Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) Order 2016

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Tuesday 18th October 2016 Grand Committee

[Lord Jones (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her cogent and precise explanation of this draft statutory instrument. I am not able to discern from looking at the papers before us whether the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) Order 2016 as a statutory instrument has any reference to Wales. Perhaps the Minister’s officials may be able to advise her. My guess is that it does not, but perhaps the information can come forward for the convenience of the Committee via officials. If it is not applicable, are we able to understand today how it may indirectly be applied to the Principality? Some information would be helpful. Even though more and more Members of your Lordships’ House have a link to and a residence in Wales, it is harder and harder to obtain information about the Principality given the establishment of the Welsh Assembly.

Lastly, and with no great seriousness, looking at the Explanatory Note and at the last list of substances that have legitimate medical uses, can I invite the Minister—who has great ability—for the convenience of the Committee to pronounce the last three substances?

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her explanation of the order before us today and say at the outset that we fully support them and what the Government are trying to do. I see in my briefing note that synthetic cannabinoids are also known as Spice, which I will use as it is easier. There were 29 deaths from these drugs in 2011 and that figure rose to 67 in 2014. Spice can cause aggression and delusions and worsen mental conditions and clearly is a very dangerous substance. We must do what we can to get it off the streets.

Figures from the Centre for Social Justice show that officers from 32 police forces attended 3,807 incidents in 2014, up from 1,400 the previous year. The Prison Ombudsman reported that between June 2013 and January 2016 there were 58 fatalities where the prisoner was thought to be, or suspected of being, involved with the substances before their death.

I do not know whether the Minister has any evidence or any information regarding admissions to A&E departments. I am sure there will be a number of these and ones where these drugs were taken with other substances. As I said, I fully support the order but I have a number of other points and questions for the Minister. If she cannot answer them now I would be very happy for her to write to me.

These drugs are still covered by the Psychoactive Substances Act so why are we moving across to the Misuse of Drugs Act? There is also a possession offence with this Act. How is that going to be policed? It would also be helpful if the Minister could say something about how schools, colleges and universities deal with young people’s exposure to these drugs and more generally about the quality of drug and alcohol education provision. I understand that the drugs strategy is going to be published in the next few weeks. Can she say a bit more about that, particularly about education and prevention? Does she see an intelligence gap in our ability to police the levels of Spice in the UK, being imported into Britain and being stockpiled? I am conscious that she may not be able to answer these questions here, and I am content with the order.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate, and I shall go through the various questions they have asked. The noble Lord, Lord Jones, mentioned the fact that no reference is made to Wales, but these orders apply to England and Wales. He asked about the last three substances mentioned in the order—telmisartan, viminol and zafirlukast. The noble Lord wants to intervene.

Calais: Refugee Camp

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Thursday 15th September 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

First, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Dubs on putting down this most timely Question for Short Debate today. Unlike some noble Lords, I have not visited the refugee camp in Calais. I have relied on the media reports and talking to people such as my noble friend Lord Dubs and my friend in the other place Keir Starmer MP, who have visited. It is a desperate, nightmare situation, with people, many of them unaccompanied children, living in squalor and at risk of being the victims of violence and abuse. The damage to their mental health and long-term well-being that this trauma must be causing is unimaginable

The horror of the predicament the children find themselves in is truly shocking, and we should all be ashamed about that. We have a moral duty to help these children. The United Kingdom has a reputation as a safe, tolerant and generous country. Our history shows that when called upon we step up, do our fair share and do not shirk our responsibilities. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, will have a raft of statistics to illustrate what the Government are doing. I have no doubt that we have very able and dedicated staff doing everything they can within the constraints they are working to. I thank them and pay tribute to them for the work they are doing. I also join my noble friend Lord Dubs in paying tribute to the NGOs and all the staff they have there working very hard in Calais.

But it is the Government’s responsibility to up their game. Can the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, tell me whether there is a proper system in place, organised by the French authorities, to register people, particularly the children, to find out who they are and see who is eligible to be brought into the UK? If it is determined that they are eligible and can come to the UK, it is important to get them in urgently, as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, just said.

How are the Government going to up their game? What assistance are they giving to the French authorities and other agencies? Why has so little happened since my noble friend’s amendment was accepted by the Government? Yesterday during Questions, reference was made to the 400 children on the list, and the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Llandudno, referred to them today in his contribution. These are the ones who campaigners believe are eligible to be settled here, either under the Dublin III regulations or under my noble friend Lord Dubs’s amendment. The list was handed recently to the Home Office, so what has happened to it? What action has been taken to identify the children on the list? What action has been taken to verify whether they are eligible to get to the UK, and when are we going to bring them here? How many have been accepted?

It is really important that this is not viewed as immigration. It is about children fleeing persecution and violence, and our responsibility as a nation to face up to its responsibilities and to do its bit urgently. As my noble friend Lady Royall of Blaisdon said, the French Government have announced that the refugee camp at Calais is to be demolished, although I do not think a timeline for that has been agreed. What discussions have the Government had with the French authorities about that decision, and what is their assessment of the safety of the children if the camp is closed and the people there dispersed over a wide area? People at the camp will need shelter, food, and clothing. Winter is coming and the children should be safe, warm, dry and fed, not homeless, cold, alone, hungry and scared.

I very much endorse the ideas that the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, mentioned in her contribution. I also pay tribute to Councillor Paul Carter, the leader of Kent County Council, and all the members and staff of that council and the other local authorities across the country who have helped, although Kent has undoubtedly taken the lion’s share of the burden, when refugees reach the UK. What further assistance are the Government giving to local authorities? I refer the House to my declaration of interests.

In conclusion, I thank my noble friend for his diligence in raising this issue. We are all grateful to him, and I hope the Minister can give us some comfort when she responds to the debate.

Policing and Crime Bill

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Wednesday 14th September 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

As I said, a collaboration agreement could vastly improve the quality of a service, which is a good thing, but it may not save any money. However, the improvement of the quality of that service may be deemed to be very effective in that collaboration agreement. It obviously ties to both: it could increase the efficiency or it could increase the effectiveness. The happy outcome is that it might improve both. I hope that that is a decent explanation.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

I have just one point. Could it be more effective and less efficient or vice versa?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

It could be.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Thursday 8th September 2016 Grand Committee

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare that I am a councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham. We have had two excellent contributions. I am pleased that at least they did not mention Lewisham Council in that list of ridiculous decisions that have been taken by many authorities. I will certainly go back and check that my council has not done some of the stupid things that it was suggested have been done. That was clearly never the intention and it is absolutely ridiculous. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, on securing this Question for Short Debate today. It is good to be back debating with the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford. It is a bit strange that we will not mention housing, or the housing regulations in the Housing and Planning Act, but it is good to be here today.

