Building Regulations and Fire Safety: Government Response

Lord Deben Excerpts

Thursday 17th May 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, we are all deeply concerned that this should not happen again and I welcome what the Minister has read out. In particular, I hope the Government will give a clear indication that the banning of combustible materials is something they would like to do. We have to have a consultation, but, given our debate yesterday on why it is important to make clear in any consultation where the Government believe the future should be, it is important that the Government are very clear about this.

Does my noble friend accept that Dame Judith’s report clearly highlights that inspection and enforcement have a big role to play, and failed in this case? Therefore, I hope I am not extending it too far to say that there is a fundamental problem with the building regulations in general. We have to recognise that building regulations are not being met by new housebuilders, for example, because they are not inspected and the regulations are not enforced. In my view, this is a clarion call to review the way in which inspection and enforcement take place. I hope the Government will say that this is not just about fire safety but about all the other regulations we have passed, which should be enforced. I suppose I ought to declare my interest as chairman of the climate change committee. This is a real issue for us, because we cannot get the enforcement we need for new buildings.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I am grateful to my noble friend, himself a former Secretary of State at the Department of the Environment with responsibility for building regulations. The Hackitt review has recommended what she calls “gateways”—steps that must be fulfilled before the next stage in the construction process can happen, from design, to planning, to completion. On inspection, there is an interesting section in the report about approved inspectors, where Dame Judith sees a perceived conflict of interest and recommends some changes. On regular inspection, there is a recommendation that high-rise buildings should be inspected rigorously at least every five years for safety. On resources for the planning regime, my noble friend will know that we have recently increased the fees that planning authorities may charge with the increase being ring-fenced for actions such as enforcement.

I should have said in response to the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, that I have the latest figures from the royal borough on the rehousing of the Grenfell survivors. As of 14 May, of the 210 households that needed to be rehoused, 201—95%—have accepted offers of temporary or permanent accommodation. Of those, 138 have moved into temporary or permanent accommodation of which 64 are currently living in temporary accommodation and 74 have moved into permanent accommodation. Kensington and Chelsea Council is spending £235 million on providing the homes needed and we know that the council plans to spend an additional £83 million on top of the £152 million it has already reported spending. It has reported that it has now made over 300 permanent homes available to survivors to give people as much choice as possible.

On the building regulations, Dame Judith’s point was that the problem was not so much the regulations but a failure of the system that supervises and enforces them.

Financial Guidance and Claims Bill [HL]

Lord Deben Excerpts

Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 13th September 2017 Lords Chamber

On the second day of Committee, I was very impressed by the Minister’s passionate desire to ban cold calling for pensions and her obvious frustration at being unable to do so in this Bill. This amendment would enable us to ban cold calling for CMCs. I hope that she will seize the opportunity to do just that. I beg to move.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, I support this measure. This industry has become huge. I emphasise the very simple point to my noble friend that it is an industry which encourages fraud and leads people to do things which they would never have done without this pressure. I do not believe we want that kind of thing in our society. It is expensive for decent people, holidaymakers and everybody, and the people who do it are among the most unpleasant people in our society. They are leeches on our society. My noble friend the Minister has treated this Committee extremely well and has spoken most charmingly about many things. I do not think this is something we can just pass off with good words. We have to tackle this. If we do not do that, we will fail the public as a whole. Above all, this is something we can do about morality. We should not have a society in which people are led astray in this way. This is not an industry that we need to encourage and the way to kill it is simply to say, “You can’t impose yourself on other people”. There is too much imposition anyway. This is something we could do.

[Baroness Altmann]

My Lords, I support this amendment and speak to my Amendment 73 on the same topic, which seeks to achieve the same aim as Amendment 72. The scale of nuisance calls is of great concern, as has been expressed in previous debates on this Bill from noble Lords on all sides of the House. The Association of Personal Injury Lawyers states that an estimated 51 million cold calls or texts are received each year from regulated claims management companies for personal injury claims. Although such nuisance calls are supposed to be prevented by existing regulations, current measures are clearly ineffective.

Reforms of claims management companies are clearly urgently needed. I congratulate my noble friend on introducing the Bill. Carol Brady’s excellent independent review of the regulation of claims management firms recommended moving responsibility to the FCA, which is what the Bill does, and I wholly support that. However, it is also important to protect the public from nuisance calls and texts, which the claims management companies often plague people with; to reduce the level of speculative and even fraudulent claims, which cause added costs for companies and end up costing other consumers extra money; and to stop customers being fooled into paying up-front fees to unscrupulous claims management companies, which they then never recover after they discover that they did not have a valid claim in the first place.

FCA regulation of CMCs will help toughen the oversight of nuisance calls, but that move alone is not sufficient to properly protect consumers. The FCA has powers of enforcement that are better than the current regime; it can strip those found to be flouting the rules of their ability to operate and can hold directors personally liable. But a ban on unsolicited approaches would add much more protection. It would be clear to consumers that they should not engage with firms which contact them and encourage them to make spurious claims. Currently, the claims management companies act with impunity to entice people to make easy money. But of course this has the effect of imposing higher costs on the wider public, as we have already heard this afternoon, because firms will charge more to cover the risks of such claims. We have seen this clearly with whiplash injuries and we are seeing this with holiday sickness claims. Indeed, the Law Society has also written to me to support the banning of cold calls. ABTA cites the problems that we have already discussed about the dramatic rise in speculative and fraudulent claims. This will cause detriment to the wider public if we do not make sure that we take the opportunity in the Bill to retain effective measures to address the issue.

The Minister has already said how much she wishes that she could ban cold calling for pension companies, and there was support across the whole House for that measure, but it is questionable; we hope that we might be able to find a way to get that into the Bill. However, cold calling for claims management companies clearly is in scope of the Bill. When defining “claims culture” in a Parliamentary Answer on 19 April 2016, my honourable friend in another place, Dominic Raab, said:

“The Autumn Statement referred to the cost to society of the substantial industry that encourages claims through cold calling and other social nuisances and which increases premiums for consumers”.


Therefore the Government have clearly equated claims culture with cold calling, and the logical and fair action would surely be to ban cold calling for personal injury claims rather than restrict the rights of people who have been injured through no fault of their own, which the Government are expected to do in the forthcoming civil liability Bill. These proposals perhaps aim slightly at the wrong target, but the Bill gives the Government the opportunity to aim at the right target and ban cold calling, which they state encourages a claims culture.

As the Government recognise that there is a problem, and there is both industry and public support, the Bill could be amended to include this ban on cold calling. Whether it is through Amendment 72, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, or Amendment 73, in my own name and that of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, I hope that we might take this opportunity to protect the public in this manner by banning cold calling.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, this has been an extensive and fascinating debate. We on these Benches support the call for a ban on cold calling, as laid out in Amendments 72 and 73. As to which is the right formulation, the answer is probably neither of them as they stand, but we can work on that between now and Report.

