Deregulation Bill

Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Lord Wallace of Saltaire

Wednesday 4th March 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his constructive comments, and I recognise that the timing creates some difficulties. I have consulted on whether draft regulations can be finalised, approved and laid before the general election, but I have to say that with the best will in the world that will not, at this stage, be possible. I cannot give the noble Lord a guarantee on the structure, nature and composition of the next Government—I am not sure that any of us can at present. That, of course, has to remain a matter of good will and of the commitment of those who have been involved from all sides in these consultations.

The duties and the question of the employees of the self-employed are covered by the general duty that the self-employed have to consider the interests of others and the risks involved. That seems to me to be fully covered here. We have moved as far as we can and the draft guidance was intended to provide an indication of where this coalition Government would be moving and where we would trust any successor Government to continue in assessing this very delicate balance between where Professor Löfstedt started, which was with the sense that we should try,

“to exempt from health and safety law those self employed people whose work activities pose no potential risk of harm to others”,

and, as he also said in his original review, to,

“help reduce the perception that health and safety law is inappropriately applied”.

That is what we on both sides are attempting to do. I felt that the Government had now moved sufficiently far to assure the Opposition that we were very much pursuing this role and that our proposals would bring Britain into line with other European countries and remove health and safety burdens from the self-employed in low-risk occupations. I hope that that does provide sufficient assurance, but I will see how far we have been able to do so.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his response, and I entirely accept his assurance about what he sees as the way forward in circumstances where he and his colleagues were in a position to determine that. It is a great pity that the Government have come a significant way on this but we are just a smidgeon away from locking it down and making it mandatory. I really do not see the problem with doing that. If the Government are happy to provide for that in the draft regulations and happy to take those factors into account as part of their amendment, simply always making it mandatory to feature that provision in regulations seems to me to be quite a small additional step and one that could make a real difference. It is a pity that having come so far the Government cannot just close that gap.

Incidentally, in terms of the employees of self-employed people, I understand that Section 2 of the 1974 Act creates a general duty on all employers, whether they are employees, self-employed, or whatever their status is, so I am not quite sure why they are being excluded here when these arrangements are considered. Perhaps we might reflect on that. This is difficult, because I would like to test the opinion of the House, but I think that the Minister has done his utmost to provide reassurance on the record. That is where we are, and it is probably the best way to leave it today. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Deregulation Bill

Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Lord Wallace of Saltaire

Thursday 5th February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)]

My Lords, we have a good deal of sympathy with the amendment, which, as the noble Baroness said, has cross-party support in Bristol. I have been in touch with the leader of the Labour group there, who confirms her support for it.

As we have heard, Bristol was one of 12 cities that had a referendum foisted on it by this coalition Government, and it is worth reflecting on the extent of that mandate. The turnout was 24%, with 41,000 voting for and 36,000 against. So 77,000 people voted and the majority was about 5,000.

We know also that central Governments have an appetite for elected mayors that is not altogether reflected at local government level. The noble Baroness was right to point out how you change your system of governance and the constraints that you have. I have a helpful briefing from the House of Commons Library, which states:

“Under the 2000 Act, any local authority wishing to establish a mayoralty required a ‘yes’ vote in a local referendum. The 2007 Act changed this, permitting local authorities to adopt a mayor by resolution. However, an authority can still choose to hold a referendum on the issue. Alternatively, authorities can be obliged to hold a mayoral referendum if 5% or more of the local electorate sign a petition demanding one … The Government may also compel an authority”—

which is what happened in this case—

“to hold a referendum. The result of a mayoral referendum is binding on a local authority.

The Localism Act 2011 permitted a referendum to be held on abolishing an elected mayor, subject to time limits; and for a referendum to be held on establishing a leader and cabinet, or on using the committee system. Four authorities have held referendums on whether to retain their mayoral system. Electors in Doncaster … and Middlesbrough … voted to retain their elected mayor, whilst those in Hartlepool … voted to replace it with the committee system, and those in Stoke-on-Trent … voted to replace it with a leader and cabinet system.

Authorities which have changed their governance arrangements as a result of a referendum can only make a further change following a further referendum”.

That is not unreasonable. It goes on:

“Where a local authority has held a referendum on its governance arrangements, a further referendum may not be held for ten years (five years in Wales). Conversely, where a mayor has been created by resolution of the council, five years must elapse before the council may resolve to abolish the mayor. However, there is no time limit on holding a referendum (whether initiated by the council or by a petition) to reverse a decision made by a resolution”.

I come to the crucial point:

“Further, where a local authority has been required by the Government to hold a referendum and voted for an elected mayor, it may not hold a further referendum at any time. Bristol City Council is the only authority affected by this: as the law stands it cannot move away from its elected mayoralty”.

As the noble Baroness has said, it is held in that position in perpetuity. That just does not seem right, and perhaps the Minister will take the opportunity to explain why the Government think it is. However, if they do see it as an anomaly and an injustice, what do they propose to do about it?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, in preparing for the amendment I realised that I do not fully understand the evolution of the office of mayor in British local government. I am well aware that Titus Salt, who built Saltaire, was the mayor of Bradford for several years and as the leader of the council was very much an executive mayor. One did not have to be elected to be an executive mayor. We have since separated the ceremonial function of mayor and the power-wielding function of leader. It is only the elected mayor who gains executive control and leadership, and that is something which I trust others with greater local authority experience than I have will explain to me why and how this evolved.

The precedent for introducing mayoral governance following a referendum instigated by Parliament was first set when the London mayor was established. In this case Parliament instigated a referendum through enacting primary legislation. The electors then voted for London having a mayor, and by a further Act of Parliament the arrangements were introduced. There is no provision in those arrangements for the people of London to vote that they no longer want a mayor. Indeed, I am confident that no one would want to see the end of the London mayor, given the status of this great city, although occasionally there is a little confusion abroad when the Lord Mayor arrives just after the London mayor has been there—even if some might wish to see a different mayor to the current holder of that office. But the essential point for this afternoon is that there is no provision for there to be any change in the formation of the office of London mayor unless Parliament were to agree.

The same broad precedent was followed in the legislative arrangements that led to the establishment of mayoral governance in the city of Bristol. In that case Parliament, through approving by a resolution of both Houses an appropriate order under the Local Government Act 2000, an Act passed by a Labour Government, instigated a referendum. The people of Bristol then voted for a mayor, and that form of mayoral government was then established under the Act. As in the case of the London mayor, mayoral governance in Bristol can be changed only by a further Act of Parliament. The amendment before us today would change this. It would mean that the electors of Bristol could, if they chose, have a referendum by petitioning for one. If they voted to end the mayoral model, it would end. This is indeed the position in cases where a mayor has been introduced wholly by local choice. If it is wholly local choice to establish the mayor, it follows that wholly local choice should be able to end the mayoral governance.

However, the Government believe that it would be wrong to create circumstances where a mayor is established through a specific decision of Parliament and local choice together, but could be ended simply by local choice. I am not suggesting that Bristol should for ever have a form of mayoral governance if there is popular local disillusion, but the decision to change the governance of Bristol, having been instigated in part through a decision of Parliament, should also involve some parliamentary consideration of the specific Bristol issue and not simply be a matter of wholly local choice. It should be for the next Parliament to consider whether it wants to take parliamentary action in matters like this. Meanwhile, I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

Does the Minister not accept that the parliamentary component of this could be the acceptance of the amendment? There could then be a referendum and the people of Bristol would have their input at that stage.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I accept that if there were very strong feeling in both Houses, that would be possible, but it is the Government’s view that this would be better achieved through an Act of Parliament that could consider how recent developments in local authority governance have worked, and that would perhaps reverse the thrust of the promotion of local elected mayors for the major authorities across England and Wales.

Deregulation Bill

Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Lord Wallace of Saltaire

Tuesday 3rd February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, this clause has emerged out of a series of consultations during the past four years. As the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, remarked in his very detailed and constructive speech, the first consultation took place in 2012 on the principle that there should be a list of undertakings prescribed in regulations that are excluded from health and safety law. That did not find large favour in the consultation. The most recent consultation has not found very large favour for the Government’s current proposals. We are finding it difficult to satisfy all those concerned. I note that the noble Lord did not quote the Federation of Small Businesses’ response to the current consultation, which is a good deal more favourable that those that he did quote. On the question of the current consultation, it took a certain amount of time; we had a lot of responses to the consultation and we had to put them all together. It has now been published and the Government will, of course, consult and consider what their response should be. We very much hope that we will have time to consult further and return to this issue before we get to Third Reading.

The Health and Safety Executive has, of course, been actively engaged in this entire process over the last four years; I stress that it is very much part of the process of policy-making. We all share the underlying purpose, which is as it should be, as the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, suggested in his speech, a lessening of health and safety burdens on those self-employed who are not at risk and are highly unlikely to put others at risk from their activities. That is what Professor Löfstedt suggested in his earlier report; it is part of the German system. To the noble Lord, Lord Lea, I say in passing that there are many parts of the German system of employment, training and employment protection that we would very much like to take on board. I am happy that this Government have indeed taken us a good deal further down the road towards apprenticeship training than their predecessors. There are other aspects—including some aspects of the Meister system, now that I have begun to understand that—which are clearly restrictions on trade and which we do not wish to follow. However, one cannot ever take an entire model from one country and put it into another.

There are other areas over which I have spent some time arguing with German policymakers over the years; the idea that, just because a system has worked since the 14th century, one should maintain it at all costs, is not always an idea that one wishes to promote. I was one of those involved in the British side of the argument over the Reinheitsgebot, which the noble Lord might remember. It was to do with the purity of beer and was passed in about 1351. However, we will leave the German dimension aside and return to the current issue. We apologise that the consultation document has only just appeared. The Government will respond as soon as we are ready and we hope that we will have more to say on this before we reach Third Reading.

The issue at stake is which side one takes in reducing the burden, and whether to make a list of those, as this proposal suggests, whose activities are at greater risk of putting others in harm’s way from the way they are conducted—those involved in construction or a range of other activities that involve interaction with others. Professor Löfstedt prefers a system in which there is only a prescribed list of those activities that are exempted from the current health and safety regulations. The argument that we have been having through two series of consultation has been about how one defines “low risk” and “high risk”. This is an area, after all, on which one can spend a great deal of time, having a large number of consultations without meeting consensus. I regret that we have not yet reached an entire consensus.

The noble Lord’s first proposed amendment reverses the effect of Clause 1, so that all self-employed persons continue to owe a duty under Section 3(2) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act unless regulations are made to exempt them from that law, whereas the Government’s proposals exempt them unless they are on another prescribed list. This approach, we argue, would increase confusion for the self-employed because there are a plethora of low-risk activities that would need to be captured to ensure that the regulations were as extensive as possible. Furthermore, each of these activities would need to be appropriately and carefully defined. This could create further uncertainty in the law and make it unwieldy for the self-employed to comply with. This is part of what the Federation of Small Business was saying in its response to the current consultation.

The noble Lord’s second amendment seeks to impose various conditions upon the making of regulations before self-employed persons can be exempt from Section 3(2) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The amendment would require an independent review to be conducted and considered by both Houses before the regulations can be brought into force. We do not consider this necessary. The Government amended Clause 1 in Committee so that regulations made under the power that it creates are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure before they come into force. This provides Parliament with an adequate opportunity to scrutinise and debate the list of prescribed activities to ensure they are fit for purpose.

The conditions which the noble Lord seeks to impose on the regulations can already be considered by both Houses as part of the affirmative resolution procedure if, indeed, Parliament considers those factors to be relevant. Additionally, the proposed prescribing regulations contain a commitment for their review and for a report to be published after five years of making them. That report will seek to assess the extent to which the intended objectives of the proposed change have been met. Given the safeguards already in place, the Government do not consider that a further independent review of this alternative proposal would be of any benefit.

It is imperative that self-employed persons, especially those involved in conducting high-risk activities, understand when health and safety law will continue to apply to them after this legislative amendment is made. For the reasons I have already given, we do not consider the noble Lord’s amendments to be the best way of achieving that. They are unnecessary and overly burdensome. After all, the purpose of the Bill is to reduce unnecessary burdens. The clearest and simplest way to achieve this change is by having a list of prescribed high-risk undertakings together with guidance produced by the Health and Safety Executive which will make it clear and unambiguous to those who continue to owe a duty under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act.

I repeat: the Government are currently considering the comments just received following the 2014 consultation on the draft regulations already produced. These raise a number of important issues which the Government will consider further before Third Reading. In that context, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who contributed to this short debate. My noble friend Lady Donaghy put the matter straight about Professor Löfstedt’s views. My noble friend Lord Lea spoke about the danger of building proposals on perceptions rather than proper evidence. I thank my noble friend Lord Jordan for providing the historical context of health and safety, and the cost when it goes wrong. The noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, broadened the debate a bit around the accreditation processes. I am sure we would have scope for a fuller debate around that issue. As I understand it, he argued that its application could be to an inclusive, exclusive or status quo proposition.

