Conversion Therapy Prohibition (Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity) Bill [HL]

Lord Curry of Kirkharle Excerpts

Friday 9th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB)]

My Lords, it is a great honour to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hannan of Kingsclere. We have heard some painful stories this afternoon—it was very moving to hear the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick— but we need to remember that, as the Minister for Women and Equalities said in the other place,

“we can tackle these issues with existing law”.—[Official Report, Commons, 30/11/22; col. 886.]

Advocates for a Bill against conversion therapy cite forced marriage, physical abuse, coercion, threats of physical violence and verbal abuse as some of the practices that need to be prevented. Thankfully, however, there are already laws on our statute book dealing with these things. As has been stated numerous times in the House today, the UK has an array of laws already in force that rightly prohibit genuinely reprehensible behaviour of the kind sometimes identified by advocates of new legislation. We do not need this Bill to deal with those things; we simply need to enforce the existing law.

Therefore, we need to ask what else the Bill seeks to address. My great concern is that what may be regarded as conversion therapy by advocates of the Bill is not abuse but the expression of certain opinions. Definition has been cited already as a major concern. The Church of England paper which we referred to earlier states that there is no clear or fully agreed definition. The Ban Conversion Therapy campaign includes controversial groups such as Mermaids and Stonewall. In one of its briefings, it calls for private prayer and casual conversations to be brought within the scope of the Bill. Could private prayer and casual conversations fall within the present Bill? I fear that they could. We could see innocent people criminalised for everyday conversations—not for brutalising people, not for some violent programme of brainwashing but simply for talking with other people.

We must not allow this to become a new speech crime, where those who are deemed to hold wrong opinions are prosecuted for mere words. It would be a disaster for free speech and religious freedom. The noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, was recently appointed as a patron of Humanists UK. I wonder whether she agrees with its response to the government consultation on banning conversion therapy, which says that a Bill must cover

“verbal communications … such as confessions/repentances”.

As has been stated, central to the Christian faith is the call for all people to turn to Christ for the forgiveness of their sins. This necessarily involves confession and repentance. As the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, has firmly stated, these are ongoing and necessary aspects of living the Christian life for millions of people in this country.

Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights protects freedom of religion and belief—not just the freedom to believe things in your head but to explain your beliefs to others and invite others to embrace them. It protects the freedom to change your religious beliefs and thousands do, every year. The freedom to repent protects what Christians call conversion, which is essential to the Christian experience. On that note, I am rather disturbed to see “conversion” used in the title of the Bill in such a negative sense. The experience of Saul of Tarsus on the road to Damascus was an amazing, positive experience and has been for millions since. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, I am an enthusiast for conversion.

I had planned to reference what has been in place in Victoria, Australia, but the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, has very powerfully explained the risks of going down that route, as has the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer. Such a law would be wholly intolerant of Christians who hold orthodox convictions. Such beliefs may no longer be fashionable, but should it really be illegal to invoke them in your prayers?

Returning to what I said at the very beginning, the UK already has comprehensive laws against abuse and coercion. Victims should be helped to pursue justice within the current legal framework. New legislation in this area is not only unnecessary but, as has been said a number of times, dangerous, since it threatens to criminalise harmless behaviour.

UK-EU Trade and Co-operation Agreement

Lord Curry of Kirkharle Excerpts

Thursday 29th April 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Frost (Con)]

My Lords, I of course agree with my noble friend. Northern Ireland is fully part of this United Kingdom, as the protocol makes clear. I agree that the best way forward would be for the Commission to continue the dialogue that it has begun with us in the hope that we can enable the protocol to be operated in a proportionate and pragmatic way. Those discussions are under way and there is some momentum in them but, unfortunately, significant differences remain and we will need to work those through in the weeks to come.

[Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB) [V]]

My Lords, my interests are as recorded in the register. I should like to explore with the Minister the issue of equivalence in food production standards, which have not changed since we left the European Union. Can we now assume that trade will be freed up as a consequence of yesterday’s decision?