My noble friend Lady Drake argued for a well-regulated market and the need for access to justice. That is not inconsistent with a ban on cold calling; it seems to me entirely consistent. I hope that deals with the concern expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer.

We have heard some very powerful presentations. The noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, introduced the amendment with a range of statistics. His term was “omnipresent menace”, which has been demonstrated extensively in this afternoon’s debate. The noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, said that such cold calling was a social nuisance of massive proportions, and I agree. For me, it interrupts my slumbers on the sofa on the Sunday afternoon, but that may be a minor inconvenience.

The noble Lord, Lord Deben, said it was an industry we could do without. My noble friend Lady Drake dealt with that point: we need a well-regulated industry because we need a means of helping people reach justice.

[Lord Deben]

I am sorry; it was a slip of the tongue. It is a mechanism which we could do without from this industry.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I take the noble Lord’s point.

The noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, made the interesting point that some of the behaviours that the existence of cold calling has generated have an impact on our reputation not only here in the UK but around the world. Many other points were made, all in favour of a ban on cold calling.

We should reject the suggestion that we should shy away from such a move because the Government have perhaps set their face against it for the time being. Anybody from outside the Chamber who has listened to this debate would readily see the consensus reflected on all these Benches. We should test the democracy of this Chamber and bring forward amendments that are in scope but focus on claims management as a start. We realise that the Ministers are not unsympathetic, so it would help them in their cause of persuading Secretaries of State and the wider mechanisms of government to support the measure. The Government have done the right thing, although too slowly, on pensions; here is an opportunity to follow that up swiftly and ban cold calling for claims management operations as soon as we can. We should do that quickly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Buscombe]

I am trying to make the point that the transfer of claims management company regulation to the FCA will result, we believe, in tougher regulation and should reduce the number of unsolicited calls made by CMCs. What I am really saying is: can we please give the FCA a chance? While there are already measures in place to tackle unsolicited calls, enforced by the Information Commissioner’s Office, unfortunately there is a minority of disreputable companies which flout the law. The ICO will take enforcement action where appropriate; as I have said, in 2016-17 it did so against 23 companies. We need to improve on this and we hope this will happen through tougher regulation.

I hope I have explained the difference between cold calling for CMCs and cold calling for pensions, which we are taking action on. I think my noble friend Lord Deben was suggesting, as indeed were other noble Lords, that we should have a wholesale ban on cold calling, but one has to be really careful what one wishes for. This point about access to justice is very important. Clearly, there are different routes to making unsolicited approaches. If we had a wholesale ban on cold calling, what would political parties do?

[Lord Deben]

I was not going to interrupt my noble friend but since she has mentioned it, the matter is very clear. We are talking about cold calling for a particular purpose. She has to accept that there are 50 million calls and the number is rising all the time, so the present system does not work. It is very simple: we just ban them. Why can we not do this? I do not understand.

[Baroness Buscombe]

I think I have just tried to explain that one of the reasons for transferring the regulatory role to the FCA is to take this forward through good regulation in the hope that it will work. As I was trying to say, we have to be careful what we wish for in terms of access to justice through the means of people being able to receive calls, which we can call unsolicited—such as those made by political parties. That is part of a wholesale ban on cold calling, which noble Lords have referred to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Deben]

I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend again, but I specifically did not do that. Better regulation is to ban the calls. That is what better regulation is.

[Baroness Buscombe]

I thank my noble friend for his further response.

To respond to my noble friend Lord Trenchard’s question about whether SMS, email and letters are all cold calling, this is an important point and I confirm that we differentiate between them. Cold calling is the solicitation of business from potential customers who have had no prior contact with the salesperson conducting the call, while unsolicited direct marketing is communication by any means, including email and text, of marketing and advertising material. We genuinely believe that the existing measures I have set out, alongside the new FCA regime, should help tackle CMCs conducting unsolicited direct marketing. I know there is a very strong feeling across the Committee, and we take this on board, but, for the reasons I have set out, the Government do not believe that the amendment is necessary. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

Liverpool City Region Combined Authority (Functions and Amendment) Order 2017

Lord Deben Excerpts

Thursday 16th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I shall be brief. I enthusiastically support the remarks that the noble Lord, Lord Young, has just made, notwithstanding the minor caveat that I entered the Chamber as he was replying to the previous order and note the unnecessary duplication and replication which can cause confusion. I encourage him, and the Government generally, to stay in touch with the local authorities that will be affected by the implementation of these orders to see in what ways they impact on them and whether there can be further streamlining and clarification.

It is 45 years since, while I was a student in Liverpool, I was elected to represent an inner-city neighbourhood—a slum clearance area—in the Low Hill ward in the heart of Liverpool. I served that ward on both the city council and on the Merseyside County Council that was created by the then Government, and then abolished by the following Government. During those years, I saw more changes than I cared to see in many respects. I served as deputy leader of the city council and as its housing chairman and had to deal with compulsory purchase orders, which were often imposed centrally with very little say locally on what their impact would be on the neighbourhoods they affected. Therefore, I particularly welcome what the noble Lord said about the devolution of compulsory powers to the city region and the opportunities for development corporations. The great success story on Merseyside, following the riots in Toxteth in 1981, was the creation of the Merseyside Development Corporation. The noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, has recently received some criticism in your Lordships’ House but he deserves great tribute for the work that he did during that period and the achievements that were made. The extraordinary regeneration and renewal of the city of Liverpool had its seeds in the work that he did. In my view the orders that have been laid before your Lordships’ House today with the agreement of the local authorities on Merseyside pave the way for the continued renewal and success story that Liverpool now is. Therefore, I very much welcome what the noble Lord said and commend the orders to your Lordships’ House.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, I shall be short. My noble friend’s explanation of the advantages that these measures will confer on Liverpool contains some very important lessons for central government. He talked about spatial planning which will bring together the whole range of interests in Liverpool. Would it not be a good idea if we introduced that nationally? We do not have spatial planning nationally; we have a ludicrous position in which planning lies with the department for local government. That is not a proper place for it given that local government makes appeals to the Minister for Local Government, which itself is wrong. All the other interests lie with other departments and we suffer from not having a department of land use.

We now have a Government who are busy giving local authorities powers to structure themselves in precisely the way we fail to structure ourselves centrally. The Government will look increasingly peculiar if their central structure is so far out of line with these new structures. However, the Government are not imposing them as they are welcomed by these larger, more powerful local authorities. We have looked afresh at how best to run local government in Liverpool and the Tees Valley and have come to the conclusion that it is better to do it this way. Although my noble friend may well argue that there is something unique about local government which means that it is, of its nature, to be organised differently, I suspect that the truth is that, looking at government, this is where you want to be.

