Justice and Home Affairs: United Kingdom Opt-Outs

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been a useful and important debate today on the home affairs and justice opt-outs that the government are exercising. The first duty of any Government is to keep their citizens safe and this debate enables the House to consider these important issues and explore the actions taken by the Government. The opt-out of approximately 130 justice and home affairs measures and the opting back in to certain measures before 1 December must not be damaging to the law enforcement agencies and the important work they are doing.

We on these Benches are not against opt-outs in principle. These opt-outs are only possible because of a provision negotiated by the previous Labour Government when signing the Lisbon treaty in 2007, but your Lordships’ House will want to have further assurances from the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, that the Government have got their thinking right and that our national security and the fight against crime are not compromised.

I also think at the end of this process someone should look at what we have gone through—the administration, the cost—and examine what has been delivered. I am not sure who that should be—possibly the Public Accounts Committee or the Home Affairs Committee in the other place. Certainly there has been a lot of cost for not much delivered.

The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach will be aware of the Members in his own party, in addition to those on these Benches—in fact, Members on all sides in this House—who are concerned that we have a process that delivers very little benefit, for a lot of work and a lot of expense, with not very much to show for it in the end, as my noble friend Lord Foulkes of Cumnock said.

We believe in retaining our co-operation with Europe on policing and criminal justice matters. Can the Minister address why the Government did not secure guarantees of agreed opt-ins on these important crime-fighting measures before exercising this opt-out? That would have been a sensible precautionary measure. I was, however, pleased to hear from the noble Lord that discussions have gone well and we hope that agreement is very close.

We must not forget that there are thousands of organised crime groups in the EU involved in drug trafficking, people trafficking, cybercrime, online child exploitation, kidnap, money laundering in addition to terrorism and threats to our national security. Cross-border crime is a reality and we need 21st century tools to meet this challenge.

I have told the House before that I had the privilege of visiting the police unit in London that deals with card fraud. I saw examples of how criminals were using every modern technique to steal people’s money. It is cross-border and it does not stop at Dover. The only way to catch the perpetrators who are stealing money from our citizens, costing the banks millions of pounds and bringing misery to hardworking families is to have cross-border co-operation with other law enforcement agencies across Europe. It has been raised before, but can the Minister give his reaction to the concerns expressed that the new arrangements will not be in force in time and that without sufficient transitional measures there would be a gap in terms of the UK’s capability to carry out its work against international organised crime and terrorism? Can the Minister give the House an absolute assurance that that will not be allowed to happen and that provisions will be in place? I agree with the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, when he expressed concerns about the measures that have not been Lisbonised and how the impacts have not been properly assessed, and I agree with his comments about the transitional arrangements.

I am pleased that the Government have decided to opt into the European arrest warrant. The UK has deported more than 4,000 people under this scheme to face justice and more than 600 have been returned to the UK to face justice here. There are numerous examples of criminals being brought to justice thanks to the European arrest warrant. On 24 March this year, Francis Paul Cullen, who committed serious sexual assaults on children over a period of three decades while serving as a priest in Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire was brought to justice. He fled the UK in 1991, but finally, after 22 years on the run, he was extradited from Spain on a European arrest warrant. He pleaded guilty earlier this year in Derby Crown Court and was sentenced to 15 years in prison—justice, finally, for his victims.

As the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, mentioned, under the provisions in existence before the European arrest warrant—that is, the 1957 European Convention on Extradition—Francis Paul Cullen’s 22 years on the run would have rendered him immune from prosecution by the Spanish authorities, because they have a statute of limitations which means that he could not come back to the UK.

There is also the case of David Heiss, who murdered British student Matthew Pyke in September 2008, was arrested in Germany a month later and brought back to the UK the following month. Before the European arrest warrant, Germany did not surrender its own citizens to any other country and had a constitutional bar on them doing so. Without the European arrest warrant, it is possible that these two criminals would not have faced justice in a British court. My noble friend Lady Smith of Basildon has previously quoted Beatrice Jones, whose mother, Moira Jones, was abducted, raped and murdered by an EU national. Beatrice Jones said:

“He fled the country but because of the dedication … of Strathclyde police along with the cooperation of Slovakian police, he was arrested and extradited back to this country”.

At the other end of the scale, no one wants to see trivial matters clogging up the courts, wasting time and costing money. The principle of proportionality is therefore important. I welcome the plan whereby a judge will consider whether the alleged offence and likely sentence are sufficient to warrant someone’s extradition. Can the Minister give the House an absolute assurance that the European arrest warrant will be in place to be used on 1 December 2014?

There are other measures that I am pleased that the Government have indicated that they are opting back into, including five of the six mutual recognition agreements. It is right that in areas where financial penalties of more than €70 are imposed—for example, road traffic offences—people can be pursued.

It would be helpful to the House if the Minister could give more information on the Government’s thinking in respect of the judgments in absentia framework decision and the European supervision order. These measures contain important protections for defendants, and the second measure provides that non-custodial pre-trial supervision may happen on a voluntary basis in the defendant’s home member state. I agree with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, in that regard.

The previous convictions framework decision, which requires courts to take account of a defendant’s previous convictions in any other member state to the same extent as they would previous national convictions, is another important measure in the fight against crime.

It is good that the Government are opting back into the prisoner transfer framework decision, which provides for the transfer of foreign nationals who are EU nationals to serve their sentence in their home country provided that they have more than six months to serve. However, I am not sure that there has been the speed or number of transfers that we would all like to see. The House will be aware that it costs about £40,000 to house a prisoner here in the UK. I remember the Prime Minister making much noise before the last general election about the number of foreign criminals in UK jails. Four years later, I have not seen that much followed through. When are we going to see a real reduction in the number of foreign criminals in our jails?

The probation measures framework decision is the one measure that the Government are not opting back into, as your Lordships have heard earlier. Again, it would be helpful if the Minister could go into some more detail as to why the Government have taken that decision and what would have to happen for them to opt in to it—I know that they have indicated that they may do that in the future.

As I said earlier, most of the areas where the Government have decided not to opt back in are of a minor or trivial nature. In other cases, the Government intend to follow the provision and believe we have sufficient powers to deal with the issues that arise. What is the process for keeping this under review? Can the Minister confirm that, if as part of any review the Government decided that opting back in the future would be a good thing, they would actually do that?

We are not against opt-outs in principle, but we have concerns about how this set of opt-outs has been handled. Many other noble Lords have expressed that concern in this debate. Concerns have been expressed about the adequacy of planning for opt-ins and in particular the provision of transitional measures in the event of agreements not being reached in time. As I said earlier, if you examine what actions are being taken by the Prime Minister, you wonder what they amount to. I am firmly of the opinion that this is an expensive and lengthy exercise that does not deliver very much. Is it not the reality that this whole exercise is an attempt to deal with the difficulties that the Prime Minister has with his Back-Benchers in the House of Commons—the noble Lords, Lord Stoneham of Droxford and Lord Sharkey, made reference to that, too—as well as with the wider Conservative Party and UKIP, which of course the whole Tory party is terrified of? It has been found out, however, as there is no real repatriation of power. Instead, the UK is doing the right thing and opting into a variety of measures because it is important to do so.

I also associate myself with many of the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, about the waste of political capital and how our energies could be much better spent elsewhere in Europe. Like the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, I have actually looked at a number of European debates in the House of Commons. When I read the contributions of Conservative Members I am reminded of what UKIP meetings look like. Like other noble Lords, I welcome the decision to rejoin the European Judicial Network and the three Europol measures. However, I ask the Minister to explain further why we are not joining the European Genocide Network.

In conclusion, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, for the way in which he has handled these matters. I like the noble Lord very much and any criticism I have given from the Dispatch Box is not directed at him personally but at the Government. He has much to report back to the House and I look forward to hearing from him.

European Union: Justice and Home Affairs

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Thursday 8th May 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, for tabling these two Motions for debate today. They give the House a timely and useful opportunity to debate these important issues and explore the actions which the Government have taken and their reasoning in coming to the decisions that they have, and for us to seek assurances from them that the actions they are taking are not damaging to the law enforcement agencies and the important work that they are doing to keep the citizens of this country safe, which is the first duty of any Government.

Using a provision negotiated by the previous Labour Government when signing the Lisbon treaty in 2007, the Government have decided to opt out of just over 130 justice and home affairs measures covered by the treaty. The opt-out takes effect on 1 December this year, and the Government have indicated that they want to opt back in to a number of measures before we get to that date. We on these Benches are not against the principle of opt-outs—it was the Labour Government who negotiated this provision in the treaty—but your Lordships’ House will want further assurances that the Government have a clear plan and that that they are not playing fast and loose with our national security and the fight against crime.

It looks to me as if we could be going through a process that will deliver very little benefit for a lot of work and expense and, in the end, not much to show for it. I see that in the debate in the other place on 7 April the Conservative Member for North East Somerset, Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg, told the House that we have opted out of 98 things that do not matter and that some of the 35 things that we are opting back in to matter enormously. He would call that a repatriation of powers but that is a terminological exactitude. We on these Benches believe in retaining our co-operation with Europe on policing and criminal justice. The Government should have secured guarantees of agreed opt-ins on these important crime-fighting measures before exercising the opt-out—that would have been a sensible precautionary measure.

