of which is to save tax and save on national insurance contributions? Why peddle these myths?

[Lord Henley]

The noble Lord is overcynical. It is quite obvious from all the figures we have, whether we take them from Companies House or wherever, that a large number of new companies are coming into existence. My noble friend quoted the other figures, which show just how well they are doing, and how well compared to other countries throughout Europe. The noble Lord should welcome that and be grateful that entrepreneurship flourishes in this country because the Government create the right environment for it.

GovCoin

Debate between Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Henley

Monday 27th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, as I said, we have not yet decided to move on to a fuller and larger trial, but if we did, no doubt that would have the appropriate checks and balances and be examined by the noble Baroness and others in due course. This is a simple, small-scale trial involving some 20 or 30 people. I am assured that they all gave full and proper consent to it, and that some of them found it very useful indeed. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for not asking me to explain the more technical matters, which are probably beyond her—and me. As she knows, it is a very simple app designed in the form of jam jars into which one can put one’s money and then take it out for specific tasks. As I said earlier—and the assurance I gave on this would apply to any further trials—the department and the Government will have no access to that information; that is, what has come out of the jam jars and gone into housing or whatever.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

Will traders who sign up to and agree to trade under this scheme be able to offer discounts to benefit recipients? By the way, I thought the next trial was for 1,000 people.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, there is no next trial planned at this stage. We are considering that. It is not a question of discounts but of the fact that those who have to deal purely in cash can find life very much more expensive than those who are able to pay by other, more advanced means. That is the point behind it.

Chilcot Committee: Intercept Evidence

Debate between Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Henley

Tuesday 24th July 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

The noble Lord makes a very valid point about the importance of intelligence, and why we do not necessarily want to risk losing that intelligence by making use of it as evidence. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his support, and I look forward to being slapped around on this by noble Lords from all sides of the House for months to come.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

Is there a precedent anywhere for Governments having published independent legal advice?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, as the noble Lord will be well aware, it is the general rule that legal advice is not published.

Justice and Security Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Henley

Wednesday 11th July 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I have served on one of the two committees that the noble Lord refers to—and felt considerably out of my depth—but not on the other. I note what he says about the memorandum of understanding between them. This might be something that the ISC and other committees could reflect upon between themselves and decide how they want to proceed. Again, however, I do not think that this is best set out in statute, although obviously we will reflect on these matters. That is the point of this House and why we are going through a Committee process. I have set out why I do not think that this is the best way of going about it, but I shall listen to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, and trust that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment at this stage.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

In some ways, that may be a helpful response. Following the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and his reference to the memorandum of understanding, and on the basis of what the Minister said the other day—that there would be an ongoing process over the next few months during which this memorandum of understanding was to be drawn up—

[Lord Henley]

It is one thing if we are talking about a memorandum of understanding between the Government and the ISC. I think my noble friend was referring to a memorandum of understanding between the ISC and other Select Committees. That, obviously, would not be a matter for the Government.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

It might not be a matter directly for the Government but it could well be incorporated into the document. The memorandum of understanding might deal with the whole question of the principle of the relationship that should or might exist between this halfway-house committee and Parliament.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for his intervention. I listened to the three reasons that he gave and I am not altogether sure that, apart from the last one, the first two would really register with members of the ISC. There may be some argument for the last one. On the basis of further consideration of these matters, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.

Justice and Security Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Henley

Monday 9th July 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, obviously my noble friend is right to say that times have moved on. All of us can remember as far back as 1989. Things have obviously changed since then. I was merely trying to tease out the official view of the Opposition at this stage, but it does not matter because as we all know, and as a very distinguished Cross-Bencher, the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, made clear, we are all heading in the same direction and at least trying to make sure that we achieve the right thing—a committee that has the appropriate degree of public confidence.

I do not want to re-emphasise what I said earlier about the ISC being appointed by Parliament rather than the Prime Minister, and about its members being free to choose their own chair. That will be debated later, in the context of another amendment tabled by the noble Lord. In parallel with these statutory changes, it is the Government’s intention that the ISC will be funded and accommodated by Parliament. The amendment sets up the ISC as a Select Committee of Parliament. The noble Lord could have achieved that by the simpler means of leaving out the whole of Part 1 and making sure that the appropriate authorities in another place created the Select Committee—but he went down a different route and we are having this debate for the very good reasons that all speakers in the debate made clear.

I will explain why we believe that the ISC should be created by statute. It is to ensure that safeguards are in place to protect against the disclosure of sensitive information. Therefore, the Government do not consider it appropriate for that body to be a full Joint Committee established merely under the Standing Orders of each House, as other Select Committees are.

I hope that the Committee will bear with me if I expand on those reasons. First, in that scenario, the Government would not have a statutory ability to prevent the publication of sensitive material. There are two main problems with this. The risk of disclosure of information that might damage national security could be increased. This might lead to a situation where agency heads find it hard to reconcile their duty to protect information with their duty to facilitate oversight. This could lead to a sharing of less sensitive information and therefore a corresponding reduction in the effectiveness and credibility of oversight.

Secondly, it would not be possible for the most sensitive information to be withheld from the Committee. It is important that safeguards exist so there is adequate provision for those exceptional circumstances where the disclosure of information, even to the Chairman of the Committee, would be damaging to national security and/or would jeopardise vital agency operations or sources of information. The equivalent grounds on which information can be withheld from the Committee under the Intelligence Services Act 1994, have been used very rarely, as those former or current members of the Committee will know. We would expect the similar powers in the Bill also to be used sparingly—only in exceptional circumstances.

Thirdly, there is the appointments process. Again we will deal with that in greater detail later on. Here the Prime Minister has a role, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, in a later amendment proposes a much stronger role for him. That role is important. The ISC is unique in that members of the Committee have access to very important and extremely sensitive information, and it is important that the appointments process has sufficient safeguards to ensure there is as little risk as possible of unauthorised disclosure of sensitive information and the consequences that could do significant damage to national security.

The effect of the noble Lord’s amendment to create a Select Committee is not clear to me. He says it could take evidence under oath. In the Bill, even if we were to accept all the noble Lord’s amendments, the ISC would still be created by statute and safeguards would still exist to protect national security in those three areas I have listed, although admittedly altered to some degree. Unless the noble Lord pursues this suggested alternative policy of deleting the whole of Part 1, his amendment would not create a full Joint Committee because that can be done only by the Standing Orders of each House. It would create an entirely novel body, a Select Committee established by statute.

To what extent would such a body share the characteristics of the other Select Committees? The Bill makes it clear that, even were it amended in other respects according to noble Lords’ wishes, the ISC is different from other Select Committees in fundamental respects—for instance, in relation to appointments and reporting. That being so, I believe it is unclear whether or to what extent changing the ISC in this way would give it the other characteristic of a Select Committee. Indeed, I believe the risk is that describing the ISC as a Select Committee when it has characteristics not shared by other such committees could positively mislead as to the ISC’s true character.

I hope that that explanation is sufficient for the noble Lord. I wait to see what he says. This has been a useful debate and there will no doubt be further discussions on this matter, but I believe that it is appropriate for the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

My Lords, perhaps I may say a few words in winding up the debate. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, that I recognise the wording I have used could not be put in the Bill. My amendment is simply my attempt to ensure that there is a debate. I recognise perfectly well that if we were to go down this route, while there would be, as the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, said, a requirement for something in statute, the body of the change would be incorporated into parliamentary resolutions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, we have four amendments in front of us, all slightly different but all covering appointments to the committee. I will deal with them in turn. Amendment 5 seeks to ensure that if someone is turned down by Parliament the Prime Minister will have to make another nomination. This is something with which the Government entirely agree. However, the amendment is not necessary as it will be achieved by the current drafting of the Bill. If, under the appointments process in the Bill, the Prime Minister’s nominees are rejected by either House, the Prime Minister will have to make another nomination or nominations after consultation with the Leader of the Opposition. This is clear from the fact that the Bill requires the ISC to consist of nine members so if one is turned down another would have to be found. I hope that deals with the point made by my noble friend Lord Lothian, who asked what would happen in such cases. Where we differ is that the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, insists that an alternative person should have to be nominated and we would like to keep the flexibility because there are occasions where it is possible for the Prime Minister to be able to renominate. It might be that one reached some sort of impasse in due course but it should be possible on occasions to renominate and that renomination might be rejected. Whatever happens, as the Bill is drafted, a ninth person would have to be put forward.