I am reminded of the ability of Americans to ask other people to run their democracies in a way that they do not run their own. For example, they make sure that you do not have gerrymandering of boundaries, that you do not have Christmas tree Bills and that you restrict the amount of money that you spend. That is what the Americans do to other people but they do not learn to do it themselves. I do not want our Government to behave in that way. I hope that we too will learn from what we have seen from our reorganisation of local government—that some very serious reorganisations are necessary at the centre to enable us to look after our land and to have a proper policy of spatial planning, with the special word “joined-up”, which I heard several times from my noble friend.

Lobbying: Government Grant Agreements

Lord Deben Excerpts

Tuesday 19th April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

The noble Lord makes a good point. The Charity Commission has published guidance for charities that may wish to participate in debates on the forthcoming EU referendum. The commission’s guidance reflects the existing legal position that charities can undertake campaigning and political activity where it is in support of their charitable purposes and where the trustees consider it to be in the interests of the charity.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, is it not important that we err on the side of freedom? And is not it true that, almost universally, what the Government intend to do is seen to be a bar to freedom of expression? Should not the Government think again before they get a reputation of being a bit lily-livered about opposition?

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

I am very sorry to say that, on this point, I disagree with my noble friend. As I said, it is not about curbing freedom of speech; it is about making sure that taxpayers’ money is spent effectively and goes where it was meant to go.

Trade Union Bill

Lord Deben Excerpts

Tuesday 19th April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, mine is the third name on this amendment and I am delighted to intervene. I am also delighted that I did not write a speech at the weekend. I am extremely grateful to my noble friend the Minister for what he said and for the way in which the Government have engaged in constructive dialogue and listened to the voice of the House.

The words that I have used constantly in my contributions to this debate in Committee and earlier on Report have been “choice” and “fairness”. Had we kept the Bill as it was, those principles, which are fundamental to one-nation Toryism, would have been violated. I am extremely glad that I can pay tribute to an institution of state—the trade unions—that I have always admired, which have a vital, constructive and continuing role to play in our society and in our economy. It would have been a great mistake for this House and this Parliament, in the wake of a general election and promises and pledges genuinely made, if we had we violated the principles of choice and fairness.

Personally, I have some doubt about the need for this Bill at all, but at least now we are on the way to having a Bill that is unexceptionable and can be accepted in all parts of the House. As my noble friend Lord Balfe said, it is an example of your Lordships’ House at its best. My noble friend talked about cannon to the right of him, cannon to the left and cannon in front. A noble Lord interjected that there were also cannon behind him. Well, as one of the cannon behind him I am very glad to pay him and my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe an unstinted expression of admiration for the way in which they have listened and reacted. I hope that before the Bill has gone on to the statute book we will have seen the amendments that we passed at an earlier stage accepted in another place and going through on the nod in this House. I hope that we will then have diffused all the potentially damaging aspects of the Bill. Let us hope that is how it ends.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

I can get extremely angry about some things in this House. One thing I get angry about is when the obvious does not seem to be obvious quickly enough, so it is a great pleasure to say to my noble friend that this did become obvious quickly enough. That is very good.

However, I hope that we will not use this word “modernise” too often. I cannot understand why it is a more modern system to give money to the banks for a direct debit than to have it so much more conveniently done on the check-off system. There is nothing non-modern about the check-off system and I never understood why that argument was used. The crucial issue about all this is to enter into the lives and ways of living of the people who are affected by the legislation that we pass. I do not think that I could let this go by without pointing out that it was this House, with all the criticisms that are made of it, that more readily and clearly saw what the effect of this would be. Not only should Ministers take considerable comfort and credit for the changes that they have made, this House ought to take credit for the fact that this is what we are best at—saying, “I am not thinking about the politics or the arguments. I am just thinking about how this affects the people who will be involved in this particular Act”.

Earlier today I had to say to one of my noble friends, rather toughly, that I am unhappy about some of the supposed restrictions on how people should use government grants. The reason for that is that I try to enter into people’s minds, and I am not at all sure that I understand how you make the sort of distinctions which the Government are seeking to make. I could not understand why people could not use this system rather than another and I am thrilled that the Government have taken that on board. They have done so very generously and I pay considerable credit to them and to my noble friend Lord Balfe; throughout these debates he has shown understanding and clarity, and we are all indebted to him.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the words of the noble Lord, Lord Bridges. Like the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, my speech is redundant, which is really good news, and I fully associate myself with his remarks.

The Government should not have brought this provision forward at all and I fear that it reflects the tribal nature of the historical relationship between the two main parties. Such tribalism is not edifying or appropriate today where we see the best relationships between employers and trade unions in partnerships that promote productivity, prosperity and peace. So I would like to say well done to the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe; it cannot have been easy to achieve what she has pulled off.

Housing and Planning Bill

Lord Deben Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, I do not wish to repeat the concerns I have had for some time over the amount of information that is available about this Bill, the regulations and the like. We are debating the Bill in these circumstances and therefore I remind the House what the planning system is for. It is a disagreeable necessity. We have to have it because you cannot have a circumstance in which the unlimited, private ownership of land has an effect on neighbours and communities. It is not about land owned by the local authority. The owner owns the land. Whenever I hear planning discussed by the parties opposite, I am fascinated because you might think it was owned by the local authority and that it should come back to the fact that this is a local authority matter.

The House has to recognise that there is an international agreement on human rights in which property is a basic human right—not only under the United Nations, but under the European Union of which I am sure we shall remain a full and active member, even though there is such nonsense spoken about it by the Brexit people. I am not getting on to that, of course. Even if they do not like the European Union, they are stuck with the United Nations human rights declaration, which we signed.

I happen to care about the right to property. It is basic in a community. It is basic for democracy. If you want to destroy democracy, the first thing you destroy is the right to property because it gives people independence. It enables them to stand up against government; it enables them to put two fingers up to a local authority if that is what it thinks. Yet, when I hear a debate like this, I understand precisely why I am on these Benches. Very often I find myself arguing not entirely on the side of the Government. However, I have been very much reassured, by the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and particularly of the noble Lord, Lord Foster, and I understand why I am not a Liberal Democrat. It is because they are neither liberal nor democratic. That is the reality.

All the Government are suggesting is that it would do local authorities a lot of good to recognise that this is not a little bit of business which they do themselves in the way they want to do it. It is something which should be open to public concern and public alternatives. Of course, we can produce all sorts of scare tactics about what might happen and what people could do and all the things that might arise. What we are really arguing in the amendment is that we should not try anything else—there should be no opportunity for alternatives and no one ought to deal with this. Why? Because local authorities do not like it and because that well-known organ of democracy, in which I declare an interest as an honorary vice-president, the TCPA, does not hold with it.

The TCPA does not hold with a lot of things, mainly because it is still burdened by the memory of that dreadful old man, Ebenezer Howard—still thinking in the past, not understanding that we are in a world in which people do not expect there to be one provider or just one lot of people to go to. Today people expect that we test it all the time. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, went through a whole list of things, but in every one of those cases the nationalised provider is a lot better because there is an alternative. There are better prisons because they do not all have to be done in one way. Even when you have failures, the fact that there is an alternative is crucial in a democracy and crucial for the efficiency of the national system.

