Deregulation Bill

Lord Deben Excerpts

Thursday 5th February 2015 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, I certainly support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, to repeal this legislation and agree with everything he said. The point about those two sets of legislation, one old and one much more recent, is that they are blunt instruments that deliberately set out to penalise buskers and therefore—this is an important point—do not get to the bottom of what the problem or complaint against them might be, or whether there is one.

The licensing of buskers in London allowed by the second piece of legislation referenced in the amendment, Part V of the London Local Authorities Act 2000, is an extremely unsatisfactory solution all round, and the introduction of licences in Camden was a knee-jerk reaction to complaints. The licences are expensive and there is the threat of heavy penalties and the power forcibly to sell off instruments, but buskers move around the country and it should be a reasonable assumption that they can expect the same measure of treatment wherever they are, as there ought to be similar expectations of their behaviour wherever they are in the country.

Last year, in an article in the Guardian, Munira Mirza, deputy mayor of London for education and culture said:

“A myriad of regulations in different parts of the city are causing confusion. Some local authorities are imposing licensing fees which can make it prohibitive for many musicians … Busking is a crucial part of the music eco-system in the capital; a chance to develop and grow in front of the public”.

I hope that the Minister will agree that the solution to that is not catch-all legislation but guidelines produced on the ground as a result of sensitive investigations between buskers, councillors and local people. Jonny Walker, the busker who heads up the Keep Streets Live! campaign, has done a lot of work on that—successfully with Liverpool and he is now working with Canterbury and elsewhere.

The GLA is now producing its own guidelines, with input from Jonny Walker, and it would probably be helpful if the Minister, if he has not already had a preview, were to see the guidelines when they are ready. I say that in part because the proper overall solution is national guidelines, so that every busker and member of the public knows where they stand, wherever they are in the country.

Of course, buskers have responsibilities, just like any user of or participant in public space, but legislation already exists to deal with specifics—as the GLA guidelines make clear, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has described in detail. That is what should be used as back-up, not this heavy-handed legislation which goes in all guns blazing. The question of the quality of buskers should not be an issue. We have all heard some who are pretty dire and then we hear some who are amazing, and many who are in-between. The issue is, rather, about public space being used as it is intended to be used—which is, to spell it out, as public space—and spontaneous music should be a part of that.

In this context, I remind the House of the long debates it had a year ago on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Dear, to the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill, which is now of course an Act. It carefully drew the line between nuisance and annoyance, with music made in streets and parks being cited as an example that is perhaps annoying to some, but not to all. I am not necessarily saying that that legislation is appropriate to be used for buskers either, if it becomes another knee-jerk threat that precedes the use of guidance. Public space is an important aspect of our democracy. How sensitively we negotiate that space is a mark of how democratic our solutions will be.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, there have been moments during the debates on this Deregulation Bill when I have been forced to ask the Government why on earth they are bothering to get rid of some bits and pieces when they will not have any effect at all. That is why I find myself particularly encouraged by the amendment here.

We can draw the sort of people who do not like busking very simply: they are general kill-joys. I have always thought that life is divided between those who are life enhancers and those who are life destroyers. One of the problems is that many life destroyers are worthy, honourable and decent members of society, but they are deeply boring and therefore entirely to be opposed. My problem with this amendment is that it does not go far enough. It is a disgrace that there are so many bits from Acts which can be used against buskers by local authorities and by the Metropolitan Police.

I draw my noble friend’s attention to the phrase “busking-related offences”. I have spent some time, since we last discussed this, trying to imagine an offence which was busking related and not an offence in any other way. I am quite an imaginative person and I do not have too pure a mind but, even putting those two things together, I have so far been unable to discover any offence which is both busking related and not covered by something else in the statute. To go back to “So who said it?”, I may now say something which many will object to, for it was said by the police —well, they would, would they not? The Metropolitan Police always have a reason for leaving any way which enables them to do what they want.

I spent hours and hours discussing the simple business of applying to the space outside your Lordships’ House the same rules as were applied by the House of Commons to the space outside it. I cannot tell your Lordships how much of that time was made up of people explaining why it was utterly impossible, and would probably cause the collapse of western civilisation, that the extent from one to the other should be done. I know that it has been a mere six or nine months since we passed that provision, but I have not noticed any real effect of the kind of major disaster since that small change. I feel that we are in the same position here. I do not know why we should have this. Indeed, because we have been over this before, in the previous debates I thought that there was no reasonable explanation as to why these two provisions should not be removed. I say to my noble friend—and he is indeed a friend—that, to dissuade us from this amendment, the following proof has to be shown.