Turning to Amendment 6 from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, he suggests that it should no longer be necessary to consult the Prime Minister. He said that he would never have been appointed if it had been left purely to my noble friend Lady Thatcher if she had been in opposition. Obviously, if we accepted the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, and removed the necessity to consult the Leader of the Opposition, there would be even less likelihood that he would be appointed, because my noble friend—or Mrs Thatcher, as she then was—would have made the decision entirely by herself, without consulting the Leader of the Opposition. We believe that it will be important in retaining cross-party support, just as it was when the original 1994 Act went through, requiring that the committee should be appointed by the Prime Minister after consultation with the Leader of the Opposition. For that reason, the Prime Minister should continue to consult the Leader of the Opposition before he nominates any such person.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

This is quite an important issue. The question is very simple. If the Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, had been Leader of the Opposition, would she have allowed someone like me, with my record at that time, to go on this committee? The answer is no, which is why I believe that this provision is wrong.

[Lord Henley]

But the noble Lord is also saying that he wants to delete the ability to consult the Leader of the Opposition and leave it entirely to the Prime Minister. I have to say that the Prime Minister probably would not have appointed him either, so the issue does not arise. What we suggest is that, to maintain cross-party support—I suspect that everyone agrees on this except the noble Lord himself—there should be a degree of consultation between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition on this issue. The simple fact is that consultation did take place and we are all very happy, my noble friend Lord King included, that he was taken on to that committee.

Rather than dealing with the amendments sequentially, I come to Amendment 8 before Amendment 7. It comes from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, and relates to the election of the chairman. The noble Lord raises concerns about the Government’s proposals for appointing the chair, arguing that the chair’s appointment should again be made with the agreement of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. I notice that the effect of the amendment would be for the chair to be appointed by the Prime Minister and that there would be no requirement to consult the Leader of the Opposition. So I suppose that the chances of the noble Lord having got on to the committee or being appointed as chairman would be even more remote, but that is something that he can consider in due course.

As we explained earlier, we believe that the changes that we are making to the ISC status are designed to bring it closer to Parliament and increases public confidence in it. That is why the Government propose that the chairman of the ISC will be appointed by Parliament and will report to Parliament as well as to the Prime Minister. The noble Lord seemed to suggest that with a new Parliament, the new Members would not know each other. I suspect that with the experience of the members on that committee, as has happened in the past, it will normally be the case that the committee will know who is the appropriate person as well as anyone. It is quite right, therefore, that those members should make the appointment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I will look very carefully at the point that my noble friend has made and at the statistics relating to 1997 in particular, which was one of those years in which there would have been a big upheaval, with that particular new Parliament. Off the cuff, I do not know who was on the committee and who came on, although perhaps my noble friend can remember. But in the main, with the relatively experienced parliamentarians who will be on this committee, I think that it is well suited to making the decision itself.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

You might, as a Member of Parliament who had been in the House for years but had no contact with intelligence, not understand the vital nature of the relationship between the agencies and the chairman. It is critical to the whole operation. I cannot see how someone who goes newly on to that committee could have any understanding of that relationship. If the relationship is wrong because the wrong person has been appointed, the committee could be denied information. If the objective behind the Bill is to secure more access to more operational material, we are undermining the whole arrangement. Ministers should reconsider this point. It is all right saying that it is more democratic and accountable and that Parliament is more involved—but if it does not work, do not do it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

My Lords, I want to speak to Amendments 11 and 12, standing in my name. Amendment 11 deals with the words in Schedule 1, paragraph 1(2)(c), which states that,

“a resolution for the person’s removal is passed in the House of Parliament by virtue of which the person is a member of the ISC”.

In other words, there has to be a resolution of Parliament to exclude someone from the ISC. Have those who wrote this Bill thought that through? A resolution in the House of Commons, or even in this House, would mean that the person who is being removed from the ISC, with all the material that they have gained over the years on matters relating to national security and who may well be angry with the chairman and the system, is given free rein to get up on the Floor of the House of Commons and, in their defence on the back of the resolution, say why they should not be removed from the Intelligence and Security Committee. This is a very silly proposal. It is highly dangerous and has clearly been worked up by someone who did not understand the implications of what a resolution of the House of Commons means for public debate. It should be removed.

How could someone be removed from the Intelligence and Security Committee? First, one would go to them privately and explain the reasons why they should resign. I am sure that the Whips and the system have all sorts of ways for removing Members of Parliament without allowing them free rein to get up on the Floor of the House of Commons on the back of the resolution to defend themselves. That is my case for Amendment 11. I seek the exclusion of what I regard as a highly irresponsible proposition.

I now turn to Amendment 12, which deals with sub-paragraph (3), which states:

“A member of the ISC may resign at any time by notice given to … in the case of the member who is the Chair of the ISC, the Speaker of the House of Parliament by virtue of which the person is a member of the ISC”.

Why should the Speaker be informed? This is not a parliamentary committee; the Speaker is not a member of the committee and has no relationship with it. The committee is external to Parliament, however we want to describe it. I cannot see any explanation why, other than the fact that those who devised these sections of the Bill believe that it is necessary to have a model where they have the imprimatur of Parliament on the label. I think it is ludicrous, unnecessary, and again it should be removed from the Bill. It is trying to lead the public to believe that this is truly some committee of Parliament. It is not, because it lacks the privileges and the powers that a parliamentary committee has as a Select Committee. That is my case.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I will return to the noble Lord’s amendments in due course, but I will start with Amendment 10 in the name of my noble friend Lady Hamwee. This seeks, in effect, to continue the committee’s existence for a period of days after Dissolution until a new Parliament is created. It must be remembered that the absence of the ISC for that short period of Dissolution does not mean that the agencies are unaccountable. There are other mechanisms for agency accountability, not least through their accountability to Ministers, who obviously continue in their role throughout that Dissolution. The absence of the more considered work of the ISC during that relatively short period will not result in some sort of accountability deficit. Naturally, continuity between Parliaments is very important, but it is not necessary to have the old ISC stretch into the next Parliament to achieve this. I assure my noble friend that we do not need legislative provision for a new incarnation of the ISC to inherit the documents, for example, of its predecessor. Under the existing regime this has happened without any difficulty. Furthermore, the provisions in sub-paragraphs (6) and (7) of paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 allow the ISC in a new Parliament to pick up work that was ongoing at the time of Dissolution of the previous Parliament.

I turn to the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, who seems particularly worried about mechanisms for removing individuals from that committee. He seemed to suggest some sort of equivalent to the idea of the Whips giving them a bottle of whisky and a revolver and telling them to sit quietly in a room until they have resolved matters by themselves. I do not know if that was quite what he was suggesting, but we believe that if Parliament appoints, it is plain that Parliament should also have the power to remove. That fits the broad thrust of what we are doing. That is the reason for the provision that the noble Lord seeks to leave out, ensuring that an ISC member can be removed involuntarily from the committee only by virtue of a resolution passed by Parliament. Again, this is an important safeguard to the ISC’s independence and means that the final say on its membership is with Parliament.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

Does the Minister foresee circumstances in which an angry young man or woman who was excluded from the committee on the back of a resolution would, under privilege in the House of Commons, argue a case that might even breach national security? If he, or those who have devised this provision, can foresee such circumstances, does he not think that this provision bears further responsibility, despite what the noble Lord said?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

My Lords, I have great sympathy with the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. It addresses a fundamental flaw in the Bill.

I shall speak to Amendments 22 and 26. Amendment 22 deals with sub-paragraph (3), which states:

“A Minister of the Crown may decide under sub-paragraph (1)(b) … that information should not be disclosed only if the Minister considers that”—

as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said—

“(b) it is information of such a nature that, if the Minister were requested to produce it before a Departmental Select Committee of the House of Commons, the Minister would consider (on grounds which were not limited to national security) it proper not to do so”.

If I remember rightly, that is currently the position under the present ISC, notwithstanding the statement in the Bill. I have not always understood exactly what such circumstances are. I have often wondered what would be the circumstances in which Ministers would take that action. Perhaps the Minister will give an explanation today.

The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, referred to decisions being taken on a whim. Now that that provision in paragraph 3(3) is be enshrined in the Bill and subsequently become law, we need something more substantial so that we know exactly what is intended by it.

I turn now to the part of the Bill that really worries me—the phrase,

“relevant Minister of the Crown”.

As the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said, we are not given an indication of who is to be involved. Are we talking about Parliamentary Under-Secretaries or Ministers of State? The noble Lord, Lord Henley, is, I understand, a Parliamentary Under-Secretary.

[Lord Henley]

A Minister of State.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

He is a Minister of State. Forgive me. However, the point is that for a long time he was a Parliamentary Under-Secretary and, in my view, if he had been in the House of Commons he would have been in the Cabinet. We are not merely talking about the quality of Ministers that we have here in the House of Lords; we are talking about some of the Ministers that we see at the Dispatch Box in the House of Commons. It would be an error of judgment to include in the Bill a provision which would give some of these Parliamentary Under-Secretaries in the House of Commons the power to block information being brought before the ISC. However, that is what I understand the Bill means to do. It means that any Minister, in any department, in any circumstances, could decide that information was not to be made available to the committee.