[Lord Frost (Con)]

My Lords, we made clear during the negotiations, and continue to make clear, that we would be ready to agree an arrangement with the EU based on equivalence. We believe that our standards of food security and biosecurity more generally are certainly equivalent. The EU was not willing to negotiate that issue last year but we remain open to discussing that this year if it would like to change its position.

EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement

Lord Curry of Kirkharle Excerpts

Friday 8th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB) [V]]

My Lords, my interests are as recorded in the register. There is no question of the importance and lasting consequences of this agreement. It is eminently preferable to have a deal and a close working relationship with our neighbours in Europe than to have no deal, so I congratulate the Government on the agreement.

I welcome the Government’s efforts to ensure that temporary workers can continue to come and work in the United Kingdom and benefit our economy. We rely on seasonal workers in the agricultural and horticultural sectors, as the Minister is well aware. We also rely on vets from the EU in our abattoirs—indeed, a Lords environment committee report confirmed that 90% of slaughterhouse vets were EU nationals. Can the Minister confirm that seasonal workers and vets will continue to be able to work in the United Kingdom within the terms of the agreement and say how this relates to the Government’s immigration policy and the proposed points-based system?

I would like further clarity on the independent body that the Government are required to set up to monitor domestic competition law and state aid rules. Further details on whether this is to be a new body or whether the Government intend to revise the powers of an existing body would be welcome.

Finally, I am interested in how the Government intend to respond to the country of origin requirement in the agreement. I fully understand why this has been included in the deal: to prevent back-door, tariff-free imports into the European Union. Does the Minister agree that this is a unique opportunity for the UK to re-energise its manufacturing base, including primary production of food, so that, in complying with the agreement, we are able to export from a growing production and manufacturing industry in the United Kingdom? The weakness of our manufacturing base was embarrassingly exposed when in crisis. We had to pay exorbitant prices for PPE at the start of the pandemic. Can the Minister confirm that the Government will encourage domestic manufacturing and production so that not only can we export within the rules but look forward to an age when we at home can purchase home-produced goods instead of relying on a “Made in China” label, and how they intend to do this?

Northern England: Opportunity and Productivity

Lord Curry of Kirkharle Excerpts

Thursday 12th January 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB)]

My Lords, I declare an interest. I am a partner in a farming business in Northumberland and historically have had involvement in a number of businesses in the north-east. I was also, five years ago, a member of the Adonis review on the economy of the north-east. I, too, appreciate the comprehensive introduction to this debate by the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, and I welcome this report. Recognising that it covers the whole of the north of England, my comments will focus specifically on the north-east.

As a region, the north-east has the most positive balance of payments of any region in England. This is a remarkable achievement and something of which we are proud. However, this means we are even more vulnerable if trading—particularly trading with the European Union—is disrupted by the impact of Brexit. The north-east boasts the second highest gross value added in the UK economy, at 2.8% in 2016 according to House of Commons figures published in December. This performance must be maintained, whatever the world looks like after Brexit. Earlier this week, your Lordships discussed this very issue. During Tuesday’s debate on the economic impact of Brexit, the noble Lord, Lord Beith, highlighted that 58% of the north-east’s exports are to Europe. The IPPR report further highlights this, placing the north-east in the “dynamic but vulnerable” category.

This important region must make sure that its voice is heard throughout the Brexit negotiations so that it can pursue an agenda beneficial to the north, as recommended in the report. As has been mentioned, large companies such as Nissan are very important to the economy of the north-east and it is excellent that it has committed to post-Brexit investment. However, as in every other region, the business community in the north-east consists of tens of thousands of SMEs and their future is crucial to the economy of the north. This being the case, it is vital that they continue to be supported throughout the Brexit negotiation process, as much of the success of the northern economy is tied to theirs. They need encouragement, continued access to capital funding to improve skills and support to access markets here at home but also, importantly for the region, overseas.

Noble Lords will not be surprised that I also refer to the rural economy and its importance to the north. A Newcastle University study in 2013 found that two-thirds of rural businesses in the UK are SMEs and microbusinesses. This is not surprising, but what is not well known is that the rural economy in the north grew in the decade between 2004 and 2014 faster than any other sector in the region, according to the North East local enterprise partnership figures.