We must not forget that there are thousands of organised crime groups in the EU involved in drugs, human trafficking, online child exploitation and theft. Cross-border crime is a reality and we need 21st-century tools to meet this challenge. I had the privilege of visiting the police unit in London that deals with card fraud and it was clear that: the criminals use every modern technique to steal people’s money; it is cross-border, it does not stop at Dover; to catch the perpetrators who are stealing money from our citizens, costing the banks and other financial institutions millions of pounds and bringing misery to people, you have to have all the tools in the box to fight these criminals; and to achieve that, working across borders and co-operating with our partners is essential.

It would be helpful if the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, gave his reaction to the comments by the British head of Europol, Mr Rob Wainwright, who expressed his concern that the new arrangements would not be in force in time, and that without sufficient transitional arrangements there would be a gap in the UK’s capability to carry out its work against international organised crime and terrorism. That must not be allowed to happen. There are also suggestions that we need to get our re-opting-in list agreed by June 2014 in order to complete the process by the December deadline, and that we are struggling to achieve that. Will the Minister also comment on that in his reply?

I am pleased that the Government have decided to opt in to the European arrest warrant. The UK has deported more than 4,000 people under this scheme to face justice, and more than 600 have been returned to the UK to face justice here. There are numerous examples of such cases, including that of David Heiss, who murdered British student Matthew Pyke in September 2008. He was arrested in Germany a month after the offence and brought back to the UK a month later. Before the European arrest warrant, Germany did not surrender its nationals; in fact, there was a constitutional bar against doing so. Without the European arrest warrant, it is possible that this murderer would not have faced justice in a British court.

We on these Benches have no issue with the Government ensuring that these matters are proportionate —no one wants to see trivial matters clogging up the courts, wasting time and costing money needlessly. However, I do take issue with losing an important tool in the box that helps in our fight against crime. Will the Minister give the House an explicit assurance that the European arrest warrant will be in use on 1 December 2014? If he cannot, I think that it will represent a serious failure on the part of the Government.

I am pleased that the Government have indicated that they are opting back in to five of the six mutual recognition agreements. It is right that in areas where financial penalties of more than €70 are imposed, for things such as road traffic offences, people should be pursued to pay the fines. I think that it will have an effect on the individuals who commit an offence if they realise that they will be forced to pay up.

The previous convictions framework decision requires courts to take account of a defendant’s previous convictions in any other member state to the same extent as previous national convictions are taken into account. It is welcome that the Government are opting back in to this measure as well. It is important for the courts to have all the tools available in the fight against crime.

As for the prisoner transfer framework decision, which provides for the transfer of foreign nationals who are EU nationals to serve their sentence in their home country provided that they have more than six months to serve, it is good that the Government are also opting back in to this measure. However, I am not sure that we have had either the speed or the numbers of prisoners transferred back to their home country that many of us would like to see. The cost of keeping someone in prison is about £40,000 a year. I recall that when he came into office the Prime Minister made much of what he was going to do about foreign criminals in UK jails. Four years later, I am not convinced that we have seen the follow-through that the rhetoric implied. Perhaps the Minister can shed some light on that in his response.

We welcome the Government’s decision to opt back in to the judgments in absentia framework decision and the European supervision order. The first contains important protections for defendants and the second provides that non-custodial pre-trial supervision may happen on a voluntary basis in the defendant’s home member state.

The probation measures framework decision is the one measure that the Government are not opting back in to. It would be helpful if the Minister could go into some detail about why that is the case. The Government have indicated that it might be a possibility at a later date.

Most of the areas where the Government have decided not to opt back in are of a minor or trivial nature. In some cases, the Government intend to follow the provision and claim that we have sufficient powers on the statue book to deal adequately with any matters that may arise. Will the Minister focus some of his time in this debate on the issues of currency counterfeiting, fraud and the counterfeiting of non-cash means of payment? What will the Government do to ensure that we remain ahead of the game? Criminals who operate in this area can be highly skilled and ingenious in the methods they employ to steal from people and organisations. We on these Benches welcome the decision to rejoin the data protection framework decision and the data protection secretariat. These measures protect and balance the rights of data subjects with the need to protect the public.

In conclusion, we are, as I said, not against the principle of opt-outs, but we do have concerns about how this set of opt-outs has been handled. Concerns have been expressed about the adequacy of planning for the opt-ins and, in particular, about the provision of transitional measures in the event that agreements are not reached in time.

The Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and the Justice Secretary have made much of the actions being taken. However, what do those actions amount to when they are put under the microscope? This is an expensive and lengthy exercise that does not really deliver very much. One is left wondering what the real motivation behind all this is. Perhaps the Minister can comment on the difficulties that his own party is facing with an increasingly dwindling membership who are more and more anti-European. Was this really just an attempt to placate them? If it was, it has been found out. There has been no repatriation of power. Instead, the UK is opting in to a variety of measures because that is the right thing to do. A number of the noble Lords who will speak in the debate today have a wealth of experience. I am looking forward to their contributions.

Crime: Stalking

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Tuesday 12th March 2013 Lords Chamber

Asked By

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to ensure effective implementation of the stalking offences under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach)]

My Lords, the new stalking offences have been in force for just over three months. On implementation, the Home Office published a circular providing advice on the interpretation of the new offences. Before then, and subsequently, we have worked with the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to update their training and guidance. We continue to engage with partners to ensure that the offences are being used effectively.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, 10 months ago, legislation was enacted which, for the first time, made stalking a specific criminal offence. The two new stalking offences have been in force for almost four months and yet we hear from campaigners and victims of stalking that the Government have done next to nothing to ensure that the criminal justice system, police and victim support services are properly trained in the use of these new offences, that the training varies from police force to police force and that many officers are not even aware that the stalking offences exist. Will the Minister tell me what mandatory training the Government have introduced for police officers and criminal justice professionals in relation to the new stalking offences and what input victims and stalking charities have had in its development?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord clearly was not listening to my initial Answer because, as I have explained, the Government are in continuous engagement with both police forces and the Crown Prosecution Service on the effectiveness of the new offences. On 8 March, we published a new, updated action plan to deliver our strategy to end violence against women and girls. The plan includes specific new actions on stalking, which provide commitments to raise awareness of stalking and to monitor the implementation of these new stalking offences. Data on these new offences will be published in May 2012, which will help inform further action.

Police and Crime Commissioner Elections (Functions of Returning Officers) Regulations 2012

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Thursday 12th July 2012 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, these instruments will ensure that all necessary preparations are in place for 15 November 2012 when the public go to the polls to elect their first police and crime commissioner. I know that the House has always taken a keen interest in shaping electoral law and we have drawn from that existing body of tried and tested law wherever possible.

The Committee will recognise the provisions in respect of electoral registers, the timetable for nominations and the ability to vote by post or by a proxy. It will also recognise the provisions for elections offences and for the combination of PCC elections with others held on the same day, such as the mayoral elections in Bristol. Your Lordships will recall the processes for counting the supplementary vote from mayoral elections. PCC elections will be part of the framework under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000—with which, again, I think the Committee will be familiar. Your Lordships will also see that our police area returning officers, or PAROs, are similar to regional returning officers in European parliamentary elections.

However, there are some notable differences from existing practice. For example, while candidates’ campaign spending limits will be based on the existing rules for mayoral candidates, these limits will be set out numerically for each area rather than requiring each candidate to calculate the formula themselves. We are grateful to the Electoral Commission for its advice on this.

PCC candidates will need to obtain 100 nominations and tender a deposit of £5,000, which is more than most elections but less than London mayoral elections. We have worked closely with the Electoral Commission and others to design ballots and forms that are more user-friendly, with a special focus on those who may find it more difficult to read, or to read English.

Rather than a paid-for mailing, the Government will offer every PCC candidate the chance to have a page on a new website and will offer a freephone line for the public to order a free hard copy. This will be the best approach in the circumstances. Both the web address and phone number will appear in all Home Office and Electoral Commission literature, in all advertising on PCC elections, and on poll cards delivered to every elector. Electors will know where to go to find information on candidates.

This policy is primarily driven by cost, but there are other advantages. The fact that hard copies will be provided on request means that they can be tailored to the needs of the individual. For example, we can provide copies in formats such as Braille, and under our plans electors will be able to choose the address to which the information should be sent. They might find that a work address is more convenient, or an address where they are staying temporarily.

This is very different from the position in 2000, when your Lordships’ House considered the rules for the London mayoral elections. The then Government proposed offering no candidate information, whereas we are confident that everybody who wants candidate information will be able to access it under our proposals. The order and the regulations before the Committee are the culmination of months of work and close consultation with expert planners, including the Electoral Commission, the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and the Association of Electoral Administrators. I will echo the thanks to them of the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice in another place. They are the foundation of an entirely new model of policing that will connect the police directly with the public they serve. I commend the order and regulations to the Committee.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I am a member of the Electoral Commission and have been for nearly two years. Will the noble Lord tell the Grand Committee why the Home Office has been involved in this? It is as if we have tried to reinvent the wheel and ended up back where we started. There is expertise in the Cabinet Office. We may have National Park Authority elections in future and there is another unit in Defra. There seems to be complete duplication, with different units doing the same thing. Would it not be more sensible if all these things were contained in one unit which had expertise in the nuts and bolts of elections?