Why do I have concerns that go up even as far as Secretaries of State? I referred at Second Reading to a particular incident in the committee when the late Robin Cook—I am sorry that he is not here to answer me today—was, in my view, very obstructive before the Intelligence and Security Committee in that he did not want to have certain information brought before that committee. There was quite a discussion in the committee about the fact that he was resisting having that information made available. I quoted the example of the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, for whom I have great regard. Imagine the mindset of the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, in the early 1980s when he had it in for CND and all that, and giving him the responsibility or the power to decide, on his personal consideration, that this information, which the ISC wanted, should be denied to the Select Committee. I believe that it is wrong that Ministers should be in that position. Indeed, as I said at Second Reading, I would trust the heads of the agencies more than I trust Ministers.

For a start, many Ministers lack confidence in this area. As they would have very little experience of how the system works and what goes on inside the agencies, their experience of the agencies may be far less that that of even members of the committee, yet they are to be given the right to decide whether information is to be blocked. It might well be that a junior Minister, lacking confidence, would be unwilling to take a decision to provide information, or allow information to be provided, for career considerations. He or she might worry that by providing that information and taking that risk, because they had not had that experience, they might be damaging their own career prospects. They may well simply be unable to quantify the risk on the basis of their very limited experience and, furthermore, some Ministers might simply make a straight political judgment about whether information should be made available to the committee. That is the very area about which I think considerations should not be made.

I have concerns and I do not believe that Ministers should be involved in this process at all. We go back to my very controversial model, which I put to the House at Second Reading—I put it in the same way that I put the argument for Select Committee status in 1998 and 1999. At that time it was simply ruled out of the question, so I recognise that it will probably be regarded as out of the question today, but I put forward the model that I put forward at Second Reading. First, the ISC should have Select Committee status. Secondly, the chair should be decided by the approval of the Prime Minister, not election by the committee. Thirdly, the chairman should be the critical person in this process.

The chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee should have unrestricted access to all operational material within the agency on operations that have taken place. The chairman should be in a privileged position in the committee and it should be for him to decide whether information should be made available to the committee. That is why I do not want election of the chair. I want the Prime Minister to pick the chair, because I believe that the Prime Minister will know exactly who is capable of handling the material and deciding on the circumstances in which the membership of the committee is given access to the information. I would have—I have to be very careful how I phrase this—trusted the chairman, the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgewater, to take that decision on my behalf, as a member of that committee, long before I would have trusted Labour Ministers, who might not have had the experience that he had gained as chairman of the committee.

It is a very serious area and what we are doing now, by going down this route and letting the politicians decide what information gets through, will create problems for the future which we may well regret. In other words, my answer is very simple: keep the Ministers out of it. Let the agencies influence the chairman of the committee. Let them go to the chairman and say, “Chairman, we do not believe that this information should be made available”. If Ministers want to get involved they can go to the chairman and say, “Chairman, we do not believe that this information should be made available”; but give the chairman the final decision. The committee, in those circumstances, would have far more confidence in the arrangement for scrutiny of the services, et al, than is presently the case, or, indeed, will be the case under the provisions in the Bill.

Justice and Security Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Henley

Monday 9th July 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, again I do not think that my noble friend followed what I said. We will not agree the final memorandum until after the Bill has completed. However, I make it clear that we want to produce a draft of it at an earlier stage as we complete our discussions with the ISC. Once we have an agreed draft, it is our intention to publish it to help inform debate. I hope that this will happen before Report. The Bill is only just starting in this House. It has to go through another place as well. As discussions on this will be ongoing—I must not use the word “ongoing”—as the Bill is considered by Parliament, it would not be appropriate to share the first draft before at least it has been agreed by both parties.

My other point is what I said at the beginning of my remarks: the memorandum of understanding, having been agreed by the Prime Minister and the ISC, can be altered and replaced by agreement at any time. Since it is a working document that can move on and be altered and agreed by the two parties, it would not be appropriate to constantly put it back to both Houses of Parliament for debate and agreement. That is not the position with other memorandums of understanding. Normally there is no parliamentary approval process. That is why I mentioned that this had been to the Lords Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee, which, as far as I know, is perfectly happy with the process.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

I will not delay the Committee. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord King, who clearly understands exactly what is being said—namely, that Parliament will be denied the right to approve the memorandum of understanding. I am sorry that I did not see a copy of the letter that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, was fortunate to receive. It may have truncated my comments during debate on a number of amendments this evening. However, I suspect that we will have rich pickings in the memorandum and that we will come back to it on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Justice and Security Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Henley

Tuesday 19th June 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

My Lords—

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I will give way for one last time.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

Prior to us going into Committee, might the Minister find out for what reason it is not to be a parliamentary Select Committee, as against the structure proposed? There must be some explanation.

[Lord Henley]

Again, my Lords, I was interested in the noble Lord’s suggestion. I do not think that it is necessarily the right path to go down, but that is the sort of point that we need to argue about and try to reach some agreement on in Committee. I am sure that the noble Lord will put down amendments and that we will have the opportunity to discuss them. I look forward to hearing the views of his Front Bench and other Members of this House.

I have more or less used up my time and have answered a mere tithe of the very good points that have been raised. As I said, we are going to have a detailed Committee stage in due course, when we will get to a lot of these detailed points. I look forward to that process, as does my noble and learned friend. Both of us will write a number of letters over the coming weeks that we hope will at least make it easier to deal with these matters. With that, I commend the Bill to the House.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Debate between Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Henley

Tuesday 27th March 2012 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Henley)]

My Lords, it might be useful if I intervene now because there are a number of misconceptions about what is going on. Perhaps I may say that I rather regret the words of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, for whom I have the utmost respect, because he implies that whatever I say, I am out of touch and do not know what is going on. He seems to suggest that what I say will be untrue. That is not the case. What I would ask of your Lordships is that—dare I say it?—they should listen to me very carefully because I think I can allay the fears and answer the questions that have quite rightly been put by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, and my noble friend Lord Jenkin about the problems we are facing and where we are on this issue.

I start by paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, who was the first person to suggest that we should go down the cashless route. That is what we are doing, and he was the first to spot that there was a chance to do so in this legislation. It is why we are doing that and a few more things in this Bill, but the other things will have to wait until suitable legislation comes through. There is no five-year review, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, puts it. We have said that we will come to the other bits as and when we can, at which point we will resolve those matters. Again, at this stage I would ask noble Lords to listen to me very carefully as I explain what we are going to do.

Your Lordships will be aware that we tabled amendments on Report proposing three legislative measures to tackle metal theft: greater fines for offences under the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964; creating an offence of buying scrap metal for cash, and a revision of police entry powers to help enforce the new offence because it is important to make sure that we get the enforcement right. A similar amendment to the one we are dealing with tonight was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, but his revised amendment seeks to remove the existing exemption that allows certain itinerant collectors to be exempted from the cashless offence. I am going to deal with that in due course.

I should make it clear that anyone who trades in metal, whether they are a large multinational, the local scrap metal dealer or a door-to-door collector, which includes the itinerants, must register with their local authority under Section 1 of the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964. It might be that they do not register, in which case there are sanctions, but it is also why we are increasing the sanctions under an Act which I have said before is past its sell-by date. Failure to register is a criminal offence that under Clause 146 of this Bill will now be punishable by an unlimited fine. Anyone, be they an itinerant or a large multinational, who does not register can be punished with an unlimited fine. As part of its focus, the national metal theft task force, which we announced late last year, will ensure compliance with the registration requirement. I shall say a little more about enforcement later.

The police are currently able to enter and inspect any commercial premises that belong to a registered scrap metal dealer, including those used by itinerant collectors. Our amendment will ensure that they can also enter and search unregistered premises with a warrant if they have reasonable grounds to suspect that metal is being traded for cash, and being unregistered may well be relevant evidence in that regard, although obviously that is for magistrates to decide when they issue a warrant.

I do not suppose any of your Lordships who are in the Chamber did so, but when we debated the 1964 Act almost 50 years ago, Parliament chose not to overburden small businesses by including an exemption for door-to-door collectors from some bookkeeping. That is why the exemption was brought forward in that Act. As a result, in addition to the mandatory registration I have already mentioned, businesses can apply to their local authority for an order under Section 3(1) of the 1964 Act, to which my noble friend Lord Jenkin referred. That order would be granted by the local authority, but only in consultation with the chief officer of police for the police force area. Let me be clear: there is no blanket exemption for anyone who simply claims to be an itinerant collector. They have to be registered under Section 1 of the 1964 Act and they then have to get the exemption under Section 3(1) of the same Act, which has to be agreed by the local authority in agreement with the police.