First, it has to be shown that there is something in the presence of these provisions in the law which is unique. It should be different and cover something which nothing else covers. If we cannot prove that first thing, then of its nature the Deregulation Bill says that we should get rid of it. That is why we have a Deregulation Bill. It is what the Government have been wittering on about: how we have got to have deregulation because there are too many regulations. However, if this is a regulation that shall be kept, it must be seen to cover something which nothing else covers.

Secondly, it must be shown to cover it appropriately: in other words, not to give powers to the police, or to the miserable local authorities such as Camden, which will be misused either in an excess of energy, as certainly took place when people were bundled into a police van in Leicester Square, or by a determination to respond to any complaint, however pathetic, of the kind which explains Camden’s treatment of buskers. It has to be necessary and appropriate.

Lastly, it seems to me—and I hope that my noble friend will be able to explain this, too—that it has to be relevant to today. Many things which were appropriate to yesterday we would today find unacceptable. London is the greatest city in the world. It is the only “world city” and we are immensely lucky to live in this great city. We should be thrilled every day about London, but it is like that because of its variety and difference—its mix of different races and communities, and the like. It is the great triumph of immigration. When people talk about immigration, I tell them to come to London and see what immigration can do to a great city. It is a thrill to be here. In those circumstances, though, this great centre in the European Union—its capital, in many ways—needs as much busking as possible. There are some miserable places where more buskers would cheer us enormously. Anything that inhibits busking unnecessarily seems to be not of our day, and not of today’s London. The idea that buskers should find it more difficult in London than they do in Liverpool seems to be manifestly barmy.

I hope that my noble friend can rise to the occasion and, if he cannot answer those three things, say that he will take this away and get rid of the nonsense.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

It is really unfortunate to have drawn the straw following that contribution. The noble Lord has spoilt my day, but that was a very nice way of doing it; I thank him very much.

I was going to start with a little riff on why the true author of this amendment was being withheld from us, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, mentioned that he had not been able to be in Committee. It is an irony beyond irony that the first amendment in his name was the rather beautifully named “parasitic packaging” amendment, for which he produced a parasitic package—the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, who not only replicated every word and phrase that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, would have used but did so in such a brilliant and concise way that he immediately won the hearts of all of us in Committee. We welcomed back the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, for round two, on the amendment to remove Section 73, which was not quite so successful but was pretty good, and then he went on to busking. Busking was a tour de force; it was almost as good as what we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Deben, because he listed every one of the blooming regulations—I think there were 11 of them—that we are told are inhibiting busking in our greatest world city. I have to say to him, though, that he had obviously missed three because the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has now done even more research and produced another few that he has added to the list.

I absolutely buy what the noble Lord, Lord Deben is selling today, that this is a ridiculous farrago of regulation that needs to be sorted out. There has to be some clarity about what the authorities want out of the regulations that they wish to put forward. There has to be some sense of equity between those who wish to perform and those who wish to listen, and the rights and responsibilities of neighbourhoods in terms of pollution and other things. There has to be the clarity of a single piece of legislation that everyone can refer to.

When the Minister responded in Committee, he used a ridiculous phrase, a chilling remark that I still sometimes wake up and think about in the middle of the night:

“the Metropolitan Police have a desire to retain necessary powers”.—[Official Report, 11/11/14; col. GC 48.]

Come on. It is so easy to say that, and so difficult to get up the energy to say, “Okay, let’s know what these things are”. What are these necessary powers, and what exactly is this desire that the police seem to bear in their corporate bosom to do something about those who wish to entertain and perform in a way that I would have thought to most people would be a very appropriate thing to do in such a major city?

It is up to the Minister to come back on this amendment. I hope that he can step up to the mark and give us a bravura performance, on whatever instrument he chooses, but he should pick up on one point that was raised in discussion in Committee by my noble friend Lord Rooker, who said that there is an obvious and clear remedy for this. The Law Commission exists to tidy up exactly this sort of arrangement, and the Minister said that he would go off and consult on whether it was the appropriate body. First, of course, he said that it was not the appropriate body, but then he was told in no uncertain terms—because that is what my noble friend does—that the commission does indeed look at these things; it is quite happy to update, refresh and reform legislation or regulation that needs it. Surely that is the way forward, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister—in music.