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, we welcome the chance to debate the order and regulations, which address a number of matters related to the running of elections for police and crime commissioners. We strongly opposed the move to elected police and crime commissioners for a number of reasons, including the amount of money needed to conduct the elections. It could and should have been used to support front-line policing, which is being adversely affected by the cuts, contrary to government assertions that this would not be the case. However, the Government’s Bill passed through both Houses of Parliament, so elections for police and crime commissioners are a reality, and we are putting up candidates since we do not intend to let the coalition partners—I think they are still partners, just about—have a free run.

Of course, the Government originally wanted to rush through the elections in May of this year. However, eventually and grudgingly they put them back to November. The Government’s bright idea was that they could be run on the same date as a number of mayoral elections in our major cities, which would enable some of the costs of the police and crime commissioner elections to be shared. Unfortunately, that bright idea made an assumption that proved somewhat wide of the mark—namely, that the citizens of our major cities would in droves endorse and vote for elected mayors. Apart from in Bristol, they did not. Therefore, we have almost exclusively stand-alone elections for police and crime commissioners. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what will be the cost of these elections in November compared with the cost of holding them at the same time as local elections, which was clearly the Government’s intention but which has now been dropped.

Holding elections in November is not designed to maximise turnout—but to this Government, the only thing that appears to matter is getting elected police and crime commissioners in place. Other considerations that one might think were important when holding countrywide elections for these new posts for the first time seem to take a back seat.

One of the orders in front of us proposes that each candidate can have,

“an election address included on a website”,

but that there will not be any publicly funded mailing or locally distributed booklets. We know that, despite being short of money, the Government have other priorities—such as reducing government income through a 5p in the pound reduction in tax for millionaires—but trying to make up this self-inflicted shortfall by not publicly funding mailings from candidates or locally distributed booklets in what are countrywide elections for new elected posts with responsibilities over wide geographical areas, which the Government regard as of great importance and significance, is a kick in the teeth for the democratic process.

As has already been said, we will presumably have the situation in Bristol where there will be a publicly funded mailshot or locally distributed booklet for the mayoral election but no such provision for the election on the same day for the police and crime commissioner, who will have responsibilities over a much wider geographical area and bigger population than the elected mayor.

In its original submission as part of the consultation, the Electoral Commission said that the Government’s proposal was,

“a significant departure from what is provided for UK Parliamentary, European Parliament and Mayoral elections”.

The commission went on to say:

“Delivering information primarily via a website will exclude the still significant number of adults in England and Wales who do not have easy access to the internet: as many as 7 million adults in England (excluding London) and Wales are estimated not to have used the internet at all in the last 12 months”.

The commission also commented:

“Candidates for PCC elections will also need to communicate with a much larger number of voters across their ‘constituencies’ than usual; and there may be significant numbers of independent candidates who do not have the support of a party behind them to promote their campaign”.

The Office for National Statistics has said that well over 8 million people have never used the internet, of whom 5.5 million are over the age of 65, with the majority being women. The gross income figures also show that the better-off members of the community use the internet the most and it is the least well-off who do not have access to the internet. There are also regional disparities: internet usage is lower in other parts of the country than in the south-east and south-west of England.

So we have disparities of income, gender, age and region—but if you ignore all those considerations of course we have a level playing field, which is no doubt what the Government will claim. Perhaps the Minister can tell us the outcome of the equality assessment that one presumes the Government have done on the order, or will he tell us that, for obvious reasons, they have not dared to do such an exercise?

A website alone will not be enough for individual candidates, many of whom are likely to be not well known, to get their message across; leaflets to every household are also important. Only wealthy candidates will be able to afford to produce their own leaflets and then pay for their distribution, and only parties with significant numbers of volunteer supporters will be able to undertake a leaflet distribution throughout what in most cases will be constituencies of considerable geographical size and population.

The cross-party Association of Police Authorities has asked for the proposals for voter information and awareness-raising for PCC elections to be strengthened so that they are at least equal to those for mayoral elections, in order to help raise voter turnout on 15 November and address its concerns about the potential impact of a low turnout. I am not sure whether or not these concerns have been ignored. No doubt this is something the Minister will be able to tell us about.

Recent newspaper articles have claimed that the Home Secretary has asked the Treasury for money to fund an advertising campaign to encourage stronger candidates to come forward. One newspaper quoted a Whitehall source as admitting:

“The policy is in disarray. There is a chance it will be a damp squib”.

Perhaps the Minister can do a little bit more than his colleague in the House of Commons in answer to a straight question and tell us: is it true that the Secretary of State for the Home Department is seeking or has sought additional money from the Treasury to fund a publicity campaign to attract more people to stand for office?

Perhaps the Minister can also tell us what level of turnout the Government are expecting under their proposed arrangements, and what level of turnout they would deem had shown the new arrangements to be a success. Maybe I will be surprised, but I suspect that the last thing the Minister will do is give a specific answer to that question. Perhaps the Minister will tell us that there is no problem because the millions of people who rarely or never use the internet will of course be able to make a free telephone call to ask for written information about and from the candidates to be sent to them. If he is going to come out with that one, I hope that he can manage to keep a straight face when he says it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, before I respond to the rant of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, I will answer some questions from the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, who is rather worried about why it was not the Cabinet Office that was dealing with this matter, particularly in light of the fact that there were other elections coming along in due course which Defra, my former department, and DCLG might have an interest in. I would very much welcome the Cabinet Office dealing with all of these things, in which case I would be able to deal with the Statement on home affairs business that is taking place in the Chamber at the moment and which my noble friend Lady Stowell has to do on my behalf. It is for the Home Office to develop policy on elections for PCCs, so I am dealing with this, and that is why I am here. I can assure the noble Lord that the Cabinet Office, DCLG and all the other interested parties have been involved in all these matters from the beginning. Obviously we will continue to consult them as and when appropriate.

As I said, I listened to the rant of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, if I can put it like that. I think that we know what his party’s views on PCCs are. We have had yet again, as we had in another place, this rather confusing message saying, “We oppose PCCs on the grounds of cost. But having opposed them on the grounds of cost, we now think that we should spend yet more money on providing more information to the public than is necessary”. I find that a confusing line to put forward.

I say to the noble Lord that the only significant cost of PCCs is the cost of the elections. I appreciate that the cost is £75 million. However, I again give an assurance—which I and my colleagues have given on other occasions—that it will not come from funds that would have gone to forces. We believe that democracy is a justifiable cost, making the police more accountable to the public.

I can also assure the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, that we are not making information on these matters available solely by the website, as he said. Although we are making it available on the website, there will also be other ways of accessing that information—by means of a telephone call or having the information sent to any address that people particularly want to have it sent to. The noble Lord and his party are really coming on a bit rich by demanding yet further expenditure on these grounds—sending out leaflets to all electors—particularly when, as he will remember, his party refused to provide any such information on candidates for the London mayoral elections until there was opposition pressure on them to do so.

The noble Lord also asked what we would consider a successful turnout level. Obviously I will not give any estimate of what the turnout is likely to be—it would be a very foolish Minister who did so. However, we expect that the public will be enthusiastic about having their first elected PCCs. We hope that that enthusiasm will build over the years and that we will see more commissioners elected. Some might be from the noble Lord’s party and some might be from others. Certainly the hits on the police.uk website seem to demonstrate an interest in this. It certainly demonstrates that the interest in PCCs is much greater than the interest in the current system of police authorities.

I am not sure that I have dealt with every question put by the noble Lord but I think that I have dealt with the vast majority of them. I hope that he will accept that. My final point concerns his remarks about regional variations and the access of the less well-off to the website. That point was dealt with earlier. There will be other means of accessing information—I hope that the noble Lord will accept that. The Electoral Commission, of which the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, is a member, also agreed that all the information it will make available, such as poll cards, will go to all households. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that the appropriate information will go out and that everyone will have access to information regardless of whether they can access the website.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Apart from saying that the Home Office is doing it, the Minister has not answered my point. The Home Office will look at the regulations. I suspect that there will be very little difference between these regulations and what the Cabinet Office would have produced. Perhaps the Minister can come back to me and point out what is different. I suspect that it will be next to nothing. If that is so, why has it not been done by the Cabinet Office? It is nonsense that we have different units in different departments doing this. It is a complete waste of taxpayers’ money.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I am more than happy to write to the noble Lord on the matter of whether the Cabinet Office should do this or whether, if the Home Office does it, it will merely replicate what happens in other elections. I will look very carefully at what the noble Lord said.