I understand that the Government are finding it difficult to get this right. That is why two rounds of consultation have not succeeded in doing that. We argue, given the complexities and difficulties in trying to get it right, that leaving it as it is would be the far better option.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I should point out that the first consultation did not provide much support for the noble Lord’s amendment. The second consultation criticised the Government. I merely remark that we are struggling in this area. That is, of course, why we are considering it further.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I am not sure that the noble Lord’s assertion about the first consultation not supporting our position is right. It does not necessarily depend upon a prescribed list of any sort. The key point about our amendments is that they are linked to clear criteria that have to be satisfied before any change could be introduced. There are criteria around not increasing burdens and bureaucracy, representing demonstrable improvement on existing legislative requirements, and clarity and precision as to whom they apply. The two amendments sit together. The consultation that has just been gone through proves how difficult it is to have a list of high-risk activities. I struggle to understand what changes the Government could make to that process or outcome to make it fit for purpose. That is not just my view; it is the view of a raft of people who know health and safety and business far better than I do, the CBI included.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I only had a chance to read the consultation document on Friday and we are at a very early stage on that so it is very difficult to say precisely what we will conclude. I merely wish to say in the most constructive way possible that we are considering our response. We have three weeks before Third Reading and that gives us some time to consider further.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I am grateful for that—and I meant Third Reading, of course, not Report. Is the noble Lord saying that we will have a chance possibly for some discussions in the interim and, if not, a chance to consider this further when we get to Third Reading? It is quite important that we have that commitment from the Government on the record, whichever stage it reaches.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, of course I am very happy to discuss this between now and Third Reading. I am not in a position to say what the Government will conclude from their consideration of the current consultation document because we are at a very early stage, but I am very happy to promise to consult further.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I am not quite sure why the Government are so pressed on this matter because that consultation finished some five months ago. I note that the Minister has been less than clear on whether, if we are not satisfied with what happens in the interim, we would be able to return with amendments at Third Reading. It would be helpful if the Minister could give me an assurance that he would facilitate that; if he cannot, we have another decision to make.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I recognise what the noble Lord is asking me to do. At this stage, I am afraid I cannot give him the absolute assurance he requires, but I am certainly willing to have further consultations, and the Government will be very happy to carry on on that basis.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

The Minister is not making it easy. I know it is not his job to make it easy. We are trying to see a way forward to avoid voting prematurely, in a sense, if the issue has not been completed. If the Minister is saying that he would be happy for us to come back at Third Reading with a proposition, if we need it, depending on what the Government do in the mean time, that would be helpful. If he is saying that he thinks that the processes in the Companion would preclude that, then we have another decision to make.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, the clerks are nodding. That suggests it would entirely open after consultation for the Opposition to come back again on this issue.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I am grateful to the Minister and to the clerks for nodding, in which case I beg leave to withdraw the amendment—but with notice that we look to return to it at Third Reading.

Deregulation Bill

Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Lord Wallace of Saltaire

Thursday 20th November 2014 Grand Committee

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I shall take that back, too, and we will discuss it between Committee and Report. I hope that I have managed to answer a number of questions. I recognise the concerns that have been expressed. We have a well operating system of regulation in the United Kingdom. The question of balance between good regulation, better regulation, sufficient regulation and efficient regulation is something around which a great deal of hard politics revolves. All of us who read the Daily Mail as loyally as the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and I do know that its constant campaign against all health and safety regulations is one end of the spectrum, but the other end of the spectrum is the overregulation that we all also have to be concerned about. That is going to be a continuing basis of politics, and this clause aims to strike the right balance.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

Does the Minister accept that his Prime Minister is also at the Daily Mail end of the spectrum?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, we are all very conscious that we are talking about a range of regulatory bodies which, as has already been said, have different relationships with Governments. Some are entirely independent, some are agencies of departments, and that is part of the universe with which we need to deal. I have already offered to discuss this between Committee and Report and I recognise, as I have already said, the concerns which have been expressed in this debate.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

The Minister has said that there is a possibility of further discussion between now and Report, but will he nevertheless undertake to arrange for written answers to be available to each of those questions in advance of that meeting? In order to make sure that nothing slips from people’s view, it would be very helpful if he would commit to getting us written answers where we have asked for them.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I shall do my best to ensure that written answers are provided to the very large number of questions that have been posed in this debate about a substantial number of different agencies. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will be willing to withdraw his amendment.

Deregulation Bill

Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Lord Wallace of Saltaire

Thursday 30th October 2014 Grand Committee

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I think we all agree we need to build more houses and it is part of the puzzle over the last 20 years and more that successive Governments have been committed to doing this and have not been succeeding. Certainly, my own observation in Bradford is that one of the problems is a shortage of skilled labour for building. I am quite happy that the housing association that has its headquarters a good 10 minutes’ walk from my house in Saltaire now has a very good apprentice scheme to train plumbers, builders, electricians and others in sourcing its own maintenance and building. That is a model I hope others are planning to take forward. We are all conscious that we need to build more houses and aware—and this answers one or two of the questions raised by the noble Lords, Lord McKenzie and Lord Best—that we do not necessarily need to build the houses in the same areas where houses are being sold off as the population is shifting. We have different sorts of housing needs and requirements in different areas. Population has shifted towards the south-east and areas of heavy immigration require more housing than areas without much immigration, which now often have surplus housing stock. I have just been in Hull, for example, which does not suffer from a shortage of housing at present.

The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked a number of questions. I do not have all the figures to answer him but I will make sure he gets the answers to all his questions as soon as possible, and of course well before Report. I am told by officials that many of the figures which he asks for are publicly available, so there should be no problem in that respect, but I do not have them immediately to hand. I noted his comments about houses that have been sold under right to buy and which are now privately rented. In some parts of England, there are some problems of that sort.

I think that the noble Lord, Lord Best, suggested that the discounts were enormous and immediate but the discount scheme, as he knows, is progressive and one gets the higher rates of discount only after renting a house for considerably longer than three, five or 10 years. The longer that someone has been a tenant the more discount they get, starting at 35% discount on a house and increasing by 1% each year to a maximum of 70% of the market value. It is not a short-term renters’ paradise, as I thought he was almost beginning to suggest.

The baseline for right to buy was set in April 2012, when the policy was reinvigorated, and it does not change year by year. I assure noble Lords that the Government are committed to keeping this reinvigorated right-to-buy scheme under review, including the impact of the change in the qualifying period from five to three years. The Committee may be interested to read the impact assessments for this clause that were published in January 2014, which is available on the parliamentary website, and in March 2012, at the time of reinvigorating the policy, which provide important context. When this Government reinvigorated the right to buy, they included an important measure guaranteeing for the first time ever that receipts from additional local authority sales—that is, sales above the level forecast prior to the change—would be used to help fund new homes for affordable rent on a one-for-one basis, not a like-for-like basis.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

While it is on my mind, is the test—the baseline—the originally anticipated numbers of sales of units, or is it anticipated sales proceeds?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I think that it is the units rather than the baseline being the proceeds of sales, but I will check with the officials and come back on that.

We publish quarterly and annually on right-to-buy one-for-one starts on-site and acquisitions, so the figures are available. I will make sure that they are circulated and put in the Library. Since the reinvigoration, there have been more than 12,600 additional local authority right-to-buy sales and, as the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, said, councils have already reported almost 3,700 starts on-site and acquisitions of replacement homes for affordable rent. Councils have three years from the date of receiving the additional receipts in which to use them. This gives councils adequate time to leverage in additional funds and build up enough receipts to produce robust economies of scale.

The Government also publish annual statistics on preserved right-to-buy sales in England, which strike a balance between the needs to monitor the effectiveness of the policy and not to place unnecessary burdens on housing associations. As housing associations are independent organisations and stock transfer agreements are private commercial contracts, we do not mandate what those associations do with receipts that they receive from preserved right-to-buy sales. In practice, any surplus receipts retained, after costs and compensation for lost rental income, are likely to be used to support new build and other public benefits. Where receipts are shared with councils, it is our expectation that associations will work with them to develop replacement homes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply and the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Stoneham, for their contributions to this debate. I look forward to receiving the figures in due course from the Minister. I was not quite sure whether in his response he was saying that the Government are currently meeting their one-for-one guarantee. It would be helpful to know if that is the Government’s position.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

There is not yet a one-for-one guarantee.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

In which case, when is it expected that the Government will meet that guarantee?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I have not chosen between soon or shortly, but we very much want to move on that. It takes time. As I said, local authorities have three years to replace, and we are already two years into this new scheme. We are, of course, frustrated by the length of time it takes to build new homes. That is part of a long-standing story under successive Governments which we continue to push forward with.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I thank the Minister for that. I was also not sure whether he had accepted the thrust of my amendment, which was that the Government would produce a report. Could he respond to that?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My answer was that the Government already produces a large number of statistics which, in effect, form the basis of the report for which the noble Lord is asking.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I take that as a yes. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham. I think we are on the same page in recognising the scale of the housing crisis which faces this country and the need for more social housing in particular, and for a one-for-one replacement policy.

We have debated the issues in the three amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Best, extensively from time to time in recent years. We share with him a strong desire to do more to produce more and better social housing, particularly housing for rent, though we are not able to follow him specifically on every aspect of his three amendments.

Where Amendment 40 is concerned with setting discounts locally, it discusses setting them at a level which will encourage right-to-buy take-up. That raises an interesting question of where the policy should be focused between facilitating and encouraging. Presumably, it would depend on the need for investment into the social housing sector, and there has to be a balance in these matters. I do not resile from my party’s position on managing the country’s overall level of debt. Our priority is not a wholesale lift of the cap.

Notwithstanding that, we should recognise the important role that local councils can and should be enabled to play in tackling the housing crisis—as the Lyons report put it, to return to their historic responsibility to build affordable housing. We note that there is some scope for a rise in output even on the current basis, but that would be modest compared to historic output. In the 1960s, I think that about 200,000 units a year were produced.

We recognise that councils have a long record of sound economic management and borrowing prudently—a point that the noble Lord made—but early removal of the overall cap will be difficult for any Government. The Lyons report recognised that. The report suggested that there is an opportunity to provide additional capacity without exceeding total borrowing if there is more active management from the Treasury of the overall borrowing headroom. Lyons suggests, for example, that councils should be able to apply for more borrowing headroom by demonstrating: a viable business plan and asset management strategy in the context of new contracts for housing delivery and a single pot of funding for housing investment; costed plans for investment in new housing that relate to their housing strategy and make full use of partnership opportunities; that new homes will be additional to those which would be delivered by others; and compliance with prudential rules with expectations about rent levels and reinvestment in their existing stock. The Treasury would be able to make a decision on a case-by-case basis against an understanding of the overall level of borrowing planned, to ensure that total borrowing did not exceed the current provision.

The report also points to the alternative models by which councils can invest in homes—by using land, by entering into joint ventures, by some of the imaginative work which the LGA has done on the municipal bonds agencies. There are other opportunities there, but we cannot go the whole way with the noble Lord in reducing the cap as he wants to.

I hope that debates such as this will continue to help us focus on the absolute need to address the housing crisis across the private sector, the local authority sector and housing associations. I look forward to receiving the Minister’s data in due course; I take it that they will come in the form of the requested report. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I put my name to this amendment but there is not much else left to say, so I shall be brief. Like the noble Lord, Lord Best, we welcome the work on standards and the inclusion of these matters in building regulations. We are grateful to Leonard Cheshire for its very helpful briefing. We welcome the fact that the lifetime homes standards and the wheelchair accessible standards have been recognised in building regulations, but like Leonard Cheshire and noble Lords who have spoken, there is a concern that those standards are optional, and that, moreover, a hurdle has to be gone through for a local planning authority to be able to require those as a planning condition. My noble friend made a telling point about the capacity of local planning authorities to address those issues.

I conclude on one point: this is not only a quality-of-life issue, although it is very important at that level; it has economic ramifications. Unsuitable accommodation means the likelihood of more trips and falls, more visits to the A&E and hospital, and more cost. I hope that the Minister can assure us that there is a way through this process to address the real concerns that have been raised today.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. As I came in, I was thinking that I have mixed views on housing standards. I first became aware of housing standards because of Parker Morris, when a number of houses in the Yorkshire dales were being condemned as back-to-earths which were not suitable or up to Parker Morris standards. Nowadays, those houses that remain would be regarded as extremely environmentally friendly and valuable; they were indeed beautiful homes. I once sat in on a violent argument between someone who lived in one of them and a particularly modernist Liberal councillor who believed that the Parker Morris standards were the absolute minimum and that any house that did not meet them should be immediately demolished.

On the other hand, having with my wife delivered to a large number of houses on the other side of the Aire from Saltaire just before the local elections this spring, with road names such as Cliff Rise and Steep Avenue—one house had 41 steps up to the front door—I recognise that accessibility is an issue with new housing. As I was listening to the debate, I reflected that if I wish to get out of bed in the middle of the night, in our house in Saltaire there are 15 steps down to the bathroom, whereas in my house in London there are five steps down to the bathroom, which, for someone approaching middle age, as I am, is much easier. The question of suitable and unsuitable accommodation is one which we all need to be concerned about.

First, this is not a dumbing down. As there is in much of the Bill and much government legislation at present, there is an inherent tension between local autonomy and central direction. I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Tope, that no Government can ever say that they understand in full the consequences of what they propose. We do our best to conduct impact assessments, but we are never entirely sure where we will be—especially after the High Court has had a go at our provisions in a few years’ time.