The rural economy is vital to the region and makes up approximately 20% of England’s economic activity. It would be remiss of me not to refer to the importance of agriculture in the rural space. The common agricultural policy is a hugely important element of EU membership. The support it provides is currently crucial to the survival of many farm businesses in the north of England. I could go into a lot of detail on this, but I will confine my remarks to the following.

The north of England has a higher proportion of hill and upland farming than any other area of England, from the Peak District, through the Pennines to the Lake District and the Cheviots. They may not be seen as the most obvious drivers of economic growth, but the dependency of other sectors on the uplands of Britain, particularly in the north, is massively important, from tourism, water capture and flood management to the environment and the contribution the uplands make to climate change. Of course, agriculture as a whole is vital, but the uplands are particularly vulnerable in a post-Brexit world if some form of ongoing support is not recognised as essential when the common agricultural policy is demolished. Farmers recognise that change is inevitable post Brexit and they may have to change, but upland farmers have fewer options.

I make these points because we need integrated solutions that bring the rural, the urban and cities together to succeed. The economy of the north-east is dynamic and has huge potential, but it is vulnerable and this needs to be recognised. There has been great work towards this so far, but it must not be derailed by Brexit. We need to ensure that current progress is maintained.

Sudan and South Sudan

Lord Curry of Kirkharle Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2014 Grand Committee

[Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB)]

My Lords, I thank your Lordships for allowing me to make a brief contribution to this important debate. I also express my appreciation to the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, for instigating this discussion.

My interest is in South Sudan. I am a trustee of AID—Anglican International Development—which manages a number of projects in South Sudan in conjunction with the Episcopal Church of Sudan: in healthcare, microfinance, sanitation, agriculture and, hopefully, education. The disruption in South Sudan caused by the conflict a year ago between Salva Kiir and Riek Machar has been devastating. Following the comprehensive peace agreement and the vote for independence, South Sudan promised so much. The potential is huge, whether in food production or in wealth creation more generally. However, for understandable reasons, inward investment is on hold; many NGOs and companies we wish to work with are not interested, in the current climate, in investing in South Sudan. This is a tragedy for the people of South Sudan.

We have to be realistic and accept that these two egotistical leaders will never reconcile their differences and that neither is now capable of uniting his country. I request of the Minister that we redouble our efforts, through the UN and the African Union, to find a solution. The noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, has suggested a Government of national unity, if that is possible. The current stalemate is destroying the country. If peace were to prevail today, South Sudan would have a massive uphill struggle to address health issues—it is bottom of the international league table in its health status—poverty and its dependency on aid. Without a resolution, these devastating circumstances are going to continue. The people of South Sudan had hope until 12 months ago. That hope has been replaced by despair, and we need to help them re-establish hope in the future of their country.

Deregulation Bill

Lord Curry of Kirkharle Excerpts

Tuesday 21st October 2014 Lords Chamber

There are so many cases which have meant that people are afraid to open their homes or, for example, to offer to open a farm to people to learn about sheep in case one of the children touches the sheep and therefore gets some disease. All these things are serious assaults on the system and we have to be careful not to make our system look ridiculous, for very good reason. I really object when people suggest that everything is well in the health and safety world and that it is only about people’s perceptions. Frankly, it is not only that; the system makes fools of us all very many more times than ought to be so. However, that should not lead us to make further mistakes in our legislation. I am disposed to be happier if people working in their own homes should be given the responsibility of deciding how to work safely, although I object instinctively to the idea that because I am self-employed some busybody from outside should tell me how to write an article at home, whether I should hold my pen in one way or another or what I should do about the possibility of stress-related illnesses. I find that objectionable and I think that many Members of the House on both sides would agree. I just wonder whether this solution does not create more problems than it solves, and whether the Government should not provide rather more time for some exploration of the issues being properly raised in this debate.

[Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB)]

My Lords, I speak in favour of this clause and the Bill. I need to declare an interest: I chair the Better Regulation Executive, and many of the elements of the Bill have come through the Red Tape Challenge process, which we are partially responsible for. I stress that I am the independent chair of the BRE.