Claims Management Companies

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Tuesday 29th May 2012 Lords Chamber

Asked By

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to ensure that all claims management companies operating in the United Kingdom deliver services to a high standard.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I am delighted to open this debate and I am very pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, is responding for the Government. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, is unable to be present today but I know that he has other business and would attend if he could. I received a very positive Answer from him to my parliamentary Question some weeks ago. We also had a very constructive meeting at the MoJ, which his colleague Jonathan Djanogly also attended, as did representatives of Which?, the consumer organisation. I hope that today’s debate will be another part of that constructive dialogue.

Claims management companies have increased in number and have come to the attention of the public and the industries in which they operate much more in recent years. You have only to turn on the TV or listen to the radio to be bombarded with advertisements from claims management companies. What do these firms do? Put simply, they manage claims for compensation on behalf of consumers to a variety of bodies and industries, and charge the consumer a fee for that service. In the case of payment protection insurance claims, that fee can be as much as 30% of the successful claim. A consumer who received £3,000 for PPI mis-selling would give £1,000 of their compensation to the CMC for, I contend, the relatively little work that it had undertaken. If the consumer decides to dispense with the CMC’s services before the conclusion of any claim, charges of £90 per hour plus VAT for the time spent on the claim are not uncommon.

It is right that I should say early in the debate that many in the claims management industry act responsibly. I fully accept that it is an individual’s choice to use a CMC to pursue a claim if they wish. However, large numbers of those in the industry do not adhere to best practice and a few could even be described as rouges. The Government need to take a long, hard look at the industry, look at existing provisions and make a number of changes to beef up existing regulation and ensure that existing provisions are used effectively in an industry that needs effective policing. The Government may have a preference for self-regulation and industry codes of practice. That is fine where it is demonstrated to work effectively but, where it is not, the Government have a duty to act. Noble Lords will be aware that the Compensation Act 2006 provides the broad basis for the regulation of this industry, supplemented where applicable by other consumer protection legislation and depending on the activity of FSA rules.

As I said, the claims management industry has grown considerably in recent years and more than 3,200 authorised firms operate today. The part of the industry that does not adhere to best practice will breach guidelines on cold calling, text messaging and e-mail. Some will take up-front fees and/or fail to disclose properly the amount of compensation a consumer will pay if their claim is successful. Through high-pressure sales they will sign up people who have no possibility of making a successful claim on the basis that they can get you thousands of pounds in compensation. A few weeks ago I witnessed a firm in my local shopping centre going up to people and telling them they could get them thousands of pounds in compensation. That sort of activity is prohibited under existing regulation, but unless it is effectively policed it comes to nothing.

Many noble Lords in the Bishops’ Bar, the Peers’ Guest Room and elsewhere in your Lordships’ House have told me of the text messages and phone calls that they have received which say, “We can get you compensation for that fall you had, that car crash you were involved in or that PPI you were mis-sold”. They then say, “But I haven’t had a fall or a car crash, and I haven’t got any PPI”. This sort of activity is what those sections of the industry that do not adhere to the highest standards indulge in. Also, there are companies that bombard a whole raft of financial institutions with PPI claims on behalf of a customer, without even bothering to check whether the customer has ever had any dealings with the institutions concerned before submitting the claims. This is bad practice and these are ridiculous and vexatious claims. All they do is waste the time and money of the financial institutions concerned, and divert resources from dealing with genuine complaints so that consumers wait even longer for their cases to be dealt with.

It gets worse. After dealing with the financial institution, or in some cases without even bothering to go there, CMCs have been known to submit bulk claims to the Financial Ombudsman Service, again wasting time, costing money to everyone but them and making genuine complainants wait even longer to have their complaint dealt with. Therefore, we need action from the Government and I have a number of points to put to the noble Baroness, Lady Verma. I do not expect a reply today but I am sure she will write to me, covering the points I am raising.

There is a voluntary code to which some CMCs have signed up. It is about time that we had some declaration from the Government that they want the industry to come together to agree on this voluntary code or some variation on it, and that if it does not happen very soon the Government may force their hand by regulating or legislating further. To put it another way: clean up your act or we will clean it up for you. Where companies have been found to have acted illegally, naming and shaming should be considered as well as disbarring them from further trading.

The Government should consider whether the CMC industry should have to make a contribution to the Financial Ombudsman Service. I suggest that for every ridiculous, pointless, vexatious claim submitted by a CMC to the Financial Ombudsman Service, where it is shown that the consumer has never done business with the financial institution concerned, the CMC should have to pay a £500 contribution to the working of the Financial Ombudsman Service for wasting its time.

I am worried that firms put “Regulated by the MoJ” on their literature as some sort of badge of honour or approval. That should be changed, maybe to something like, “If you have any complaints about this firm, ring the claims management regulator on the following number”. I am not satisfied that enough resources are being put into the claims management regulator by the Government. When you consider that £6 billion has been put to one side by the financial services industry to pay PPI claims, you can see that a potential £2 billion in fees is a very big slice of cake. Existing regulation is deficient in areas such as training, standards and competences. We need a discussion on how these firms should operate in the future.

The Government should also give serious consideration to bringing claims management firms within the remit of the statutory Legal Services Ombudsman. This would mean that consumers could complain about service failure by claims management firms to an independent body and receive a fair and thorough route to redress. This last point is particularly important as it is consumers who are being ripped off. I for one—and, I am sure, all noble Lords present—do not want us to be debating the claims management companies scandal and what we will do to redress it in a few years’ time.

I look forward to the response of the noble Baroness and to the contributions of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, and my noble friends Lady Sherlock and Lord Stevenson.

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Tuesday 8th November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, it is fair to say that the Protection of Freedoms Bill contains interesting as well as worrying proposals. Many of the proposals are welcome and noble Lords on these Benches give them their full support. There are, however, other aspects of the Bill that are worrying and we on these Benches will have to oppose them.

The title of the Bill is a bit over the top if you look at the subjects contained in it. They are a collection of issues that do not necessarily fit very well together. Maybe that is why the Bill has a rather grandiose title but not so grandiose items. In some cases, the Bill contains some very risky proposals.

I have the greatest concern about the proposals concerning DNA. When my right honourable friend Alan Johnson was Home Secretary, he brought forward legislation providing for essential safeguards regarding the use and retention of DNA. These are serious matters and we should seek to achieve a sensible balance. I believe that we had that balance, but now the Minister is taking risks with our freedoms in his proposals regarding DNA. What evidence does he have to make these changes in respect of the retention of DNA samples?

Can the Minister also direct some of his remarks to the number of people who have been caught committing serious offences only because their DNA sample was on the database? Under these proposals, the DNA evidence would never have been there. Kensley Larrier, Lee Ainsby and Abdul Azad have all been convicted of the offence of rape, using DNA evidence held on the database. If these proposals had been law at the time that they committed their offence, the evidence that convicted them would not have been available. They would have been free to carry on committing further offences. How is that protecting our freedoms?

Government have a duty to protect their citizens. These proposals weaken their ability to do so. They are wrong, they are risky and they should be opposed. Parts of the Bill, as I said previously, are very welcome. Proposals regarding the express parental consent for the use of children’s fingerprints are welcome. Other proposals, such as those to deal with rogue wheel clampers, making it a criminal offence for cowboy clampers to immobilise, move or restrict the movement of a vehicle without lawful authority, are also welcome and merit considerable support around the House. They are welcomed by the motorists who have had to suffer at the hands of these rogues for far too long.

I am disappointed that the Government have chosen not to deal with the issue of ticketing in this respect, as my noble friend Lady Royall outlined earlier. I hope that noble Lords can persuade the Government that this is an issue that they need to address during the passage of this Bill through the House.

I also welcome the proposals in the Bill to provide a scheme to deal with convictions for consensual sex between men above the age of consent. These proposals have been too long in coming. The Government are right and they should be congratulated on putting these proposals forward.

As my noble friend Lady Royall said, the August riots gave us a timely reminder of the benefits of CCTV. It is an important tool in the fight against crime and it is disappointing that proposals from the Government may make this more difficult. I hope that any code is as light a touch as possible, but it seems odd to me that these provisions will not apply to all. I hope that the Government will keep that under review.

Like many noble Lords, I welcome the proposals regarding freedom of information. I am a big supporter of freedom of information legislation, and proposals to increase its scope and deepen it further will always have my support.

My final comments are around the issues of the detention of terrorist suspects and the proposals for detention periods of 14 days and 28 days. If we can all accept that 14 days should be the norm, where we may differ is how we get to 28 days in exceptional circumstances. There are many noble and learned Lords in your Lordships’ House, and I hope that they in particular will be able to give the Government timely advice on how to proceed carefully in this area.

In conclusion there is a lot that I can welcome in this Bill, but there are some really dangerous, misguided aspects in it. I hope that your Lordships’ House will be able to persuade the Government that they need to think about them again.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Monday 4th July 2011 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

74: Clause 20, page 15, line 3, leave out “a person” and insert “an elected member of the Greater London Authority”

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, this is the first opportunity I have had to congratulate my noble friend on her appointment as a Minister in the Home Office. She had a distinguished career in the House of Commons and we were appointed as two of the first four ever political commissioners to the Electoral Commission. That was a decision by the previous Administration, with all-party support. I was immediately impressed by her grasp of the issues and the immense style she brought to the commission. All her fellow commissioners were delighted at her appointment but disappointed that we had lost someone who clearly had so much to offer. I enjoyed working with her on the commission and hope that we can work together in her new role.