I come to the nature of planning. I cannot believe that there is anyone in this House who thinks that the planning system works well. That does not mean to say that an alternative would be better; sometimes planning may be thought of as Churchill thought of democracy—that it is a thoroughly bad system, but there is not a better one. Sometimes I think that that is the best definition of planning that we have. I have declared my interest and my pastimes; although I shall certainly not be involved in anything that may come out of this, I try to help people to produce sustainable buildings. One business with which I have an association tries to make buildings better, more sustainable and energy efficient. But in the course of that, I have to deal with planners, and we have very great difficulties sometimes. There was the lady who said to one of my constituents who wanted to have the next-door very small, knobbly and unimportant field as part of his garden, “You don’t need a bigger garden—therefore you won’t get the right to use it as a garden”. That is ludicrous, to have to ask planning permission to turn a field into a garden. I can think of nothing more ridiculous than telling people that they have to get planning permission to do with their own land what most of us would like them to do, which is to turn it into a garden. But no—that is one of the things, because at some stage some local authority thought that it would be better telling people what to do with their land than people can do themselves.

[Lord Greaves]

The noble Lord is very entertaining although I am not sure what his speech has to do with this Bill. But if a local authority requires planning permission for the conversion of a piece of a field into a garden, that is precisely because government regulations in the general development order, or whatever it is now called, require that to happen. If the planning system is not working well—and every time I get a chance to debate planning anywhere, including in your Lordships’ House, I announce it to be bust, because I believe that it is bust—it is almost entirely the fault of the national Government and detailed national rules and regulations, which tie the whole thing down.

[Lord Deben]

I am so pleased that I tempted the noble Lord to intervene at that stage, because I can now tell him that I tried to change the law on that when I was the Minister, and who opposed me? Every blooming local authority—they were the ones who demanded to keep this power and said that it was so important. So I want us to come back to what the Government are asking. This is entirely relevant. I am glad that it is amusing to the noble Lord, but I believe it to be central to the amendment. The Government propose that we give the Secretary of State the power to see whether there are alternative ways in which to handle something that, in the noble Lord’s words, is in many ways bust. That is what he says, but if it is bust, would not it be a good idea to see whether there are ways of unbusting it? This is one of the suggestions.

What do we get? Not a series of suggestions about how we might refine it, improve it, make the tests rather better or come forward with various suggestions about how the various pilots might be carried through. Instead, we get an onslaught on the basis that the only people who can do this are local authorities or public bodies. The Government have produced something which is worth trying. If it does not work, we have not done anything bad. If it does work, we have learned something. The worst thing in politics is to say that we cannot do something because we have not done it before, that we cannot do something because it will not work or that we cannot do something because we do not want to try. This is the moment when we ought to say that we may be a very old House and many of us in it may be very old, but at least we are young enough to recognise that it would be a good thing to have a go at something different.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

My Lords, I listened very carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Deben. He seems to think that the problems that might arise—I think he used the words “might arise”—should not really concern us at this stage. That is what Parliament is about. It is about identifying issues, legislating and, in the event that we foresee problems arising, amending our position to ensure that those problems are avoided.

I want to target a very narrow area. It is the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, about the relationship between the planners in the planning authority and the planning contractor in the meeting with councillors. We are told that the proposal is that the contractor will be making the recommendation, but it is unlikely that the planner from the planning authority, who has a relationship with the councillors that probably goes back many years, may not wish to influence events. Whether it is done formally or informally, the planner in the residual planning department might come up with a very different conclusion or recommendation and indicate to the councillors exactly what he or she thinks. That is why I am a little worried about this reference cited by my noble friend on the Front Bench, who said:

“The regulations may make provision about … the investigation of complaints or concerns about designated persons”,

and

“the circumstances in which, and the extent to which, any advice provided by a designated person to a person making a planning application is binding … on the responsible planning authority”.

In other words, can the Secretary of State say, “I require you”—the local authority—“to dismiss any comments, recommendations or views of your own planning department and to accept the views being expressed by the independent contractor”.? I would worry about that because it would completely overturn the principle on which I understand planning operates within local authorities. As I understand it—but it is 40 years since I was on a council—it is normal for the Secretary of State to interfere only on appeal. That provision suggests to me that the Secretary of State can intervene in circumstances which would not be particularly helpful.

I go back to what I said at the beginning of my comments. I am concerned about what happens in the meeting and in the documents that flow between the contractor, the planning officials and the councillors, and about the conflict that might arise. I suggest that that is where the problem will arise and what will sink the whole project.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Young of Old Scone]

My Lords, I am conscious of the fact that noble Lords are dying for me to shut up, because I am probably all that is between them and going home. But I think that this is an important issue—and it is important for two reasons. I rise to promote Amendment 119 in my name and support Amendment 120, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs. There are 4 million people at risk of surface water flooding and climate change, and increasing urbanisation will make that worse, so it is a really important issue. More important is the fact that this Parliament agreed the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, which included provisions for sustainable drainage—but the relevant sections have not been commenced. I am very ambiguous about the Government’s habit of not bringing into being the will of Parliament. Instead, they have decided to rely on planning measures through the NPPF and have provided two pages of non-technical standards to guide developers.

The presumption in planning that sustainable urban drainage should be included in new developments is not working. It has created uncertainty for developers and created a diversity of interpretation of what is acceptable. Planning authorities—poor souls—are leaned on to ignore it if developers suggest that the costs of providing sustainable urban drainage affect the viability of the development. Local planners at the moment have neither the expertise nor the time, and cave in under these viability challenges.

As the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, said, the planning rules include no structure for formal adoption or long-term maintenance of sustainable urban drainage schemes, which has been a problem for years, with schemes being created and then left orphaned with nobody to look after them and make sure that they continue to be safe and effective. Of course, it is not just about sustainable drainage and flood protection. There are also potential additional benefits of amenity, water quality and biodiversity that have not been garnered.

I had the privilege of talking briefly to the Minister about this and she indicated that the Government’s intention was at least to run the scheme on the planning presumption basis for two years while it was monitored. My further inquiries since meeting her have revealed that no body has been charged with keeping these records—so I am not clear that the Government will be able to say at the end of the two-year period that the scheme is or is not working.

So far, the evidence we have been able to glean from people such as members of the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management—of which I should declare that I am an honorary fellow—is that the situation is now worse since local flood authorities took over responsibility for surface water drainage. Noble Lords have heard the figures from the adaptation sub-committee and the quotation from Barratt Developments that about one-third of its developments do not include sustainable drainage.