--- Later in debate ---

In terms of the London Local Authorities Act, we believe that local authorities are best placed to weigh up rights and freedoms for the communities and individuals in their area. However, I want to make quite clear that a council can introduce this licensing only if it has reason to believe that there is a problem as a result of busking. It is for local authorities to look at the local circumstances, decide whether there is a problem and then consider how to act. I particularly noted with interest my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones’s comments on the work under way in London, which I believe is in relation to a code of practice for buskers. That could be a very good way forward in maintaining good relations between those who busk, councils, the police, local businesses and residents. It shows—as the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, said—a proper coming together so that, in practice, everyone can live agreeably side by side.

[Lord Deben]

I do not know whether my noble friend will understand this, but it is often difficult to know the division between Westminster and Camden and between Westminster and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. Unless we have a London-wide agreement, it puts buskers in an extremely difficult position. I am sure that my noble friend, like me, has wrongly put money in a parking meter because different local authorities have different times for parking. Is it not sensible to say that if there are going to be special local authority arrangements, they should at least cover the whole of the central part of London so that people do not need to take a local authority map to discover that in Camden they would be arrested but in Westminster—a very good council—they would not?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

That is extremely helpful of my noble friend as it allows me to reinforce the efforts of the excellent Mayor of London as the honest broker in trying to get a London-wide code of practice. I think that there have been very constructive discussions with local authorities. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones will have more detail on that than I do. However, I think that that is precisely the way forward that my noble friend Lord Deben would find most agreeable.

Busking is undoubtedly a legitimate activity which often contributes to the vibrancy of a local area, and, per se, we do not believe that it does need control. However, it is important that backstop powers are available for specific circumstances. I know that this will not suit many of my noble friends but I hope that I have explained our reasons. Picking up the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, we have looked at this with the Law Commission. I hope that, on that basis, and for the other reasons I have given, my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

CIA: Torture

Lord Deben Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I already said that the Intelligence and Security Committee has taken on additional staff to cope with this inquiry. I recognise that there are some considerations as to how open the report of the Intelligence and Security Committee will be. We have to wait to see how much it will be able to publish. I think we all recognise that this is all an extremely delicate area in terms of how much one can publish. I wish I could give an assurance that the next Government, whoever they may be, will do their utmost to ensure that as much as possible is published.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

Does not my noble friend accept that, however delicate these matters are, there is widespread concern that this Government should show themselves utterly open on these issues? It is therefore very important that the answers to questions such as this are rather clearer, so that people can see exactly what we are doing to ensure that the reputation of this country should no longer be besmirched by such allegations.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I entirely accept that. We are talking about allegations of behaviour undertaken between 2001 and 2005, in most instances. The Government are doing their utmost to ensure that they are fully investigated.

Deregulation Bill

Lord Deben Excerpts

Thursday 20th November 2014 Grand Committee

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I could not possibly comment. I do not begin to think that the Prime Minister accepts the Daily Mail approach to health and safety. He knows as well as everyone else that there is always a difficult balance to be struck in this area. I am well aware that there are a number of things, from his own personal experience, that the Prime Minister feels very strongly about in terms of proper provision of public services and proper regulation.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

On that point, surely it is not right to say that everyone else knows that. The Daily Mail does not know that and, unfortunately, it tends to say to a lot of other people that they should not know that either. I just think that we ought to remind ourselves that the common sense that he and the Prime Minister put forward is rather important.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

Writing common sense into law is one of the most difficult things that we all spend our time on, however.

Deregulation Bill

Lord Deben Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2014 Grand Committee

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, I apologise for being a minute late. I thought that we wanted freedom for local authorities—I just do not understand this. If local authorities cannot handle their parking, what on earth are they supposed to handle? I am sorry, but it seems to me to be manifest. The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea is wrong in both its planning and its parking proposals. Westminster is better at both. I live in Westminster, thank goodness—I do not live in it for that reason, but I thank God for the fact that I live there.

I want to have a local councillor to whom I can talk about the planning in my street. I do not want him coming back and saying, “I am frightfully sorry. The Government have decided we shan’t have this”. It is wholly contrary to the Localism Act we have recently passed. I thought that we were going to do more of that. We are going to give a great deal of power to Manchester. I am very much in favour of that; I hope that we do the same for Sheffield and all the great cities of Britain. I want all that. A fat lot of good it is giving them a hand and then suddenly saying, “You can’t have the parking; we’re going to do it differently”.