I understand the concerns that have been raised about the perceived dilutions of health and safety standards that this would give the indication of being. In fact, though, the noble Lord, Lord Deben, has mentioned the European Union, and we could be charged with being guilty of gold-plating health and safety because what Professor Löfstedt has recommended here is that we come into line with the rest of the EU. In most member states this is common practice; self-employed people in certain trades are exempt from health and safety legislation. This is bringing us into line with what is common practice in most member states within the EU.

The fear is that high-risk trades are going to find themselves newly exposed, but of course that will not be the case as those trades will not be allowed this exemption, and the Health and Safety Executive will produce guidance if there is some uncertainty among trades about whether or not they need to comply. The idea that somehow or other self-employed people in certain trades being exempt from this legislation means that they are suddenly going to behave irrationally is just not true. Most self-employed people will continue to behave as they behave now, whether or not they are subject to the law. What this does is remove from their lives some bureaucracy and box-ticking exercises that they are subject to now, so they will be alleviated from that burden. The assumption that there is going to be masses of exposure of self-employed people who are then going to suffer serious health and safety accidents is just not the case.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, this has been a short debate. I recognise the worries that have been raised. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Curry, for his speech. I emphasise that this is very much about the Red Tape Challenge and removing both real and perceived burdens on businesses. I stress perceived burdens because it is a disincentive to set up a business if you are intending to work on your own if you think that you face a tangle of regulations that it will cost you money, and take you a great deal of time, to work through and understand. The question of perception is therefore not at all unimportant to this Bill. On the other hand, I recognise that much of this is not enforced, let alone inspected, when it comes to people who work on their own, quite often in their own homes, so there are shades of understanding on all sides of the issue.

When I think about the self-employed, I tend to think about people in my profession, academia. I can recall two accidents in academics’ homes that I am aware of, in which bookcases became overloaded with books and collapsed. I regret to have to admit to your Lordships that one of the bookcases in question I had put up several years before; we had then sold the house to another academic and the bookcase very nearly collapsed on him, so in that sense I am perhaps liable. My DIY skills are not as good as they should be.

We recognise that people working in what one has to say are the intellectual trades or in the service industries—accountants, lawyers working at home and so on—on a self-employed basis are not in the business of high risk. All regulation is a question of how much risk one is prepared to accept, how large the risk is and how burdensome regulations will be. That is a constant trade-off that all Governments and Administrations have to consider, and that all courts when asked to review them also have to consider. The question of the balance is very much part of what we are now dealing with.

The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, asked about people working in partnerships and whether they are exempt. I can tell him that if they are self-employed within the definition in the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act, they will be exempt unless the activity that they are undertaking is on the proscribed list. The definition of “self-employed” is not altered by this change. The noble Lord quoted paragraph 90 of the HSE review on this. I had indeed looked at paragraph 90, and what is said in paragraphs 91, 92 and 93 modifies what is said in paragraph 90, to the effect that we should not expect adverse health and safety impacts for the workers themselves and that behaviour is not likely to change due to the exemption. Again, we are dealing with degrees rather than sharp distinctions, one for another, and with perceptions as well as realities.

To introduce some numbers, as has been stated in the debate the number of people who are self-employed has grown considerably over the last 20 years, particularly over the last 10 years. On figures for accidents and fatalities, in the years 1992-93 there was an average of 81 fatalities among the self-employed per year; in 2012-13, there was an average of 51 fatalities. Many of these accidents involved electrical failures, or people who are electrocuted in the home or whatever it may be, as well as anything that may involve anyone else who had visited them.