As we have heard, the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 replaced a number of mechanisms for dealing with anti-social behaviour with six new powers, which are shared between police, local authorities and social housing providers. These offences were designed to deal with the sort of offences that can upset residents and cause problems and which can quickly destroy people’s quality of life. If left unchecked, these problems can lead to the risk of more serious offences being committed. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asks what is being done to ensure that these powers are used in an accountable, proportionate and appropriate manner, with a particular emphasis on live music, busking and so on.

We all want to live in areas that are safe and free from fear, so ensuring that powers are invoked properly is all about striking the right balance—that is the important thing here. We need to work with local communities and look at some of the powers here. For example, the public spaces protection order was meant to deal with groups of youths out at night, drinking and causing trouble, playing loud music on radios and annoying people. It was not intended to deal with people enjoying themselves in the park and so on. I am quite worried now, because I quite like going to Blackheath, lying on the grass with my friends and having a beer. It was never the intention to stop such things and it is ridiculous that anyone would suggest that they should be stopped. We want to ensure that all these things are done proportionately, like live music, busking and the sort of things that people do with their friends and family in the park and elsewhere, should never be banned. We all live together, and we need to make sure that we live properly, so the list is ridiculous.

The noble Lord was also right to say that you should not be able to find a council officer who can sign a piece of paper to ban something; it should at least come before elected members of the authority, or the mayor and the cabinet should decide that, and it should possibly be able to be challenged in the local magistrates’ court as well. The fact that a council officer can ban these activities means that the whole council itself will get lambasted for doing ridiculous things. I will certainly go back and check that my council has not done anything stupid and banned something I do not know about, and if it has I will try to get it changed.

The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, asked whether people could be banned for being annoying or a nuisance. I am sure we are all annoying and a nuisance to other people so we could all be banned on that basis. Again, this seems completely ridiculous.

I started a debate last night in the Chamber on homelessness in which we talked about rough sleepers. We all know that the homeless can have mental health issues and drink and other problems but these people need help, not to be banned and moved on elsewhere. That, again, is ridiculous.

I shall leave my remarks there. I hope the Minister can give a full response to the noble Lord. There are other bits of this order on different things. Maybe the Minister could write to us having looked at the more criminal things that people can do. What are the mechanisms for reviewing this and the six powers? There are unintended consequences with some of these things. We must have mechanisms to change them and stop them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Earl made a good point; I hope that I covered it when addressing the speeches of other noble Lords. There has to be proportionality in this. “Nuisance and annoyance” could be someone walking their dog, but clearly that would not be proportionate. I think that that is what the refreshed guidance will cover, and I will be pleased to hear from the noble Earl if he thinks that we have not struck the balance right. Indeed, one person’s nuisance is something that another person does not even notice. I thank him for his comments.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I was quite shocked by the list set out by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, but I am pleased that he brought it to our attention. The examples are absolutely ridiculous. It is important to get the guidance right because clearly one problem with PSPOs has been that they can come down to, “I don’t like that, so it has to be banned”. When the new guidance comes out, it will have to be very clear and state, “These things are not a nuisance”, with examples of what PSPOs can and cannot be used for.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I will not pre-empt the guidance, which has not yet been written, but the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, brought up some ridiculous interpretations of the orders. We duly note what he said and the councils he mentioned and I am sure that those examples will be taken into account. It is always dangerous to get too prescriptive because that then allows wriggle room the other way. But we will firm up the guidance and refer back to noble Lords.

Telecommunications Restriction Orders (Custodial Institutions) (England and Wales) Regulations 2016

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Tuesday 12th July 2016 Grand Committee

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)]

My Lords, the draft telecommunications restriction order regulations provide that the National Offender Management Service—NOMS—and other specified law enforcement bodies may apply to the civil court for an order requiring mobile network operators to prevent or restrict the use of communications devices, including mobile phones, by persons detained in custodial institutions.

The use of mobile phones by prisoners is on the increase. In 2013, NOMS recovered an astonishing 7,451 mobile phone handsets and SIM cards from its estate. In 2014, it seized a record 9,745 devices. That is an average of over 26 handsets and SIM cards seized per day, every day. If these numbers alone are food for thought, then the range of serious crimes committed by prisoners, all enabled by their use of mobile phones, is truly sobering. Prisoners have been convicted of an array of serious organised crimes, all underpinned and enabled by their access to and use of mobile phones. These include: arranging murder; importing automatic firearms into the UK from Europe; smuggling huge shipments of class A drugs from South America; orchestrating the supply of recommissioned firearms across London; controlling the supply and distribution of class A drugs across the UK; two separate and truly audacious prison escape plots—the list goes on. The use of mobile phones by prisoners does not just help them continue their offending in prison but threatens prison security as well. Unauthorised mobile phones are strongly associated with drug supply, violence and bullying inside custodial institutions.

NOMS uses a range of effective passive and active security measures to stop mobile phones getting into prisons and to prevent their use when they do, but the fact remains that it is seizing more mobile phones than ever. The problem is growing and, I say, will continue to grow unless we add to and strengthen the powers that prevent unauthorised mobile phone use. It is a criminal offence for prisoners to possess or use a mobile phone, but because of the relatively small size of handsets and SIM cards and the way prisoners can hide and move these around the prison estate, it is not always possible to take possession of these devices. There is a clear need for new, cost-effective measures to prevent the use of mobile phones which do not rely on first taking possession of the device—powers which allow mobile phones and SIM cards to be put beyond normal use remotely and effectively. These draft regulations achieve those aims.

NOMS or other law enforcement bodies will apply to the county court for a telecommunications restriction order. If the court is satisfied that those devices specified in the application are in use inside a prison, it will order the mobile network operators—MNOs—to take whatever action the order specifies to prevent or restrict the use of those devices by prisoners. I note in passing that each mobile phone has a unique identifier and, therefore, irrespective of the SIM that has been employed, once an order is obtained in respect of the mobile device, it will not be useable inside the prison estate. In practice, the order will involve the MNOs blacklisting the handsets—which prevents the handset from connecting to the mobile network—and disconnecting the SIM cards from their mobile networks. A disconnected SIM card will not work in any handset. These actions will be completed within a maximum of five working days. This quickly puts the mobile phone beyond normal use, without the need to take possession of the handset or SIM.

It may be useful if I summarise the main provisions in the draft regulations. These draft regulations confer on the civil courts powers to compel mobile network operators to disconnect mobile phones and SIM cards that are found by a judge to be in use inside custodial institutions without authorisation. There is no requirement to take possession of the mobile phone first. They provide the National Offender Management Service and other law enforcement bodies with a flexible, cost-effective measure which will add to and strengthen measures deployed to tackle unauthorised mobile phone use in prisons. They will provide that only a judge can order the blacklisting of handsets and the disconnection of SIM cards found to be operating inside prisons. They will protect law enforcement’s capability to disrupt and prevent offending in prisons using covert techniques by providing for court hearings to be held in private, and for non-disclosure of evidence beyond parties to the proceedings. In some circumstances—and only if the court is satisfied that it is not in the public interest —some sensitive evidence may not be disclosed to parties to the proceedings.