This is manifestly not to do with government policy. It is contrary to government policy, and if it is contrary to government policy, would it not be better not to have it? Then everyone would understand that government policy is for localisation and not for telling people that they cannot decide how the parking shall work out in Queen Anne’s Gate. I want to be able to say directly to somebody, “This does not work. Can we do it this way?”. I cannot do that to the Minister—unless he would like us all to come and see him, with every planning problem from around the country. That is the only alternative to what is being proposed here.

[Lord Skelmersdale]

My Lords, irrespective of the arguments made on my right and behind me, I have a slightly different problem with the clause. The Bill has been touted by the Government as the great deregulation measure of this Parliament. I am all for deregulation, but this ain’t it. It is a regulation measure. Why on earth is it in the Bill in the first place?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, used the word “whizzing”. I am not sure that anyone could start placing the ticket on a vehicle going at 80 or 90 miles an hour on the motorway. However, I take his point more seriously than perhaps is suggested by making that instant judgment as to why it would not be possible to adhere to these principles for someone going at 80 or 90 miles an hour on the motorway.

[Lord Deben]

Does this not give my noble friend the opportunity to go back to the department to explain why there is unhappiness? It was said that the reason why you cannot affix the notice is that the car is travelling too fast, but there are other reasons, too. In the part of the country from which we both come, a village school may have real problems with people parking in the wrong places. The ideal answer in that distant place, where it is difficult to have someone on duty all the time, may be to have a camera. The idea that Suffolk Coastal District Council or Mid Suffolk District Council is capable of having people standing outside every village school—and many of them have this problem—is not sensible. Is that not the same sort of issue as dealing with people travelling at 60 or 80 miles per hour? There is no other way of doing it, but we have to do it.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My noble friend is always extremely persuasive. Clearly, the record of these discussions will go back to the department.

In his amendments, the noble Lord seeks to place in the Bill the list of exempted areas where local authorities can continue to use CCTV to issue tickets in the post. The department does not think that it would be expedient to set the exemptions in primary legislation. It is conceivable that exemptions could be increased or reduced in the future, so it might be more desirable to include them in secondary legislation. Everyone will have their own view on what is the right balance for the use of CCTV, whether that is in parking, as your Lordships are debating today, or more widely. The Government have given careful consideration to the list of exemptions and, in particular, have reflected the views of those who responded to the consultation.

The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, also seeks to introduce a requirement for impact assessments to be carried out for the provisions. As I am sure he will know, the Government have been clear in their determination to reduce the impact of rules and regulations on businesses and policymakers. Indeed, the Government’s Better Regulation Framework Manual, which was published in July 2013, states that impact assessments are required only for measures that regulate or deregulate business or concern the regulation of business. This clause applies only to local authorities that carry out parking enforcement, so we believe that no impact assessment is required.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Deben]

My Lords, I feel sorry for the Minister. The previous speaker, having earlier fought hard for localism is now trying to take localism away. I am happy to have this as giving a power, but the idea that the Government should tell every local authority, whether it is suitable or not, that they cannot allow parking on pavements seems to me to be a mistake. There are places where parking on the pavements is a sensible answer—indeed, the only answer. Now, it may be a choice between two evils, but it is a choice that should be made locally. We either have to believe in localism or not. I therefore very much hope that the Minister will accept that we should give this power, but that it should be permissive and should not be national.

[Lord Tope]

My Lords, I do not want to argue with my noble friend about which of us is the greater localist. We have known each other for more than 40 years. I thought that I made clear that it would obviously have to be the case, as it is in London, that where necessary and appropriate, and as decided by the local authority, the pavement concerned could be exempted from that ban. It is clearly not just desirable but essential.

If the amendment were approved, it would simply change the situation now, where parking on pavements is okay unless it has been stopped, to the reverse situation where it is not okay unless the local authority has specifically exempted it. My noble friend used the example in the previous debate of a vehicle travelling at 60 miles an hour down the motorway. Maybe we should not talk about motorways but is he seriously suggesting that local authorities alone should decide which area has a speed restriction and that the situation in the country should be that there are no speed restrictions in place unless the local authority chooses to impose one? That would be anarchy and simply would not work. We are going to have a dialogue if we are not careful.

[Lord Deben]

My Lords, I do not intend to have any dialogue at all, but I would just point out that it is the local authority that decides where a 30 mile an hour limit should be. Many of them overdo it and that is a pity, but I put up with that. It is their right. I am merely saying that I do not think that the clause as drafted would have the most local effect. I would prefer the clause to give powers. I want powers to be given and then people can make up their own minds. That is not what this clause does and I am sure that it could be done in such a way as to satisfy both of us. There is not much point in us having a dialogue, but can we please have a local solution?