The optional requirements are intended to allow local authorities to set higher requirements for development than the building regulations minimum. They are a new concept in building regulations, and we are enabling local authorities, as a condition of granting planning permission, to require a developer to meet a higher building regulation requirement than the national minimum.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My noble friend is absolutely right. I think the consultation document makes it very clear that it has to be part of the planning process for planning authorities to be able to impose it as an optional requirement.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I reform that. If the local authority already has a standard, it can passport this on, keeping the standard without a need for a new policy. If it wants a new policy, it will have to have a plan policy. Does that begin to answer the question the noble Lord has raised?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, we have heard two very powerful presentations from my noble friends. It is not my nature to be helpful to the Minister, but I want to put one matter to him. The bit of briefing I received suggested that the particular provision in the Planning and Energy Act 2008 would stay in being until the zero-carbon homes policy was in place and that that would effectively replace it. That itself raises a couple of questions. The first is whether the zero-carbon homes policy would cover all the protections that my noble friends have said would be lost once we delete this provision. Secondly, how can we be assured that there will be an alignment—if that is the right way to go—and that the zero-carbon homes policy will come in at the same time as the ability to require higher standards disappears? There is a fundamental issue about whether the zero-carbon homes policy equates to what could be achieved under this provision. If it does not, the sort of losses that my noble friends Lord Rooker and Lady Andrews have identified become very real and pertinent.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, often raises difficult issues for Governments, and I give all credit to him for the attention he pays to this. It is an entirely proper role for a Member of the House of Lords to look with deep suspicion at government proposals and to make sure that the Government can provide the rationale for them. Perhaps I can assure him that Oliver Letwin spoke on this on the Floor of the House and it was discussed in Committee, so it has not been entirely ignored by the House of Commons.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

Given that we are not expecting the zero-carbon home policy to be included until late 2016, there is a lot of water to flow under the bridge between now and then. Would he accept an amendment which put in the commitment not to repeal the provision in the 2008 Act until the zero-carbon home policy was in place?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I thank the noble Lord for that interesting suggestion. May I consider it and consult? Perhaps we can also discuss that off the Floor, between Committee and Report.

Deregulation Bill

Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Lord Wallace of Saltaire

Tuesday 21st October 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, perhaps I should start by saying that the point which has just been raised by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Hudnall, will be dealt with later on today, so we will return to that question.

The purpose of Clause 1 is to remove the requirements of Section 3(2) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 from self-employed persons except those on a prescribed list of activities. The effect of Clause 1 will be to exempt self-employed persons from the requirements of Section 3(2), except those conducting undertakings prescribed by the Secretary of State in regulations.

As things stand, Section 3(2) imposes a duty on every self-employed person to protect themselves, and others, from risks to their health and safety, regardless of the type of activity they are undertaking. This means that duties are currently imposed on self-employed persons who undertake activities with little or no risk of harm to themselves and others. For example, a dressmaker, accountant or academic conducting commissioned research, as I used to do, working at home currently has duties under this section.

This proposal emanates from an independent review of health and safety legislation undertaken by Professor Ragnar Löfstedt in 2011. He recommended that self-employed persons be exempt from health and safety law where their work activities pose no potential risk of harm to others. One of the cases for doing so, he said, is so that Britain follows a similar approach to other EU countries—a comparison that may be welcome to some and possibly not welcome to others. The Government accepted this recommendation and a clause was included in the draft deregulation Bill.

In 2013, the Bill was subject to scrutiny by a pre-legislative scrutiny Joint Committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. Evidence presented by interested parties suggested that the clause, as originally drafted, could be confusing for self-employed persons to assess whether the law applied to them or not. The clause was therefore amended in the light of this evidence to make it clearer to the self-employed when the law will apply to them and when they will be exempt.

As a result of the change, only those self-employed persons conducting an undertaking prescribed by the Secretary of State in regulations will continue to have duties under Section 3(2). Undertakings will be prescribed if one of the following four criteria is met: first, there are high numbers of self-employed in a particular industry and high rates of injuries and/or fatalities—for example, in agriculture; secondly, there is a significant risk to members of the public—for example, in fairgrounds; thirdly, there is the potential for mass fatalities—for example, in the use of explosives or other dangerous equipment; fourthly, there is a European obligation to retain the general duty on self-employed persons—for example, in construction.

I hope that by now all noble Lords will have had an opportunity to consider a draft of the prescribing regulations, which has been produced in light of these four criteria. I am sure we can all agree that those self-employed undertaking work in the building industry should remain within the scope of health and safety law. Under the draft regulations, noble Lords will see that this will indeed continue to be the case. Builders, for example, will not be exempt under this proposal. Similarly, gas fitters and boiler engineers for obvious reasons will not be exempt. The risks posed when working with gas are recognised to be high and so the duties owed by a self-employed person who undertakes these activities will be maintained.

The draft set of regulations for the prescribed undertakings has been designed to strike a careful balance between the need to free self-employed persons from the perception that health and safety law places unnecessary burdens on them while still providing important protections in the law to those who require them. The Government have also tabled an amendment accepting the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee to change the parliamentary procedure for these regulations from negative to affirmative. This will allow Parliament fully to scrutinise the regulations.

To ease transition to the new system and minimise familiarisation costs, the prescribed list relies on existing legal definitions, where possible. The clarity of the definitions in the list of prescribed undertakings in the draft regulations was the subject of an eight-week public consultation during the summer. The responses are being analysed by the HSE and will be published shortly. The draft list is available on the HSE website, and to assist the House, I will place a copy in the Library today. I hope that this will help in our discussions.

Further to aid the transition, the Health and Safety Executive is producing guidance targeted at self-employed persons and others to assist them in understanding the proposed changes to the law. It will also signpost them to existing guidance which explains in practical terms what self-employed persons need to do to comply with the relevant law. There is, for example, extensive guidance made publicly available by the HSE about managing health and safety in construction. This provides additional information about the definition of construction work, which is one of the activities intended to be prescribed. Detailed guidance exists for a majority of the other prescribed activities and, where it does not, the Health and Safety Executive will ensure that additional guidance is produced to support this legislative change. I beg to move Amendment 1 and propose that Clause 1 should stand part of the Bill.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to our intention that Clause 1 should not stand part of the Bill. This is grouped with the government amendment and I can say that, should the clause survive, of course we accept that the affirmative procedure should be supported. However, I give notice that, notwithstanding the grouping, we reserve the right to vote separately on the clause stand part debate.

We have a first-class health and safety system in the UK which is respected around the world. At its centre is the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act, now in its 40th year. The system is built around the principle that those who create risks are best placed to manage them, and without being complacent, it is an approach which has hitherto saved countless people from being killed, injured or made ill by work. As we have heard, Section 3 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act currently places a duty on all employers and the self-employed to ensure, so far as is reasonably practical, the health and safety of others.

We should therefore be alarmed at what is now being proposed in Clause 1 of the Deregulation Bill, which seeks to exempt millions of the self-employed from health and safety legislation. This move springs from a recommendation made by Professor Ragnar Löfstedt, which was to exempt the self-employed who,

“pose no potential risk of harm to others”.

Such an exemption was proposed notwithstanding that it is generally accepted, including by Professor Löfstedt and the Health and Safety Executive, that the duty on the self-employed in these circumstances is limited, that little would be saved in terms of cost and time, and indeed in precautions undertaken, if such an exemption was introduced.

The professor also advanced the argument, as we have heard, that the exemption would help progress perceptions of a heavy-handed approach to health and safety for the self-employed, although scant evidence was provided to support the contention that this is a real problem. Indeed, the Engineering Employers’ Federation has refuted the view that self-employed people see health and safety as a burden and that they feel threatened by inspections and prosecutions. However, if there are these misapprehensions, surely the right thing to do is to challenge them, as the HSE is doing through its myth-busting panel rather than pare back the limited requirements which actually apply.

It was also proposed that this would bring us into line with Europe. However, international experience is varied, and more than half the countries of the EU include the self-employed in their health and safety legislation. Some that do not have stricter negligence laws which can be applied to those who put others at risk. Any suggestion that the UK’s health and safety system is creating an anti-competitive regime for the self-employed would not seem to be supported by what is happening. Self-employment actually grew by nearly 400,000 in the four years to 2012.

The HSE’s formulation to meet the Löfstedt recommendations was consulted on in 2012 and, despite receiving support from only a minority of consultees, was included in the draft Deregulation Bill which went before the Joint Committee. However, this attempt has proved problematic, with the Government eventually concluding from the pre-legislative scrutiny—rightly, in our view—that it would have been too confusing as to who was exempt and who was not. Given the minimal requirements on the self-employed who pose no risk of harm to others, it would have been logical at this point to hold on to the status quo; that is to say, although Professor Löfstedt arguably had a point, seeking to address it caused more problems than it solved.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

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

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

As we are in Committee, I will make a few comments. On the issue of perception not being irrelevant, surely the way to tackle perceptions or misperceptions is, for example, to do what the HSE does through its myth-busting arrangements and panels to make sure that there is proper information and education. To pander to misconceptions and weaken health and safety protections is completely the wrong way to go. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Curry, that we are not just talking about perceptions here. In this clause we are talking about actual diminutions in health and safety protections. This goes a long way beyond what Professor Löfstedt recommended. He said that we should change the rules for those self-employed who pose no risk of harm to others. In this clause we are way beyond that. The Minister said that whether the law is there or not people will still act sensibly. Some will and some will not. However, he has not effectively answered the point: why should woodworkers, furniture makers, metalworkers and maintenance fitters, for example, be outside health and safety provisions both as regards their own protections and their responsibility to others?

I fundamentally agree with the noble Lord, Lord Deben, who said that the risk of all that is that it will create greater complications than anything that it solves. The noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, said—or I took him to say—that we should not proceed with this until we know what the detailed regulations are, and it appears that we will not know those for some time. What has not been answered effectively is why, having originally accepted Professor Löfstedt’s recommendations, the Government now wish to go way beyond that. That is what they are doing with this clause: they are weakening health and safety protections which have stood the test of time for 40 years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

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

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I hesitate to suggest that we should call Professor Löfstedt to the Bar to explain what he may or may not have said; he is in Sweden at present and we will have to wait until he comes back. The decision that the Government took to produce a list of activities rather than occupations that would be covered by health and safety regulations, leaving others outside, was in order to provide greater clarity. I stress that it is intended to cover activities conducted by self-employed persons rather than being occupation-based.

The self-employed person in any profession who conducts one or more of these activities will remain within the scope of the law. Where a self-employed person falls exempt under this proposal, it is considered that other enforcing authorities would be better placed to deal with transgressions. Many other laws and regulations apply to these activities. There are also other means of redress available in civil law to those who suffer harm as a result of a self-employed person’s activities, and in some circumstances in criminal law: for example, gross negligence.

I also remind noble Lords that we tabled Amendment 1 to ensure that the list, which is now available in draft and is, I hope, in the Library, will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny under the affirmative procedure —so we will be able to return at that point to make sure that we have the boundary that we are now arguing about right. As drafted, it was subject to the negative procedure, but now there will be a further opportunity in Parliament to debate the exact list of high-risk activities before it comes into effect.

Local Audit and Accountability Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Lord Wallace of Saltaire

Wednesday 17th July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, these amendments refine the provisions in the Bill that enable existing inspectorates to co-operate with an inspector, appointed by the Secretary of State, to inspect a best-value authority under Section 10 of the Local Government Act 1999, as amended by this Bill. Clause 33 and Schedule 10 to the Bill give a similar power to the Secretary of State’s existing power to ask for an inspection of a best-value authority. This is intended for use as a last resort in very serious cases, such as the ongoing intervention in Doncaster.

Paragraphs 2, 25, 36, 38, 54 and 72 of Schedule 12 amend existing legislation to enable existing inspectorates to co-operate with such a corporate governance inspection, as they sometimes do at present. The relevant bodies and inspectors are Ofsted, the Care Quality Commission, Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary, Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons, Her Majesty’s Inspector of Probation, and Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of the Crown Prosecution Service. The amendments to each of these paragraphs of Schedule 12, which take the same approach in each case, achieve this policy intention more cleanly. They remove the provision suggesting that a chief inspector may be appointed under new Section 10 as an inspector by the Secretary of State to inspect a local authority. This is because it is unlikely that it would be the chief inspector himself or herself who would undertake the inspection. Instead, it simply states that the chief inspector—or the commission, in the case of the Care Quality Commission —may do anything they think appropriate to “facilitate” such an inspection. This could include releasing staff to form part of an inspection team. All these amendments allow bodies to co-operate; they do not compel them to do so. We believe that these amendments simplify and clarify our approach without significantly affecting the impact of the Bill. I beg to move.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that explanation. I was puzzled by what the substantive difference was between some of the clauses in the Bill and those that replaced them, but I believe the noble Lord’s explanation has helped me in that regard and I am happy to support his amendments.

Local Audit and Accountability Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Lord Wallace of Saltaire

Monday 15th July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, this group of amendments deals with amending the scope of the auditors’ work. Amendment 12, which amends Clause 19, puts into the Bill a requirement for auditors of relevant authorities, other than health service bodies, to satisfy themselves that the statement of accounts presents a true and fair view. This requirement for health bodies is already in Clause 20.

The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, moved a similar amendment in Grand Committee. In response, we provided assurance that it is indeed the Government’s intention to require larger relevant authorities to produce statements of accounts which are “true and fair” and for local auditors to give an opinion on whether this is achieved. We explained that this is not included in the Bill, but the same outcome will be achieved through a combination of the Bill and the regulations to be made under Clause 31, mirroring the same approach that is currently used.

We have reflected on this and other related discussions since Grand Committee, and consider that there are benefits to placing an explicit requirement in the Bill for auditors to give an opinion on whether the statement of accounts is “true and fair”, rather than retaining the current approach. The key benefit, of course, is alignment within the Bill between the audit requirements for health bodies in Clause 20, and those for local government bodies in Clause 19. Furthermore, presenting accounts that are “true and fair” is an established accounting and audit concept which is also used in legislation governing the audit of central government and companies.

The amendment will make clear that the accounts of the larger relevant authorities must meet the same high standards. However, because Clause 19 applies to all non-health bodies subject to audit under this Bill, this amendment will apply the “true and fair” standard to the audit of all relevant authorities. As we said in Grand Committee, the Government do not consider it appropriate that the “true and fair” standard should apply to smaller authorities. Smaller authorities are required to ensure that their accounts “present fairly” or “properly present”, which are briefer and more proportionate forms of accounting.