My amendments in this group seek to ensure that the deputy mayor for policing and crime is an elected member of the Greater London Authority. I do not understand how anyone could object to that. I thought that the Government wanted people to be elected to undertake these important roles. Having a London Assembly Member as the deputy mayor for policing and crime must be preferable to having some place-person of an incumbent mayor at any particular time if the Government insist that these proposals go ahead.

I see that the Government have moved some way, in their Amendments 89 and 90, in giving the London Assembly the power of veto over the mayor's nominee if they are not a Member of that Assembly. However, that requires a two-thirds majority, so we could have a situation whereby the majority of the London Assembly does not want the person the mayor proposes but that still goes ahead because they have not hit the two-thirds threshold. Could my noble friend not reconsider this and go just a bit further? I beg to move.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, this group of amendments includes provision for ensuring that the mayor appoints a Member of the London Assembly as the deputy mayor for policing and crime and not just, as the Bill provides, for “a person”. The amendments also provide for the deputy mayor of policing to arrange for,

“another member of the London Assembly”,

rather than any other person,

“to exercise any function of the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime”,

that is exercisable by the deputy mayor.

The Government have also tabled amendments on the London Assembly’s veto power over,

“the appointment of the candidate as deputy mayor for policing and crime if the candidate is not a member of the London Assembly”.

That may act as a small incentive to appoint a London Assembly Member. However, those veto powers requiring a two-thirds majority of votes cast would not be necessary if some of the other amendments in the group that provide that the deputy mayor has to be,

“another member of the London Assembly”,

were accepted. The Government have rejected the idea of an elected deputy mayor for policing and crime in London, but if that is a step too far for them surely they can accept the amendments that provide for that deputy mayor to be a Member of the London Assembly and thus ensure that the occupant of the post has at least successfully stood for election.

In reality, the deputy mayor for policing and crime is the one who has responsibility for policing in London rather than the mayor, who has many other duties and does not have the time to give the post his undivided attention. It is only right that the occupant of the post should be a Member of the London Assembly, not simply “a person” known to the mayor and whose appointment—with a two-thirds majority required in the London Assembly to veto it—the mayor can almost certainly secure. I hope that the Minister will recognise the strength of the argument for these amendments and indicate that when she responds.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Browning)]

My Lords, I will first address government Amendments 89 and 90 in this group. The Government have given this matter a great deal of consideration and I discussed it in some detail in meetings across the House with noble Lords following Committee. There are already some safeguards in the Bill as to the appointment of the deputy mayor in the form of strong disqualification criteria and the requirement for non-binding confirmation hearings. However, it was clear in Committee that noble Lords did not consider this sufficient, so we have given this further consideration, including considering the option of limiting the mayor to appointing Assembly Members. On this specific point, the Government accepted that there were arguments in favour, but we were concerned at the relatively small pool from which the mayor would be able to select the holder of this important post. Instead, the Government have brought forward amendments that would still allow the mayor to appoint a non-Assembly Member but would make the confirmation hearing binding in such a case, giving the Assembly the power to veto the appointment by a two-thirds majority.

Any Assembly Member the Mayor wished to appoint would be subject to a non-binding confirmation, as already set out in the Bill. I hope this will go to the core of the concerns that my noble friend Lady Doocey expressed in Committee. I also hope that the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, will feel reassured that the mayor cannot simply appoint one of his or her friends to that position. In saying that, I thank the noble Lord for his kind remarks. I, too, enjoyed working with him on the Electoral Commission and I look forward to working with him in this Chamber as well. I had better not say more than that because it will not do his reputation on the opposition Benches any good if I say that we are going to work closely in the future. I do not think his Whips would like that too much, but he knows what I mean.

We suggest adding new powers to this part of the legislation because we understand the unique role the deputy mayor will have, if appointed. Of course, it is still for the mayor to decide whether to make such an appointment. We have tried to listen to the concerns expressed in Committee, and I hope that noble Lords who have tabled amendments in this group will be reassured that the deputy will either need to be an Assembly Member or to have the confidence of the London Assembly.

Amendments 75, 78 and 88, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, and my noble friend Baroness Doocey, would prevent the mayor from appointing anyone but an Assembly Member to be the deputy mayor for policing and crime. Several other Peers, not least my noble friends Lord Shipley and Lady Hamwee, were also concerned that the mayor could appoint a non-Assembly Member to be deputy mayor and that this would cut across the democratic principles that this Bill seeks to establish.

The Bill allows the Mayor of London, operating through the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime, to delegate the day-to-day handling of policing governance to a deputy. However, in accordance with general legal principles, the mayor will not be able to pass on the responsibility for any delegated work. The mayor will still be answerable and responsible. It is essential to this new governance model that the mayor is always held responsible for the way his or her functions are carried out, whether delegated or not. Clause 20 establishes that the selection must be in line with existing provisions for mayoral appointments. Further essential details, such as the eligibility criteria and terms and conditions for the post, are set out in Schedule 3. The Government agree that more is needed, but we do not think that the solution suggested by these amendments is the right approach. As such, I hope noble Lords will not press their amendments and will support the government amendments.

On Amendments 76, 77 and 81, Amendment 76, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, would prevent the delegation of functions to individuals other than the deputy mayor. That is a little concerning, first because it would prevent the mayor from being able to split responsibilities as he or she see fit, as everything from typing a letter to paying funds would have to be done by the mayor or delegated to the deputy mayor. Secondly, it would in effect require the mayor to have a deputy. At the moment it is for the mayor to choose whether to delegate to anyone else.

It is important that the mayor, as the elected person with a mandate to make decisions, has the discretion to decide how their office will function. As such, I ask that the amendments not be pressed.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her response, and I of course thank my noble friend Lord Rosser. I accept that the Government have moved some way on this, although I am disappointed that they have not moved as far as I would like. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 74 withdrawn.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Wednesday 27th April 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baronesses, Lady Berridge and Lady Newlove, on their maiden speeches. The whole House will benefit from their contributions in the years ahead. I look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra.

The Bill is one of those Bills that need the House to exercise its full powers of detailed line-by-line scrutiny. It will require considerable amendment as it goes through your Lordships’ House so that we ensure that it is a much better Bill when it returns to the other place.

At the outset, I should make it clear that I am not at all convinced of the case for police and crime commissioners. Things can always be reformed and renewed but that is not the case in these proposals. The problem is that in one Bill the present arrangements of police authorities and chief constables are being done away with, to be replaced with PCCs. To make such a major change without thought and planning, without testing and reviewing, is very unwise.

The more I hear of these proposals, the dafter I think they are. There is certainly little support from the public for this change. Your Lordships will be aware of the YouGov poll, which other noble Lords have mentioned, that showed that only 15 per cent—yes, only 15 per cent—of the public would trust an elected police and crime commissioner to best protect their family rather than a chief constable reporting to a police authority.

This is of course a Conservative manifesto proposal that has found its way into the agreement between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. It will be interesting to hear from the Liberal Democrat Benches how in the negotiations of the agreement they gave up on their manifesto proposal for directly elected police authorities with the power to co-opt extra members to ensure diversity, experience and expertise, and why they think that this is so much better than their original proposals.

A number of noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches have said how opposed they are to these proposals and that they are going to do everything that they can to stop them. Well, if the Government are not persuaded by the weight of argument, I hope that we see those noble Lords in the Content Lobby supporting amendments to the Bill that will deal with its weaknesses, as that is the only way in which it is going to be made better.

There are a large number of speakers today, so it will be impossible for the Minister to respond to all the points raised. I hope, though, that she will further address the point about the operational independence of the police and say how the Conservative Government will ensure that that is maintained and not affected by the proposals in the Bill, as I am not convinced by her earlier remarks.

I think that we are heading for all sorts of problems—in particular, where the police and crime commissioner has a police and crime plan that is at odds with what the chief constable or commissioner in London believes are the operational requirements for the policing service to meet the challenges ahead of it. That is why I am disappointed that the Conservative Government have not suggested a pilot of these proposals and a proper review before consideration of a rollout. Maybe we should have the benefit of an inquiry into the proposals, or the option of a local referendum, as other noble Lords have said, before they are implemented in any area. At a time when we have to make public expenditure cuts, is this really something to which we should commit new spending?

If the options are more police officers or a police and crime commissioner, I would rather have more police officers protecting people against criminals. I think that most sensible people would want the same. I live in London, so I keep thinking of the Conservative Mayor of London, Mr Boris Johnson. He may have many admirable qualities but he and his deputy mayor are not the right people to determine such matters. I was alarmed when I read the briefing note from the mayor’s office, particularly the part that says that,

“it is vital that it be made clear that the MPS Commissioner cannot refuse to deliver the MOPC plan and priorities”.

That is a recipe for disaster, putting the mayor and the commissioner at loggerheads. Surely we want the commissioner and his staff—the professionals—to deal with crime, using their expertise and professionalism to keep our communities safe from crime and criminals.