[Lord Hunt of Chesterton (Lab)]

I think we may be about to have a dialogue. I used to be a councillor in Cambridge and we spent a lot of time stopping people driving over 30 miles an hour because of Mr Toad characters who wanted to go at 40 miles an hour.

If we go too far down this road we would have to have a little leaflet about every town that we visit about parking on the pavement or not parking on the pavement. In the country as a whole, we need to have some broad rules. If a city does not allow you to park on the pavement, that should be stated very clearly as you enter the city. It is very important to have broad rules in a country, otherwise we begin to be like countries several hundred years ago when every city had different rules. We should have a broad rule and then local authorities should have the power to exempt, but there needs to be some information.

Deregulation Bill

Lord Deben Excerpts

Tuesday 21st October 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)]

My Lords, my personal position is that we should not bother to amend this aspect of the Health and Safety etc. Act, but I also accept that, although there are arguments on both sides, the chasm of disagreement is not as great as either side might want us to think.

There are certain bêtes noires of our society which are blamed for most of our problems, whereas in reality the positive contributions of those organisations are often greater. One of those is the Health and Safety Executive. The perception of that organisation often gets in the way of reality. The health and safety legislation has assisted huge improvements, as indeed have better management practice and staff involvement to address poor work practice and productivity related to poor safety conditions.

The questioning of the working of the health and safety legislation and the European directives associated with it was probably to be expected from this Conservative-led Government, but Professor Löfstedt may have disappointed many when he said that no radical reform was needed and that the problem was less with regulations and more with the way in which they were interpreted and regulated. However, one feels that he had to say something to come up with a political proposal. He advocated that those self-employed whose work activities pose no threat to others should be excluded, which would help reduce the perception that health and safety is inappropriately applied.

The reality is that there is not much of a burden on the self-employed. That was proved in the Government’s consultation. If you do not believe the Health and Safety Executive, even the mighty Engineering Employers’ Federation, as the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, told us, supports its view, stating:

“It is a myth to suggest that the self-employed are singled out by the regulatory authorities for inspection. This is not the case nor is there a record of prosecution against the self-employed, except in a few cases where their activities have or could have impacted others adversely”.

If such burdens were so great on the self-employed and on small businesses, how do we account for the huge growth in self-employment and business start-ups under this coalition Government?

There is a problem with excluding general categories of self-employed for whom health and safety is not a burden. You end up making the regulations more complicated and less simplified, which should be the objective of the legislation. The self-employed are going to have to know whether they are excluded. To many, this might mean that understanding the regulations will be even more difficult than it is now, and that we are going to have all sorts of categories, whether it is drivers, removal people, carpenters and all trades people, construction workers, bee-keepers and so on, excluded from this provision in the Deregulation Bill. The general view that this change is not worth the candle is one which I share, but if we are to have it—and I accept that we probably are—we must see the list of exemptions to reassure people that no real harm is going to be done.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as the chairman of a company that from time to time gives health and safety advice and as a former Minister for health and safety. I start from the assumption that there is something a bit peculiar about an outside body controlling the way that an individual shall disport himself in his own business—particularly if it is held in his home. That is not unreasonable. More and more people work at home. We are changing the law to make it impossible for people who rent accommodation to be told that they cannot work at home. There are many jobs that people do at home where, frankly, telling someone that they should not stand on an upturned waste-paper basket to get something down from a shelf is an intrusion.

That is my basis, so I do not come to this with any antagonism. There is truth in the feeling that the health and safety regulations have, whether because of their application or because of the perception, stopped a whole lot of activities which it would be better not to have stopped. I also know that many of those who are opposed to the European Union have used this as an excuse to bash the European Union when, of course, almost all of it is our domestic attitudes, and the European Union has adopted British attitudes towards health and safety. I often point out to people that the ease with which the European Union is blamed for things is one of the problems with people’s perception of that very important institution to which we belong and to which I trust that we will fight to ensure that we go on belonging.

However, there are some real problems here that have not been approached. Perhaps I may give some practical experience. Recently, I talked to someone who had been held responsible for an accident in premises which he owned and oversaw by a self-employed person who did something dangerous to himself, but not on his own property but on that of the person concerned. We have to face the odd issue that if we are not very careful, we will have circumstances in which the employee of a firm will be protected and the self-employed will find themselves protected or affected only when they are working somewhere else. Does that mean that a self-employed person who has no responsibility under the Act to protect himself nevertheless has a case against someone else for his own actions, because they happened to be on their premises? That may not seem to be a general activity, but it is a bit more general than some would like. That would bring no benefit to people’s approach to health and safety legislation.