The regulations will enable the applicant for a telecommunications restriction order to inform the mobile network operator to remove the terms of a court order if an error is made and a handset or SIM card is incorrectly blacklisted or disconnected, without the need to return to court to vary the order. This safeguard will make sure that any mistakes are quickly put right and that anyone affected by an error can be reconnected as soon as possible in a matter of days, minimising as far as possible the impact of an error on anyone wrongly affected by a TRO. As an additional safeguard, and to make sure that there is independent and transparent scrutiny of these provisions, the use of the draft telecommunications restriction order regulations will be overseen by the proposed Investigatory Powers Commissioner when the draft Investigatory Powers Bill receives Royal Assent. I commend this order to the Committee and beg to move.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, as we have heard from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, the order before us today gives an additional power to disrupt the use of illegally held mobile phones in the prison estate by way of a telecommunications restriction order, which requires the telecommunication provider to prevent or restrict the use of communication devices by persons detained in custodial institutions.

I very much agree with the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, contained in Appendix 1 of the report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. The option to block mobile phone signals seems to me a far simpler and more effective option available, and it seems odd that that was dismissed out of hand largely, it appears, on the grounds of cost. Clearly, there is a serious problem and action needs to be taken. What is proposed here is better than where we are at present, but it is cumbersome—new phones or SIM cards risk being smuggled in, and a constant battle may take place to identify a new device or number so that another application can be made for a telecommunications restriction order. It does not completely solve the problem. As I said, it is cumbersome. It will require multiple applications to court on a regular basis and the more effective option has been ruled out.

As we have heard and read in the papers, mobile phones held illegally in prisons have enabled serious crimes to be committed by prisoners, including the importation of automatic firearms, the distribution of drugs, the sale of firearms, planned escapes and the harassment and intimidation of witnesses. With a list like that, I think the case for a blanket ban, through the use of blocking devices, is compelling. Can the noble and learned Lord tell us what review processes are going to be in place to evaluate this scheme and whether the blocking devices are off the table for good, or is it something the Home Office will reconsider at some point in the future? Although I prefer the blocking option, I fully support the order before us today.

[Lord Rowlands (Lab)]

My Lords, I have had three privileges in my life. I have had the privilege of serving in every Parliament for the last 50 years. I have also had the additional privilege—the most recent one—of being a member of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, and it is in that context that I rise to speak. I refer in particular to that part of the report in which our committee reported on the use of the statutory instrument.

Over the years that I have been in both Houses, these were all too familiar words:

“Regulations … may … make incidental, consequential, supplementary or transitional provision”.

Both Houses have warned Ministers and departments over the years not to use these generalised and imprecise words to promote regulations of importance and significance. Our own committee made that very point in the eighth report of 2008, yet here we are in 2016 with Regulation 8 being promoted through these imprecise and general words.

I remind the Committee what Regulation 8 seeks to establish. It will give the courts the power to order that some or all documents can be withheld and prevent a party to the proceedings from having access to such information. Who would deny that that type of restriction is both important and significant? Who would claim that this is just a consequential, incidental, supplementary or transitional matter? If the Government intend to promote Regulation 8 on that basis, which of those applies? Is it incidental? It cannot be, surely. An instrument which will restrict access to information for parties in a hearing is certainly not incidental. Is it consequential? No, how can it be consequential? Is it supplementary? Is the Minister going to rest his case on the basis that this is just a mere supplement? An instrument of this kind, leading to the possible restriction of parties’ access to evidence in the proceedings? That cannot be supplementary. On what possible basis can the Government promote Regulation 8 as regulation that is incidental, consequential, supplementary or transitional?

The Government’s case is even more feeble and flimsy when one goes back and looks at the parent Act. The Act stipulates, in considerable detail, in Sections 80(3) and (4), the matters that should be subject to regulations. Section 80(3) lists some seven matters that must be considered in regulations, while Section 80(4) lists six that may be. Some 13 matters are specified in the two subsections, but what is not in them is the issue of the power to give the courts the right to withhold evidence. Why is that not there? This is an important issue. The 2015 Act specifically listed the kinds of issues that should be dealt with and addressed in regulations, but the important one that is now being brought forward, of withholding evidence, was missing.

Why was it not included in the list in the parent Act? There must have been some debate in the department about it, or among Ministers about such a big issue. Why was it left out? Why was it excluded and why is it now being brought in? Was it an oversight? Did they forget that this was going to be a big issue? If so, they are now trying to remedy an omission or an oversight. I want to find out from the Minister why and how an important issue such as this was left out of the parent Act and is now being brought forward and promoted under this raw, general and imprecise regulation. We deserve answers on this mysterious issue.

Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) (Amendment) Order 2016

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Tuesday 12th July 2016 Grand Committee

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)]

My Lords, the order before us today adds zombie knives, zombie killer knives and zombie slayer knives to the list of offensive weapons by amending the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) Order 1988.

The purpose of the order is to maintain public safety. Restricting the supply of weapons which can be used in violent crime or to create a fear of violence is a matter of public concern, which is why the Government are taking this action. Before setting out further details about the order and what action the Government are taking, I will briefly explain why it is necessary to tackle zombie knives.

We are concerned about the availability of these weapons, which can be purchased for as little as £10, have an aesthetic appeal to young men and have no practical use. In 2015, Stefan Appleton, a young man of 17, was murdered with a zombie knife marketed as a “renegade zombie killer machete/head decapitator”.

The Government believe that although the number of sales is relatively low, these weapons have a disproportionate effect because their appearance both creates a fear of violence in law-abiding members of the public and glamorises violence for those to whom these types of knives appeal. The police advise that they are often used as status symbols by gangs in videos inciting violence, and have asked that they are banned.

Unlike other types of knife, zombie knives have no legitimate purpose. They are designed for the purpose of violence and creating a fear of violence, and the way they are marketed, using names such as “headsplitter”, “decapitator”, “skullsplitter”, “chopper” or “executioner”, clearly demonstrates the purposes for which they are intended. Many of the knives are also painted in a way that suggests blood on the handle or blade. These knives pose a danger to the young men themselves and to wider society.

With that background in mind, I turn to the details of the order. Under Section 141 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, it is an offence to manufacture, sell, hire, offer for sale or hire, or expose or possess for the purposes of sale or hire, a weapon specified in an order made under that section. The importation of any such weapon is also prohibited. The offence carries a maximum penalty of six months’ imprisonment.

The order does not provide for the possession of these weapons to be a criminal offence, but the possession of an article with a blade or point in a public place or school premises without good reason or lawful excuse is a criminal offence under Sections 139 and 139A of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, as is the possession of an offensive weapon in a public place by virtue of Section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953.

The Government want to add zombie knives to those weapons that are prohibited by order. This will be achieved by using the order-making powers in Section 141(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to add these knives to the list of offensive weapons to which the section applies. These weapons are defined as:

“the weapon sometimes known as a ‘zombie knife’, ‘zombie killer knife’ or ‘zombie slayer knife’, being a blade with … a cutting edge … a serrated edge; and … images or words (whether on the blade or handle) that suggest that it is to be used for the purpose of violence”.