Moving on to other parts of the Bill, I have always supported the right to peaceful protest. I have participated in peaceful protests and organised a few in my time. Since I became a councillor, people have protested about things that I have done in that and other roles. I have also seen protests and wondered what was going on. Therefore, I have seen protests from all sides, with the exception of policing them. Changes have to be made to what is acceptable outside Parliament. The permanent encampments are not necessary and sensible plans should be brought into play. The damaging health effects of living on the pavement, for years in some cases, should be of concern to us all. It is very regrettable that Parliament Square had to be fenced off from the public and 24-hour security put in place, costing thousands of pounds and preventing residents, visitors and tourists from coming to the square. This needs to end as soon possible. It can happen only when we have proper measures in place to ensure that there is no return to the problems of the past. I look forward to the Committee and Report stages of the Bill, when we will explore what reforms can be put in place to give the police the correct powers to police protests on the square and to allow not only protestors to make their point but also those who wish to enjoy Parliament Square to do so.

On licensing, the Bill includes several measures that merit proper discussion in your Lordships’ House. We should look at how the late-night levy will operate in practice and at what incentives there are for well managed premises to be recognised as such. Maybe there could be something such as an insurance-type discount scheme. If there is no trouble, your levy goes down; if there is trouble, you risk your levy going up. We should also explore the process by which people are licensed. Is there any way, through the levy system, to ensure that residents who object to licences have access to legal assistance to enable them to present their case better? My experience of local government, although some years ago now, is often that companies, businesses and their owners employ experienced specialist solicitors and counsel as necessary, while local residents—the tenants’ or residents’ associations, the local playgroup or the community group—do not have the means at their disposal to do likewise. They are at an immediate disadvantage in putting their case forward. We should use the passage of the Bill to explore options for empowering citizens to have their voices heard. It would be useful if the Minister could give her initial reaction to this in her response this evening.

There are many other points in the Bill that other noble Lords have raised, about which I, too, have concerns. I will leave it there at this stage, but I will raise these and other matters at the next stage of the passage of the Bill.

Public Bodies Bill [HL]

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd March 2011 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

16: Schedule 1, page 16, line 12, leave out “Regional development agency for the East Midlands.”

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I am still surprised as to why the Government are seeking to move forward with local enterprise partnerships, leaving nothing at all at the regional level. I have been hoping for some time that there would be a measure of movement on the part of the Government, and I hope to hear about that from the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach.

The East Midlands Development Agency, better known as EMDA, was formed in 1999 and for the past 12 years has done a good job providing help and support to the economy of the East Midlands. It works regionally and sub-regionally where that is appropriate, so it is disappointing that the Government are seeking to abolish this RDA. I am not against reform per se, but it seems a bit over the top and creates a system that is unable to meet the needs of businesses and meet the regional challenges to create jobs and support the regional economy.

Noble Lords will be aware that the East Midlands is made up of six counties. It is the third largest and third most rural region in England, and has a population of 4.3 million people. There are well over a quarter of a million businesses in the region, and it is where I worked for many years. It is made up of largely rural counties with principal town and cities. I should say that I have great affection for the East Midlands. Compared with other parts of the United Kingdom, it is a region of relatively low wages and needs a measure of co-ordination and intervention at this level to protect jobs, boost job creation and enable businesses to flourish with the right sort of support. I am aware that other noble Lords who wish to speak in the debate will refer to the RDAs in their own areas, but I think that a recurring theme will be that at the regional level, this is a big mistake. Local enterprise partnerships on their own will not fill the gap. I beg to move.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 16A tabled in my name and in the names of several of my noble friends. Like my noble friend Lord Kennedy, I am not against reform—I welcome it—but I am against the abolition of the RDAs in a wholesale way. I raised a number of questions on the abolition of the RDAs in our debate at the Committee stage and the Minister was kind enough to write to me with a detailed response. I have to say at the outset that I still have very deep concerns about the abolition of the RDAs, both in terms of the impact on economic growth and the process itself.

I turn first to the Government’s response to the report of the Public Administration Select Committee entitled Smaller Government: Shrinking the Quango State. The response is brimful of bravado, which I would say is misplaced in this context, but I digress. I refer to paragraph 6 of the response, which deals with the £2.6 billion that will flow from savings on public bodies over the spending review period and the estimate of a reduction of at least £11 billion per year by 2014-15. It has been estimated in some quarters that it could cost as much as £1.4 billion to wind down the RDAs and complete existing programmes. Yet in his letter, the Minister tells me that it is not possible at this stage to quantify the costs of RDA closure. I am sure he is correct, but if so, how can the Government state categorically that total savings as a result of this legislation will be at least £2.6 billion during the spending review period? It would be helpful to have a more detailed breakdown of the savings, especially after the extraordinary hyperbole we heard at the beginning of the process—not, I hasten to add, from the Minister.

I turn now to the issue of consultation, which I raised in Committee. I welcome the increased consultation that is now a part of the Bill thus far, although my noble friend Lord Hunt will move further amendments on consultation in due course. But in relation to RDAs, the Minister told me in his letter that:

“We have not so far undertaken a formal consultation on the abolition of the RDAs”.

I hope that as a consequence of this Bill consultation will in future take place at the appropriate time—before announcements are made and legislation is introduced. I note from the Minister’s letter that the Government are obliged to consult before laying any order to abolish the RDAs, assuming that they remain part of the Bill, and that they will meet this requirement. Personally, I think that such a consultation is far too late in the process. I also asked in Committee about the role of government offices. The Minister told me that BIS is working to put in place a new economic development delivery landscape and that this is the role that the network of small BIS local teams will be designed to fulfil. This is reinventing the wheel. In the main, the government offices do an excellent job at the moment. They may well need reforming but reform should not mean abolition; it should mean just some readjustment of the process which we have had thus far.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

This is a listening Government and they are prepared to listen. They will listen to advice from everyone who feels that they have something to offer on this subject, take note of that advice and make decisions where appropriate.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I am very disappointed by the Minister’s response. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate—my noble friends Lady Royall, Lord Campbell-Savours, Lord Beecham, Lady Quin, Lord Grantchester, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, Lord Hoyle, Lord Clark of Windermere and Lord Prescott, the noble Lords, Lord Cavendish of Furness and Lord Empey, and, of course, the Minister.

My noble friend Lord Prescott, as did many other noble Lords, stated clearly why the Labour Government established the RDAs in 1999, what they began to tackle, the progress they made and why they should be kept. The Government have not made the case for the RDAs to be abolished. All have outlined why they worked sub-regionally.

I am happy to withdraw my amendment in favour of the amendment of my noble friend Lady Royall. In doing so, I shall leave it to my noble friend to decide whether she wishes to test the opinion of the House.

Amendment 16 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

19: Schedule 1, page 16, line 20, leave out “Security Industry Authority.”

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, has come in behind an amendment that I put down. I hope that this is one of many occasions when the noble Lord will come in behind amendments that I put down in this House.

I am very interested to hear from the Minister—the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones—why the Government have decided to join the Opposition on this amendment. Both at Second Reading and in Committee, I raised concerns that there are real risks of allowing criminality to return to an industry that has cleaned up its act dramatically in recent years. I have always felt it to be reassuring when you go into a venue and meet security personnel with credentials on display that show that the individual has reached a certain standard, had a Criminal Records Bureau check and is deemed to be a fit and proper person to undertake this kind of work.

Maybe the Minister will tell us that the Government are prepared to delete this body from the Bill, but will work behind the scenes and bring something back in the future. If that happens, I am sure that this House will give it the line-by-line scrutiny it deserves. It is important to ensure that we take the industry with us; the industry does not want to see the criminals return. Security checks on individuals who want to join the industry remain. A common approach to a problem that has largely been solved, but may need to be reviewed and updated as things change, could command support across the House if handled properly and built on what has been achieved in recent years.

I will leave it there; I do not wish to detain the House longer than necessary. I am eager to hear from the Minister.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Neville-Jones)]

My Lords, the amendment removes the Security Industry Authority from the list of public bodies that the Minister can abolish by secondary legislation. Some noble Lords may wonder why the Government are supporting an amendment which is the same as one which the Opposition put forward a few weeks ago and which we then resisted. If I go into the Government’s reasoning behind our approach to the Bill, it will then become clear why we are now supporting this amendment.

First, our willingness to accept the amendment does not represent a change of policy; it remains the Government’s intention to abolish the SIA in its present form. We have, however, decided that this will be best achieved through a different piece of primary legislation. As noble Lords know, it was announced on 14 October as part of the public bodies review that the SIA would no longer be a non-departmental public body and that we would take forward a phased transition to a new regulatory regime. I went through the reasons for that during the Committee debate on 28 February, and I do not intend to detain the House at this hour by going over that ground again. I am sure that noble Lords will welcome that.

Home Office Ministers asked the SIA last October to consult key stakeholders, including the industry, and to produce a detailed plan of how the phased transition to the new regulatory regime could be achieved. As the House will know, the chair of the SIA, the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, and its chief executive, Bill Butler, presented their plan to the department on 16 February and there has been a subsequent meeting with the Home Secretary on 14 March, so there has been close dialogue between the SIA and the department.