The amendment that we have put forward follows the structure of the existing Act and the exemption is for a defined and locally known group of collectors to operate. So, if an itinerant was operating in a large number of different areas, he would need a Section 3(1) exemption from each local authority area in which he was operating. It is not a question of having one exemption and then being able to use that throughout the country. If he does not have that, he will be in breach of the law and could suffer the consequences.

It should also be noted that itinerant collectors who have obtained a Section 3(1) order are reliant, obviously, on selling their collected metal into the scrap metal industry. I appreciate that there are allegations that a lot of this metal goes into containers and is shipped abroad. We have no evidence of that—it does not appear to be happening—but if in the future we do see signs of metal going straight into containers and being shipped abroad, it will be easier to deal with because there are a limited number of container ports in the country compared to the vast number of scrap metal yards into which the metal is going at the moment.

On enforcement as we are seeing it on a day-to-day basis, the British Transport Police, as part of Operation Tornado—which is an operation into scrap metal theft in the north-east of England at the moment but which will be expanded in due course—encounter these collectors on a daily basis. On many occasions, the police find that they are unregistered and that they do not have a waste carrier’s licence, which they need if they wish to transport waste. As a result, they have had their scrap and, if it is not insured to carry waste or has not been registered to carry waste with the environment agencies, their vehicle confiscated. So there are enforcement procedures in place.

Registered collectors who have a reduced record-keeping requirement under Section 3(1) will, as I have said, still have to trade into the scrap metal industry. When they do so, they will not receive cash—they cannot receive cash—and that is what our amendment does.

So, to make it clear, Section 3(1) reduces the record-keeping requirements for those who only collect metal, but this is in addition to them also being registered under Section 1. It is not about signing up for one or the other, as some people imply, nor is it a matter of choice for the individual itinerant collector just to announce that he is now an itinerant collector. If he wants to be an itinerant collector he must be registered under Section 1 and under Section 3(1).

If the noble Lord’s amendment was to be successful and itinerant collectors with a Section 3(1) order are included, the offence of trading in cash would be more difficult to enforce for those individuals because of the nature of the work they do in travelling from street to street in the manner described by my noble friend.

To evidence compliance with the new cashless offence, we have strengthened the record-keeping requirements under Section 2 of the Scrap Metal Dealers Act which apply to the vast majority of the industry registered under the Act. We require that records are kept of who the payments are made to and the method of payment, and that receipts are copied and retained. The few collectors with a Section 3(1) order will not be required to keep those records. I cannot give a precise figure on the number of Section 3(1) itinerant dealers—that would mean going to every local authority in the country—but, of necessity, that figure will be relatively few. As I have made clear, they will have to be agreed to by the local authority with the agreement of the local chief of police.

To reassure the House further—

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

Will the noble Lord give way?

[Lord Henley]

No, I am not giving way to the noble Lord. It is entirely a matter for me to decide whether I give way to him.

To reassure the House further on this point, the Home Office is willing to work with the Local Government Association, with local authorities and with the police through ACPO, to help them provide advice to their members about the levels of assurance required in terms of identity, residence and any relevant criminal convictions before Section 3(1) orders are issued. That will ensure that they are operated in as tight a manner as possible.

I want to make clear—as I hope I did at Report—that banning cash from the scrap-metal industry is a vital first step to tackle metal theft and remove the drivers behind it. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, is with me on that. However, it is part of a wider package of work to tackle metal theft, including better enforcement and seeking design solutions to make metal harder to steal and increase the possibility of it being traced.

I will say a little again about enforcement. As I have said, we have strengthened that with the dedicated metal theft task force. We have already seen very significant progress, not least in the north-east, where there is quite a large amount of metal theft. Since the launch of Operation Tornado at the start of the year in the three northern police forces—Northumbria, Cleveland and Durham—we have seen a 50 per cent decline in the amount of metal theft in that area. That is driven by the voluntary adoption by the scrap-metal industry—or at least a considerable part of it—of greater identification checks when purchasing metal. We did not get the agreement of all of them but we are getting a considerable amount; and with this legislation we will get considerably more. I am also pleased to let the House know that the Association of Chief Police Officers is rolling out Operation Tornado nationwide over the coming months. As I have said, that operation has seen a 50 per cent decline in theft.

This is not the loophole that some noble Lords believe it is. We are not proposing a blanket exemption, but are allowing a very small number of specifically registered itinerant collectors to continue to operate as they currently do. I close by letting—

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

The noble Lord talks about the “very small number” of itinerant collectors, which was at the heart of the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding. If there are so few in each local authority, why could a departmental official not have contacted each local authority and asked them whether it is two, three or half a dozen? That would not have taken huge resources at the department, particularly when it was at the very heart of the defence of the legislation being used by the Minister at the Dispatch Box, both last week and this week.

[Lord Henley]

The noble Lord will have seen many questions over the years coming back to him with the reply that they cannot be answered without disproportionate cost. I will look very carefully at what he has had to say but, looking at the regulations involved in those itinerants first registering under Section 1 and then getting the exemption under Section 3(1), it was not thought necessary to write to all 400 and whatever local authorities. I will have a look at whether it is possible but I do not think it is necessary. I want to—

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

My Lords—

[Lord Henley]

Perhaps the noble Lord could just calm down a bit. It is late at night and we are trying to answer this problem in an appropriate manner.

I want to end by reiterating that we are committed to reviewing the Scrap Metal Dealers Act as soon as parliamentary time allows. That is why I dismissed the idea that it could not be done in less than five years. When we do so, we will be looking very hard at the role and regulation of scrap-metal dealers and itinerant collectors. I want to repeat the point that all noble Lords ought to grasp. It is not true that itinerant collectors can come by their own whim—they must go through a local authority inspection process and one that requires the approval of the local police. That is the important matter.

I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, will accept that the clarification I have given has dealt with the various questions he put to me and that he will be content to withdraw his amendment.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Debate between Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Henley

Tuesday 20th March 2012 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Henley)]

It might be useful if I intervene at this stage. In doing so, I want to make it quite clear that I hope other noble Lords will intervene after me despite the fact that this is Report. This is purely because I have amendments in this group and it might speed up the process by which we debate these matters.

I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, for all that he has done. We have listened to him and, as he knows, we have responded as much as we can in due course. I also want to make it quite clear that we in the Government recognise what a serious problem it is. I cannot list in detail the individual Peers, Members of the Commons and others who have been to see me. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London was the first to come and see me to highlight the problem relating to the churches. Obviously, this problem goes beyond the churches and beyond art theft; we all know about that Barbara Hepworth that was stolen recently. This affects communities and businesses throughout the country. We have seen damage to our infrastructure, to the railways, to communications and so on again and again and that damage is very great indeed. The noble Lord quite rightly cited an estimate of some £700 million. That is probably the effect on business and the community as a whole. What is depressing is how little money it actually brings in to the thieves themselves. The Barbara Hepworth that I mentioned, insured for £500,000 or £1 million or whatever, will have gone to some scrap-metal yard and been ground down and sold off for literally a matter of a few pounds. The real problem arises in the scrap-metal yards in that whoever was the first person to receive that—the first fence as it were—must have known that property was as hot as you can get because you do not often get Barbara Hepworths being brought in; they are not something you happen to find on the side of the road. So that is the problem and that is why the Government believe they should take urgent action.

That action can be taken in a number of different ways. The first and most important one is enforcement. The Government have made it quite clear that we want to address enforcement. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced late last year that there was an extra £5 million of funding for a new dedicated metal theft task force. The British Transport Police has taken the lead and is doing a great deal of work on this. In certain parts of the country we have seen great improvements in enforcement. I recently visited the north-east and saw what it was doing in terms of Operation Tornado, improving enforcement and increasing the number of arrests and cash seizures from the scrap-metal industry. That is happening throughout the country. Enforcement is one strand of what we must do and there are other things that we can do in terms of design and hardening objects so that they are less easily stealable or more traceable. However, we have concluded that legislation of one form or another is the only sustainable long-term solution to the growing menace of metal theft. That is why we have put down these amendments. They are similar to the amendments the noble Lord has put down but I have to say, as I always would, I think the government amendments are superior to his and I hope he will accept them in due course.