I hope noble Lords will agree that this order should proceed. It will prevent these weapons being used in violent crime or to instil a fear of violence. I therefore commend the order to the Committee and I beg to move.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, I had never heard of these weapons before I looked at this order a couple of days ago. The descriptions in the Explanatory Notes and impact assessment are truly dreadful, and I am grateful to the Minister for showing me a picture of one of these knives a few minutes ago. I am very happy to support a complete ban on the manufacture, import, sale, hire, and offer for sale or hire of these weapons. The names—zombie knives, zombie killer knives and zombie slayer knives—are just dreadful.

The impact assessment makes it very clear that the benefits outweigh the costs, even in simple monetary terms, but what we are talking about here is not just money but serious injury to human beings and the killing of human beings with these awful weapons. There is no monetary figure you can put on that. If one life is saved or one serious injury prevented by introducing this ban, it will be a step well worth taking, and I am very happy to support the order.

Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Temporary Class Drug) Order 2016

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Tuesday 12th July 2016 Grand Committee

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs for its expert advice, which informed the order we are considering today, which was laid in Parliament on 15 June.

If the order is made, seven methylphenidate-based compounds, as well as their simple derivatives, will be subject to temporary control under Section 2A of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 for a further 12 months, thereby maintaining the offences concerning their production and distribution. These compounds were controlled for 12 months under a previous temporary class drug order, which expired on 26 June 2016. The new TCDO came into effect on 27 June and will remain in effect for 12 months, subject to Parliament’s approval.

We are seeking to extend the temporary control following a request from the ACMD for additional time to strengthen its evidence base. This will give it the opportunity to consider the most recent data, including data from festivals, drug-related deaths and information from the drugs early warning system. The additional 12 months will allow the ACMD to consider whether these drugs should be made subject to full control under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The ACMD notes that the initial TCDO has had a positive effect. Police Scotland has reported that in Edinburgh, where there had been reported injecting practices and an outbreak of infections involving some of these substances, there has been a reduction in harms.

These seven compounds are thought to be highly potent stimulants, similar to methylphenidate, a class B drug. One of these substances, ethylphenidate, had previously been marketed online as an alternative to cocaine. Their harms are reported to include anxiety, paranoia, visual disturbance, chest pain and a strong urge to re-dose. Other reported harms include anti-social and violent behaviour, loss of fine motor control, a high risk of bacterial infection and local tissue damage from injecting.

The order enables UK law enforcement to continue action against traffickers and suppliers of temporary class drugs while the ACMD gathers evidence. The order also sends out a clear message to the public, especially to young people, that these drugs and the brand names associated with them carry serious health risks. We know that the change in the law cannot on its own deter all those inclined to use or experiment with these drugs. However, we expect the TCDO to continue to have a notable impact on their availability, and in turn on demand for them, as we have seen with other substances controlled under a TCDO.

We know that legislation alone is not enough and continue to take action across education, prevention, treatment and recovery in order to reduce harmful drug use. We will continue to update our public health messages to inform the public of the harms caused by these substances, using the latest evidence gathered from early warning systems. In these circumstances, I commend the order to your Lordships.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, as we have heard, the order seeks to renew a temporary control order on the substances listed in the paper for another year, while further work is undertaken and a decision is made on what should happen in the long term. I have no issue with the order whatever. All I would say is that I hope that in granting this temporary ban for another year, we are able within that time to gather the information that the council has asked for, so that it can come back to us to recommend a permanent ban. Clearly, these drugs are harmful to health, and it is important, as the noble and learned Lord said, that education, treatment and advice are made available to young people so that they understand the harm that they can do to themselves and to others by taking them. I am happy to support the order and hope that sooner rather than later we will be able to deal with this issue permanently.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I am obliged to the noble Lord. I should explain that generally speaking the council has to be helped to make a recommendation about six months before the expiry of a TCDO in order for there to be time to transpose the prohibition into the Act itself. It was therefore thought necessary in the present case that there should be an extension. I do not believe that it is anticipated that a further extension will be required, because further evidence of harm has become available and is now being analysed.

Modern Slavery (Transparency in Supply Chains) Bill [HL]

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Friday 8th July 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, I start my remarks today, as other noble Lords have, by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Hornsey, on securing second place in the Private Member’s Bill ballot and on securing the Second Reading of her Bill today. Last year, the Modern Slavery Act became law; it is a good piece of legislation, and noble Lords on all sides of the House made important contributions to ensuring we have a sound piece of legislation that will tackle the exploitation of people through human trafficking and slavery. The Bill before us seeks to build on that landmark legislation and strengthen it further. The Bill has my support and, I wish it speedy progress through your Lordships’ House.

Worldwide there are estimated to be approximately 21 million people, or three out of every 1,000 people on the planet, in jobs that they were coerced or deceived into taking and which they cannot leave. Research undertaken by the International Labour Organisation found that the Asia-Pacific region accounts for the largest number of forced labourers in the world, at 11.7 million, which equates to 56% of the global total, followed by Africa with 18% and then Latin America with 9% of the victims. They also found that the lowest number of victims were in the developed economies and in the European Union, with 1.5 victims per 1,000 inhabitants. They found that 90% of the victims were exploited by the private economy, by individuals or enterprises. Of these, 68% are victims of forced labour exploitation in activities such as agriculture, construction, domestic work or manufacturing, and 22% are victims of sexual exploitation. Some 26% of the victims of forced labour are below the age of 18, and the majority are in their place of origin or residence, while those people moved across borders were more heavily associated with sexual exploitation.

The figures are truly shocking and the situation in the United Kingdom is on an unbelievable scale. As the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Hindhead, said, the Government’s own estimate puts the total number of people in slavery in the, UK at around 13,000, of which approximately 3,000 are thought to be under the age of 18. Some experts believe that this figure is a massive underrepresentation of the true figure, and the thought that there could be even more victims in the UK is truly shocking.

As I said, the Bill seeks to build on the Modern Slavery Act 2015. It has only four clauses and one schedule, but they are extremely important and seek to move our legislation in this area further forward. Clause 1 would bring public bodies within the scope of the Modern Slavery Act and require them to prepare a slavery and human trafficking statement every year. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Hornsey, when she spoke of the widespread abuse of various services provided by public bodies through contractors and subcontractors. As the noble Baroness said, public bodies have a combined purchasing budget of approximately £45 billion per year. I also agreed with the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, when she asked why the obligation should not be extended to the public sector. Public bodies spend large amounts of public money purchasing goods and services, and this clause would put the same obligations on them as we are expecting commercial organisations of a certain size to follow. Surely it must be right that we require public bodies to publish a statement so that we can see what action they are taking to combat slavery in the supply chains they purchase from.