We appear to be fiddling while Rome burns in anticipation that at the end of two years, we will be better informed, when in fact the figures will not be available to demonstrate whether it is working. We should press for the implementation of Schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act. That would fulfil Parliament’s will, cost no more than conventionally engineered drainage systems, help reduce flood risks and the costs of flooding, provide improvements in water quality, biodiversity and amenity and give developers a degree of certainty.

In the interest of brevity the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, said she would not list the diverse range of expert bodies. I will list but a few of them: the Institution of Civil Engineers, the Royal Institute of British Architects, the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management, the Construction Industry Council and a few others—I have forgotten what the acronyms stand for, so I shall not bore noble Lords with them. We should re-enact your Lordships’ previous support for this provision, which is enshrined in legislation.

I support the interesting Amendment 120, which was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs. When I first read it and was asked to support it, I was slightly wary because it seemed to be a bit bonkers. But, having thought about it and having read it in detail, I think it is one of the more cunning pieces of win-win, incentive-based legislation I have seen for many a long year, in that it would mean that developers would have to think harder about developing more flood-resistant properties and about developing on less flood-prone sites in a way that would not require any cost from them provided they did it well. That is what a good amendment looks like, and I commend it to the Government.

[Lord Deben]

My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of the Committee on Climate Change, and I rise to support these two amendments. They are both based upon advice given to the Government by the Committee on Climate Change. We are talking about a very serious issue. Tens of thousands of houses have been built on flood plains and in circumstances which are more vulnerable than Cockermouth. This is serious. If we go on like this, we will be creating problems which we will have to meet. We cannot avoid it. This is going to happen. Not to do in this Bill what we can do is to avoid an opportunity, to the detriment of very large numbers of people.

The Adaptation Sub-Committee of the Committee on Climate Change told the Government that there are a number of simple things that should be done that could help protect us in future. For example, water companies are not at the moment compulsory consultees to planning decisions, which means that they are in the very peculiar position of neither being able to comment under the statute on a planning decision, nor being able to refuse to connect the houses then built to an inadequate sewer. We have to put this right. When the committee suggested this to the Government, their official reply was that it would be inappropriate to do this. The word “inappropriate” may have been the right word before the floods in Cumbria, but to suggest that it is inappropriate to do this is stretching the English language beyond any possible appropriate use.

My noble friend may be unable to accept these two amendments at the moment, but it seems to me that it would be pretty impossible to explain to the public that we are prepared to continue with a position in which houses are being built without proper and adequate means of getting rid of the surplus water that they create, and without proper protection of the surplus water that is created outside. These amendments make sure that we have modern, sustainable drainage in a form which this House and the other House have already agreed, and which the Government support. Secondly, they ensure that developers have a duty to develop in a way that makes houses resilient to the normal circumstances of life.

I can think of no more moderate or reasonable amendments to put down, and I remind the Minister that they are based upon the advice of the body that spent a great deal of time researching independently what should be done. Therefore, if she is not able to accept them now, I hope she can give us some hope that between now and Report, the Government will take this opportunity to do two very simple things which will save maybe the lives—and certainly the property and the future—of a large number of people.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

I support strongly Amendments 119 and 120, which are important. Before turning to them, I point out that today, we have truncated the last nine groups of amendments to suit the Government’s timetable agenda. Some of us had to concede that because we wanted to ensure that we had two opportunities to debate these amendments, in Committee and on Report; under the proposal made by the Patronage Secretary, that was not precisely the case.

For those Members of the House who have not been following our proceedings and have wondered what was happening this evening—and there will be those who have not—the central issue in this whole Bill has been the fact that it is a skeleton Bill. We have not been able to discuss all the controversial provisions because they are to be introduced later, after Royal Assent, in the form of statutory instruments which we cannot amend. That is the fundamental objection here. That is why all these arguments have taken place.

Amendment 120 would offer at least some security for prospective purchasers of housing. In the event of flooding, at least on the first occasion, the cost of dealing with a property that had been flooded would fall on the developer, not the insurer. Of course, the amendment does not deal with what subsequently happens, when the insurer would carry the liability; but under it, a developer would have to have in mind the potential cost to themselves of failing to design the property they were constructing to deal with the potential for flooding.

I hope this amendment will be enshrined in law, because it seems to me eminently sensible. It contains the phrase:

“the housing developer to be liable for the full cost of flood damage to a new dwelling if such damage occurs within ten years of the property being first sold”.

Of course, the developer can go bankrupt—and then where is the liability? Who then is responsible for paying the bill? In the event that this were enshrined in law, provision would surely have to be made for the developer to buy insurance to cover the possibility of flooding happening at some stage. I presume that the credit rating of the developer would influence the amount of premium payable on the insurance policy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

If I have interpreted my noble friend’s words correctly, he tells us that he lives in an area that is quite low lying. We are sitting in an area that is in a flood plain, so it is not at all unusual for areas of high flood risk to be built upon, albeit that London has been built upon for the past 200 or 300 years. Going back to my original statement, the review by Oliver Letwin going forward and the total way in which we approach water management must take on a new meaning. That is not to take away from the noble Lord’s point. I think that my noble friend was making an entirely different point, which is that in some places we build on flood plains.

Where development is necessary in a flood risk area, it must be made safe, without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and be appropriately flood resilient and resistant. We have recently seen examples of where building in one place has increased flood risk elsewhere. Where appropriate, developers need to identify through a site-specific flood risk assessment all the flood risks to and from the development. This should accompany the planning application to the satisfaction of the local planning authority. Our planning guidance, which supports the NPPF, is very clear that all local planning authorities are expected to follow the strict tests set in the framework to protect people and property from flooding.

[Lord Deben]

Can my noble friend explain why the Government are not willing at this stage at least to say they will look into the unanimous advice that the Minister has had to insist that it is no longer compulsory that the water authority should link up to the local sewerage system just because a development has been put up? The developer should be responsible for making a connection that is not damaging. Why can we not make such a simple and necessary change to the law?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, my noble friend brings up a really important point, but some of these things will be discussed in the round as we consider how we manage flooding in future. I am sorry—I have lost my train of thought. I wonder whether it is the lateness of the hour. The work of my noble friend’s committee will be invaluable to that thinking.

I come back to the issue of flood resilient construction. Currently, building regulations do not require building work to incorporate any flood-resilience or flood-resistance measures. This is because local authorities can already ensure through plans that measures to address flood risk are incorporated into new development where appropriate. Nevertheless, approved document C of the statutory guidance which supports the buildings regulations promotes the use of flood-resilient and resistant construction.

We recognise the importance of the issue and have asked the Building Regulations Advisory Committee, the statutory committee which advises Ministers on building regulations matters, for its advice on this. I know that the committee has been considering the issues, and we expect to receive its advice shortly.