I want to keep my remarks brief, but will explain that the new amendments create a new criminal offence to prohibit cash payments to purchase scrap metals. We believe that at the moment it is just too easy for someone having stolen something to convert that something into cash, no questions asked. They also significantly increase the fines that are available for the majority of the offences under the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964, which regulates the scrap-metal-dealing industry. That is important. It only goes some way because, as I have said on a number of occasions, we believe that the Scrap Metal Dealers Act is not now fit for purpose but that it is worth at least upgrading the offences under that Act. But one should always remember that under the old Theft Act 1968 there is an offence of seven years for theft and more importantly, as I said earlier, under handling we have some 14 years available.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

The story in the Commons is that the Government are saying that that subsequent legislation will be brought in under the Private Member’s Bill procedure in the House of Commons. Is that true?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, perhaps I may sum up the debate and address some of the points. Earlier I paid tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, for all that he had done on the matter. I also pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Browning, who was the Minister who dealt with this before me. Only a few days before she unfortunately resigned and I moved to the Home Office, she summoned me and a host of other Ministers to the Home Office to discuss what we could do government-wide to address the problem. As a Defra Minister with a considerable interest in recycling and associated matters, I went along and said that it was possible that we might be able to do something through the Environment Agency. Soon after I left the meeting, my noble friend moved on and I found myself moving to the Home Office and in effect writing a letter from myself to myself to try to address these problems.

I am grateful for all that my noble friend did, and for the fact that she has now underlined some of the other problems that are beginning to appear in this matter. She referred to the problems with rare earths. I was recently in the north-west at a meeting dealing with truck theft. Truck theft is obviously very serious in terms of trucks and their contents being stolen, but certain bits of the trucks are also stolen to get the rare earths from, such as silencers, which can be of considerable value and whose theft can cause enormous problems.

I pay tribute to everything that my noble friend has done to highlight these problems. Similarly, I pay tribute to what the right reverend Prelate had to say and thank him for coming to see me to highlight the serious problems that the church is facing, particularly with the theft of lead roofs and with getting insurance on a great many church properties because of what is going on.

The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, asked me to comment on House of Lords reform. At this time of night, that is beyond my pay grade and I am not going to deal with it, but no doubt we will have further opportunities to discuss it in due course. He talked about the need for consolidated reform. I agree with him; I would like that in due course. I have made it clear that what we are doing at this stage is bringing forward the first stage of a package to get coherent reform in this area. It would not be right to delay the first few steps of that, as the noble Lord is suggesting, purely because we cannot get on to the other bits; we will get to those other bits in due course.

The noble Lord also said that the industry says that this will not work. Like the noble Lord, I have talked to the industry. I have addressed the BMRA; I have been to its annual parliamentary reception. The BMRA has made it quite clear to me that it welcomes virtually every aspect of reform. The only aspect that it is not terribly keen on is getting rid of cash. As someone else once said, “They would say that, wouldn’t they?”. I happen to think, as do most people in this House, that getting rid of cash from these transactions is a very useful thing to do and something that we ought to address.

The noble Lord made two other points that ought to be addressed. He asked about itinerants. I made it quite clear in my opening remarks that only itinerant collectors who are subject to an order under Section 3(1) of the Scrap Metal Dealers Act from their local authority, approved by the local chief officer of police, will be exempted. If they are also a scrap dealer and they have a yard, they will no longer fall within that definition of being an itinerant trader and therefore they will not be exempt. We are only talking about a very small number of people, who will be covered by the regulations that are in place at the moment. They are regulated.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

The Minister seeks to reassure us, but what happens if over the next few years there is a noticeable shift in favour of itinerant collectors and the illegal trade? Will the Government come back to amend the legislation or will they review it?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, we have made it quite clear that we are going to review it. We are going to keep this under control. The noble Lord is forgetting how few of these itinerant traders there are. They are not the people with the yards; they are people who are already regulated. The minute they have a yard they cease to qualify as an itinerant trader. It is as simple as that.

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Debate between Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Henley

Monday 6th February 2012 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State Home Office (Lord Henley)]

My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. I will start by referring to the remarks from my noble friend Lady Browning. It is no secret that, only two days before she left the Home Office, I went to visit her, along with other Ministers, to discuss the whole question of metal theft, because she had identified this as a problem and wanted to get action throughout the whole of government. I suggested then, as a Minister in Defra, that I might be able to help by offering some assistance through the work of the Environment Agency. Two days later I found myself in the Home Office and was very nearly in the position of writing a letter from myself to myself. In the end, the letter came from my successor the noble Lord, Lord Taylor.

I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for setting out what exactly is the problem. I think that we all understand what it is. I am grateful to him for starting off by emphasising that this is driven by second-hand metal prices. If he cares to look at the way that metal prices have gone over the last few years—sometimes up, sometimes down—he will find that the crime rate for metal theft has more or less exactly followed that line, and that it is on a distinctly upward curve. For that reason I was interested in his new figure for the possible cost of this whole problem to the country, which he put at about £1 billion. I have seen other figures which count the cost to the country and to business, one of about £220 million, another of around £700 million, and I would be interested to know where his figures have come from.

The important point to remember is that very often the actual value of what is stolen is relatively small; the issue is the knock-on effect of that particular crime. For example, when the lead is taken off a church roof, the lead has a value, and a value that is going up, but the real damage then comes from water leaking in and damaging the church. If you remove the wiring that deals with signalling from the railway line, you will have hundreds of hours of delays and major disruption caused to a large number of people—and as someone who spends an awful lot of time on the west coast main line I understand that as well.

We have examples of hospitals which have had to cancel operations as a result of power cuts caused by metal theft. I could give examples relating to the police and others, who have had their communications disrupted as a result of metal theft. Then on top of that we have the further elements of heritage crime. Not only war memorials are being taken; the example that the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, gave of the Barbara Hepworth statue being stolen and melted down is an example of something that went in the opposite direction. Here was something that was of very great value, should one have been able to put it on the market at Christie’s or Sotheby’s, but which when it went into the scrap metal yard suddenly became worth relatively very little indeed, and in fact would very quickly be ground up into bronze granules to be smelted.

The important point to remember about that particular theft is that it indicates just where the problem is. It is obvious that the first person to handle the statue—the first scrap yard owner who took it in—must have known that it was, as they say, hot. You do not often get Barbara Hepworth or Barbara Hepworth-like statues legitimately coming into scrap metal yards. Someone knew that it was stolen property and that they would be able to convert it into cash, while removing most of its value. On a number of occasions I have made the point that we believe that the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964 is—how should I put it?—beyond its sell-by date. We wish to see a reform to that Act as soon as is possible, and we will make sure that we do it.

I am grateful to the noble Lord for tabling this amendment and allowing us to have a debate on the damage that this practice is doing to our infrastructure. I am also grateful to him for highlighting the fact that there have been a number of deaths as a result of this. Although the noble Lord says that it was the perpetrator being killed, we should have some sympathy. For example, a 16 year-old was recently killed taking copper cabling from a power substation. He only did so because it was easy for him to take that copper wire and convert it into cash; and, in the process, someone who did not understand these things killed himself. Moreover, not only are some of the perpetrators being killed; it is likely that, fairly soon, innocent individuals could be killed as they try to sort out the mess caused by these problems.

The House will be aware—the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, referred to it—of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary’s Statement on 26 January, when she announced that we will be bringing forward amendments to the LASPO Bill to strengthen the law in this area. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, that we hope to do this on Report rather than tomorrow or on Thursday, which are the other days when we will debate these matters. This is specifically to deal with the problem of cash. As I say, the real problem is the ease with which people can convert stolen metal into cash, with no questions being asked and no traceability whatever.

In that Statement my right honourable friend indicated that the amendments would create a new criminal offence to prohibit cash payments to purchase scrap metal and to significantly increase the fines for all offences under the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964, which regulates the scrap recycling industry. In effect, once the amendments to the LASPO Bill have been agreed and the Bill has been passed, rather than having a maximum fine of £1,000 for offences under the Scrap Metal Dealers Act, the fine will be unlimited. We will go from an average fine of the order of £350 to a more realistic figure which might encourage some scrap metal dealers to act in a responsible manner.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

I understand that there has been some consultation on the proposal for a cashless arrangement. What has been the extent of that consultation? Have the many thousands of small scrap yard operations been consulted? I am not opposing what the Government are doing. I just want to know what the basis is and to what extent it can be justified as a result of any consultation—in other words, that this is not another panic response.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, this is not a panic response. It has been discussed in this House and in another place on a number of occasions and we are all keen to move forward.

I have had discussions with the British Metals Recycling Association, a body which represents scrap metal dealers of all sizes, great and small. It—dare I say it?—not surprisingly, is not keen on the idea of going cashless. That might indicate something about the effect of this measure. We shall obviously have to have further consultations with the BMRA and others in the industry before we bring these measures into effect after they have been introduced into the LASPO Bill.