Clause 1 also requires the Secretary of State to publish a list of all commercial organisations that are required to publish a statement. This was a matter under much consideration last year, and for some reason the Government were resistant to being required to publish such a list. The compromise I recall was that we were told that some other body in the voluntary sector may publish a list. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby was right when he said that the Government should not hesitate in finding the tools for business to get these matters right. The Government should produce such a list and categorise it in sectors, so that it is as easy as possible to access the information; that seems the most sensible way forward. I hope the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Ellie, will be able to confirm that the Government have reflected on this since last year and are prepared to move on it. It always seemed odd to me that, having required commercial organisations to produce these statements in their annual accounts, the Government were not prepared to bring them all together in one easy and accessible place. We learned today from the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Hornsey, that an industry has been created which creates hosting statements, provides model text and statements and charges fees for preparing them; that should concern us all. Again, I agree with the right reverend Prelate that good practice is to encourage business to act responsibly and to stamp out slavery through chains. So far, that is voluntary; we need the support of the Government at all times to help deliver that.

Clause 2 would require contracting authorities to exclude from the participation in the procurement process companies that had not produced a slavery and human trafficking statement when they were required to do so. Why would any contracting organisation want to do business with a commercial organisation that had fallen down on its obligations in this respect? Clause 3 would require the Secretary of State to produce guidance to comply with the changes to regulations brought in by the Bill. Again, it is important to ensure that proper clarity is given to contracting organisations so that they can be clear how they go about implementing these requirements.

The Bill is an important step in the fight against modern slavery in all its forms. It seeks to improve on legislation passed last year, which will always have to be kept under review to ensure we are at the forefront against the exploitation of human beings all around the world.

In conclusion, this is a very good Bill, as are the other Bills before us today. They are all to be referred to a Committee of the Whole House. I checked with the clerk, and it would be quite proper to refer some Private Members’ Bills to a Grand Committee, which would help to speed things along. We have only so many Fridays, and many Bills get lost here and do not have a chance because they get clogged up in waiting for days in Committee and on Report. Again, I ask the Government—I particularly look to the noble Lord, Lord Ashton of Hyde, when he goes back to talk to his colleagues in the Whips’ Office—why we cannot in future make use of the Moses Room and a Grand Committee and have these Private Members’ Bills there on Fridays. That would be a good step forward.

I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Hornsey, on her excellent Bill and wish it speedy progress through this House.

Bus Services Bill [HL]

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Monday 4th July 2016 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

33: Clause 4, page 15, line 43, at end insert—
“(g) how the operators of the franchise will seek to increase passenger representation through the life of the plan.”

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, as this is the first time I have spoken in today’s Committee debate, I declare that I am an elected councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham.

The two amendments in this group are in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch. As regards franchises and enhanced partnerships respectively, they would require operators to set out how they will seek to increase passenger representation. As I said in previous debates, this Bill is very technical in parts but the issues we are talking about today, and that of buses in general, are about people and delivering a reasonably priced local service which delivers for them and their local communities, and keeps places alive and vibrant by connecting communities with other communities and enabling people to travel to work, go to school and enjoy leisure activities. For all that to happen in a responsive manner, we need mechanisms in place to hear the voice of the passenger at a local level. I am fully aware that we have a body—Passenger Focus—which provides a voice for England outside London, but I am talking about what happens at a very local level. It is important that people and communities are able to discuss their experiences face to face and say what they want. That can include working with Passenger Focus at a local level or perhaps other arrangements.

Operators and local transport authorities often carry out surveys and other work and meet local councillors and MPs. That is always very welcome. However, what is proposed in these amendments is the need to ensure that the views of passengers are taken into account, and to make provision in the Bill for the planning of these services. I beg to move.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I shall try to be brief. These amendments are what are often termed “no-brainers”. As the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, explained, the purpose of these amendments is to ensure greater participation and involvement with passenger groups in the process for developing a franchise scheme and the consultation and throughout the life of an enhanced partnership scheme. During Second Reading, a number of noble Lords commented that there was little mention of passengers in the Bill, so these amendments address that point.

I know that bus operators do a huge amount of work to ensure that they engage with the people who actually use their services. After all, who are they providing their services for? They are for passengers. On what basis would bus operators, and local authorities for that matter, not want to seek the views and opinions of the people who will be using their services?

Organisations such as Bus Users UK exist for the very purpose of giving passengers a voice, and do great work with operators, including holding local bus surgeries where passengers can engage directly with operators. Together with operator and local authority open days, these events are invaluable. Passengers are able to give solid feedback to those actually running the services, and in turn operators can inform and explain their decisions. Those decisions may not always be popular, but to my mind people are much more likely to accept a decision if the reasons for it are helpfully and properly explained.

I hope that my noble friend has a piece of paper in front of him marked: “Agree to consider”, or something similar. Even if he cannot advise the Committee to accept the amendments in the form that we see them today, I hope he will agree with the sentiment and spirit in which they have been brought forward so that we might see some government amendment which would achieve the same effect, at a later stage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I have already said that I am open to discussing how we move this matter forward. I hope that I am indicating that I believe we should proceed in a collaborative way on the passage of the Bill through Committee and Report. I am happy to discuss with the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, how we can develop this amendment to reflect the intent behind it, which I share and which I am sure she shares, and also incorporate the issues raised by the noble Baroness. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord is minded to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I thank the noble Lord for that very helpful response. When we tabled the amendments we should have included the advanced partnerships and the current arrangement, as the noble Lord mentioned, but is he saying that, through the discussions that will take place over the coming days and weeks, we will seek to agree an amendment that will deal with the issues raised here?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

It is certainly my intention to discuss with the noble Lord and the noble Baroness how best to take this forward. Yes, if it needs to be in the Bill, that is something we can discuss. I am sure we can overcome the drafting issues and it is important to reflect the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, in any amendment that comes forward.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

That is very helpful. I am very happy to get involved in discussions on an amendment that we are all happy with and can work with, and which delivers the aim expressed across the Committee today of making sure that passengers are properly involved. However, what I do not want to see at the end of those discussions is a note in guidance, because, importantly, that does not have the same strength as something in the Bill.

[Earl Attlee]

Will the Minister take great care to make sure that everyone who has an interest in the Bill is included in these discussions? Sometimes it is possible for people to fall out of the loop and not be fully involved.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I give my noble friend that assurance. I will go further and say that I never forget my noble friend when it comes to such discussions. He has made a very valid contribution throughout this debate and I am sure he will continue to do so in debates going forward. Any noble Lord has an open invitation to meetings, as I have said, as we look to strengthen the provisions of the Bill and the services it provides.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I thank the noble Lord for those very helpful responses. I am very pleased to have received support from the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. It is beneficial that local transport authorities and operators seek the views of their passengers, who are, in fact, their customers. Being sensitive to the needs of your customers is usually good practice for any business or public service and benefits everybody concerned, particularly the providers of the service. A role for bus passengers, as the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, said, is important and needs to be in the Bill. I am very pleased with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, and look forward to our discussions. I hope that we can agree an amendment we can all be happy with during Report.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

Before the noble Lord sits down, let me assure him that that is the Government’s intention with all the provisions we have discussed. Putting passengers at the heart of what we seek to do is a key part of delivering either the franchising model or the partnership model. Importantly, as I said, the current amendment does not incorporate, for example, the issues around the status quo.