It will therefore be necessary to modify these requirements for smaller bodies, which the Government intend to do through the regulations under Clause 5. The modifications will retain the audit requirements on smaller bodies so that auditors of smaller bodies are required to continue to satisfy themselves that the accounts “present fairly” or “properly present”.

We are not planning to make the other amendment to Clause 3 that the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, moved in Grand Committee, which would require relevant authorities to prepare statements of accounts which are true and fair. We believe that the amendment to Clause 19 achieves all that is needed. The duty on auditors in Clause 19 will effectively require the authority to prepare to true and fair standards. We will confirm that requirement in the regulations that will be made under Clause 31, by requiring the chief finance officer of larger relevant authorities to certify that the accounts show as true and fair. This is similar to the approach for health service bodies—which are required to keep proper accounts showing a true and fair view—and the Companies Act which says that the directors must not approve the accounts unless they are satisfied that they give a true and fair view.

Amendments 13 to 17 amend Clause 20, which sets out the general duties of auditors of health service bodies. These are needed to provide that the auditor of the accounts of special trustees is not required to give a regularity opinion. Clinical commissioning groups—which are covered by Clause 20—are funded by Parliament to commission healthcare services. As such, they are accountable to Parliament for how they utilise these resources. Clause 20 therefore requires the auditor to give an opinion on whether the CCG has used these resources as Parliament intended and in accordance with guidance covering financial transactions.

However, this clause currently requires auditors of the accounts of special trustees to provide a regularity opinion of these accounts. Special trustees are appointed by university or teaching hospitals under Section 212 of the National Health Service Act 2006 to hold property on their behalf. There are currently only three boards of special trustees in existence: for Great Ormond Street Hospital in London, the Royal Orthopaedic Hospital and Moorfields Eye Hospital. As these bodies do not receive funds voted by Parliament, there is no need for a regularity opinion by the auditor on their accounts. The general duties of the auditor of a special trustee are otherwise the same as for a CCG.

Finally, Amendment 65 is consequential to the amendments made to Clause 20 and technical in nature. It is required to enable Clause 20 to apply to audit of the accounts of NHS trusts and the trustees of NHS trusts in the same way as it applies to special trustees. I beg to move.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, for introducing these amendments. We are happy with them. I will speak first to Amendment 12. We debated this issue of accounts being required to show a “true and fair” view in Committee, as the noble Lord said. We had drawn attention to the disparity of wording in the Bill between the general duties of auditors of relevant bodies which are health service bodies and those which are not. The requirements for local authority accounts to show a true and fair view was part of the process towards full GAAP compliance in the whole of government accounts.

In response to our amendment, the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, reassured us that it was a requirement for larger relevant authorities to present accounts that were true and fair and this was achieved through the interaction of primary and secondary legislation—the Audit Commission Act 1998 and the Accounts and Audit (England) Regulations 2011. The Minister said in Committee:

“We intend to mirror this requirement in the regulations to be made under Clause 31”.—[Official Report, 17/7/13; col. GC 30.]

However, the Minister went on to say:

“This approach is less complex than specifying ‘true and fair’ requirements in the Bill, because further amendments would be required to disapply these provisions … for smaller authorities, which, as the Bill makes clear, are not required to ensure that their statement of accounts are true and fair”.—[Official Report, 17/7/13; GC 31.]

As I said, we support the government amendment. I was going to inquire about how that latter point would be dealt with, but the noble Lord covered that in his presentation.

Before commenting on Amendments 13 to 17, I take the opportunity to thank the Minister and the Bill team for facilitating a meeting about the differing effects of the Bill on local authorities and health service bodies, and for the helpful follow-up tabulation. That tabulation presaged the amendment in noting that a regularity of opinion was necessary in respect of clinical commissioning groups, because they were funded by Parliament to commission healthcare services. This is not the case for NHS trusts which receive income from contracts.

The Bill already disapplies the regularity requirements for NHS trusts in Schedule 13 and, under this group of amendments, does so for special trustees. The amendment specifically restores the other requirements of Clause 20(1) in paragraphs (a) to (c) for special trustees. However, it is not immediately clear how those provisions are reinstated in respect of NHS trusts—that is, those which are not special trustees. I think that the clue to that is in Amendment 65, to which the noble Lord referred, but it would be helpful to have clarification on that point. Subject to that, we are happy with the amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, this amendment makes a small change to paragraph 1 of Schedule 7. It slightly changes the requirements on a local auditor when issuing a public interest report. The Bill currently places a duty on local auditors to inform the auditor panel before making a public interest report. The amendment changes that duty to a duty to inform the panel,

“as soon as is reasonably practical after”

making a public interest report. The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, moved a very similar amendment in Grand Committee. At that time we agreed with the intent of the amendment that the auditor panel should not influence the auditor’s decision as to whether to issue a public interest report. After further reflection, we consider that such an amendment would be a helpful clarification and would reduce the risk that the auditor panel could be perceived to be influencing the auditor’s judgment. I beg to move.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, we have Amendment 20 in this group. Obviously, we support the government amendment because it is in keeping with the amendment that we moved in Committee. In Committee we sought to strengthen independent around the process of an auditor issuing a public interest report, and without sight of the government amendment we have retabled our Amendment 20. The sequence has been: in the draft Bill, a requirement to consult with the audit panel; in the current Bill, a requirement to notify the panel before the public interest report is issued; in our amendment, a requirement to notify when it is issued; and now, in the government amendment, to notify as soon as is reasonably practical. This is a progression with which we could not possibly disagree, and we thank the Government for accommodating this point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I begin by informing the House that, following careful consideration of all options, the Cabinet Office will assume responsibility for the national fraud initiative, subject to the passage of this Bill. The transfer to the Cabinet Office will allow the national fraud initiative to continue and develop its effective and important work to complement wider government activities to tackle fraud.

Officials are continuing to discuss transitional issues over the coming months to ensure a smooth handover once the legislation is in place. Perhaps it would be appropriate to remind noble Lords that I am the Lords spokesman on the Cabinet Office. I was indeed being briefed by the Cabinet Office fraud and error team some weeks ago. We are considering whether or not to draft a data-sharing and data-matching Bill for the consideration of the House. We face some very large issues at national as well as at local level, which involve issues of data privacy and identity assurance, all of which we need to discuss within the wider framework of national and international consideration of this as well as consideration by local authorities. Noble Lords may remember that in Committee I expressed some surprise at just how far local authorities and the Audit Commission had gone in this direction when the national Government were being very hesitant about how far it would be appropriate to go in some of these areas.

On this Bill, it is the Government’s intention that the data-matching clauses should, before we move towards discussing the much larger issues in the changing digital revolution that we are concerned with at present, remain consistent with the provisions in the Audit Commission Act 1998 to ensure continuity and stability on its transfer to its new home. Amendment 22 would insert a fourth potential purpose for data-matching exercises: to assist in the prevention and detection of maladministration and error. The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, made a very persuasive case for this amendment in Committee and provided some helpful examples of the types of exercises that the Audit Commission had already run, looking at error rather than fraud, using its other powers.

My noble friend Lord Palmer of Childs Hill rightly highlighted the issue of function creep in relation to data-matching exercises. In doing so, he brought to the House’s attention the need for very careful consideration of these matters, Perhaps I should say that as a liberal in every sense, I am battered on both sides on the question of the convenience that the digital revolution provides us with but also the enormous threats that it offers to individual privacy if we are not careful about how we manage data holding, data sharing, data matching and data mining. I am sure that all noble Lords are aware of the distinctions between all of those. This is a very difficult area, and while the detection of error as well as of fraud is inherently valuable, it would allow the new owner of the national fraud initiative to continue the Audit Commission’s work. Any amplification of ministerial powers in this area therefore requires careful consideration. I assure the noble Lord that my officials are working with a range of interested parties to gain an in-depth understanding of past and potential future uses of this power. This includes representatives from the Information Commissioner’s Office, and I will be meeting the Information Commissioner before the summer on this matter.

My officials are also seeking further advice from the Audit Commission about exercises it has carried out using its other powers and the risks and benefits that such an extension might entail. I look forward to meeting the noble Lord in due course to update him on progress in this area, recognising that we are tip-toeing around the edges of one of the major issues that any future Government will be facing in the next three to five years: how we cope with the explosion of digital information available on cloud computing. I hope with those assurances that the amendment can now be withdrawn.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I must express some disappointment with the Minister’s response. I am grateful for the information on the transfer of the NFI to the Cabinet Office and I am reassured that it will be in the safe hands of the noble Lord as the Minister in your Lordships’ House. I share the concern about the enormity of some of the data holding, data sharing and data mining privacy issues. I took it, perhaps from what the Minister said, that there was the prospect of some broader legislation not too far down the track. However, I hang on to my point that this amendment would not extend one little bit what happens at the moment. In fact, the amendment would not even take us as far as we are today with the Audit Commission because it would need those further processes before it came into being. Whatever else is going on and whatever the scale of these other issues—I share the noble Lord’s concerns over those—I fail to see why this provision cannot be taken forward. It seems to me that there is a diminution in the Government’s task of tackling maladministration and error without these powers being available. I do not think the noble Lord explained how they would be dealt with differently once the Audit Commission goes out of existence and how this range of opportunities would be replicated under the new arrangement. I do not know whether the noble Lord would like another go at trying to convince me on that, but it would be helpful if he could. What will happen to the Audit Commission’s current audit powers to deal with maladministration and error? What will replace those just to have an equivalent process when the Audit Commission goes?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

The Cabinet Office is looking at the issue of fraud and error in government as a whole in a wider context and would like to examine the experience of the Audit Commission further and to feed that into our wider discussion about the future of data sharing, data mining, data matching and that whole area. We do not intend to leave a long-term hole but to treat this within the broader context of what is happening. Some of us have been concerned in rather a different context with the shift from household electoral registration to individual electoral registration, where, as it happens, some of the same issues arise.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I am grateful for that further explanation. I take the point that this will not just be left lying fallow but that there will be some active consideration of it. I still hang on to my point that the active consideration could take place without implementation by having the amendment in the Bill. If not, we will need primary legislation of some sort in the future to bring it into being as part of the data-matching process, if that is what the conclusion is on further analysis. Having the amendment in the Bill does not mean that it has to be activated, because the Minister has to go through a consultation process to do that. As there is going to be this broader look, it seems to me that the Government have reached the wrong conclusion. They could have adapted the Bill to include this amendment even if they never implemented it. I think we have probably been around this enough, unless the Minister wants to say something further.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I note the noble Lord’s preference for belt and braces. I have some doubts about how many pieces of legislation we have passed that have not been commenced, so perhaps I am slightly in the other area on this. However, I promise to write to the noble Lord further about how the Government intend to take this forward.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I am grateful for that. I recognise that the Minister sees this as extremely poor, as, indeed, do the Government. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Local Audit and Accountability Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Lord Wallace of Saltaire

Wednesday 26th June 2013 Grand Committee

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, the amendment calls for a report to Parliament on the impact of the new audit regime and for this to be made within three years of the passing of the Act.

Let me acknowledge at the start the undertaking given by the Government on a post-implementation review but its objectives appear to be somewhat narrowly based and do not address some of the fundamental issues. The Bill provides for arrangements that are significantly different from the current regime whereby the Audit Commission effectively acts as regulator, commissioner and provider of audit. As the pre-legislative scrutiny committee report sets out, the new regime is more complex and certainly more fragmented. The regulation of local audit will transfer to the Financial Reporting Council, professional accounting bodies and the National Audit Office. Commissioning of local audit will transfer to local public bodies, and the provision of local audit will go to private sector firms. Research and value for money will be picked up by the NAO to a limited extent and by the sector’s own self-improvement. The National Fraud Initiative’s ultimate destination has yet to be determined, as we have discussed, and the co-ordination of grant certification remains a little vague.

Although some of the bases have been covered, potential gaps remain. Some of the bodies that are subject to the new regime are accountable to government departments other than CLG. How is this to be co-ordinated across government? Audited bodies themselves will have to liaise with government departments, the NAO and auditors because the commission will not be on hand to act as an intermediary. The role of accounting officers within departments is fundamental to the management and control of resources. They are currently able to draw on information on the outcome of audits, implementation of major initiatives and value for money outcomes analysed by the Audit Commission. How is this all to happen in the future? Unless the Minister can tell us otherwise, there appears to be no organisation that will be publishing the outputs of more than £200 billion of public expenditure.

Clearly, quality of audits is paramount. The role of the FRC as overall regulator and its specific role in providing quality assurance to just a few “major audits” has been the cause of some concern. We hear the government assurances on this but consider that Parliament is entitled to a more formal report on how this is working in practice. Can the Minister confirm that the reports of the recognised supervisory bodies monitoring auditor performance outside major audits will be in the public domain?

There is also the need for oversight on how this is working for all “relevant authorities”, including health bodies and smaller authorities. Many of the provisions in the Bill are not applicable to health service bodies because equivalent provision is made in other legislation. We have not thus far sought to compare or contrast these provisions with those applicable to other relevant authorities. Contemplating consolidation may give the Ministers a nightmare at the moment but the Bill does not give us a sense of how joined up this is all going to be in practice. A report to Parliament would cover this. I beg to move.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, the Government support the intention behind this amendment. Post-implementation review is acknowledged good practice. It will provide the assurances that Parliament and the general public will want that the new audit arrangements are achieving the outcomes that we expect, and it will identify how policies might be improved if they prove to be less effective than we anticipate. For these reasons, the Government have already committed to undertake such a review. This is set out in the impact assessment, at Section K.