Trade Union Bill

Lord Deben Excerpts

Wednesday 16th March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, I am not certain that I understand why no one is getting up on the other side on this matter. I will just intervene briefly to ask the Minister, when she comes to reply to this amendment, if she could explain the Government’s thinking on the use of the internet and technology. I ask because the Finance Bill is providing for the use of digital returns for people’s entire financial affairs. At no stage did I hear the Government suggesting that the internet was prone to hacking and that, therefore, it would be quite impossible to move to a system where we have people presenting their tax returns electronically. It is also the Government’s intention that returns should be filled in electronically by other people detailing income or savings or investment income.

Either the Government believe in embracing the future and the importance of the use of digital technology or they do not. It seems to be both. In respect of people’s financial information, they believe that it is a proper and sensible way to get more efficient application of government services. Increasingly, people’s personal health and other information will be transmitted and shared over the internet. I suspect that that is because the Government fully understand that, with good hygiene, it is possible to have secure digital systems in place. So I very much hope that my noble friend will explain why that does not apply to ballots organised by trade unions, which are independent organisations and which will have an interest in ensuring that the ballots are properly conducted. Perhaps she could also explain how on earth she could possibly be against the amendment, because all that it suggests is that the arguments put up by the Government should be looked at within six months by an independent body, and there is provision for this to be brought into effect.

This is important because I remember, when I was first elected to the House of Commons, making speeches in support of our trade union reforms. The argument that I used at the time was that we wanted to give trade unions back to their members; we wanted their members to be more in control. That is why we opposed the closed shop; that is why we brought in ballots. This sensible legislation is intended to ensure that people do not go out on strike without the support of our members. If that is our intention, why on earth would we want to resist something that will allow increased participation?

The big danger for the Government is that those who are perhaps not their friends may be able to argue that what they are really doing is trying to undermine the rights and responsibilities of trade unions to look after the interests of their membership, and making it more difficult for them to take industrial action, even where that enjoys the support of the membership. That would be a foolish error to make. So I very much hope that, having listened to the debate, my noble friend will feel able to accept the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake—who, after all, has very considerable experience of dealing with the public sector unions and is very well aware of the issues that arise.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, there are moments in this House when I begin to wonder whether I have quite got the right end of the stick. On this occasion, I find myself in considerable agreement with my noble friend Lord Forsyth on an issue on which it might have been suggested that we would differ. I also have to tell the Minister that I just do not understand her reasons. Here we have a request that we consider a mechanism which all of us use every day in our business life. We do not say, “Gosh, I’ve got to write a letter because somebody might steal my email”. We do not say, “I wonder whether I can bring back the old-fashioned secretary who can take shorthand and write it out, because I am concerned about the security of my business”. I would be unable to run a business if I did that.

We recently had a hotly contested debate on whether we should be allowed to use modern technology in this House. I had a sharp disagreement with my noble friend Lord Cormack on the issue. But the House said that really we had to move into the 21st century, and that it was not sensible not to avail ourselves of the mechanism—and I must say that, since I have been able to use it, I have been able to pick up some falsehoods, quoted sometimes I fear by the Opposition, on a number of issues, because now I can look things up pretty quickly. In the debate on Brexit, I find that almost every speech made by those who wish us to leave the European Union is filled with such falsehoods—and I can look it up at once.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

And that is just the Government.

[Lord Deben]

On that, I deeply disagree with my noble friend Lord Forsyth.

To be serious, the argument goes like this: it may be that an electronic ballot may be less safe than a postal ballot, but we are not prepared to allow anyone to look into that proposal. I do not think that I would like to argue that from the Front Bench. Therefore, I ask my noble friend very carefully to lead me step by step along the argument so that I can be convinced—for I am very willing to be convinced, but I need a very careful explanation. Up to now, I have found it impossible to understand any basis whatever for arguing that it is not reasonable to look at such a matter at such a time, in such a way, with such an opportunity to say no if you do not like the result. That does not seem to me to be a challenge to the Government, and I very much hope that my noble friend will be able to help me yet again on this very difficult matter.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, I cannot resist responding to my noble friend. I did, indeed, argue against having tablets in the Chamber—and if we were to have that debate tomorrow, I would probably, for the same reasons, take the same line. But I agree with him entirely on this issue. I choose not to do certain things online, or do anything online, but that is my prerogative and my choice. The noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, is merely arguing that this is something that should be looked into. I completely accept that it is the way in which most people use things these days. Therefore, I totally agree with my noble friends Lord Forsyth and Lord Deben. There is no rhyme or reason in this, and I cannot for the life of me understand why the Government are arguing against a system that the Conservative Party felt was good enough for the selection of a candidate for London Mayor, as has already been mentioned. I think that we are really just wasting our time. My noble friend the Minister should accept the amendment, which is modest in its proposals and does not give any ultimate and absolute commitment to anything but merely makes a sensible suggestion that we should accept without Division.

Bank of England and Financial Services Bill [HL]

Lord Deben Excerpts

Wednesday 11th November 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, I hope that the Government will think carefully about these proposals. I declare an interest, and therefore perhaps some knowledge of this, in the sense that I am chairman of the Association of Independent Professional Financial Advisers, am on the board of Castle Trust and also look after the Association of Mortgage Intermediaries, so this is an area in which I have a particular interest.

First, I say to the Committee that proper reporting is a crucial part of ensuring that we get changes in the world in which we live. Transparency has been brought to us partially because of the internet—we now expect to know and to be able to judge on what we know. I hope that the Government recognise that this is not an additional burden, because any financial business ought to be thinking about these things. It is not acceptable that people should carry on business without asking themselves, “Is what I do sustainable?”. If they do carry on business without thinking about that, it seems to me that it is not very good for the business. In other words, this is not a burden in the sense that we are asking business to do something that would not contribute to its own success; we are asking it to do something that is essential for its own success, and I am sorry that the industry itself has not come to the Government with its own scheme about how it should do that, because it is crucial for the future.

Secondly, when you talk to people in the financial world about these issues, they recognise them. Many of them are increasingly concerned that they should use their financial strength to promote and protect the future not only of their own businesses but of Britain, Europe and the whole globe. I think that there is a readiness to accept such a measure.

Thirdly, there is nothing that is as damaging in this area as a whole series of different ways of reporting different bits of information, so that people—sometimes without very good reason or sometimes with another agenda—can make false comparisons, because the comparisons are so difficult. It is in the interests of the industry that there should be some basic, simple and clear way of comparing one business with another.

The fourth thing that seems to me to be important is that we should recognise what a crucial role the financial services industries play in the promotion of sustainability. Choices that they make today will make a huge difference tomorrow; the choices that they make today will make an even bigger difference the day after tomorrow. We need thinking which is long term. I have been asked to speak at a whole series of meetings recently, put on not by those who are concerned with sustainable investment or socially responsible investment but by straightforward, ordinary investment businesses which believe that this is the route down which they have to go. We are not pushing people to do things that they do not want to do; we are making sure that what they do is comparable, usable and helpful. So this is an important measure for that purpose.