I know the noble Lord is working with me to ensure that that is what we do. That is certainly the intention—one that is resonating around the Chamber. Given that assurance and the positive nature of the debate, I think the noble Lord is moving towards formally withdrawing his amendment.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I thank the noble Lord again for his very helpful comments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 33 withdrawn.

Bus Services Bill [HL]

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Monday 4th July 2016 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

34: Clause 4, page 15, line 43, at end insert—
“(g) the extent to which not-for-profit bus operators can be integrated into a proposed scheme in order to contribute to the long term sustainability of the scheme.”

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 34 is proposed by me and my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch. It would require the franchising authority or authorities to give consideration when drawing up a scheme to how the not-for-profit sector could be involved, the purpose being to contribute to the long-term sustainability of the franchising scheme, which, one hopes, will give local people a better bus service than they enjoy at present. The not-for-profit sector is thriving in a variety of areas. Expanding this model in the delivery of bus services is one way to contribute to ending the decline in bus services and routes that we have seen over many years, especially outside London, and which has been the subject of discussion during consideration of this Bill. It can complement other providers and deliver on a smaller scale bus routes that really benefit local communities and that can boost the local economy, connecting people with jobs, shops, schools and other services that they may not have had access to in recent years. Our amendment would require any assessment to include such proposals.

I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, does not have “resist” in his notes against this amendment. He has been very responsive today and in our previous day in Committee, and I hope he continues in that vein. Perhaps he will say to us that the amendment is not necessary, or suggest that it might be included in guidance. Of course, it could be in guidance, but as I hope he can see, that would not have the weight of its being clearly in the Bill.

We all want to see better bus services, and this Bill is a very positive step forward, but we need to go a little further to strengthen the proposals in some areas, as this amendment would certainly do. It would make it easier for different models of service to come into play and give a better bus service for all. I beg to move.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, not-for-profit bus services, or community transport, cover a wide spectrum of services, including those operated by charities. I am the first to praise the extraordinary work the sector does for people who need a lot of support in their daily lives—drivers who walk users to their door to make sure they have not lost their keys and then carry their shopping into the hall are local heroes. The sector can also plug a few gaps in services for the general public where there are not enough passengers to make a route a commercial proposition and the hard-pushed local authority does not have sufficient resources to fund a standard bus service.

However, I urge my noble friend the Minister to resist the amendment. Community transport services are not subject to the same regulatory regime as local bus services. Their drivers are not subject to the same stringent training regime as those driving registered services, nor do they need to satisfy many of the other compliance requirements set down by the traffic commissioner.

Services operated under Section 19 of the Transport Act 1985—it is mainly this type of service we are talking about with this amendment—are exempt from many safety and fair competition rules so long as they are not provided to the general public. So how on earth can they contribute to the success or otherwise of a franchise?

The whole issue of services operated under Section 19 and indeed Section 22, permits has been a bone of contention for many years with the EU. If community transport operators were required to enter the local bus market and operate under the same rules as operators of registered services, it would be a different matter, but they are not. There is no level playing field and, at the moment, community transport operators are able to operate more cheaply but without the regulatory safeguards in place for other operators. I therefore urge my noble friend to resist the amendment as gently as he can.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport and Home Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for his amendment, which would require franchising authorities to consider, as part of the assessment of their proposed franchising scheme, the extent to which not-for-profit bus operators can be integrated into a franchising scheme to contribute to its sustainability. Let me say at the outset that I sympathise with the aims of his amendment. I recognise the good services that community bus service operators and other not-for-profit bus operators deliver to our communities across the country and know that they often provide flexible and bespoke services which act as a lifeline to many. The intervention from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, underlined that element.

The Bill recognises the important role that community transport operators play in providing local public transport. Provisions have been included in the Bill to ensure that services operated under community bus permits will not be affected by the introduction of franchising or enhanced partnerships. This will enable them to continue to run their services unaffected by these schemes. I hope noble Lords will agree that these provisions are sensible and that they will help ensure that community bus providers can continue to deliver their valuable services to our local communities.

Even with these protective provisions in the Bill, I recognise the valid point the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, raises, and agree that authorities looking to improve local bus services should consider how services provided by community transport operators can be best integrated to deliver a better overall network of services for passengers.

Let me assure noble Lords that the Bill does not preclude authorities, as they develop their franchising or enhanced partnership proposals, working with community transport and not-for-profit operators to determine how they can best be integrated into the wider network of services, but I agree with the noble Lord that this approach should be encouraged. I am, therefore, of the view that these issues are best covered through further guidance that will be published to complement the provisions of the Bill. I hope the assurances I have given in this contribution enable the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Will the Minister say a little more about why he thinks that this should be in guidance? He says that authorities can do this, and that is all well and good. Why then is it not going to be in the Bill? Why should it be in guidance? My worry is that guidance is not legislation. Guidance is forgotten over time, things get moved on and revised, and all of a sudden it is not there and gets forgotten about. Why is guidance better than the Bill?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I have already said that there are provisions within the Bill that protect that element of community transport and not-for-profit operators. While the noble Lord feels that the guidance is not sufficient, it forms part and parcel of the guidance in support of the Bill, on which these new proposals go forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I am not sure the Minister answered the point I was making there. I am thinking of organisations such as Hackney Community Transport. If it wants want to provide services elsewhere in the country, like it currently does for TfL, why should that not be in the Bill, rather than in guidance?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I do not think I can add any more. If the noble Lord feels that the strength of what the Government are presenting does not meet what he is suggesting, I suggest we discuss this issue. At the moment, we are minded that existing provisions within the Bill, with the assurance of including such provisions in the guidance, provide the necessary safeguards alluded to by the noble Lord. I hope, with this assurance and the continuing discussions we are having on various aspects of the Bill, that he will be minded to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I thank the Minister for that contribution. I will take up his kind offer to have a discussion outside the House. He has been very generous with his contribution today and with his time. I appreciate that very much. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate. I do not agree with the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, as I want to see the not-for-profit sector being able to provide bus services, as elsewhere. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Randerson and Lady Scott, for their support. The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, was spot on in speaking about the needs of rural areas and the widest range of schemes available to deliver those services. As she said, Hackney Community Transport delivers services for TfL, so why cannot it, or other providers in the not-for-profit sector, deliver bus routes elsewhere, in urban or rural areas? This Bill is about improving bus services and my amendment helps in that respect, improving the Bill further and giving further options for the provision of bus services. I will leave it there and look forward to talking it over outside the Chamber, but I may well bring the amendment back on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 34 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Randerson]

My Lords, I say in response to the noble Lord, Lord Snape, that of course the arguments he makes about less reputable companies fortify my argument that a lot of these things need to be set out in the Bill, so that we can ensure that only the more reputable companies—those that observe those aspects important to passengers and indeed to our environment—are able to win a franchise.