However, I am not persuaded that the timeframe envisaged in the amendment is the right one. The commitment in the impact assessment is to a review within three to five years of Royal Assent. This is in line with the Government’s general commitment to post-legislative review. The reason for preferring a slightly longer period in the case of this legislation relates to the implementation of local auditor appointment.

Assuming that this Act is passed in early 2014, the amendment would require a report in early 2017. As noble Lords are aware, the earliest date at which local auditor appointment would begin is 2017. It would seem to make sense to include some assessment of the move to local appointment in the proposed review. This would enable a robust assessment of audit quality and auditor independence in the new regime, and of the impact of local appointment on the audit supply market.

Nevertheless, government departments, through the accounting officer, are accountable to Parliament annually for the money voted to them. Where this money is distributed to others, accounting officers need to be able to demonstrate that appropriate accountability arrangements are in place, usually through an accountability systems statement. The external audit of local bodies is one of the evidence sources that will help to demonstrate whether the system is working effectively. We will ensure that the necessary assurance can be provided to accounting officers and to Parliament.

The provisions for the audit regime of health bodies have been designed to provide at least the same level of assurance to the Department of Health accounting officer and Parliament on the use of resources by the health sector as current arrangements. All the health bodies covered by this Bill are included in the annual accounts of the Department of Health. The department reviews the outcome of the audits and annual governance statements of all health bodies and the NAO also uses these to inform its audit of the departmental accounts.

Finally, I would like to say a few words of reassurance about the scope of the proposed post-implementation review. The impact assessment explains that the review will look at how well the core objectives of the local audit reforms are being met. I remind noble Lords that these objectives are: to deliver greater localism, decentralisation and transparency; to maintain competitive audit fees; and to uphold high standards of auditing.

There does not appear to be anything in the list of specific requirements in the amendment which is obviously out of scope. The impact assessment makes a commitment that we will work up the detail of the review with representatives from local government and other interested parties. I hope that these reassurances will satisfy the noble Lord and he will be willing to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his response. Of course, I will withdraw the amendment.

As I said in moving the amendment, I was aware of the proposal to have a post-implementation review. I accept the point about the timeframe. If it was done within three years, we would not have had any—or certainly many—local appointments of auditors so would not be able to judge the ramifications.

I do not know whether the noble Lord can help me on a further point, or write to me on it. In considering the Bill, I do not think that we have done enough work on how the regime for health bodies and other relevant bodies fits together. They are all defined as being relevant authorities. However, a whole raft of provisions appear to apply to relevant authorities other than health bodies. We may not have an overall view of how that fits together but one would hope that any review of how the measure will work in practice would pick up what the inconsistencies and consistencies of the regimes are and what lessons can be learnt from one stream which could benefit the other. That aspect appears to have received less attention than many other aspects of the Bill. However, I accept the undertaking that there will be a post-implementation review based on consultation with relevant bodies. I accept the point about a three to five-year timescale rather than within three years. That seems to me entirely reasonable. I do not know whether the noble Lord can say anything further on the health bodies point.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I take the point about health bodies. This clearly is an important part of the arrangement. We, of course, intend to include health service bodies in the post-implementation review. If there are other matters about the health bodies that the noble Lord would like to discuss between Committee and Report, I am very happy to do so. We recognise that this is an important part of the whole shift.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I welcome that and would like to take up that opportunity. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

Amendment 23A would add new provisions within Schedule 12. The purpose of this amendment is to include local authority social housing providers within the Homes and Communities Agency’s existing powers to require a separate audit report into social housing accounts, once the Audit Commission has been abolished.

Currently, Section 210 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 gives the Homes and Communities Agency a power to order an extraordinary audit as part of an inquiry under Section 206 of that Act in respect of a private registered provider of social housing where it has serious concerns that a housing provider has mismanaged its affairs. The agency can require the registered provider to allow its accounts and balance sheet to be audited by a qualified auditor appointed by the regulator.

Section 210A applies this regime to local authority housing providers by placing a duty on the Audit Commission, if asked by the regulator, to provide a report on the local authority’s accounts, so far as they relate to the authority’s provision of social housing. Amendment 23A ensures that local authority social housing accounts continue—upon closure of the Audit Commission—to be subject to examination as part of a Section 206 inquiry by enabling the Homes and Communities Agency to appoint an auditor which is on the register held by the recognised supervisory body to undertake an extraordinary audit. I therefore beg to move this amendment.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

That is very clear. I am happy with the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, as Cabinet Office spokesman in the Lords with some responsibility for charities, this is another amendment on which I shall speak. This is, indeed, about health service charities.

Amendment 24 makes changes to the Charities Act 2011 in respect of English NHS charities as a result of the abolition of the Audit Commission. Currently, the auditors of English NHS charities are appointed by the Audit Commission, so this amendment ensures that arrangements are in place for the audit of English NHS charities’ accounts after its abolition.

The trustees of English NHS charities will be able to appoint a person who is eligible to act as an auditor under the Companies Act 2006, this Bill or regulations under the Charities Act 2011. The amendment allows smaller English NHS charities, with income of between £25,000 and £500,000 in the year in question, to opt for an examination of their accounts as an alternative to audit, which is intended to minimise costs of producing accounts to the charities. This is consistent with the way smaller non-NHS charities are treated in the Charities Act 2011.

The criteria for who may undertake such examinations are set out in the amendment. An examiner of an English NHS charity’s accounts must be independent and the charity’s trustees must reasonably believe that the person has the requisite ability and experience to carry out a competent examination of the accounts. The examiner of an English NHS charity’s accounts must also be a member of a professional body as set out in Section 145(3) of the Charities Act 2011 if the gross income of the English NHS charity is between £250,000 and £500,000 a year, or be eligible under the Local Audit and Accountability Bill, once enacted.

The amendment enables the Charity Commission to give guidance to NHS charity trustees on the selection of an independent examiner and directions as to how an examination is to be carried out. The amendment also applies the same provisions to the group accounts of a parent NHS charity as have been set out for individual NHS charities. I beg to move.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I have only one question for the noble Lord which concerns his reference to an independent examiner and a person who is independent. Can he remind us which definition of “independent” we are dealing with here?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I think we are referring back to the definition as in the Charities Act 2011. Since we have batted forward and back on the question of what exactly “independent” means in this respect, I may need to write to the noble Lord just to confirm the exact definition being used here.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I am grateful for that.

Local Audit and Accountability Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Lord Wallace of Saltaire

Monday 24th June 2013 Grand Committee

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, this amendment removes an unnecessary provision from paragraph 16 which is a supplement to paragraph 15 of Schedule 5. Paragraph 15 substitutes Section 1248 of the Companies Act 2006, with which I am sure noble Lords are all familiar. It enables the Secretary of State to direct a relevant authority to retain an auditor to carry out a second audit in certain circumstances.

Paragraph 16 substitutes Section 1249 of the Companies Act 2006 and inserts supplementary provisions about second audits. Subsection (3) states that a direction given to retain a second auditor may be enforced by injunction, which exactly replicates the wording in Section 1249 of the Companies Act. However, given that all public authorities, unlike companies, are subject to judicial review, we now wish to remove subsection (3) which refers to the use of an injunction; this is clearly not necessary. Should a relevant authority fail to comply with the direction relating to a second audit, an action could be brought for judicial review. This is currently the way in which local public bodies are brought to account. This is a minor and technical amendment that removes an unnecessary provision. I beg to move.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, for the explanation of this amendment, and I have no problem with it. My question was about what alternative the Government had in mind by deleting this enforcement by injunction. The Minister dealt with that; it is by judicial review. As to being familiar with the Companies Act 2006, I have a great affection for it; it was the first piece of legislation I ever worked on. I spent days carrying the bag of the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, around committee rooms on it, although do not ask me what is in it. I support this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, this is another quick one, I expect. This amendment relates to an offence under Clause 22. Clause 21 provides for an auditor’s right to documentation and information. Clause 22 makes it an offence without reasonable excuse for a person to obstruct the process or to fail to comply with any requirement of a local auditor. A person guilty of an offence can be subject to a fine on summary conviction. A local auditor can recover reasonable expenses in connection with proceedings alleged to have been committed by certain persons from the relevant authority. Those persons include, for example, a member or officer of the relevant authority. The amendment seeks to makes certain that the right to recovery runs, albeit that the person committing the offence is no longer a member or officer of the authority. This raises the issue of when an offence might have been committed when it includes, for example, continuing failure to provide information or explanations by somebody who has ceased to be a member or officer and perhaps put themselves in that position deliberately. This ties the position back to Clause 21(8)(f), which brings such individuals within the scope of those from whom the auditor can seek information. We do not want anyone to escape by jumping ship or, indeed, for the recovery of costs to be precluded in those circumstances. I beg to move.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, Clause 21 gives auditors a right to access documents and information that they consider necessary for them to exercise their functions under this Bill. Clause 22, as the noble Lord has just explained, provides that a person who obstructs the auditors’ rights under Clause 21, without reasonable excuse, commits an offence. Clause 22 enables the auditors to recover their expenses from relevant authorities in connection with offences committed by members or officers of the authority.

This amendment enables me to highlight two improvements we have made to the Bill since we published it in draft. First, we have included former members and officers of a relevant authority within the duty to provide information and explanation as required by the auditor. Secondly, we have increased the provisions supporting the auditors’ recovery of their costs. Auditors will be able to recover reasonable costs from the authority being audited for their time. We expect that the contracts between the auditor and relevant authority will also enable this, but to remove doubt, the Bill includes specific provisions to enable the auditors to recover costs or expenses for specified functions.

As I have set out, Clause 22 enables the auditors to recover reasonable expenses incurred from the authority as a result of any offence committed by a member or officer of the authority or a person within a connected entity of that authority.

This amendment would extend the provision set out in this clause to enable auditors also to recover expenses regarding offences committed by former members or officers of an authority from the relevant authority. This is a matter to which we gave some thought when we were strengthening the provisions supporting the auditor to recover costs and expenses incurred in undertaking its functions. We concluded that there are some circumstances under which it would not be right for a relevant authority to be required to fund these costs automatically; for example, where a person was a member or officer at the time to which the information or explanation relates but commits the offence of obstructing or not complying with the auditor after they have left the position. Rather than legislating to provide for such rare situations, we consider that it would be preferable for the relevant authority and auditor to agree via their contracts how the auditor’s costs and expenses would be covered in such an unusual situation. I hope my explanation allows this amendment to be withdrawn.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. I think his explanation confirms what I thought was an issue about somebody who was involved and who had committed an offence but subsequently left the organisation. In those circumstances, if I understand the explanation, that precludes the recovery of the auditor’s reasonable expenses. Did I understand that correctly?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My understanding is that it means that the recovery of the reasonable costs does not automatically fall to the authority. If the person who had left the employment of the authority was unreasonably obstructing the provision of the information—refusing to give it—there are circumstances in which the reasonable costs might indeed fall on him or her; that would be a matter to be agreed in the contract between the auditor and the authority.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I am grateful for that. I missed that part of the explanation originally. If we are not saying that the costs are not going to be recovered, if it is not the audited body, it is going to be the individual. I am grateful for that explanation, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I speak briefly in support of my noble friend’s amendment concerning freedom of information. He has opened up a very important area of discussion. My understanding—as he said—is that the Audit Commission, as a public authority, is subject to freedom of information but that those private sector firms appointed to undertake local public audits are not. The purpose of the amendment is to put them in a position where they would be subject to freedom of information. My noble friend made a good case for this.

As I understand it, there was a consultation on that in 2011 and the Audit Commission’s response was that it was sensible for auditors to be brought within the Freedom of Information Act, adding that it would be necessary to make it clear that freedom of information requirements applied only to information held in support of the functions of local public auditors. My noble friend made a good case.

In relation to Amendment 17, I am not quite clear about the extent to which my noble friend wishes this to proceed. It talks about the audit documents from private companies to which the local authority has contracted services. It is sometimes, possibly frequently, the case that it is not just one entity that is providing services. There is a whole range of sub-contractors in the chain and I am not sure quite how it would work in those circumstances. However, I believe that my noble friend has raised a very important point and, like him, I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I recognise the importance of this transparency issue. I suppose that I should start by declaring an interest as someone who has received a number of parking tickets from Wandsworth Council. It strikes me as odd that I have never received any parking tickets from Bradford Council. London councils must be sharper on the draw on this, and of course they use private contractors rather more than do councils in Yorkshire and, for all I know, councils in Newcastle.

There was considerable consultation on this issue, and I regret to tell the noble Lord that one thing that came back most strongly from it was a fear that this sort of provision would increase audit fees.

Amendment 17 seeks to give auditors a right of access to the audit documents of companies with which local authorities have entered into contracts and a duty to publish those documents. Following consultation, we believe that the Bill provides sufficient powers for local auditors to access all documents and information that they need in order to undertake the audit and that they have powers to publish those documents, and that therefore the amendment is not needed.

Clause 21 includes a broad power that enables auditors to access all documents and information that relate to the relevant authority which the auditor thinks are necessary to support him or her in undertaking the audit. These rights apply not only to documents and information held by the authority, its members and staff but to documents and information held by other persons—including the authority’s contractors—that the auditor thinks are necessary to undertake his or her statutory duties in relation to the audit of the relevant authority. Clause 22 makes it an offence to obstruct the auditor’s power to obtain these documents and information or to fail to comply with the duty. These provisions are very similar to those under the existing Audit Commission Act regime, which have not proved to be lacking.

In terms of publication of documents, the auditor is able to refer to information and documents from private companies in audit reports where these are appropriate to the audit of the local authority. In addition, the Government’s code of recommended practice for local authorities on data transparency encourages local authorities to publish all expenditure over £500, as well as copies of contracts and tenders. All councils are publishing spend above £500 and many provide contracts information. In late 2012, we consulted on updating the code and making it mandatory through regulations, and we will publish a government response later this summer.