I use that example not because it is the most important, but because it makes me wonder whether, in the speedy time in which the Bill has been discussed, we have thought through all the ramifications. Having been a Minister for health and safety, I have to say that it is a very complex area. Apart from the very real sense that people feel that we have overdone it in many concerns, let us also accept that it has had remarkable success in protecting people, sometimes from themselves.

That brings me to my second point. My noble friend raised the argument of whether, if you have sufficient people exempted from cover, those who are not covered will know whether they are exempted. In other words, there seems to be a real complication about how people get to know whether they should be there or not. That in itself is one of the things that will bring the Act into disrepute. People will say, “I don’t know if I am covered. Perhaps I had better find out—I had better get somebody to tell me”. Frankly, they will find themselves in precisely the position from which the Government are, absolutely rightly, trying to protect them. I have a real issue with the complications which inevitably come if we are dealing with this.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Lord Deben]

My question was not just about whether they had duties, but whether the same responsibilities for the self-employed person who was exempt would be borne by the owner of the premises upon which they were working.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I will have to write to the noble Lord about that specific question; I have noted it.

Part of what we are seeing in the rise of self-employment is that the number of people working in their own homes is rising as well; computerisation and all of the information technology developments make that much easier than it was 20 years ago. The noble Lord, Lord Deben, has remarked that inspectors could indeed come around and make sure that they have got their computer screens at the right angle and that they are using the right sort of chair. All of these can indeed be regarded as mild risks to those who are engaged in the activity. Again, however, in the balance between risk and regulation, that seems an acceptable risk to the Government, and one would wish to maintain the degree of independence and autonomy that one could have.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

If that person is not self-employed, but working in paid employment with equipment provided by the employer, we are in different circumstances from those covered by this clause. If necessary I will write to the noble Lord to clarify that further. However, where a non-self-employed person is working from home while still carrying on their employment is a different circumstance.

The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, touched on the list of exemptions and what areas are covered. The regulations will of course be discussed further—the HSE is currently discussing the draft list—so we may come to a slightly different conclusion at the end. I merely wish to point out that the actions of independent van drivers, for example, are covered by a whole range of other regulations. The question of whether we should duplicate regulations and restrictions is also one of those which the Red Tape Challenge wishes to address. I hope that I have managed to answer all the questions that were raised.

[Lord Deben]

I raised the question of information. Although a large number of individuals are exempt—I quite agree with that—they would still perhaps benefit from knowing about these things. How will that connection be made?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I suspect that most young, self-employed people get their information about these things off the computer or iPad. I hesitate to suggest that inspectors should visit them in their homes to check that they are doing things correctly. That suggests a level of state intervention in personal lives and activities that I hope the noble Lord would be strongly opposed to and perhaps the Labour Front Bench would not wish to propose. As I have stressed before, we are talking about the balance between acceptable risk and necessary regulation, and about the balance between the burden of regulation and the perception by people who wish to set up their own businesses or work on their own of the amount of regulation they face and the potential risks to themselves and others who may visit them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharkey (LD)]

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said, the Joint Committee on the draft Bill, of which I was a member, received a large amount of evidence on this clause. The effect of Clause 2 is to amend the Equality Act 2010 to remove the power of employment tribunals to make recommendations to employers in cases where there has been a finding of unlawful discrimination, harassment or victimisation, and where the successful claimant no longer works for the company.

In such cases, the claimant has redress. His former fellow workers may still be stuck with the conditions that led to the discrimination, harassment or victimisation of their former colleague, and that is in most cases. In 2013, only 16% of claimants in discrimination cases were still working for the employers against whom they made the claim. That means that in 84% of discrimination cases, the tribunal would no longer have the power to make recommendations to employers to take steps to improve their employment practices so as to avoid similar discrimination against their other employees.

Broadly speaking, evidence from business interests supported the clause and other groups opposed it. Business spoke in support of Clause 2, chiefly because it believed the wider recommendations to be beyond the information and expertise of the panel or that it was unnecessary because,

“the reputational risk of a wider recommendation is something an employer would take into account when making a decision whether or not to settle out of court”,

which is slightly grubby reasoning. Those who opposed the clause did so chiefly on the grounds that the system had been in operation for too short a time to provide any clear evidence about its merit or otherwise. The JCHR was opposed to the clause as was, perhaps not surprisingly, the EHRC.