I say in response to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, that I cannot understand why bus companies should be immune to the usual rules of business in this country. Increasingly local government services are run through commercial companies in various forms. Many commercial organisations are involved in the provision of a range of local authority services right down, for example, to care for children, the elderly and so on. Local authorities franchise services or commission them and from time to time they will change the companies they are working with; someone loses the contract. There are well-known procedures throughout our public life which account for that to happen, thus enabling a service to be handed over from one organisation to another. I cannot see why bus companies should be exempt from that general run of business.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, Amendment 35, which has been proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, is not one that I can support today. As we have heard, the amendment puts a requirement into the Bill that would require the taking into account of any compensation payable to bus operators whose businesses are wholly or partly expropriated by the scheme. I do not think that there are any plans in the Bill to expropriate anyone’s business. The franchising model will work on similar terms to those which presently operate in London, where private bus operators happily deliver services on routes laid down by TfL. They make profits and the service works well.

I agree with the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, who asked why the bus industry cannot be aligned with the rest of the public sector in terms of contracts being tendered for and then won or lost. People move on and things change. That works in the whole of the rest of the public sector and is certainly the case in local government; I have said before that I am a councillor in Lewisham. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, will advise the Committee, but I think I am correct in saying that the Government do not anticipate any compensation being required if a franchising authority follows the process as set out in the Bill. For me, the Bill is about improving bus services for passengers and increasing the number of bus journeys being taken by people, thus halting the decline in bus routes and journeys over recent years, and that should be embraced by bus operators. Indeed, they may find that they actually make more money if they increase their routes and more people use them.

I look forward to the Minister’s response and I hope that he will allay the concerns raised by the noble Earl and thus demonstrate to the Committee that the amendment is not necessary.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Attlee for his amendment, which would require franchising authorities to consider as part of the assessment of their franchising scheme whether it will be,

“more efficient, effective and economic than any other option, taking into account any compensation payable to bus operators whose businesses would be wholly or partially expropriated by the scheme”.

I recognise my noble friend’s desire to ensure that impacts on bus operators are fully considered as franchising schemes are developed. The Bill already addresses many of his concerns, and it may be useful at this point to provide a fuller explanation of proposed new Section 123B, which requires franchising authorities to conduct an assessment of their proposed franchising scheme. I fully acknowledge that moving to a model of franchising is a big decision that will impact on bus operators in the area. That is why the Bill requires authorities that are considering franchising to conduct a thorough assessment of their proposed scheme, including comparing their proposals with other options, which could include partnership proposals and the status quo.

The Bill also requires franchising authorities to think about the effects of the proposed scheme and whether it represents value for money. This will include, of course, consideration of the impacts of the proposal on passengers and bus operators, together with any wider impacts. I hope my noble friend agrees that the provisions in the Bill will require authorities to think carefully about their franchising proposals, compare them to other options and then take a well-reasoned and well-evidenced decision.

I turn to the issue of compensation payable to bus operators that my noble friend referred to. I fully recognise the years of hard work that many bus operators have put into growing and operating their businesses and their concerns about the future. As I have said, the Bill requires authorities to consider both the benefits that franchising could bring for local people, as well as the potential impacts, including those on bus operators. If franchising authorities follow the processes set out in the Bill, local bus operators will have plenty of notice that a franchising scheme is being considered, will be aware of a decision to introduce franchising, and will have more than six months’ notice that services are to be provided under local service contracts. This will enable operators to take any action they think appropriate and to plan ahead in the light of the decision to make a franchising scheme. Incumbent operators will, of course, be able to bid for contracts in any area that decides to move to franchising, and I should reflect that those operators’ knowledge of the local area and local customers is likely to stand them in good stead. In addition, the Bill does not provide franchising authorities with the power to take over the property of any bus operator if a scheme is made—a point made in an earlier debate.

In summary, I am therefore of the view that the Bill already addresses many of my noble friend’s concerns regarding the assessment of the franchising scheme and the need to compare it with other options. He raised the issue of compensation being available to those who do not win contracts, and referred to other schemes, not just franchising. While he makes a valid point, I note that authorities have been able to introduce quality contracts since 2000. This potential risk and impact on bus operators has been around for a significant period. I hope that he has been assured and reassured by some of my comments on the existing provisions in the Bill. I disagree that consideration of compensation should form part of franchising assessments—a point made by other noble Lords—but I hope that this debate has assured him that the Bill includes a thorough and comprehensive assessment process, and that he can withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Can the Minister say more about something I find hard to understand about the amendment? I am a councillor in a London borough and services are tendered for all the time, whether in relation to road repairs, street lighting, refuse collection and so on. People bid for contracts, win them and lose them. If they lose them, the new company takes them on and we do not have debates about paying companies compensation because they have lost their contract. They bid for a price, the council assesses it and a number of factors and makes what it believes is the best decision. I do not see why we are having this dispute or debate. If a company loses a bus route, I do not see why it should be paid compensation. It must have tendered for that route but has lost out in the process to another company that has been deemed to offer better value for money. This is a strange debate.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My noble friend tabled an amendment and it is right that we have a discussion in Committee. I hope that through the provisions in the Bill that I have highlighted—for example, the requirement to give ample notice—his fears are allayed as regards compensating a business franchise that goes out of operation. The Bill contains proper provisions in relation to, for example, giving notice. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and I are on the same page on this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to a group of amendments to Clause 4 and Schedule 2. Amendments 54 to 64 and Amendment 75 relate to the period which must expire before services can be provided under local service contracts. The Bill as introduced provides that at least six months must expire between a contract being awarded and provision of the relevant service, with the aim of providing a suitable period of transition for bus operators. These amendments do not change the policy but merely tidy up the Bill to ensure that this provision is clear.

Amendment 65 makes it clear that where a franchising scheme is varied to add an area which relates to another local authority, that authority must play an active part in the variation processes. This corrects the drafting of the Bill but does not change the policy intention. It has always been the Government’s intention that authorities that will have a franchising scheme covering the whole or part of their combined area should play a part in making or varying the scheme.