Amendment 18A would amend the Freedom of Information Act so that auditors appointed by local authorities are defined as public authorities and are subject to the provisions under that Act. Auditors appointed by the Audit Commission are not currently included within the remit of the FOI Act. When we originally consulted on the future of local audit framework in spring 2011, we asked whether the future regime should bring local auditors into the Freedom of Information Act. After considering the broad range of responses to the consultation, the Government concluded that there was no compelling case to bring the auditors’ public office functions within the remit of the FOI Act.

There are two key reasons for that. First, we believe that doing so would add little to the existing provisions within the Freedom of Information Act and this Bill. Local authorities are already covered by the Freedom of Information Act, and therefore these requests could be directed at the local authority. Secondly, all respondents to the question—I stress “the respondents”, not the Government—said that they thought that bringing auditors into the Freedom of Information Act would increase audit fees.

In addition, the Bill already supports local transparency and local electorate access to the auditor in a number of ways. For example, the Bill retains all the existing rights for electors to inspect the statement of accounts and audit documents, and to raise questions and objections with the local auditor. Schedule 11 to the Bill enables an auditor to release material in response to this, unless it could prejudice the effective performance of the auditor’s functions.

I hope that that provides assurances that the new regime will support openness and transparency at all stages of the audit process. Auditors will have access to all documents and information that they consider relevant to the audit, local authorities will publish information relating to expenditure and contracts with private firms and local people will be able to inspect the accounts and raise objections with these assurances.

Having debated many previous amendments on other Bills with the noble Lord, I suspect he may nevertheless say that he is not entirely satisfied with all this. If he would like to talk to the Government between Committee and Report, we would be happy to do so, but I hope that, with those assurances, he will be prepared, at this stage, to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

Before my noble friend withdraws his amendment, will the Minister clarify something? I think part of his answer was that all the transparency that is needed is provided for in the Bill and the regime that we are discussing. In that case, why is there concern about additional audit fees? What extra transparency is being forgone to keep those audit fees down if they would rise if my noble friend’s amendment is pursued?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I take the noble Lord’s cynicism about it always being a question of costs, although costs are not entirely a negligible issue at the moment for any of us. We had better pursue through further discussions the particular examples that the noble Lord raised and the question of how far into the internal workings of private contractors one needs to go to be sure that one is getting the value for money and service that one really requires.

Local Audit and Accountability Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Lord Wallace of Saltaire

Wednesday 19th June 2013 Grand Committee

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, this is a very straightforward amendment, which is intended to ensure that the Secretary of State will consult before producing regulations under paragraph 4 of Schedule 3. Perhaps the Minister will take the opportunity to share with us what the broad content of the regulations will cover, or say when we might expect to receive a draft. I beg to move.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

Here I am acting as the Minister, jumping to my fifth subject today, although I am happy to do so. As has just been explained, Amendment 14ZD would require the Secretary of State to consult relevant authorities and representatives of local government before exercising powers as set out in Schedule 3 to make further provision about the appointment of an auditor to certain bodies.

We are sympathetic to the concerns behind the amendment, which we understand are to ensure that bodies are suitably consulted before further provision is made on auditor appointment. Perhaps it would be helpful if I clarify the scope and purpose of this power, which I understand to be the purpose of this probing amendment. The power is limited to bodies not covered by paragraphs 1 to 3 of Schedule 3. It therefore does not apply to local authorities, police bodies, or the GLA.

Schedule 3 already makes provision in relation to these bodies to ensure that the appointment process reflects their specific governance arrangements. In the case of local authorities, it prevents the delegation of the appointment decision below full council. This ensures that the appointment of the auditor is made in a transparent manner and with proper accountability. The power at paragraph 4 is simply intended to allow the Secretary of State to make similar minor provisions for other bodies covered by the Bill to support accountability. This might mean preventing the delegation of the appointment decision for other bodies as set out, as the noble Lord will know, in Schedule 2.

As set out in the statement of intent that the Government laid earlier this week, we will work with delivery partners and interested parties to consider what specific provisions are needed. With these reassurances on the scope and purpose of the clause, and on our intent to consult affected bodies, I hope that this provides sufficient additional information for the noble Lord to be able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for that response. I certainly intend to withdraw the amendment. However, perhaps he could be a little more specific about the other bodies covered by this. I am not sure that I fully grasped his point about particular bodies. Does he have an example?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

Schedule 2 sets out a range of other bodies. The minor bodies that are set out range from waste management boards to drainage boards to parish councils and to others but do not include the major local authorities or the GLA et cetera. Schedule 4 relates to Schedule 2. I hope that is clear.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I am grateful for that further exemplary clarification. I have not had a chance to read the statement of intent in detail yet, which came on Monday when we were in Committee. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

The Government understand and support the intentions behind the amendment—to ensure that there is transparency over the appointment of the auditor—but they are not convinced that this is the sort of thing that needs to be in the Bill. The Bill already includes a requirement for the notice to include the advice of the auditor panel, which is required to advise on the selection and appointment of the auditor. This might cover issues such as the length of the appointment and the process for appointment. Under the Bill, auditor panels must have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State on their functions. We expect that such statutory guidance, or wider guidance on best practice, might cover the sorts of issues that should be included in any advice from the panel.

With those reassurances, I hope that the noble Lord will be willing to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I am grateful to the Minister. I certainly do not intend to press the amendment. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Tope, that I did not honestly expect the Minister to rush to accept the wording; it was a mechanism to open up a debate, particularly about the process and there being transparency in the extent to which other firms are invited in—in a beauty parade or whatever the mechanism is. That may be some measure of the determination of the local authority, if it has one, to broaden and open up the market. However, I entirely accept that that will be the expectation and that it will be set down in some of the guidance that will flow from this Bill. Accordingly, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I am very happy to look at this again between Committee and Report and make sure that the definition is as clear as it can be.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that response and for the undertaking to look at this again. The points that have been made around the Committee today emphasise that there is less clarity than there should be on how this is all meant to operate and some of the nuances that could flow from just a strict reading of the legislation as it is.

I understand the point about making a judgment about whether someone was independent from an authority because of a business relationship. As the Minister said, you would seek to deal with that through guidance and it would be an issue as to whether they should be appointed to serve on the committee or the panel. In a sense, we are differentiating between someone who is not independent in that category and someone who is a relative, where they are not precluded from being appointed to the panel or committee. However, there cannot be too many of them or the requirement for a majority to be independent would break down. I am not quite sure of the logic in that. However, rather than stretch the debate this afternoon, I ask the Minister to look at that as part of the broader discussion. Maybe we could have a meeting of all noble Lords who have contributed before we get to Report because it would be difficult to repeat this discussion at Report without some interim deliberations. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Lord Wallace of Saltaire

Thursday 9th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

No, indeed, I very much agree with the noble Lord. I was not suggesting that he, by raising the point, was helping to recirculate the myth; I was just indicating how it can unwittingly be recycled, creating the concern that he identified.

The HSE issued guidance in 2009 in a document entitled Striking the Balance between Operational and Health and Safety Duties in the Police Service. That was in response to concern and misunderstanding about how police services can comply with health and safety legislation in their operational work, given the often testing and difficult circumstances in which they are called to act. I understand that work is now under way to draft an explanatory note to the guidance which will help further to clarify how effective and efficient policing can be delivered.

That document, which was jointly produced, illustrates that these are issues of balance. In the principles that the document enunciates, it states that there are particular challenges for the police:

“they have to send officers and staff into dangerous situations in circumstances when anyone else would be seeking to get away from the danger … in fighting crime, the Police Service is, in effect, reducing the overall risk to the public— police officers may need to take actions which put the public and themselves at risk. This is appropriate when the benefits from taking these risks outweigh the sum of all other risks; however, in doing so, police activities may create other risks”.

The guidance sets out why the application of health and safety law is challenging for the police service, but it also makes clear that health and safety duties are not absolute and are generally qualified by the test of what is reasonably practical. It points out that the Health and Safety at Work Act places duties on employers, but also on employees to take reasonable care of themselves and others and to co-operate with their employer, but it does not require all risks to be eliminated. The Health and Safety Executive recognises that even when all reasonably practical precautions have been taken to deal with foreseeable risks, injuries and deaths will still occur.

Let us not forget, as was raised by several speakers in the debate, that dozens of police officers have lost their lives or been injured by putting themselves in harm’s way on our behalf. The guidance also sets out what officers and staff should expect of the police service in terms of good health and safety management systems and how the HSE will approach any investigation of individual police forces.

Following the report of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, commissioned by the Prime Minister and debated in your Lordships' House in November last year, renewed guidance was issued by the Crown Prosecution Service concerning circumstances where police officers may, in performing an heroic act, have breached Section 7 of the Health and Safety at Work Act in failing to take reasonable care of their own safety. It states:

“In those circumstances, and where the safety of others is not put at risk, public interest would not be served by taking forward a prosecution under section 7”.

The document and the other guidance seems to do just what noble Lords have asked, which is that we need to address this in a sensible, proportionate way and there needs to be co-operation in how these measures are applied.

Although not without challenge, the current system is not broken. As my noble friend Lord Hunt said, the HSE gets challenged as many times for not prosecuting people as for prosecuting people. The briefing we received from IOSH includes a quotation from the chairman of the Police Federation of England and Wales. It reads:

“All the major police officer representative bodies; the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Police Superintendents’ Association and the Police Federation agree the position that the Police (Health and Safety) Act in its current form has resulted in significant improvements in the health, safety and welfare of police officers whilst still allowing effective policing to be achieved”.

The law as it stands serves both the public and police effectively. It is certain interpretations of the law that have produced isolated anomalies. Therefore, clarity of interpretation is needed rather than the unnecessary changes to health and safety law that could turn the clock back decades on the protection afforded to society.

The briefing paper that we have received is clear that, as deliverers of front-line policing, they know that health and safety legislation does not prevent them carry out their duties for their communities. They are clear that since the 1997 Act there has been a real and beneficial reduction in sickness and injury to police officers while on duty. The noble Lord, Lord Condon, made that point. There has been improvement in equipment, technology and training given to officers.

The impact of the amendment would be to remove the statutory protection afforded by the Health and Safety at Work Act from police officers—I think that that was the point made by the noble Lord. It would do that not only when officers were involved in front-line and, particularly, dangerous operations but when they might be involved in more routine duties, if such exist for the police service, and training. The provisions of proposed subsections (3) and (4) would seem to undermine the chain of command and create a possible free-for-all in situations of operational delicacy. Perhaps, in responding, the noble Lord could clarify the definition of,

“public official, of whatever rank”,

and whether that would include a police officer of more senior rank to the individual involved. If that is right, that is an encouragement to ignore the chain of command. That may not be what the noble Lord intended so perhaps he would take the opportunity to clarify that.

It seems to me that if there are issues and problems to address, the solution is not to discard the statutory protection—the Health and Safety at Work Act—but to address issues of training and management systems and not to throw away any engagement with legislation that has served this country well for nearly 40 years, which is why we are unable to support the amendment.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in a very useful, serious and worthwhile debate. It is appropriate to say from the government Front Bench that we will take away the points made and consider whether we have got the balance right. On that basis, I will ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment. I note that prolonged service as Chief Whip does not adversely affect one's rhetorical skills.

The noble Lord, Lord Condon, talked about the need for a sensible balance, and that is what we all want to achieve. The noble Lord, Lord Stevens, rightly said that policing is all about taking risks. My wife and I were invited to attend the Leeds police awards dinner some months ago and the award for bravery was given to a constable from Northumbria who had been blinded when stopping an offender in his car. It was quite an emotional experience.

My only close experience with the Health and Safety Executive was when the parliamentary choir was due to perform in Westminster Hall in 2003. On taking the portable organ into Westminster Hall and playing the 16-foot stop, bits of wood began to fall off the roof. Our first response was to say, “The Minister responsible for the HSE is a contralto in the choir, surely we can override the rules”, but the HSE pointed out that in addition to parliamentarians, there would be senior civil servants in the audience, so it would clearly be dangerous to go ahead with the concert and we had to make do with performing in Westminster Abbey instead.

We all recognise the culture of health and safety that has evolved through the media. I regularly read the Daily Mail, which demands that there should be nil risk to the public in anything that is undertaken in a public place. It then sets out to attack the regulations that were drawn up in response to those demands. That is how we have got to where we are now.

The proposal to repeal this clause would have to go significantly further than the noble Lord, Lord Young, recommended in his independent review of health and safety last year. He did not call for the duty to be removed as it serves both to,

“protect employees and ensure that activities carried out do not adversely affect the health and safety of other people”.

Of course the Government recognise the need to strike a balance between protecting the police and the public while acknowledging that it is in the nature of police duty that officers take risks and should not be at risk of prosecution under health and safety legislation when engaged in their duties.

Following the report of my noble friend Lord Young, the Crown Prosecution Service issued guidance in March—which the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, quoted—under the title, Heroic Acts by Police Officers and Firefighters, which clarifies the legal situation and highlights the fact that the public interest would not be served by taking forward the prosecution of police officers who act in heroic ways when decisions are likely to be taken in fast-moving and dynamic situations. The Government will carefully consider the extent to which the recommendations of my noble friend Lord Young's report have been adequately met through the CPS guidance. We will institute a dialogue, if it is needed, between the police, the Home Office, the DWP and the HSE, as suggested. We recognise that this has to be a question of balance and we will assess whether the balance has now been struck in the most sensible place.