I will ensure that I have answered all the other questions. The noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, and my noble friend Lord Deben asked whether we have anything specific about premises. This proposal is specific, as I mentioned in moving it, to Section 3(2) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. Self-employed people will continue to have duties under Section 4 of the Act, which places a duty on those who provide non-domestic premises in a workplace, such as landlords. The duties that the self-employed person will have more generally will depend on whether the self-employed person carries out the activities on the proscribed list.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Curry of Kirkharle]

Perhaps I may respond to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie. I was in contact with Professor Löfstedt in the past week. He has seen the wording of the Bill and appears to be very content with it. Perhaps I may respond to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Deben. The Health and Safety Executive will carry the information that the noble Lord requested, so any self-employed business could very soon find out from the executive whether or not it is exempt.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

With great respect, I do not think that that is Professor Löfstedt’s position. He circulated his original advice; we know what that is and why it could not be implemented.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Curry of Kirkharle]

My Lords, I will respond to the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Deben, because it is important that we understand the perceptions of business, as referred to by the Minister in the earlier debate.

According to the research that we do on a regular basis, businesses believe that regulation is an obstacle to economic growth. We carry out surveys every six months or so. Five years ago, 60% of businesses believed that regulation was an obstacle to economic growth. In our most recent survey, that figure has dropped to 50%. So 50% of businesses still believe that regulation is an obstacle to economic growth. Of course, what they would like in many cases is to remove large swathes of regulation. Clearly, that is just not possible. We influence business perceptions by removing small pieces of regulation over the years through measures such as this.

This is a small piece of regulation, of course, but it is the accumulation of small pieces of regulation that influences business perceptions. I do not for one moment want to open another debate but the perception that the world of regulation—the environment within which businesses operate—is improving is consistent with improvements in employment and economic growth.

[Lord Rooker]

Is the noble Lord, Lord Curry, really arguing what used to be the case before we had health and safety and had low pay, that the backstreet crooks who are cutting corners—and in this case breaking the law—get a free ride, whereas all the other companies that are following the rules on discrimination and not breaking the law are then taken to the cleaners by being undercut by companies that are breaking the law? Does the noble Lord realise that that is the argument he is actually making, defending lawbreakers undercutting legitimate businesses that are following the law and not conducting discriminatory practices?

[Lord Curry of Kirkharle]

The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, knows perfectly well that I am not recommending that.

This is a small measure, a power that employment tribunals may or may not exercise. I am happy to say that as an employer I have never been subject to this but for those companies I am aware of, the lesson they have learnt through having broken the law and failed the tribunal process is in itself sufficient for them to improve their behaviour and the way they treat their employees afterwards without this power needing to be exercised.

[Lord Ouseley (CB)]

My Lords, the emphasis in the debate so far has been very much on the interests of the employer and business in seeking to remove as much red tape and as many burdens as possible—and that is understandable. Clause 2 and what it means may be small beer for the employer and a company, because there are now so few discrimination cases in which individuals can clear all the hurdles, but it is not small beer for those individuals. Many employees feel that discrimination in the workplace is something that they cannot do very much about. The hurdles which have been placed in front of them are such that few now get to the employment tribunal; they are not even able to afford to lodge their cases. If you are a cook or a cleaner, you are generally a low paid and vulnerable employee. Employers feel sufficiently empowered as to exploit that situation. We should recognise that this may be something that it would be good for employers not to have as a burden but we should also recognise that it is not a great burden when you consider the volume of cases that get to that point. We are talking about employers who have been found guilty of discrimination.

If someone has gone to the trouble of challenging unfair treatment in the workplace, gone through some form of internal process perhaps, paid their money and gone through conciliation, cleared all the other hurdles to get to the tribunal and won their case, we should be concerned that the tribunal might not be able to make recommendations to help the employer who is guilty of discrimination to put things right in a way that would make a difference to how employees are treated. It is about sending out those messages. While the Government have been keen to remove burdens from employers, they should certainly not advocate that employers go on being unfair to their employees. It is therefore important that Clause 2 should not stay in the Bill. That would enable us to give confidence to employees that, although there are all those hurdles, those who succeed in getting to the tribunal and win a case will be dealt with in a way that enables them to be treated fairly as employees.

I want to give an example of what I am getting at by citing the recent case which Police Constable Carol Howard brought against the Metropolitan Police. That case illustrates the folly of allowing Clause 2 to remain in the Bill. The tribunal found that the respondent, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, directly discriminated against PC Howard because she is a black woman. It also held that the respondent victimised her because of her complaints of discrimination. She had had the temerity to lodge a complaint, have an internal process and then go beyond that to the employment tribunal—how dare she? She was harassed and victimised; she was even arrested and put on bail for more than a year during the process of the case and subsequent to the finding of discrimination.