The key points that emerge from the proposals are that: regulation will shift from licensing individuals to registering businesses, which will have to meet a comprehensive set of conditions set by the new regulator; the regulation of individuals will become the responsibility of registered businesses, which is an important point; the new regulator will have the power to impose sanctions, including removing the right to trade in the private security industry on the part of businesses that fail to comply with the conditions that it sets for registration; and the Government’s aim is for the new regulatory regime to be in place by the end of 2013, using a phased approach to ensure a smooth transition.

We have decided to support the amendment to remove the SIA from the Bill because Clause 1 includes only powers to abolish bodies and transfer functions via secondary legislation. It does not include powers to set up new regulatory bodies, and it has become clear that primary legislation will be required to establish a successor self-regulatory body that will have the power to impose sanctions on businesses that do not comply with set standards. If I understood the noble Lord’s point, he attaches importance to the idea that the regulatory body should have teeth. The Government agree—in other words, it must have powers that will enable it to enforce sanctions against companies that breach standards.

We have therefore taken the opportunity to review, and decided that references to the SIA should be removed from the Bill. The same primary legislative vehicle that will establish the successor regulatory body will also be used to abolish the SIA, so we will put it all in another Bill. I am sure that noble Lords will understand that I cannot give further detail on that legislation today, except to say that we will bring it forward when parliamentary time allows.

A final point: the Home Secretary has also written to Ministers in the Scottish Government and in the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland to advise them of this amendment. Regulation of the private security industry in their nations is a policy decision for the devolved Administrations to make. We are working with them to ensure that transitional and subsequent arrangements meet the needs of all UK Administrations.

Accepting the amendment does not constitute a change in policy; it is a change to the vehicle that the Government will use to deliver that policy. There is wide agreement between the Government and what I understand to be the points made on the opposition Benches regarding the substance. It is still the Government’s intention to abolish the existing body and replace it with another body for the private security industry that is self-regulatory. I therefore support the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Brougham and Vaux)]

I remind the noble Lord that the Companion says:

“Only the mover of an amendment … speaks after the minister … except for short questions … or where the minister speaks early to assist the House”.

The noble Lord should have spoken before the Minister. He is out of order, I am afraid.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response to my amendment. As I have said on several occasions, whatever happens we need to ensure that criminality does not return to the industry and that the public are able to remain confident that the people employed in the industry are fit and proper. The overwhelming majority of the industry acts responsibly and supports retention of the SIA. If the Government bring forward a Bill for consideration, it will be important to give it detailed line-by-line scrutiny. In particular, I concur with the comments of my noble friends Lady Royall and Lord Whitty.

Amendment 19 agreed.

Moved by

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

20: Schedule 1, page 16, line 21, leave out “Valuation Tribunal Service.”

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, Amendment 20 would remove the Valuation Tribunal Service from the Schedule. I am not quite clear about what the Government propose here. I could be persuaded to withdraw my amendment and not divide the House, but I need quite a detailed response from the Minister on what he is proposing. I look forward to his response and hope I will not have to divide the House. I beg to move.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for moving the amendment and for allowing us to debate for a few minutes the Valuation Tribunal Service. It is one of a number of bodies which are either listed or not listed in the Bill and whose work is not particularly well known by the general public. However, these are bodies that have played an important role in terms of the good order of society. As we have debated the 150 or so bodies under consideration, there has been a tendency and temptation—given that we have all agreed that it is right that these bodies should be reviewed on a regular basis—to underestimate the contribution of the people who have worked for them or sat on their boards. It is right for me to invite the Minister—who has, if I may say so, expertly steered the Bill through your Lordships’ House—to reflect on the importance of the tone with which we debate these organisations.

I say that because, in relation more generally to debates in your Lordships’ House, in the other place and among the public on public services, there has been an unfortunate tendency to speak in a pejorative way about back-office functions. That is a matter for regret. It is not sensible to suggest, for instance, that only a policeman is doing a good thing while someone who works for the police force in a back office is not. That is not a sensible way forward. Back-office staff are being made redundant from police services, while bureaucratic tasks have to be undertaken by front-line police officers. That demonstrates some of the perverse incentives of taking a black-and-white approach.

I mention that because, as we close our first day on Report, we have an opportunity to reflect on the fact that many of these organisations will go out of business. The functions of some will be transferred to another body while the functions of others will come to a close. It is important to send a message out to the people who have worked in these bodies that we do not underestimate the contribution that they have made. The regular review that is taking place should be sensible, but in no way should it be taken as a criticism of the work that is done by thousands of people up and down the country.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, I happily associate myself with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, because we all share his sentiment. The more you become involved in this process, the more you realise that you are dealing with bodies that in many cases are performing important tasks and are staffed by people with a due sense of purpose and public service.

What is interesting about the amendment—I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, for giving us a chance to talk about it—is that in many ways it brings continuity between the previous Government’s proposals in the area of tribunals and our own. As will be clear from my explanation of why the Valuation Tribunal Service is in Schedule 1, noble Lords will recognise that the foundations for this decision were laid by the legislation of the previous Government.

The Valuation Tribunal Service is a non-departmental public body that provides administrative support and all the services required by the Valuation Tribunal for England, which hears appeals on council tax and business rates—in other words, national non-domestic rates.

Taken together, the Valuation Tribunal for England and the Valuation Tribunal Service—I will use the acronyms from now on—provide an independent appeals service for business rate or council tax payers who wish to challenge either the basis on which the banding or valuation of their property has been calculated, or their liability to pay business rates or council tax. In the Government's recent announcement about the future of arm’s-length bodies, both the VTS and the VTE were identified as bodies that could be abolished. However, I stress that the Government recognise that the jurisdiction that the VTE exercises, and the functions undertaken by the VTS, are still necessary—the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is correct—and plan to transfer them so that they become part of the unified structure for tribunals, thus ensuring that the independence of the appeals process for business rates and council tax will be maintained. The achievement of these transfers would be a further step in the achievement of the long-standing policy introduced by the previous Government, following the 2000 Leggatt report, Tribunals for Users: One System, One Service, which this Government are continuing. The aim is to bring central government-sponsored tribunals in England and Wales under a single umbrella organisation.

The Government's proposal is that the jurisdiction of the VTE and the functions of the VTS should transfer respectively to the First-tier Tribunal and Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service. It is important that noble Lords should note that the planned transfers are fully supported by both the chairman of the VTS, Anne Galbraith, and the president of the VTE, Professor Graham Zellick. The jurisdiction of the Valuation Tribunal for England will be transferred to the soon-to-be-created Land, Property and Housing Chamber—the Land Chamber—of the First-tier Tribunal, which was formally established under the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. Powers in the 2007 Act would allow the formal transfer of the VTE's jurisdiction to the First-tier Tribunal, and the subsequent abolition of the VTE as a separately constituted tribunal. Since the 2007 Act powers are already available to achieve this, the Government do not need—and nor do they intend to seek—its abolition through the powers in the Bill. I trust that noble Lords will be comforted to learn that the jurisdictional independence currently enjoyed by the VTE will continue, following the transfer of that jurisdiction to the First-tier Tribunal.

Noble Lords will also wish to be made aware that the transfer will bring added opportunities. Members who would formerly have been in separate tribunals will be able, following the transfer, to sit on tribunals in all jurisdictions exercised within the First-tier Tribunal Land Chamber. Such arrangements are already in place elsewhere and have brought significant operational and jurisdictional advantages.

I turn to the Valuation Tribunal Service that is the subject of the amendment. If the jurisdiction of the VTE is transferred and the VTE is abolished, the VTS will effectively cease to have any purpose and powers. Therefore, the Government's intention is that, in tandem with the transfer of the VTE, the parallel administrative functions provided by the Valuation Tribunal Service should also transfer at the same time to Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service, an executive agency of the Ministry of Justice that is shortly to be established following a merger between Her Majesty's Courts Service and the Tribunals Service.

The functions of the VTS, which are essentially to provide all administrative support for the operation of the VTE, including staff, accommodation and IT, would be absorbed into the tribunal service to sit alongside the administrative support for all jurisdictions within the First-tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal. Once these functions had been transferred, there would be no further need for the VTS to remain in existence as a separate body and it could then be formally abolished. However, as the VTS was established under statute—in the Local Government Act, to be precise—new powers would be required to achieve both the transfer of the VTS’s functions and its subsequent abolition. The power set out in Clause 1 would allow an order to be laid to achieve this transfer, and that is why the VTS is included in Schedule 1.

Planning for the transfer of both jurisdiction and administrative functions is in its very early stages but, following the transfer, we confidently expect the realisation of economies of scale, operating efficiencies and added service improvements, which the unified tribunals system was established to provide. The noble Lord will, I hope, recognise and be reassured that the Government’s proposals will maintain and sustain the independence of the appeals process for council tax and business rates, and that they are a continuation of the policy pursued by the previous Government. Therefore, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response and I also thank my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath for his comments. I should have mentioned that earlier in my local government career, in the 1980s, I was the deputy chair of the London South East Valuation Tribunal. I am persuaded by the Minister’s reply and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 20 withdrawn.