Superannuation Bill

Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Lord Wallace of Saltaire

Tuesday 7th December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass, and in so doing it may help the House if I briefly rehearse the evolution of this Bill as it passed through this House. I am aware of concern on all sides of the House at maintaining the central function of the Lords as a revising Chamber under the novel conditions of coalition between two of the four broad groups that constitute this House. I therefore wish to reassure the House that this Bill has been carefully considered, in its Committee and on Report, and that the Government have listened to the reasoned criticisms that were made and have revised the Bill in response to those criticisms.

There was, it is true, only one Division on Report, and that was won by the coalition Government, but, as noble Lords well know from the treatment of many other Bills under successive Governments, the calculus of victory versus defeat in contested votes provides only a crude measure of the process of legislative revision. Probing amendments in Committee explore the rationale and justification for detailed elements of government proposals. Committee reports—in this case from both the Delegated Powers Committee and the Joint Committee on Human Rights—add their critical opinions. This Government, like their predecessors, respond appropriately. I have written to the chairman of the Delegated Powers Committee today to respond to its report and to provide detail on the adjustments that we have made in response.

The Government moved several amendments on Report to accommodate criticisms made in Grand Committee. We accepted an amendment proposed by the opposition Front Bench, repeated from Committee, on which we had recognised the force of the arguments put forward. One amendment was jointly signed by both Front Benches. The Government offered assurances in debate on other issues of concern to noble Lords from around the House. The Minister for the Cabinet Office is writing to the Labour Front Bench to reinforce the assurances offered on Report in this House.

The goal of this Bill is to put in place a reformed Civil Service Compensation Scheme that is affordable, sustainable for the long term, and fair not only to civil servants but to other taxpayers. It is in no way an attack on collective bargaining with the Civil Service trade unions. Indeed, the Bill has now been amended to emphasise that future changes to the Civil Service Compensation Scheme would require consultation with the Civil Service trade unions,

“with a view to reaching agreement”.

The Cabinet Office sent the draft rules for the new compensation scheme to the Council of Civil Service Unions yesterday, seeking its views. These rules will form the basis of the new compensation scheme that will be laid before Parliament. Our target remains to do so before the House rises for the Christmas Recess.

The Bill before noble Lords has thus been modified in a number of significant respects from the form in which it entered the House. I recognise, of course, that there remain clauses and subsections which noble Lords on the opposition Benches would have liked to modify further; that is always the case with the process of consultation and compromise that constitutes legislative politics. However, I re-emphasise that this Bill has been revised as it moved from Second Reading through Grand Committee and Report to its Third Reading. The record of the Superannuation Bill supports the view that this House retains its proper role as a revising Chamber.

I thank all those who have taken part in the several stages of scrutiny. The Labour Front Bench provided constructive and well-argued opposition. The noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, made some characteristically vigorous contributions to Second Reading and Committee. We were sorry that illness prevented her from moving her own amendment on Report, and I am very glad to see her back in her place today. I was blessed with the support of a particularly skilled and effective Bill team of the Cabinet Office. I beg to move.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I shall take a brief moment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Brett and myself to thank the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, for the constructive manner in which he has engaged with the opposition Benches on this Bill, and indeed to thank the Bill team. We agree on the need for the compensation scheme to be amended—indeed, we thought we had achieved that ourselves earlier in the year—and very much support what the Minister has said about processes of collective bargaining. We would share in the disappointment at the end of the day if it was not possible to reach total agreement between those who are engaged in that process.

The noble Lord is right to say that the Bill is not entirely as we would like it, but we are grateful for the reassurance that he put on the record on Report, and certainly grateful for the wider dissemination of that on the caps. That will reassure the Civil Service at a particularly difficult time for it. I thank the Minister again.

Superannuation Bill

Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Lord Wallace of Saltaire

Wednesday 1st December 2010 Lords Chamber

[The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara)]

I understand that there is a mistake in Amendment 6 as printed in the Marshalled List. Instead of “(2) to (ii)” it should read “(2) to (11)”.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I appreciate that we will come on to caps in a later amendment, so it is a little difficult to know whether to respond in detail now or to leave it to later. We discussed this delicate set of issues quite extensively in Grand Committee, and I subsequently set out in a letter, which the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, has mentioned and which has been placed in the House of Lords Library, that I wished to avoid being in the position that followed the High Court’s judgment of May 2010, which resulted in the February 2010 arrangement being squashed and the pre-February scheme being largely revived. I reiterate our strong intention to ensure that the proposed new scheme is legally robust and our consequent view that the scheme would ultimately survive any legal challenge.

Nevertheless, it is open to anyone to seek to challenge the scheme now or in the future, regardless of whether their intention is rational or their arguments are ultimately found to be meaningful by the courts. Such a challenge could result in the scheme being suspended until due legal process has been pursued. The Government take court rulings very seriously; we would always give the most serious consideration to court judgments and would certainly take the necessary steps to take account of any final ruling. As I previously explained, the question that arises is what the default position should be during any period of uncertainty caused by litigation. The Government continue to believe that it is right that Parliament, a democratically accountable body, should decide in an Act of Parliament what the default position should be, and that is the reason for Clause 3 as it is currently drafted.

I do, however, feel certain that a court would have views of its own about an Act of Parliament containing the approach set out in Amendment 6. This seeks, in effect, to oust the court’s power to strike down a scheme, an approach which the courts have often felt to be misconceived and on which the Government would not therefore be confident to rely. I also note that the drafting of the amendment is a little vague, which would not be helpful in conveying to a court a clear meaning of Parliament’s intent. For example, given all the opportunities for appeal or for proceedings to be taken on to the European Court, how could anyone be certain that the “final determination” has been made? Even if the intention and the process could be made sufficiently clear, I am not convinced that a court would always accept that a compensation scheme that is being challenged qualified as a scheme that should remain in place during that challenge.

I emphasise once again, as we did on several occasions in Grand Committee, that the coalition Government hope not to need to use the powers in Clause 3, nor the powers in Clause 4 that support them. What we want is a new, reformed, sustainable, affordable and fair Civil Service Compensation Scheme that can be implemented once this Bill has received Royal Assent and which will mean that we will never need to use the caps in Clause 2. If we are taken to court and therefore need to fall back to a provision that means that the necessary reductions in the Civil Service workforce can be made without disproportionate cost and perverse effects, it is more reasonable to rely on such caps than on a clause that attempts pre-emptively to bind the court.

We shall shortly have the chance to discuss Clause 3 again as drafted, along with the provisions in Clause 4 that provide for the repeal, extension or revival of Clause 3. I do not think it would be right for us to agree to an amendment that might be interpreted by some as seeking to constrain the powers of the courts. So, for the reasons that I have given, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of why the Government are unable to accept this amendment. As I explained when I introduced it, we did not propose to test the opinion of the House, but simply to probe alternatives to the use of the caps as the default position. With respect, the Minister has said why he does not like our formulation, but he has not dealt with the point about what formulations other than the caps have been considered to create the certainty that he seeks and considers is necessary in circumstances where there is a challenge. We do not object to Parliament deciding in an Act of Parliament what that default position should be.

I take the point that the formulation of our amendment could be seen as seeking to oust the power of the courts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, the noble Lord opposite has raised a wide range of issues about the Bill. I recognise, again, the concern that a lot of civil servants have about the caps—perhaps on the misunderstanding that these are the only thing on offer. The Government have made it clear—and I will spell this out in answering a later amendment—that it is their intention to be more generous than the minimum caps expressed in the Bill. I remind noble Lords that Clause 3(11) gives the Government power to increase the compensation scheme but not to decrease it.

As noble Lords will recognise, the Bill at various points goes rather deeply into the relationship between Parliament and the courts. To anyone who would like to sink even more deeply into that area, I can recommend the evidence being given by various law professors to the European Scrutiny Committee in another place, where the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty and the extent to which it depends on court rulings are being discussed in absorbing but extremely lengthy detail.

Today, the Minister for the Cabinet Office wrote to the chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. That letter will be in the House of Lords Library by the end of today; I hope that it will also be copied to noble Lords opposite. Perhaps it would be helpful if I read out two paragraphs from it. They state:

“I welcome the Committee’s acknowledgement that measures interfering with the peaceful enjoyment of possessions are capable of being justified by a sufficiently compelling public interest provided the interference is not arbitrary, is proportionate and does not affect the very substance of the right … Your report goes on to say that in the context of economic and fiscal policy generally, the European Court of Human Rights allows a considerable degree of latitude to States in deciding what is in the public interest, and that it is reluctant to interfere with that judgment unless it is manifestly without reasonable foundation. You also note that the European Court of Human Rights has generally been deferential to arguments of fiscal necessity although it has carefully preserved a scrutiny role and made clear that even interferences which are justified by fiscal considerations must not be arbitrary or so excessive that they remove the very essence of the right. As both this Government and its predecessor concluded, the current scheme is simply unaffordable for the taxpayer and over-generous when compared with comparable schemes elsewhere”.

I reiterate the point that the caps that Clause 3 sets out on the value of benefits under the Civil Service Compensation Scheme are a fallback. I have just explained that the Government are not persuaded that there is a better way to provide it. There is broad agreement that the compensation scheme must be reformed. Your Lordships will appreciate that, after two years of negotiation, we now need to proceed with a new scheme with some urgency, not only because the economic situation requires it but because civil servants will become even more anxious if the current uncertainty remains for longer.

The retention of Clause 3 means that a failure to implement a new scheme would prevent government departments making the changes to their workforce that they need to make for the future as well as now. The clause guards against a situation in which we would have no choice but to revert to the old scheme, which is, as I have said, unaffordable, unsustainable and out of place.

I appreciate that the other amendments which are grouped with Amendment 7 are consequential on it, since, if Clause 3 were not part of the Bill, much of Clause 4 would also not be needed. None the less, I am well aware that there is also concern about the power in Clause 4 to extend or revive the caps in the Bill, particularly some of those that would be among those deleted by Amendments 9 and 10. As Members who have read their Marshalled Lists will note, I have already put down amendments, which I hope we will have the opportunity to discuss later, which seek to respond to points made in this House and the other place about some of those delegated powers.

The Government are determined to ensure that there is certainty that a new and affordable compensation scheme can be put in place. I very much hope that that is the consensus among all your Lordships. The Government remain convinced that Clause 3 and the provisions that support its variation are the appropriate and proportionate way to secure that certainty. For these reasons and all those that I have previously given, I ask the noble Lord opposite to withdraw Amendment 7. I repeat that I shall say something further on a later amendment about the way in which we hope to provide a more generous compensation scheme.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I thank the Minister for what he said in his response, although it does not take us far enough. I look forward to what he has to say on subsequent amendments and look forward to reading a copy of the letter from the Minister for the Cabinet Office.

From what was quoted from that letter, it did not seem to deal with the particular point about the caps being arbitrary and disproportionate. The Government in their own language have talked about them as blunt instruments and have identified them as a minimum and as a starting point for negotiations. The Government themselves have, in agreement with most of the trade unions, developed a scheme which is substantially in excess of what those caps provide. The very existence of those caps, according to the JCHR—and one can see the reasoning—are a threat to the compatibility of the policies with the convention. It does not help the Government’s case at all to retain those caps. On the basis of what the Minister argues, is it not the case that it would take only one person to appeal the new scheme for the Government to consider imposing the caps? They would remain an ever present threat for all of our civil servants while that is under way. That is one of the reasons why they should go from the Bill.

I can see from the Minister’s face that I am unlikely to convince him and to cause him to change his mind immediately. What I need to do is to test the opinion of the House on this matter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, the Opposition wish to cast me—or the Government—as Scrooge, or I believe it is the Grinch that the younger generation talk about. The idea that the Government are looking for the opportunity to dismiss huge numbers of civil servants between 23 December and 10 January is an interesting but an unlikely one—indeed, an unreal one. The Government are still looking to lay the new scheme on the second sitting day following Royal Assent. An order to move the caps would be laid in the first sitting day following Royal Assent, which would have advice issued on the operation of the cap by the Minister to the department. As we have already said, we would be minded to increase the level if no agreement has been reached. As the noble Lord has already remarked, a number of unions are already balloting their members on the scheme that has currently been offered, with the negotiation and participation of several of the unions concerned.

One Government or another have, for two years or more, been negotiating on this scheme. Further delay does not seem desirable. I offered repeated assurances about the Government’s purpose in retaining, and our intentions on using, Clause 3 in the Bill—whether there might be some circumstances in which, for whatever reason, the new scheme could not be implemented. We do not see a justification for any further delay. I am not persuaded that we should accept Amendment 8 or any other proposal to further delay any part of this package. The Government are able to carry through the implementation rapidly. Members will understand that government, as well as Parliament, tends to slow down a little over the Christmas and new year break. If these matters are not completed by the time we rise on 22 December, action will be taken very quickly when we all return on 10 January. It is not an enormous delay and I therefore do not see the necessity of the amendment. I therefore ask him to withdraw it.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response but it does not altogether deal with the issue that I seek to raise in this amendment. I can see that if the new scheme proceeds very quickly in early to mid-January, there is a limited window within which my concerns might arise. However, as I understand it, there is no certainty that the date will be the middle of January; it could be later. We do not know what will happen with the trade union ballots and whether that may affect the Minister’s view. This is absolutely not about delay because it does not touch on the date for the introduction of the scheme; it is about seeking to align the time at which the caps bite with the scheme, otherwise you would have a period in which the caps drove the compensation scheme, and that is a cause for concern.