What was worse, the tribunal found that the respondent had a policy of deleting findings of discrimination in its own internal grievance procedures, known as the “fairness at work” process. That is some fairness at work. You have an internal investigation. If any aspect of discrimination is found, the investigating fairness-at-work officers are told, “You have to remove that, delete it”. What sort of fairness at work process seeks to hide the truth of discriminatory activity and to mislead the tribunal about its own internal findings? Those distorted and doctored internal findings from a flawed process would never have come to light had not Carol Howard tenaciously, while being victimised and harassed, fought to get the disclosure of those internal reports, which the Metropolitan Police resisted strenuously but finally had to do. Had she not done so, the Met and its expensive lawyers would have got away with covering up extensive discrimination. Is that justice? Is that fair? Is that what we want?

As I said, it is understandable that we seek to unburden employers and companies of regulation that seems unnecessary—this may seem unnecessary because few people are making it to the end of the process—but the context I have just described shows that we have reached the point of serious imbalance in the process of seeking remedies through employment tribunal and discrimination cases, which enables employers, should they choose to do so, to ride roughshod over their employees’ rights when it comes to unfair and unlawful discrimination. Clause 2 adds insult to injury. The only employers who would want it are those who have something to hide or those who want to continue unlawfully and unfairly to discriminate against their employees.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hardie (CB)]

Can I clarify in my own mind what the argument is? As I understand the Minister, the justification for the clause is that it would meet the test of the Red Tape Challenge. However, I also understand that the burden of the power will still exist for a tribunal to make an observation in the same terms as a recommendation. I am struggling to understand how that does not impose upon the employer the same burden as exists at the moment. Perhaps the Minister could help me out.

[Lord Curry of Kirkharle]

My Lords, I will correct something that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, has just said. The Red Tape Challenge process is not influenced by two environmental health officers. There is a robust process which follows up the public consultation process which is part of the Red Tape Challenge. There is a star chamber with Ministers, independent representatives and government officials who thrash out the various comments that have come through the Red Tape Challenge process, and which have eventually arrived as part of the Bill.

[Lord Rooker]

And the result of that is that I was asked to keep unsafe kitchens.

--- Later in debate ---

There is a huge amount of concern about this around the House and in different parts of the country, and I think that it would be very sensible for the Minister simply to say, “We understand these concerns. We’ll go back and talk about it and then perhaps come back at a later stage of the Bill either having changed our mind or with some assurances”.

[Lord Curry of Kirkharle]

My Lords, I have some sympathy with the comments just made by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, but let us be clear: these are deregulatory measures. The annual licence fee for a taxi is a cost on business, and extending the period would be deregulatory and welcomed by taxi firms.

I challenge the assertion that under Clause 12 individuals will be placed at greater risk. Of course, those of us who use taxis prefer to use our regular firms. As someone who has a very keen family interest in disability, the last thing I would wish would be for any individual to be put at greater risk. However, we are not suggesting in Clause 12 that unlicensed taxis be used. These are taxi firms that have been licensed by a neighbouring authority, so they have been subject to the same licensing process as the firms to which the request for a cab has been made. In my own case, like other noble Lords I use taxis from time to time. If my preferred taxi firm is unable to transport me to the station or the airport, I have to go further afield and find another firm. That taxi firm then loses that business and maybe will lose my future business because I have transferred my allegiance to another firm.

This is an opportunity to free up the market for taxi firms and to allow them to operate outside their immediate geographic area. It is something that we should support.

[Viscount Ridley (Con)]

My Lords, I apologise to the Committee for not being present at Second Reading, but perhaps I may be allowed to comment on Clause 12, which I believe is a fair and reasonable measure that will bring improvements for customers.