The last reason why I want to ask the Government to think seriously about this proposal is very simple: we need to think about these matters in every aspect of our lives. We cannot deal with the issues of climate change in particular or of environment more generally if we think that they are the perquisite of the Department of Energy and Climate Change, of Defra or even of the Department for Transport; this has to be part of what we do naturally, inevitably, all the time when we make decisions. We have to get into that mode and that mood. Therefore, I would hope that we were thinking of doing these things in a lot of other areas when we come to them.

However, we must make sure that people are not misled. I do not want to rub salt into the wounds, but the recent Volkswagen debacle reminds us how dangerous it is if we mismeasure. Measurement is a crucial part of making sure that people do things. If it is not measured, it is not done—we know that; if it is mismeasured, then it is done badly. We are trying here to suggest to the Government that ensuring that there is a sensible way of reporting what people are doing is a vital part of this legislation.

I commend to my noble friend the action of the Government on modern slavery. I do not think that there is any doubt that on all sides of the Chamber we have welcomed the Modern Slavery Act. What that Act does is tell people that they have to report what they have done to avoid modern slavery in their supply chain. That is very similar and parallel to what we are asking for here: to give the public, the campaigners and the people who care information which they deserve and ought to have.

I end by reminding my noble friend that a recent study done on behalf of the Navy discovered that there was very little difference in the way that people got information, and what they expected to get, between officers and men, men and women, and people based here in Britain and those based abroad. The one difference was between those under 30 and those over 30. Those who were under 30 expected to be able to know. This was done some years ago, so I suspect it is now those under 35, but the fact is that the internet generation does not understand why anybody does not understand that they want to know. If you ask people of that age, they do not understand why you—referring to me rather than my noble friend—do not expect information to be available. This is the world we live in.

I hope the Government will take these propositions very seriously. It may not be the right amendment and there are some bits of it that I think I would rewrite—all sorts of things might be improved, and the noble Lord who moved it on behalf of the noble Baroness would probably agree that we should settle for a different phraseology. However, we want to make sure that everybody making decisions in the financial services area recognises that they are making them in this context and reports them so that others can see that they have taken those decisions not lightly or for short-term reasons but in the context in which we all live—a world which is threatened by the most catastrophic danger that we have knowingly faced in our history.

[Baroness Kramer]

My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, and the comments of the noble Lords, Lord McFall and Lord Deben. The amendment addresses an issue which the Government now have to take seriously. The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Deben, reminded me of the old adage: “What you measure, you manage”. By measuring and reporting, which surely is not beyond any corporation of any size, we change the whole culture of short-termism which dominates at the moment throughout the financial services industry, and create the potential for many more players to start to look at the longer term and at issues of sustainability. Surely, when we have been doing so much to try to ensure financial stability, which is a long-term issue, backing that up with the kind of tools that are proposed in this amendment makes a great deal of sense.

I am very much a believer that one of the greatest risks that we face, if not the greatest risk, is climate change. However, we are also looking at a time when new technologies are disrupting the whole established structure, and we have to take that on board in some way. We are also looking at great population changes—migration and demographic changes—and this amendment seems to me to be rather good at highlighting that all those big, disruptive changes need to be captured to some extent in this reporting system.

I hope that the Government will take this seriously. I agree that no one takes particular pride in authorship of the language on these occasions, but this is about getting the principle properly embedded so that the Bank and the regulators can carry out their tasks in a way that deals not just with immediate risk but with the long term and encourage the financial services industry to play over that long-term arena as well. We have financial services businesses which are recognising the importance of long-term sustainability and are doing it exceedingly well, but it is very hard for them to communicate with potential investors when differences in reporting strategies and language make that communication so confused. Providing a level playing field in terms of reporting means that those who focus on this can get their message out and that investors to whom this is important can then shape their decisions based on that comparable information.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

I always try to be constructive with the noble Lord, Lord Davies. I thank the noble Lord, Lord McFall, for introducing this amendment. It is a shame that the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, is not with us. What strikes me from this interesting and useful discussion is that at issue is not whether we disclose more but how we do it in a meaningful way that people can understand and that is consistent.

Just taking a step back, as I outlined in my response to the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, on Monday, I fully recognise that climate change, as well as demographic change and technological change, which she referred to, are important structural issues that could have a significant impact on not just financial stability but society more broadly. As my noble friend Lord Deben, who has a lot of experience in this field, said, climate change cannot be put into a silo and seen as the responsibility of one government department, nor, in a business, one part of the business. It needs to be seen as a common endeavour to tackle.

It is right, therefore, that the UK’s macroprudential authority should be alert to climate change as well as to the other long-term systemic risks that I mentioned and that it, and other parties, should have access to clear and sufficient information to make an educated assessment of those risks. As the noble Lord, Lord McFall, and others, are well aware, the Government have put in place legally binding, long-term commitments to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions in the Climate Change Act 2008, and we will be pushing strongly for an ambitious and global agreement on climate change at this December’s United Nations conference of parties in Paris, involving commitment by all countries to act. The steps that will be taken to meet these commitments will involve a range of adjustments to production and consumption across the global economy, and the Government fully recognise the importance of ensuring that this transition is as orderly as possible.

As the noble Lord, Lord McFall, said, the Governor of the Bank, in his capacity as the chairman of the Financial Stability Board, has already highlighted the risks that climate change could pose to financial stability—and, more pertinently to the amendment, the role that consistent, clear and comparable disclosure at international level could play in responding to those risks. As your Lordships will know, the Financial Stability Board has been actively considering these issues and recently, at the end of September, convened a workshop of public and private sector participants to consider how the financial sector should take account of climate-related issues.

Following that workshop, the FSB published for this month’s G20 summit a proposal for an industry-led task force on climate-related risks. The G20 will then recommend principles for climate-related disclosure. I do not want to prejudice that discussion but agree with the noble Lord that obviously more could be done with disclosure practices. As he rightly said, so many disclosures—ironically and perversely in an age where we want more information—could add to confusion and not add clarity. We look for added clarity and consistency.

In the light of the need for comparable information across countries, I would argue that this issue is rightly considered at that international level. That said, one may well ask what the Government are doing at a UK level. I point your Lordships to what happened last week when the Treasury concluded a written consultation on reform to the UK’s business energy efficiency tax landscape. This included questions related to greenhouse gas reporting, including a requirement under the Companies Act 2006 for quoted companies to report their greenhouse gas emissions as part of their annual directors’ report. As I said, that is out for consultation.

[Lord Deben]

Could my noble friend explain the logic that says that Britain moves on modern slavery to set an example by enforcing it at home before we have international agreement, but refuses to move on this because there is to be a discussion about international agreement? Would it not be better for us just to move on it and set the example? That would help guide the discussions that might take place thereafter.

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

As always, my noble friend makes a perceptive point. As I said, I do not want to prejudice the outcome of the discussions that will likely take place. Obviously, my noble friend makes a good point. I simply make the point in return that, in the case of disclosure, we want to try to make sure that this is as internationally recognised as possible. I heed what he said and will no doubt make that point to those who will be present at that discussion.