Public Bodies Bill [HL]

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Monday 28th February 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ramsbotham]

My Lords, I add just one concern to what has already been said. That is in relation to the criminal justice system and the use of private security companies in it, coupled with my increasing concern about their involvement in the activities of the UK Border Agency. The Green Paper published by the Ministry of Justice, Breaking the Cycle, envisages increased use of private sector companies, for example in providing probation services. At present they are conducting a number of private sector prisons. Those are under supervision of the Inspectorate of Prisons but the training and the selection of staff has always caused concern.

As far as the UK Border Agency is concerned, the activities of the private sector in such activities as the deportation of people was drawn into high relief the other day with the death of someone who was put under restraint while being deported in an airplane from Heathrow. As a result, the activities of private sector guards have come under greater scrutiny rather than less. Therefore, with this increased activity, I have to admit that I am nervous at the thought of the SIA being removed from a role that it could have if raised to the stature of that work, in favour of self-regulation, which I do not believe is right in this particular area.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend Lady Royall of Blaisdon. I am most surprised that the Government proposed the abolition of the Security Industry Authority in the first place and that they have not moved on this matter. The Security Industry Authority is a great success story. It has professionalised the private security industry, driven out criminality and ensured that people are safe when attending a variety of events in pubs, clubs and elsewhere. I am aware that they have their own licensing body. I was at a football match on Saturday and it was reassuring, walking around the ground, to see security professionals with accreditation on their arms. How different that was only a few years ago.

I read the Government’s brief. It provides no reassurance on the position going forward. In the document, the Government say that Ministers decided that there is no evidence that the Security Industry Authority carried out a function that needed to be undertaken by a public body. Will the Minister expand on that in her response? Also, whatever is decided in the future, it must surely be inferior to what we have at present, if for no other reason than the fact, as my noble friend Lord Foulkes said, that different systems operate different authorities round the country. It is ridiculous.

I also ask, as my noble friend Lady Royall did, how the Government will ensure that criminality is kept out of the industry. I am pleased that the Government say in the briefing note that there will be little change this side of the Olympics in 2012—though, for me, that highlights the weakness of the proposals in the first place. I would like the Minister to comment on that in her response as well.

I agree with the comments of my noble friend Lord Whitty about the respectable and less respectable arms of the industry. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Henig for all the work that she has done. In conclusion, I hope that the Minister has something to say and is at least prepared to take away this proposal and come back with something on Report.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Neville-Jones)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords who have spoken in this debate and made some important points. Many of them I accept. In putting forward the Government’s proposed measure, I hope to convince the Committee that many of the anxieties they have expressed will prove unfounded.

The Government intend to resist this amendment, which would remove the Security Industry Authority from the list of public bodies that Ministers will be able to abolish via secondary legislation. We will do so because we consider it unnecessary. I want to explain what the Government intend to do because I believe that many of the things that have been said on the Floor this evening perhaps represent a situation that no longer pertains.

Before I do that, I join other noble Lords in expressing my appreciation for the work done by the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, as chairman of the SIA. There is no doubt that under her guidance the authority has raised the standards of the industry, which is one of the things that give us confidence that we can move on to a different regime. I will come back to that in a moment. Many of the things that she said are points on which there is a very large measure of agreement between her, the Government and, I hope, other Members of your Lordships' House.

In looking at the SIA, the Government have applied a number of tests to retention in the public bodies review. We concluded that there was not compelling evidence that, given the standards that are now being reached, the SIA’s functions need to continue to be performed by a public body. The SIA was established by the Private Security Industry Act 2001, as has been said, and it has succeeded, as was the intention, in reducing criminality in the security industry. It also set out to improve standards. The approval system has undoubtedly resulted in improvements in those standards and uses the compulsory licensing of individuals to achieve the reduction in criminality. It carries out criminality and identity checks in addition to confirming the training that has to be completed before issuing a licence.

The Government do not intend that any alternative regime should result in a lowering of these standards. Licensing began in 2004, and there are currently more than 350,000 licensed individuals. The SIA has done something else important, which is to raise standards through the voluntary approved contractor scheme that allows companies to demonstrate that they meet a wide range of standards and are therefore worthy of being accredited as approved providers of security industry services. That is also something that will continue. More than 650 companies employing about two-thirds of the industry now have the ACS standard. That is a record of achievement and I pay tribute to it.

On that basis, however, we believe that it is now right to move over time to a new regulatory regime. I stress that it will be a regulatory regime. The private security industry has matured under the aegis of the SIA since SIA regulation began, and there is evidence of increased standards in the industry. We believe that employers should now be given more responsibility for making safe and legal recruitment decisions in the same way as employers in other professions. In other words, they should not have normal responsibilities removed from them.

As was mentioned in the debate, the security industry has formed a so-called security alliance of trade bodies which by their own reckoning represent more than 80 per cent of the regulated security industry. This group recently wrote to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary responsible for equalities and criminal information, Miss Lynne Featherstone, and outlined its willingness to work with the Government. It has already been working with the SIA to shape the future regulation of its industry, as the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, mentioned. Indeed, we intend to build on the work that has already been done. There is no doubt that challenges still lie ahead for the industry, but I have a slightly different picture of the attitude of the industry and some of those who are affected by the changes that lie ahead. It is more positive than has been noted in discussions so far. There is no doubt that they are willing. They have shown considerable alacrity in stepping up to take responsibility. That should encourage noble Lords.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

I will come to the noble Lord’s point about the relationship with the devolved Administrations. I have it in mind.

The new regime will also see a significant shift of responsibility from individual workers to businesses. That is one of the changes in structure. We believe that that will be efficient and that it will also reduce regulatory costs and burdens. Instead of every single employee having to be registered separately at a cost of something like £250 each, it will be a business paying for the registration. In getting that registration, businesses will be required to show that they meet a comprehensive set of conditions set by the new body.

The industry itself has a strong interest in ensuring that the standards it sets are maintained and that they are high. Clearly, that has to be one of the really important parts of the new regime. Businesses that fail to meet these comprehensive conditions will have their rights to trade in private security removed. There is no reason to suppose that somehow a transition to another regime will by definition, and automatically, result in a lowering of standards. On the contrary, the industry will have a strong self-interest in ensuring that the cowboys are not allowed in and are not permitted to sully the reputation of an industry that is responsible for its regulation. There is a strong incentive actually to take this regime and make it work well.

It is obviously too early to give full details on costs, but we know that instead of more than 350,000 individuals paying £245 each for licences, much of which is currently paid for by the companies that employ them, the new regime will involve fewer than 5,000 companies having to register, giving considerable saving to the industry.

One of the other things that we are doing, however, is to ensure that the impact on smaller businesses is minimised by reflecting business size in the registration fees in the new regime, so that we do not get a situation in which small companies are paying a flat fee which is the same size as very large ones. They will be gradated. There will also be a sensibly phased transition to the new regime, the details of which are still to be worked out. We do not expect all businesses to move to the regime at the same time. Some of the big boys are clearly going to be ready to move at an early stage. Some of the smaller companies will not necessarily be so ready, and they will be given time to achieve the necessary transition. The big ones that have already met the high standards of the approved contractor scheme will be able and willing to move immediately, but we will maintain mechanisms to ensure that smaller companies, which may not be in the position immediately to transition to the new regime, can continue to trade.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Does the Minister envisage, in the new regime, that the individuals themselves will undergo CRB checks?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

Clearly, CRB checks will be relevant. I cannot immediately answer whether they have to be done by the individuals themselves or by their businesses to ensure that they are employing fit and proper people. I would have to write to the noble Lord. The registering of these individuals is another point that worried some noble Lords, who thought that this new method of regulation would somehow allow the bottom end of the industry to have free rein, if I can put it that way. This will not be permitted, because a registry of individuals will also be maintained by the new body to support the needs of the customer and the industry. That will do two things. First, it will ensure that named individuals are known to the regulatory body. Secondly, it will enable those individuals who are of fit and proper standing to move from one company to another with greater ease than would otherwise be the case. Any proposed changes will be subject to parliamentary approval. I thank the SIA for the help that they are giving in moving the industry along to the new regime. We have also asked the SIA if they will take forward the work necessary to ensure the full delivery. This Bill confers an ability to abolish the SIA, but this will be done only at an appropriate time in the transition to the regulatory regime.

Some noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, raised the issue of the response of the devolved Administrations. Since the correspondence to which he referred, and which I have seen, there have been further contacts with the devolved Administrations, and we are now in consultation with both the Scottish Government and the Northern Ireland Executive. Although it is the case that, on a voluntary basis, both the Scottish Government and the Northern Ireland Executive decided that they would accept the regulation of the SIA, the regulation of the private security industry is a policy decision for the devolved Administrations. It is a devolved matter, which we fully respect, and they will have the opportunity, if they choose to exercise it, to have a different regime. However, I agree with the noble Lord, that, given the nature of the industry, which operates across the country, it would be highly desirable if we could get agreement on a single regime.