I was formerly a recycling Minister in Defra. We have a very successful industry and I want to see high levels of recycling of metal continue. However, I want to make sure that the metal that is being recycled is legitimate and has not been stolen in one way or another. We do not want to kill off a successful industry but to properly regulate the criminal elements within it. We will certainly have further consultations with the BMRA and others before we bring the measures into effect after the Bill has received Royal Assent.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

Are we absolutely sure that we are not driving this business into the hands of the cowboys?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I could refer the noble Lord to discussions that I have had with other people in the industry, who have pointed out that the high levels of cash in the industry are driving criminality. If we can remove a lot of that cash then we can possibly remove a great deal of the criminality. I am not saying that it will be a magic wand that will solve all the problems—just as revising the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964 will not solve all problems, as his noble friend Lord Faulkner knows well. However, they are steps on the road to better regulating this industry, which is needed.

We are looking for a coherent package of measures to tackle metal theft. Obviously there will have to be further measures and regulation in due course, possibly along the lines of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. I do not want to rush into that at this stage. There is an opportunity to go cashless and to increase what are, at the moment, the derisory fines available under the 1964 Act, and we obviously need to do more to that Act in the future.

I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, on his ingenuity in finding a way of bringing forward amendments to this Bill on this subject. His noble friend Lord Faulkner tried to do so but failed. We also gave it some thought, but the drafting of the Bill is such that it is rather difficult.

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Debate between Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Henley

Tuesday 31st January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

My Lords, I speak to Amendment 3, which stands in my name. Perhaps at this stage I can apologise to the House for not being present during proceedings in Committee, as I was back and forth to and from hospital over a six-week period and was therefore unable to attend apart from a brief debate when DNA was being discussed. I set out my position on two amendments—including the one I will be moving later—on 29 November, when I made clear I was in favour of a voluntary national DNA database. I also apologise because Amendment 3, which I wrote in November, is slightly in error. Instead of it beginning with the words,

“or if the person from whom the DNA sample or fingerprint was taken”,

it should actually have read “and only”. That is my fault.

My amendment would require the authorities to obtain the permission of the DNA sample donor prior to the removal of his or her profile from the database, but does not totally compromise the Government’s intention to introduce their proposed changes. At first glimpse, the House might find it difficult to imagine circumstances in which a donor would resist removal of his or her profile. Furthermore, the House might wish to consider in what circumstances creating this new obstacle might benefit the state.

So why would a donor resist removal, and in what circumstances? A donor may wish to ensure that he or she is ruled out of a police inquiry through a simple DNA data mismatch during an investigation. The donor might feel that by allowing the retention of their profile, they were freeing themselves of suspicion during the police investigation. They may well have personal or particular family reasons for doing so. One has to place oneself in the mind of a person who has been accused of a crime and wants to be free of a potential accusation, or even show that he or she is not involved in criminal activity or is even going straight. It might help that person’s resolve. Some former criminals, even those involved in minor offences, feel that they are constantly under suspicion. This proposal is a psychological aid to rehabilitation.

So what possible benefits could there be to the state? I will not pray in aid the general arguments for the retention of DNA in the fight against crime. That is all well documented. However, there is a reasonable discussion to be had about whether, in the absence of DNA information following its removal, at least some residual information should be held on former donors. It was argued repeatedly in Committee that the proposed retention period was too short in the case of serious cases of rape and other crimes of violence. The Government’s response was the two-year possible extension period.

However, there are surely circumstances in which the state, while not retaining the DNA information, has an interest in at least knowing the whereabouts of a person who has previously been charged with a serious criminal offence. Let us not forget that “beyond reasonable doubt” is a high hurdle. Criminals who are successfully prosecuted often drop off the radar, as do those who are not successfully prosecuted. They move on in the process of seeking to cover their tracks. If DNA information is to be lost, the police should at least have the opportunity of retaining some point of contact, or knowledge of the whereabouts of former donors. Some who have been charged with offences will either surface at a contact address to request removal of the DNA data, to avoid detection in the future, or will steer clear of requesting removal, so as to avoid revealing their whereabouts. This may well happen in the case of people who have moved abroad, outside of what they believe to be UK jurisdiction. However, there will of course be those who have surfaced to request the removal of DNA data as a matter of principle. I fully recognise that these are complicated arguments; I suppose that they relate more to criminal psychology than to any empirical evidence that I am able to offer. But I merely ask the House to consider this as a proposition, perhaps for future legislation, since it is a little late at this stage

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Henley)]

My Lords, I hope that I can deal with these two cases relatively briefly. My noble friend Lady Hamwee has brought before the House again the issue of those detained by the police and taken to a police station as a place of safety under Section 136 of the Mental Health Act. My noble friend outlined what that did, but it might help if I briefly outline my understanding.

If a person in a public place appears to be suffering from a mental disorder and in need of immediate care or control, Section 136 of the Mental Health Act allows a police officer to remove that person to a place of safety if the officer thinks it necessary to do so in the interests of that person’s protection or that of other people. I should make it clear that persons detained under Section 136 of the Mental Health Act—my noble friend emphasised this—are not arrested. That is a very important point that we all have to remember. It is an entirely separate regime, focused on the protection of the detained individual rather than the wider public. The powers to take DNA and fingerprints in Part 5 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 apply only to those individuals arrested for a recordable offence. If a person was arrested for a non-recordable offence, such as speeding, or if they were not arrested at all but detained under the provisions that we are talking about, as is the case under Section 136, the powers simply would not apply.

If the police were to take biometrics in these circumstances, it would be not only an error on the part of the police but in fact unlawful. Under new Section 63D(2)(a) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, as inserted by Clause 1 of this Bill, if it should get on the statute book, all police officers would be under an obligation to delete material taken in this way. Therefore, I can say to my noble friend that Amendments 1 and 2 are unnecessary in that respect. She shakes her head, but I can assure her that, because the person had not been arrested, that would be the case. Taking biometrics from a person detained under Section 136 of the Mental Health Act is already unlawful.

The police are guided in the way that they take DNA and fingerprints by the PACE code of practice D, which deals with issues of identification of persons by police officers more generally. We will need to update code D in the light of the passage of this Bill and before it comes into force. I am happy to say to the House that we will include in that revision of the code a paragraph to make it quite clear that taking biometrics from those detained under Section 136 of the Mental Health Act is unlawful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, as always, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill for his assistance and advice in relation to what the Joint Committee on Human Rights feels about this issue. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lady Hamwee for what she had to say. Certainly, we will do what we can to provide better evidence of the use of DNA in convicting criminals as and when we can. However, I refer the noble Lords, Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Hughes of Woodside, and possibly even the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, to the figures. These are some of the figures that we have; obviously, more will become available. Since 2001, more than 4 million people have been added to the DNA database, yet despite that the number of DNA detections has fallen from 33,000 to just over 26,000 in 2009-10. There has been a vast growth in the hoarding of people’s DNA but a decline in the number of convictions. That is an important thing to remember as we look at this amendment.

I also give an assurance to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes of Woodside, who was worried that material taken from crime scenes would be lost. That is not the case. Material taken from crime scenes will still be taken; we are talking about material that is taken from individuals, whether criminals or not. That is a very different matter. My noble friend Lady Hamwee addressed a point of disagreement about whose DNA you should keep and for how long. We know that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, feels that there should be a national database containing everyone’s data. He would like to start with a voluntary database on which we can all put our DNA. We will discuss that when we reach his amendment. That might be hunky-dory and all that but it is not what we want, nor do we think that we should pursue a compulsory line in that regard.

I have explained what evidence we have. That is something we will look at but I also think we ought to look at other matters which influence this decision. The first thing to point out to the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, is that they would replace the Government’s provisions, which meet our coalition commitment to adopt the protections of the Scottish model. She says that that model was agreed without any analysis whatever. I have given some figures and we will provide some more in due course but we will also look at the remarks of Mr Keith Vaz, chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, at Committee stage on this Bill in another place. We will also look at what the ECHR had to say with regard to the Marper case referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Dear. I was very grateful to him for his intervention, particularly as he stressed the important point of this being a question of balance. My noble friend Lady Hamwee also stressed that point.

I believe that the party opposite is persisting in its approach to keep the DNA and fingerprints of innocent people for many years, no matter how little evidence was ever uncovered, and to keep huge numbers of individuals’ DNA and fingerprints on the national databases just in case they go on to commit crime in the future. That is not something with which we can agree. The party opposite pays scant regard to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the S and Marper case, which noted with approval the system which has been in place in Scotland for some years. I remind your Lordships that the Scottish system, seemingly endorsed by the European court and on which we have modelled the proposals in the Bill before us today, was put in place by the Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2006, which was presented to the Scottish Parliament by the then Labour Justice Minister, Cathy Jamieson. I do not think that the Labour Party is in power in Scotland at the moment.