At the time of our report, as the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said, there have been 28 such tribunal wider recommendations and I understand that in 2013 there was a total of 30. That may seem like a small number in absolute terms, but it represents one in every 12 cases in 2013 where these kinds of recommendations were made.

In their response to the Joint Committee’s report on Clause 2, the Government held to the view that the clause should remain and they disagreed that the removal of the tribunal’s power of recommendations was either unnecessary or punitive. The arguments that they advanced were first that there was a clear pattern visible in the existing recommendations; namely that they focused on training for management or updating the diversity policy, which is hardly a surprise. They asserted in a magnificently unproven and probably unprovable way that it is unlikely that this pattern will change going forward or that much more could be learnt about the use of the power by reviewing it and allowing it to run on for several more years. That is of course simply a non-evidenced assertion. More importantly, there is no evidence that it can be true. The sample is simply too small.

The Government’s second argument was based, as the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, pointed out, on a survey of employers—all 28, presumably, who then received wider recommendations because of breaking the law. Only eight responded. Six of these were from the private sector and all six had implemented the wider recommendations with an average cost of £2,000. The Government were silent about the two public sector respondents. I am at a loss to understand why the Government think that this is an argument in favour of removing the power to make wider recommendations. The response level is so low that it probably proves nothing at all, but if it proves anything then surely it shows the merit of these recommendations. It shows why the power to make them should be retained.

The Minister and his team have been helpful in providing additional briefing on the clauses that we will debate today as a Committee of the whole House. It included briefing on Clause 2 and I thank the Minister and his team for that. In a briefing note on the clause, the Government make four points in defence of the removal of the power to make wider recommendations. First, there are better and less burdensome ways to achieve the aim of helping employers comply with anti-discrimination. The response points to government-led workshops although it does not say how many and says that these workshops generated positive feedback from small business owners to the simple compliance message of “Do not discriminate”. That is not hard evidence, and not really evidence of any kind. How many workshops were there? How many small businesses? What positive feedback was there on agreement with the message that you should not discriminate? What follow-up was there to see if the workshops produced behavioural change?

The Government also point to the fact, which I have noted already, that employers think that the power is not needed. That is surely not a surprise to anyone. Nor does it amount on its own to a reason for abolition.

The Government’s third argument in defence of Clause 2 is essentially that the power added little and was not necessary. They go on to repeat that the cost of compliance with wider recommendations averaged £2,000. Presumably this is based on the six companies that actually replied to the Government. If that argues for anything at all, it is for retaining the power, if that is all it costs to put right discriminatory practices in a company.

Finally, the Government point out that any wider recommendations are unenforceable under the 2010 Act and are therefore of limited effect. In their briefing paper, the Government go on to say about the removal of the power to make wider recommendations that it will not stop tribunals from making observations in their judgments about how an employer might improve their practice to avoid breaching the Equality Act in the future. In other words, removing Clause 2 means that tribunals will not be able to make unenforceable recommendations any longer, but they will still be able to make unenforceable observations with exactly the same effect. Let me be clear about this: we are debating the removal of a power to make unenforceable recommendations and leaving in place the power to make exactly the same comments as unenforceable observations. This really does not seem to be sensible or a sensible use of legislative time.

The power to make wider recommendations is in its infancy. There is no evidence that it causes harm. In fact, there is no evidence either way because it is much too soon for that. There is no evidence to suggest that abolition is needed, appropriate or necessary. As the TUC said in giving evidence to the Joint Committee, it seems ridiculous to get rid of a piece of legislation that affects only employers who have broken the law. This is not sweeping through a whole swathe of businesses that are doing the right thing. Where businesses have broken the law, they quite often find it useful to have the tribunal help them get things right. But what seems even more ridiculous is that by the Government’s own admission, the removal of the power to make wider unenforceable recommendations will leave intact the power to make exactly the same recommendations as observations. There really is no need for this clause.

[Lord Deben]

My Lords, much of the discussion on health and safety has been around the issues of believed or real overregulation. I have already committed myself to the view that there is a great deal of overregulation which it is right to stop and that there is too much regulation which has caused real and proper anger. However, the Government have to be careful, when it comes to deregulation, not to fall into the same trap; in other words, for the deregulation efforts to look like an additional activity, as if to say, “Let us see how many things we can claim we have got rid of”. I must say, very delicately, that that is what this looks like.