At the moment it is only outside London that a private hire operator cannot subcontract a booking in a different district. Is there something peculiarly wicked about provincial private hire firms that does not apply in London? A London-based private hire firm can subcontract, as can a foreign unlicensed company, and this gives it a huge advantage. It puts private hire firms outside London at an iniquitous disadvantage, but it also leads to perverse, inconvenient and even unsafe consequences for customers. I shall give your Lordships a real example.

There is a private hire firm in Birmingham that has a contract to transport any staff with minor injuries from Jaguar Land Rover’s plants to hospital. As the firm cannot subcontract a booking to an operator in another district, if the injury occurs in the Wolverhampton plant, the car does a 55-mile return journey to take the person to a hospital 2.6 miles from the plant. For most of that round trip the car is empty. Jaguar Land Rover wants to deal with a single operator, but this is the result.

Another real example is of a private hire operator in Derby asked by a customer to collect an important client in another district. It must refuse the job, and refuse to arrange it with another firm in that district. The firm appears unhelpful to its customer. I have a third real example. A private hire firm in north Tyneside has a member of staff with a terminal illness. He would like to continue working, but from home. Since he lives just outside the north Tyneside border, that is illegal. I have another example. People often hire private minibuses to do long journeys for groups of up to six or eight people—to an airport, for example. That vehicle must return empty. If it breaks down en route, the operator is breaking the law if he asks another firm in the district where the breakdown happens to take the customer on. This measure would reduce congestion, pollution and noise a little, too.

Please note that the beneficiaries of this change in the law would include people with disabilities. That is because a wheelchair-enabled vehicle that has taken a customer from his home in district A to a hospital in district B would now be able to collect a different customer at the hospital and take him back to district A. As far as I can tell from Hansard, when exactly these measures were discussed and passed in this House in 1998 for London, one organisation that was widely praised in the debate for its support of the measures was the Suzy Lamplugh Trust. It therefore surprised me to hear today that it is against this measure. If this rule is good for London, it is surely good enough for the rest of the country. Can it be that London-based private hire firms are worried about competition from firms based outside London? This is an excellent and sensible measure that has benefits for customers.

Strengthened Statutory Procedures for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation: DPRRC Report

Lord Curry of Kirkharle Excerpts

Tuesday 5th March 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Curry of Kirkharle]

My Lords, I welcome the fact that the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, has tabled this debate this evening, and I also welcome the committee’s special report. I recognise the crucial role that the committee plays in ensuring the adequate scrutiny of proposals put forward by Ministers in the other place.

It is encouraging that the report recognises that the existing scrutiny procedures around the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006 are robust. I declare an interest in my capacity as the non-executive chair of the Better Regulation Executive. I compliment the previous Government on taking the 2006 Act through Parliament.

Legislative reform orders are an important deregulatory tool at the current time to reduce burdens on business, but they are used only where there is no other legislative vehicle available. This has meant that only 18 have been made since 2006. Currently there are eight draft orders going through the process. More are likely to emerge from the Red Tape Challenge implementation but, again, only where no alternative vehicle can be found to progress these changes quickly.

The undertakings made by the previous Government have been referred to a number of times this evening. I understand that these were made when we did not know how the changes to the Act would be used in practice. I have looked at how the Act has been operating since 2006, and while I recognise some of the points made by noble Lords—I may be alone in making this comment—I am not entirely persuaded that it is necessary for this Government to renew the undertakings.

It is encouraging that the scrutiny process has been working well. The Act introduced a key safeguard with an effective power of veto for the committee. Any resolution to reject a veto commendation is taken on the Floor of the House without any time limit. As far as I am aware, neither scrutiny committee has felt the need to exercise its veto when considering draft orders.

I do not believe that the undertakings affect the ability of this House to debate important matters. The committee chooses the level of parliamentary scrutiny. Any legislative reform order that is more than just technical in nature will be debated, either in Grand Committee or the Chamber, and has to be approved in the Chamber. Noble Lords may disagree, but it strikes me that the level of scrutiny of proposals that come before the committee is at least as thorough as that of some Bills that pass through this House.

The 2006 Act is due for post-legislative scrutiny in 2014. I propose that this would be the time to review in detail the effects of the legislation. That is when we can establish whether the intended policy objectives have been met and, if so, how effectively.