Noble Lords opposite contend that our proposals are in some way a charter for dangerous criminals such as rapists which will allow dangerous individuals to roam the streets, committing serious offences with no way of tracking them down. The contention that every individual suspected of rape or any other serious offence will instantly come off the database as a result of these proposals is just not true. As we have discussed previously and at some length, those charged with a qualifying offence, including rape, will have their DNA held for three years, and the police will be able to apply to the courts to extend that by a further two years. The police will do that and that is similar to what is happening in Scotland. Those arrested for a qualifying offence but not charged—oh! I was wondering whether the noble Lord wished to intervene but he is obviously addressing his Front Bench.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

If I recall correctly, my noble friend on the Front Bench said that there had been no extensions whatever in Scotland and no use of the two-year extension. Is that true? If it is true, on what basis can it be argued that it is going to happen here?

[Lord Henley]

I am saying that it is available to the police should that be necessary. That is the important point to get over to the noble Lord. I do not know what the figures are for Scotland. I am not responsible for Scotland. It is another Administration in charge of their—

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

In other words, the Government are proposing an extension of two years for England and Wales. That system already exists in Scotland but the Government do not even know what has happened in Scotland in terms of the use of the two years. Is that correct?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, that provision will be available here; it is available there. That is the important point. The police will have the ability to apply to the courts. Those arrested for a qualifying offence but not charged, where the victim is vulnerable, will also have their DNA held for three years, subject to the approval of the new independent commissioner. The noble Lord may not like that but that is the case.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, the noble Baroness guessed right in that I will be rejecting the amendment or at least not encouraging the House to accept it. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, like Jonathan Swift, made what is described as “a modest proposal” and claimed that I had recommended this policy in Committee with a smile on my face. The noble Lord should not always take me totally and utterly seriously, even in Committee, whether there is a smile on my face or otherwise. I will have to look carefully again at what precisely I said at that time.

If the noble Lord is of the view that he or others should be able to go along and hand in their DNA to the police, I am more than happy for them to do that. I will escort him to the police station in Workington, Carlisle or whatever town in the north-west he finds most convenient. We will go together and I will assist him in that process. Having said that, I do not think that this proposal really has much running for it, although I can see the arguments put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, about reducing stigma and other such matters. Those remarks were echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Desai, although he went on to make the important point about those who do not volunteer and whether they would have problems. I will get to that in due course.

I want to make only one or two points about the amendment because I do not think we should waste too much time on it, modest proposal though it was. First, I do not believe that there is a demand for such an idea. The police service has not been demanding the establishment of such a database and I do not believe that there is any great demand for one within civil society as a whole. There might be a few public-spirited individuals such as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, and others who wish to come forward and provide their DNA for a database, but I suspect that they would be few and far between. I would also suggest that it is unlikely that individuals such as the noble Lord who did come forward would have any involvement in criminality, and that would be the reason they were happy to put forward their DNA. It is therefore difficult to see what the use might be for such material being stored on a voluntary database.

Secondly, I have a rather more important objection to the amendment, which relates to new subsection (11) where it proposes that the,

“National DNA Database Strategy Board shall, within a period of 12 months of commencement, report to the Secretary of State with recommendations on the establishment”,

of the database, and then in subsection (12) it sets out what the board should do. I do have to say that having the board carry out a feasibility study within 12 months of the commencement of the Bill would be asking rather a lot. The board’s workload will already be high during that period in supervising the establishment of the new procedures required by the Bill. That will take up a considerable amount of its time. The board has no resources to do this and we do not consider it appropriate to require it to do all this extra work at this time.

Having said that, I will put the smile back on my face and say that it is an interesting idea, as the noble Baroness put it, and a modest proposal. No doubt he will be more than happy to hand in his DNA in due course, but I do not think that I can support his amendment at this stage.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, for his recognition of the inevitability of the developments in DNA biometrics and how, in the end, there will be a national database. I am absolutely convinced of that, although it probably will not happen in my lifetime. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Hughes of Woodside on the question of the pilot. I do not think that this would cost the Government a lot of money. The only cost would be incurred by the strategy board in carrying out the work that is necessary for the purposes of my amendment. The fact is that we might find some great public benefactor, a private person, to fund a pilot which, over the years, might develop into a national DNA database. All I was asking was for the framework for a voluntary database to be considered, not for the Government to spend money on establishing it.

I recognise the concerns of my noble friend Lord Desai on the issue of black marks being put against those who refuse to join in. As I say, it would be voluntary, and in so far as it is voluntary I do not think that that issue would arise. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, was not able to intervene on this occasion, because she too is recorded in Hansard as expressing the view that it might have some effect on reducing the stigma generated over the retention of DNA. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Royall of Blaisdon for expressing the hope that we can at least consider this seriously at some stage in the future.

Perhaps I may say to the Minister that this is a debate that is going to carry on. As I have said, I believe it is utterly inevitable that this will happen. It is just a question of which Government will have the courage actually to take on the responsibility of taking the project forward. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Debate between Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Henley

Tuesday 29th November 2011 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Henley)]

My Lords, I start by picking up on the point made by my noble friend Lady Hamwee about Amendments 1, 7 and 8 not being consequential. I do not know what are the ultimate intentions of the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, but I agree with my noble friend that Amendments 7 and 8 are not consequential on Amendment 1. Certainly if the noble Baroness was minded to divide the House on Amendment 1, I would not accept the consequences of the House’s decision as being binding on Amendments 7 and 8. However, I shall leave that to the noble Baroness when she gets to them.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, made clear, Amendment 1 would delay the implementation of these provisions by several months. I remind the House that the provisions in Part 1, Chapter 1 of the Bill represent the response of the Government to the European Court of Human Rights judgment in the S and Marper case, to which the noble Baroness referred, which is already three years old. If the previous Government had implemented compliance legislation when they had the chance in 2009-10, we would not now have more than 1 million innocent people recorded on the DNA and fingerprint databases and we would not have had to legislate again on this subject in this Bill.

The previous Government’s proposals, to which the noble Baroness referred and which she obviously still supports, received at that time virtually no support at all beyond her own Front Bench. She has obviously since then dragged up a bit more support from her Back Benches. Our proposals, which very much adopt the Scottish model, have been welcomed by a wide variety of organisations such as Liberty, Justice, the Law Society, the Criminal Bar Association and GeneWatch. They all gave evidence to the Public Bill Committee in another place and welcomed the Government’s general approach in this area. The Scottish model has also found favour with the Joint Committee on Human Rights and with the Constitution Committee, which have both referred to it.

The noble Baroness referred to evidence from the 2009 analysis, which was based on only three years of evidence, as I understand it, extrapolated to a point where it was essentially of, it could be argued, no real value. I refer the noble Baroness to our analysis, which was published in September and used five years of evidence, looking crucially at the likelihood of conviction. Therefore, further analysis is unnecessary.

However, I can tell my noble friend Lady Hamwee that there will be a post-implementation review, as there always is, and if we failed to include something in our impact assessment again I can only say that Homer nodded on this occasion and that we will make sure that that does not happen in future. I believe that further analysis is unnecessary and our proposals to retain unconvicted persons’ DNA for only three years are correct, and then only in respect of serious offences.

The analysis has been looked at by many independent experts, who have considered it closely. For example, as my honourable friend the Minister for Crime and Security, James Brokenshire, said in Committee in the other place,

“the Information Commissioner states that he ‘does not consider that the evidence presented supports a general period of anything like six years’”.—[Official Report, Commons, Protection of Freedoms Bill Committee, 29/3/2011; col. 212.]

We have consistently supported the adoption of the protections of the Scottish model, and that was a central plank of our programme for government announced last May. We believe that our proposals represent an appropriate balance—and I was very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dear, for using the word balance—between the rights of those who have not been convicted by a court and the need to protect the public in some of the most difficult cases.

If the noble Baroness would like a little support from her own Back Benches, I can also refer her to the widely respected independent website Straight Statistics, whose board of directors is chaired by her noble friend Lord Lipsey. It has examined the research and reached the conclusion that:

“Despite the limitations of the analysis, acknowledged by its authors, it does suggest that the retention periods allowed under the 2001 and 2003 Acts were unduly long, as were those proposed in the 2010 Bill. The present bill, which is broadly similar to the law in Scotland, gets the balance more nearly right”.