Amendment 76 amends the Local Transport Act 2008 to remove provisions relating to quality contract schemes for areas in England which were inserted into the Transport Act 2000. My noble friend Lord Ahmad wrote to noble Lords on 16 June providing notice of the government amendments he would be bringing forward in Committee. That note provides a fuller explanation of the precise changes to the Bill. My noble friend and I are of course happy to discuss these amendments further with colleagues if there are any concerns. I beg to move Amendment 54.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I have no problem with the amendment but I want some further clarification. As I said in our previous discussion on our first day in Committee, we have a whole raft of government amendments and I do not understand why this issue was not sorted out before the Bill came to your Lordships’ House. Yes, the amendment adds the word “minimum”—Amendment 55 is similar—but these are tidying-up amendments and we are at the start of the Bill, not the end. It has been nowhere other than with the department and in this House. I am sure that the noble Lord listens to what all noble Lords say in this House, but it seems that a bit more work should have been done with Ministers before the Bill ever appeared here. Why we are getting these Bills so early, and why was this issue not sorted out before the Bill arrived here?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

That is a very reasonable comment. My noble friend Lord Ahmad was asked a similar question during consideration of a previous amendment, and I recall his answer. I will give the same answer, which I hope will be accepted: this Bill has been work in progress. A lot of the time, Bills are not absolutely perfect when they are presented. I will be quite open and honest in saying that it is simply a tidying-up process. I hope the noble Lord will accept that explanation.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I accept that it is a tidying-up exercise, but my point is that I am surprised that this could not have been sorted out in advance, given that, as we have heard, this Bill has been a long time coming and in preparation in the department. These are not major issues that have been found during our debates: it is just a question of missing words, for example. I could go through the whole raft of government amendments—none is anything major. So I do not understand why we are finding within a matter of days that odd words and phrases that should have been included in the first place are missing from a Bill that, we are told, has been months in preparation, and was due last year.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

I am not sure that my follow-up is going to give any further clarity. I simply point out that the Bill as introduced was not sufficiently clear on these points, and these amendments help to bring clarity. It is more fine-tuning and tweaking than anything particularly major.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

That is fine. I will not pursue the point further, but for the Minister to come to the Dispatch Box and say that the Bill was not sufficiently clear, when it has been at least months in preparation, is not the best way to introduce legislation. I will leave it there.

Amendment 54 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I am sure that these are sensible and valuable amendments for the Committee to consider. However, they are “Supplementary to the Second Marshalled List”. That means that they must have been tabled on Friday, which means that there is no time for officials to consider a response for the Minister and no time for the Minister to consider the advice of officials. It is a little bit rich for the Opposition Front Bench to tease the Ministers for tabling their late government amendments when it tabled its amendments on Friday.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

The point I was making was the government amendments that were tabled seemed to be making little drafting corrections, inserting odd words. For a Bill that has been in the planning for nearly a year, that seems to me to be remiss.

[Lord Judd (Lab)]

My Lords, late or not, one has to look at the potential and the value of the particular amendment. I am greatly cheered by this amendment. It seems to me that we are in danger of totally losing sight of the ideal of community and the rest. A well co-ordinated, integrated bus service can play a tremendous part in furthering community activity. We just compound the problem of our individualistic society in which community is breaking down because people resort to their cars, go and do their shopping, go back home and watch the television, put on their computer or whatever it is. The fact is that, if we are to have a life worth living, we have got to have community. The bus can potentially be central to that community. I applaud the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

As long as it was lovely, that is the important point to bear in mind. I thank all noble Lords, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for tabling their amendments, and acknowledge the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for bringing this issue to the fore. The amendments aim to ensure that authorities think about the wider social, economic and environmental benefits of establishing a franchising or enhanced partnership scheme and remind authorities of their obligations relating to educational and socially necessary bus services.

Amendments 58A and 99ZA, tabled by the noble Baroness, refer to the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012, which the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, mentioned in a previous Committee debate. As I have already indicated, and as the noble Baroness has acknowledged, I have written to her on this matter. My understanding is that the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012 requires authorities which commission certain public services to think about matters relating to securing wider social, economic and environmental benefits in the context of procurement.

I believe that it would be useful to use the guidance that will accompany the Bus Services Bill to remind local authorities of the duty that the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012 places on them in certain circumstances and to give some guidance on the approach to be taken in relation to procurement activities not covered by the Act. I assure noble Lords that, on the contribution of the noble Baroness, I immediately set the ball in motion. Work is in hand in the Department for Transport to consider how best we achieve this and it is getting some accolades. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, is not in his place, but it is becoming a fast favourite of the noble Lord.

I also agree that any authority looking to establish a franchising scheme or an enhanced partnership scheme should think carefully about the wider social, economic and environmental benefits that such a scheme could bring. The Bill includes requirements for authorities looking to establish a franchising scheme or an enhanced partnership to think about whether the proposed scheme would contribute to the achievement of relevant policies and to consider the impacts of such a scheme. I hope this has reassured noble Lords that the social, environmental and economic issues will be considered as schemes are developed and that references will be made quite specifically in the guidance that accompanies the Bill to ensure authorities are aware of their obligations under the Public Services (Social Values) Act 2012.

Amendments 58B and 99B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, relate to educational and socially necessary services. Authorities have certain duties to consider whether to provide socially necessary services, and they also have certain duties with respect to providing home-to-school transport. I agree entirely that authorities should consider these obligations as they develop franchising or enhanced partnership schemes as co-ordinated commissioning of public transport for the whole area can lead to real efficiencies. This is one of the core principles of total transport, and I support it wholeheartedly.

The obligations on local authorities with respect to socially necessary and home-to-school services remain in place regardless of whether franchising, enhanced partnerships, or any other model is employed and I do not think it is necessary to restate these requirements in the Bill. I do however recognise that we can continue to do more to ensure that authorities are reminded of their obligations through the guidance that I have mentioned already.

The other issue raised by the noble Lord’s amendment is that of an authority subsidising certain services which would not otherwise be provided. Authorities already have the ability to do this, and the Bill does not change that. I fully expect that authorities will subsidise certain services in a franchised model for example and confirm that this will be possible under any of the new models proposed through the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, talked about ferries. There is nothing to stop local authorities working with local operators to integrate ferries locally. Merseytravel’s multi-operator ticket already does this. It is unlikely that including a reference to ferries and the 2012 Act in this Bill would fall within the permitted scope, but I will consider the point and will write to the noble Lord if I am not correct in this respect. I hope that the assurances I have given have gone some way to addressing the issues that noble Lords have raised and that the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I know the Minister is trying to be very helpful today and we are very grateful to him for that. He has asked my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch to withdraw the amendment. Is he saying that he is going to go away and think about this? I am not clear whether he said that. The amendment that my noble friend moved is important. I am not quite clear what he is saying in asking her to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

In the interests of time, if the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, does not mind I shall share the letter I wrote to her with all noble Lords. That should have been done as a matter of course. It will perhaps highlight the Government’s position, but to be clear, the Government are considering the provisions raised in the amendment, but within the guidance which will be in support of the Bill.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I think I got the letter, but I am afraid I not have actually read it yet. It arrived this morning in my email inbox. I just wanted to be clear what the Minister meant.

[Lord Berkeley]

On that point, has the Minister told the Committee when the guidance might be published in draft form? Will we be able to see it before Report, for example?

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Apparently I did not get the letter after all. I certainly got a letter from the Minister this morning, but it may not be the one that we are talking about.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

As I have reflected on before, while we are in the holy month of Ramadan, noble Lords should be thankful that they are not getting emails from me because they would be arriving at about 3 am. If I am writing them, I hope noble Lords are reading them. I will of course confirm when the guidance is due to be published, but I hope I have provided clarity and that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.