On primary issuances, the relevant regime is the prospectus directive—which is currently under review. We are working closely with the European Commission and other European partners to achieve a positive outcome on that. We look forward to hearing any suggestions on how to improve this regime. I thank the noble Lord—and the noble Baroness who sadly is not with us—for this amendment. I hope what I said gives some reassurance that the Government take this issue seriously, but I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill [HL]

Lord Deben Excerpts

Monday 20th July 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barker (LD)]

My Lords, I made my views about this amendment known in Committee, and they have not changed. I listened very carefully to what the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, said, and she said one thing that made me believe that this amendment is wrong. She said:

“It is just like a company”.

Well, no, it is not. Charities are distinctly different in law, which is why there are different charitable formats. The noble Baroness said that the majority of charities would be incorporated, but that is not so: approximately 50% of the charities in this country are very small and most of them are not even registered with the Charity Commission. The unincorporated association format is there specifically to enable people who wish to come together for charitable purposes to do so to a standard of operating which is regulated by the Charity Commission in most cases. But they are not held to exactly the same standards as an incorporated association.

The noble Baroness and I often come at things from completely opposite sides, and I disagree with her on this. One reason why the unincorporated association is a valuable framework that is worth retaining for charities is that in the sorts of cases that she raised, it is trustees who have done wrong who are personally liable for what has happened, but the purpose and the assets of the charity remain valid. The effect of this would be to obliterate a whole level of charitable activity; the noble Baroness will, in effect, rip the heart out of a lot of community good up and down the land.

One thing I am not sure about, and the one thing that the noble Baroness did not tell us about in her introduction, is the scale of the problem she is seeking to address. If there is evidence that this is a widespread problem, she has a case, but it needs to be made in a different way; there needs to be a thoroughgoing investigation, which would settle for all time whether or not unincorporated associations, in their present form, should continue or not. I would like to see that done in a thorough and considered way and not on the basis of this debate and this amendment.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness has made a very important point. It is conceivable that we should discuss whether these two forms of charity—the incorporated and the unincorporated—might no longer be entirely fitting for the circumstances of the day. We could discuss wholesale reform, but it seems to me that approaching that in a particular and narrow way is not the right way to do it. Law is not best made that way, not least because if you do it in that piecemeal manner, you can end up with something that is much worse than what you started off with. The law of unintended consequences is very powerful in these circumstances.

The second thing I would say to your Lordships is that Britain has a remarkable reputation around the world for charity, as we have often said in debates. But we have to remember that this is not something that has come about recently; it has happened over a very long period of time. It has resulted in, I have to say, a rather untidy system—there is no doubt about that. There are various different ways of looking at this, and sometimes people want to tidy it up. Perhaps one of the system’s strengths is the fact that there are so many different sorts of charities and so many different groups of people doing things in a slightly different way. With the Charity Commission, we have tried to set some reasonable standards and to ensure that there are very clear reference points.

We have tried hard to do that in a way that corrals people as little as possible. New charities often arise because people feel strongly about something that they have a personal relationship with: something happens, somebody they know has been hurt, they are concerned and they say, “I must do something about that”. Personally, I am a huge supporter of that. When one is canvassing, it always seems the worst thing when you bang on a door and someone says, “Somebody ought to do something about that”. My response is always, “Why don’t you do something about it? It is no good talking about somebody else”. Charities often arise because people say, “I want to do something about it”. That is a really important part of it.

My worry here is therefore, secondly, that we are not just approaching a complex business from a particular, narrow direction but also that we are adding yet again to the complications that face people when they want to turn a spontaneous reaction into a more permanent form. Of course, that leads to duplication of charities and I know that there is a real problem there. However, it is a good, healthy and encourageable part of humanity that people want to do something themselves about a matter they feel strongly about. I fear that if we went down this route without thinking very hard about it, we would—as the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, rightly said—put into the small charities some real concerns.

Thirdly, I would have to be much more convinced about the propriety of putting at risk the funds of a charity given for a particular purpose because of the activities of a particular trustee—which would be the result of the amendment. I can imagine amendments that would not produce that response. I can imagine changing the law in a way that might help to solve the problem that the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, put before the House. However, this amendment does not do that and could put a whole lot of other things into serious default.

The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, is right that to bring forward so complex an amendment in a debate of this kind without having some idea of the size of the problem, or the nature of the different parts of it, is not the way to deal with it. If you do not know how big the problem is, you do not know how dangerous it is to make the change. If it is a huge problem, you may want to risk the change, but if the problem is much more limited, you will probably want to say to yourself, “This is better left to a more mature and serious consideration, and there should be a much bigger one about the legal distinctions between incorporation and unincorporation”.

[Lord Gold (Con)]

I support this amendment. My noble friend Lord Deben spoke of an implicit goodness on the part of those people who set up a charity and want to do something good. I understand that entirely but we are faced here with a different problem, unfortunately, of individuals who may wish to hide behind what seems to be a charity for wholly inappropriate purposes. While they are personally liable for things that may go wrong, those people might vanish into the distance and not be there to compensate those who have suffered badly as a result of charitable money being misused. Unfortunately, at the moment it is difficult to bring an action against an unincorporated association. If a trustee acts outside his powers, it is by no means easy to bring such an action. This amendment would make it easier for those who have suffered, where charitable money has been used for wrongful purposes, to look to the charity. It would make it less easy for those who misused that money to be able to hide in the way that perhaps at the moment they can.

Recall of MPs Bill

Lord Deben Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Deben (Con)]

Oh!

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

Yes, we will make exceptions in some cases—particularly for the sons of Church of England clergymen.

Standards have developed and moved, and we are discussing how we would advise the House of Commons and how the Government should respond to the House of Commons on its proposals to move the Standards Committee further. The recent report calls for an increase in the number of lay members—we have had three lay members since 2013—and in their representation as a proportion of the committee. The Government already have a high regard for the lay members of the Standards Committee and appreciate the very important role they play in the work of the committee. The three lay members who currently serve have clearly made a valuable contribution and add an important level of independence to the process.

The Standards Committee report has only very recently been published and the Government have not found time to agree a formal response—the matter is, after all, in principle for the Commons itself. If I may say as clearly as I can, the Government can see no reason at all why there should not be an increase in the number of lay members of the committee, as proposed in the Standards Committee’s report. The disciplinary procedures of the House of Commons are, in principle, a matter for that House as a whole. It is for the Government to facilitate a debate in which the report of the Standards Committee can be considered in detail and consequent changes agreed.

I would urge this House to ponder carefully any course of action that might be interpreted as pressuring, influencing or leaning on the other place to make such a significant change to its disciplinary procedure. After all, we come up against issues of parliamentary sovereignty and parliamentary privilege.