The noble Baroness seemed to imply that we offered full support to the 2010 Bill. Again, I remind her, as I did in my intervention, that that Bill went through in the wash-up, very rapidly. Obviously, we offered it support in that six years was considered an improvement on the situation in the past, but we have not yet brought those provisions into effect and we have no intention of doing so. We think it better to bring forward these proposals, which are more likely to comply with the European Court of Human Rights judgment.

Again, I refer the noble Baroness to comments made by the then Policing Minister, when the noble Baroness’s party was in government, who said to the Public Bill Committee on the Crime and Security Bill that,

“we have obviously considered the judgment”—

that is, the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights—

“and how far we can push the boundary of the judgment in relation to our wish to have protection for the public”.—[Official Report, Commons, Crime and Security Bill Committee, 26/1/2010; col. 71.]

In our judgment, we should be seeking a balance, rather than riding roughshod over the rights of the million or more innocent people whose DNA profile is on the database despite them never having been convicted of any crime.

I turn to Amendments 7 and 8, which deal with the period for which we seek to retain the DNA and fingerprints of innocent people, which was discussed at some length in another place. These amendments would replace the Government’s provisions, which meet our coalition commitment to adopt the protections of the Scottish model, with the core of the last Government’s Crime and Security Act, which was rushed through in the run-up to the election. The party opposite persists in its approach to keep the DNA and fingerprints of innocent people for many years, no matter what those people have been accused of and no matter how little evidence was ever uncovered.

The noble Baroness referred to some 23,000 offenders. I was never quite sure where they had come from and whether they were alleged rapists, alleged something else or just people who had been arrested. Similarly, at the Labour Party conference in September, the shadow Home Secretary said that this Government will,

“take 17,000 suspected rapists off”

the DNA database, which,

“will make it even harder to bring rapists to justice”.

Of course, we all believe that increasing the conviction rate for rape and other serious offences is important. But are those on the Front Bench really saying that, in order to increase that conviction rate, we need to keep the details of thousands of innocent people on the DNA database because some of them in the future may go on to commit serious crimes?

I say to the noble Baroness that the conclusions of the report from the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, last year are far more important. She looked at the handling of rape by the police and by criminal justice and made some 23 recommendations in that area. While her terms of reference did not include the criminal law, her report recommended reassessing the essential elements of investigating rape cases, supporting victims to improve the handling of investigations and improving victim support, which would build stronger cases. Her recommendations on that occasion included ensuring that all police officers adopt ACPO’s Guidance on Investigating and Prosecuting Rape and adopting the protocol between the Crown Prosecution Service, the police and local authorities on exchange of information. I say to the Committee that these issues are more likely to be of assistance in increasing the conviction rate for rape than keeping 1 million—or whatever number we think it is—innocent people’s DNA on the national database.

In any event, the contention that every individual suspected of rape will instantly come off the database is just not true. Those charged with a qualifying offence, including rape, will have their DNA held for three years, and the police will be able to apply to the courts to extend that by a further two years. Those arrested for but not charged with a qualifying offence where the victim is vulnerable will also have their DNA held for three years, subject to the approval of the new independent commissioner. We have consistently taken the view, both during the passage of the Crime and Security Act and in advancing our proposals in this Bill, that the correct approach is to ensure that those convicted in the past of serious offences have their DNA added to the database, while those arrested for, but not convicted of, more minor offences should not have their biometrics held beyond the end of the investigation.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

I wonder if the noble Lord would answer a question that was asked of me, and which came up in discussion when we were arguing about this the other evening. What is the difference between holding personal information in the form of a photograph—a simple photograph, such as a passport photograph—in a national database, as against holding DNA?

[Lord Henley]

I am trying to remember who it was, but I think the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, made the point that he found somewhat scary the idea that we should have a national database with everyone's DNA on it, which was being promoted by the noble Lord and others of his colleagues. I feel exactly the same as my noble friend and I hope that that is a suitable response to the noble Lord. As I said, the idea that you could hold all that information in the form of DNA is very different from holding photographs. The noble Lord is speaking from a sedentary position but, if I could continue to try to answer him, that is a great distinction from keeping a photograph. I find the idea scary; obviously, the noble Lord does not.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

Before we agree this I wonder whether the Minister can give us advice on the costs of the collection of DNA and its retention. Will the Minister tell us the costs involved in the existing arrangements?

[Lord Henley]

I gave a figure earlier from the impact assessment that the costs on the police were some £10 million. I stick by that. If the noble Lord would like a copy of the impact assessment, I will make sure that he has it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

What is the actual cost of taking DNA from an individual person?

[Lord Henley]

I have not the first idea of the individual cost but I will take advice and write to the noble Lord.

UK Border Security: 30 November

Debate between Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Henley

Monday 28th November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I would not believe—and I would recommend that the noble Lord should not believe—everything I read in the press. I can assure him and the House that everyone assisting on this matter will have the appropriate training necessary to do the job. Yes, some police will be involved but they will have the appropriate training to do the job that they need to do.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

My Lords, the Minister said that staff started training in April. What were they training for in April?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, any sensible organisation, knowing there was a risk of such things happening—something which has still not been condemned by noble Lords opposite and I am waiting for that condemnation to occur—would make the appropriate arrangements. The border agency started that last April.

UK Border Agency

Debate between Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Henley

Monday 7th November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, of course there has always been discussion about how many people are needed to maintain the appropriate level of protection at our borders. However, very difficult decisions have to be made in this, as they do regarding the police and other matters. Obviously, it might be a matter on which John Vine would also want to comment in his report. That is a matter for him: he is independent. The important thing is that Ministers made appropriate decisions at the time of the spending review about what was appropriate, which, in terms of making decisions, we have had to do across the whole of government.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

My Lords, while not wishing in any way to endorse the cuts in UK Border Force staff which have led to delays of up to three hours in clearance at Heathrow, I wonder whether this is not one of the few times when instead of Ministers being driven into resignation due to the negligence of civil servants, as happened with Charles Clarke, a civil servant is being required to take the rap. It is a precedent that I fully support.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, on the delays, the border agency is largely meeting the targets imposed on it. The noble Lord will no doubt have examples of some pretty severe delays, but in the main, at something like 95 per cent of all locations, the agency is processing individuals with the appropriate speed. As for the noble Lord’s final remarks, all we are saying is that it seems that this official, or these officials, went beyond what Ministers authorised. That is why this process is taking place.

Higher Education (Basic Amount) (England) Regulations 2010

Debate between Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Henley

Tuesday 14th December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

Can the Minister confirm that there are two Motions today; one deals with the regulations, and the other deals with a Motion? Can he confirm that the second one cannot be treated as secondary legislation?

[Lord Henley]

There are two Motions. The second one is not secondary legislation at all, but it is a Motion that we have to pass under the 2004 Act, which the noble Lord’s Government passed. As I explained, they passed the concept of the Motion, because there was a concern both in this House and in another place, where I think that the noble Lord was at the time, about proposals for increasing fees. That is the proposal before us and that is why we are discussing it.

As I was making clear before I was interrupted by the noble Lord, the regulations and the resolution form only part of our higher education proposals, but they are an urgent part. We bring them forward today because students, their families, and universities all need to know what the arrangements will be from the 2012-13 academic year. The fatal amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, would put a halt to that, while the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, asks us to delay, but these decisions are needed now. We also plan to issue a White Paper early in 2011, to deal with the equally important but less urgent higher education questions. As I said, today’s proposals are part of a progressive package that will put higher education on a stronger footing for the future, and I commend them to the House. I beg to move.

Amendment to the Motion

Flooding: Cornwall

Debate between Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Henley

Wednesday 24th November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

I accept my noble friend’s point that these things are likely to happen more frequently as a result of climate change. We will continue to talk with local authorities and all others, which is why today we have made an announcement about our response to the Pitt review and the new approach that should be followed to deal with floods and the danger of floods. We will look at new approaches to allow more schemes to go ahead that will attract money not only from the Government, through the Environment Agency, but from all other sectors.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

Is not the lesson that we learnt from the floods in west Cumbria, where the noble Lord lives, and Cornwall that the aftermath always brings problems over house insurance costs? Cannot the Government now take a role in co-ordinating meetings with the insurance industry in order to get a better deal for home owners, who are greatly losing out and very often cannot reinsure their properties?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord referred to the floods in Cumbria. I visited Cockermouth only last week on the anniversary of those floods and I was pleased to see the resilience with which the people of west Cumbria, where both the noble Lord and I come from, have dealt with the situation; I imagine that the same will be true of the people of Cornwall, who are equally resilient. He makes a perfectly valid point about insurance and the Government are talking—and will continue to talk—to the Association of British Insurers about how we can deal with these matters.