Before my noble friend Lord Sharkey made his point, I was going to put it in the form of a question. I was going to ask what sanctions there are against a tribunal that decides that, irrespective of the fact that it does not have the power to do so, it is going to make a comment. I suspect that there are no such sanctions, which means that the tribunal can in fact say what it can say under this power that is being removed. It might be argued, when the power was originally put forward three years ago, that it would have been sensible to have had some kind of recall procedure to make sure that when the recommendations had been made, someone would listen to them. That might have been argued, but it was not.

It seems that we have here a power that is merely a statement of what is a power in any case. It is not onerous. So we are spending time removing a power that exists, whether you have it or not. Even so, it has a purpose, which is that tribunals ought to think through not just the case in front of them, but how the case fits into a pattern of behaviour or a way in which a particular company appears to approach certain things. It does not do any harm to say to the company, “Look, you’re guilty in this case but don’t you think it would be more sensible if you had somebody in charge of this, or if you recognised that in that particular factory in that particular place this was likely to occur?”. You can imagine the sorts of points that might reasonably be made by a reasonable tribunal.

If I may say so, this is so unimportant a change that if it is pushed to a Division, I shall be happy to support the Government on the basis that it does not mean anything. But I ought to say to the Government that it is not sensible to bring forward this proposal in these circumstances merely to add one to the number of deregulation activities that have taken place. I say that to my noble friend because I believe in deregulation and want to get rid of a whole lot of stuff that is not necessary and is telling people how to lead their lives, which they can do perfectly well themselves. But let us not bring that into disrepute by having the kind of discussion that we are, unnecessarily, having today and which I have, no doubt unnecessarily, prolonged.

Elections: Weekend Voting

Lord Deben Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, that is a very fair question. We will clearly have to investigate which public schools we can use for polling stations in the future.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

Will my noble friend accept that, although I have the greatest of devotion to my noble friend who asked this Question and am a firm supporter of the European Union, this is one continental habit that we do not need to take on board? It is important for schools to take seriously their part in the community, and children learn considerably if the teachers are sensible enough, as the noble Baroness suggested, to use this time to explain to children what happens. I do not believe that they would do that were it on a Sunday.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, the table I have seen of the days on which other industrial democracies vote covers every day from Monday through to Sunday. The majority of Roman Catholic countries vote on a Sunday. Almost all Protestant countries vote on other days of the week.

Credit Unions

Lord Deben Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I have just read that the noble Lord, Lord Freud, and Mr Iain Duncan Smith have joined the London Mutual Credit Union. It is open to all Members and the staff of both Houses to join that union. Part of the problem, as the noble Lord well knows, is that most credit unions are locally based and for other departments—such as the Home Office or DWP, with employees scattered all the way across the country—the cost of joining employees into a very large number of credit unions is rather complicated.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister would accept that this Government are very much in favour of nudging. How much nudging is going on to get departments to take up this very big issue? The credit union movement is well worth supporting; it is supported on every side. I do not believe that it is helpful just to say that departments can make up their own minds. I hope that we can have some nudging.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, there is a lot of nudging going on but, as the noble Lord will know, there are employee-based contributions to credit unions and employer-provided contributions to credit unions. The Government are aware that it is not without cost to run an employer-based set of contributions, particularly, again, if you are trying to roll it out across the entire country, in which there are some 340 locally based credit unions.

Iran

Lord Deben Excerpts

Monday 25th November 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Deben (Con)]

Will my noble friend continue to make the point that this is a real contribution by the European Union and by the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton? There has been a good deal of misstatement by the British press over these arrangements. This shows just what Europe can do, is doing and ought to do at a time when people sometimes try to suggest otherwise. Will the Minister say to the nay-sayers that to refuse to make this step would mean that there would be no steps? You have to make a first step. If you always say, “Well, it might go wrong”, nothing will ever go right. To hear some people, they are condemning us to a situation in which no one will ever try to do anything. That has to be the message to Mr Netanyahu and to the Saudis—that if they maintain their position, they are saying to the rest of the world that this will be an area of conflict for ever. That is not something that any of us should accept.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I thank the noble Lord for his comments and agree entirely with them. We recognise that diplomats spend an awful lot of their time working on negotiations that do not lead anywhere and trying to support compromises that are attacked on all sides. This is one happy example—we hope—of when diplomacy will have succeeded.