I can see that encouragement and guidance might be given but, at the end of the day, departments are their own masters in this matter and in circumstances where departments are faced with very squeezed budgets the measure could give rise to difficulties. If the scheme is laid on 10 January—I think that is what the noble Lord suggested—I accept that there is only a very narrow window. If there were to be a wider gap—I think that this is taking us on to the next amendment—one way the Government might respond would be to increase the caps under Clause 3(11). That would certainly help to ameliorate the issue but not deal with it completely. Perhaps we should await the debate on the next group of amendments, but the Minister might reflect further on this. I hope that he will be as specific as he can on the record—if not today, perhaps at Third Reading—on a not insignificant gap opening up between the date that the caps come into effect, the date that the scheme is laid and comes into effect, and the Government’s response to that. That would be helpful because, as I say, we have identified a genuine concern. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, for recognising that concern. I am happy to leave it at that for now but ask the Minister to reflect further on this to see what reassurance he can give on the record in the event of the gap widening. Subject to that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 11, I shall also speak to Amendment 12. We have been unsuccessful in deleting Clause 3, although we expect it to be repealed at some stage before the new scheme is introduced. The Minister has confirmed that that is the case. Government Amendments 13 and 15, which we will support, mean that Clause 3 can be revived for a period of up to six months, provided that the revival takes place within the three-year period starting when the Act is passed.

Amendment 11 would require that any revival of Clause 3 must be accompanied with an order under Clause 3(11) uprating the caps to a level consistent with the CSCS then in operation—that is, the revised CSCS introduced by order following the coming into force of the Act. It is accepted that a precise alignment may not be possible, hence the “as far as practicable”. I cannot see that the Government should have any difficulty with this unless there is an issue about wording, which could be revisited at Third Reading. It is understood that this would be their intention in any event. I think that the Minister hinted that that was the case in our debate on the earlier amendment, but perhaps he would confirm that. There would be no downside, as the measure would align the caps only with the new scheme; there is no additional financial commitment. It would help to address the concerns raised by the JCHR and provide some comfort to civil servants who believe that, at the end of the day, the caps will determine what they get.

Amendment 12 would reduce the time during which revival can take place from three years to one year. We have heard no detailed explanation of why three years is included in the Bill, so the Minister might take this opportunity to explain that in a bit more detail. He might also take the opportunity to be a bit more specific about the precise circumstances and the process under which any revival might proceed. I beg to move.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for the care with which he has approached this entire Bill. It is a complicated Bill and a complicated scheme; all those in the previous Government and in this Government who have been involved in these negotiations will know how complex it is, particularly when issues of judicial challenge come in. I assure your Lordships, once again, that the Government intend to repeal Clause 3 when the new scheme is ready, in order to enable that scheme—as I have explained, we have agreed that it will be more generous than the minimum reasonable levels set out in the caps—to be laid before Parliament and to take effect. It is not our intention to leave the caps in force for any length of time, since we want to make progress in delivering a reformed compensation scheme for the Civil Service. However, if Clause 3 were not yet in force when the new scheme is ready, as we hope will be the case before the end of the year, we would need to do one of two things. We would either proceed with laying the scheme before Parliament, without having available for several weeks the potential fallback of Clause 3, or we would move that a new scheme be put into place at that point.

I have listened with interest to the noble Lord’s detailed arguments and I thank him for giving me notice of Amendments 11 and 12 earlier this week. I have some sympathy for the reasons behind Amendment 11, but I shall explain that there are reasons why the Government are unable to accept this particular approach. The noble Lord has made it clear that Amendment 11 is aimed at testing the intention behind the power in Clause 4 to revive the caps in Clause 3 and to ensure that they would be reviewed if there were circumstances in which they had to be revived at a later date.

Our view is that there are some significant problems with the drafting of Amendment 11, which we do not think could be resolved. First, the amendment requires the revived caps to be aligned,

“with the current terms of the civil service compensation scheme”.

On the face of it, this might mean maintaining compensation payments as closely as possible with the terms of the proposed new Civil Service Compensation Scheme, which it is intended to put in place as soon as possible after the Bill receives Royal Assent. However, if the new scheme were struck down by challenge in the courts, it seems quite possible that it would not be interpreted as “the current terms”; rather, those terms might need to be interpreted as the terms of the previous, pre-2010, scheme, which would solve nothing, as that is the scheme that both this Government and our predecessor concluded must be reformed.

Even if this were not the case, the wording,

“align ... as far as practicable, with the current terms”,

is not at all clear and might itself be subject to challenge. It would not be as simple as the Government changing the caps to the numbers of months’ service specified in the scheme—for example, replacing 15 months with 21 months. We have made it clear that such an approach would not work, as staff accrue compensation payments differently under the existing and proposed new schemes and so simply changing the number of months stated in the caps would not keep compensation payments within the same cost envelope. We are simply not confident that the words “as far as practicable” would provide sufficient flexibility to set caps that would fully take account of differences in accrual or other issues determining the likely profile of departures.

While for these reasons I have considerable difficulties with the drafting of Amendment 11, that is not the end of the matter. The Government have provided in the Bill a power at Clause 3(11) to increase by order the number of months specified in the caps. I emphasise again that this is a power to increase and not a power to decrease the caps. The powers are there for a reason, which is that, just as the noble Lord has indicated, there might well be very good reasons why the caps should be increased should they need to be imposed following a revival of the provisions in Clause 3. If the Government had no intention of ever increasing the caps, they would not have sought this power.

Superannuation Bill

Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Lord Wallace of Saltaire

Wednesday 10th November 2010 Grand Committee

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, perhaps I should start by responding to the request of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, to update the Committee as far as possible on where we are in consultation with the unions. As Members may know, the Government have been engaged in active consultation with the unions in parallel with the progress of the Bill, following the clear signal given on Second Reading and in Committee in the other place that there was consensus on all sides in that House that the negotiations should proceed as rapidly as possible.

As noble Lords opposite are aware, the Council of Civil Service Unions was asked to advise the Government whether the Government’s proposals might form the basis of a wider agreement that the individual unions could then recommend to their respective members. In the event, the CCSU did not accept the proposals, but five of the unions—Prospect, the FDA, the POA, the GMB and Unite—then approached the Government directly and asked to continue discussions on the terms. There followed an intensive period of meetings between the five unions and officials that, on 5 October, resulted in an agreement being reached between the parties on terms that might form the basis of a new compensation scheme.

Later on 5 October, the GMB, Unite, the POA, Prospect and the FDA wrote to confirm that the terms accurately recorded an agreement that all five unions were able to recommend positively to their executives as being the best that might be achieved in negotiation. Soon after 5 October, agreement was reached between the Government and the trade union negotiating teams. The POA executive committee then voted to distance itself from the agreement and to request further discussion. The sixth union—the PCS—withdrew from the talks at the point that the five other unions agreed to negotiate separately.

The Government remain committed to trying to reach an agreement with the CCSU. The Minister for the Cabinet Office has since made a number of personal approaches, orally and in writing, to the PCS general secretary and the Prison Officers’ Association in which he has invited the CCSU to put forward alternative proposals for a reformed Civil Service Compensation Scheme and has sought to engage with them further. I understand that a letter was received from the Council of Civil Service Unions this morning, but we have not yet had a chance to consider that further.

It may be helpful to remind the Committee that the main outcome that the Government seek to achieve through the Bill is to enable necessary reform of the Civil Service Compensation Scheme in a way that is both economically and fiscally acceptable and fair to the civil servants affected.

The key elements of the new scheme that we propose to introduce include, first, a standard tariff whereby each year of service provides one month’s salary in the event of redundancy. The tariff will be capped at 12 months for compulsory redundancy and 21 months for voluntary redundancy. Secondly, all civil servants who are made redundant, voluntarily or compulsorily, will be entitled to a three-month notice period. Thirdly, there will be significant protection for lower-paid civil servants. This is one of the most important aspects of the scheme that the Government have agreed with the majority of the unions. Any civil servant earning less than £23,000 a year who is made redundant will be deemed to earn that amount when their redundancy payment is calculated. Payments to the higher paid will be limited so that staff earning more than six times the private sector median average earnings—currently just under £150,000 a year—would have their salary capped at that figure for the purpose of calculating their redundancy payment. When staff have, in addition, reached minimum pension age, they may be able to opt for early payment of pension when they leave, in return for surrendering the appropriate amount of any redundancy payment.

We believe that this proposed new scheme meets our goals and those of the majority of union representatives. It is affordable and sustainable, it caps the amount that can be paid out and it reforms the accrual rate, but it is also fair and provides protection for both the lower paid and those closest to retirement. This new offer is a good one and we seriously hope that it will still be possible to secure the agreement of all the Civil Service unions.

The Government have reservations about the amendment because it takes us very wide of the compensation scheme. The purpose of the Bill is very much to deal with the reform of the compensation scheme. Section 1 of the 1972 Act deals with a much broader set of issues. Noble Lords opposite may have been seeking simplicity in applying their amendment to all schemes made under Section 1 of the 1972 Act, but it goes some way beyond the matters principally addressed by the Bill. It asks us to consider its application to a variety of schemes under the Act, of which some are required ultimately to reach agreement with consultees and some are not. That makes the amendment’s fit with the range of Section 1 schemes rather less elegant than it might be. Our strong sense, therefore, is that we should resist this amendment. We recognise, however, that the approach of the 1972 Act and the Government to relations with the unions—like that of our predecessors in government—has been and remains to reach agreement by consensus wherever possible and as fully as possible. I therefore invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I thank the Minister for that full explanation and update as to where matters rest. Around that, I ask him specifically what he sees the steps over the next few weeks as being. I understood from our earlier debate that it was planned that, the day after the Act comes into force, an order will be laid that repeals Section 2. The day after that, the scheme will be laid, maybe in the other order. Can the Minister confirm that? In a sense, it gives some framework to the discussions that we will have about Clause 2 and the caps, which are a particular bone of contention.

More generally, my noble friend Lady Turner makes some very telling points about the concerns that people have and how the changes to the compensation scheme may impact on them. The amendment that I have pursued is to Section 1 of the 1972 Act, not the Bill that is under consideration. We will debate that in a moment. Specifically on the amendment, I am sorry that the Minister does not feel able to accept it. All it does is to qualify the obligation to consult in a way that the Government’s own amendment does. I am not sure whether his principal argument was that the scope of the Bill precludes its acceptance or that under the 1972 Act some arrangements need agreement and some do not. Even if they do not, presumably the consultation is to some effect, which ought to be to reach agreement, whatever the substantive matter under consideration.

Obviously, given where we are, this is not a matter that I would press today but could the Minister confirm whether it is the scope of the Bill or other matters as well that are precluding acceptance of this amendment? I would certainly appreciate it if he was able to update us on the precise steps envisaged between about now, when the Bill becomes an Act, and what flows from that in terms of orders, particularly on the demise of the caps.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I thank the noble Lord for that helpful intervention. There were two questions there. First, our resistance to this is partly on the basis that this is a much more narrowly focused Bill. Secondly, the 1972 Act is fairly complex and deals with a large range of different activities. Although there is of course a general acceptance of consultation, the exact element of commitment to agreement and consultation under different clauses is fairly complex. If we were to go into a wholesale revision of the 1972 Act, we would be doing a very different exercise now.

On where we are with the Bill and what is intended, as I am sure noble Lords are aware, this Bill is a fallback position which is felt to be necessary because these negotiations have been under way for two years and have become subject to litigation. The Government are anxious, as were our predecessor Government, that attempts to introduce a satisfactory new compensation scheme should not be delayed further by continuing litigation, some of which—as noble Lords will know—could last for a very long time.

The hope and intention is that once Royal Assent to the Bill takes place, the cap will be in force and, if everything is then accepted by those involved, the sunset clause will come into operation on day two and the new scheme will be laid on day three. We would then go through to the new scheme coming into operation so that compensation could be provided on the agreed new basis. That is the hope and intention and, as those who were Ministers in the previous Government will recognise, it is the essence of what we are attempting to do to avoid further delay.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

Could we just be clear on that point? If the Act receives Royal Assent and comes into force, I think that the Minister said that would bring the sunset clause into play. I thought the proposition was that if you had the new scheme introduced by order, you would then have to do something with the caps—otherwise, there is what I hope is a clear inconsistency between what the caps and the scheme provide—and that the proposal was to repeal Section 2. Is that not the case? It is quite important that we have clarity because we have tabled amendments about doing away with Clause 2. That might be the safest route in any event but I assume that, once an order is laid and a new scheme is in place, the caps would have to be removed on a permanent or, at least, a temporary basis.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

The caps, as the noble Lord will be aware, are there in case litigation were to prevent the new scheme going into operation, so that there would be an alternative. However, the caps can be repealed by negative order and the intention is that that order would be placed the day after Royal Assent, if all else is in play.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

The noble Baroness has raised a very pertinent point but, in terms of the litigation—whatever the outside risk of it might be—that could come from challenge under the human rights legislation, what leads the Government to assume that that might be successful in relation to a scheme that would not be equally successful in relation to the legislation around the caps? You would expect them both to be subject to the same sort of challenge.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

The caps as they stand can be increased but not decreased under Clause 2. This is a fallback Bill that we hope it will not prove necessary to implement but, in that unlikely event, the caps can be increased under Clause 2 in the interim if by any chance there were to be a challenge or a judicial review which delayed the implementation of the scheme that had been agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I did not base my argument on the fact that there was comparability with the private sector. We know the history of the scheme—the Minister helpfully recapped on it on Second Reading—and that the prospect of compensation arrangements was an integral part of the terms and conditions, historically. It might be challenged as not necessarily the case now, but what people accepted in terms of salary, pension rights and compensation opportunities was seen as a package that was seen as collectively valuable. I suggest that it is a big step, for the people affected, to move away from that. It is right to do it—we have made that clear and support the Government in seeking to do it—but we think that there ought to be protections around it so that Parliament has a role and an opportunity to take a view on whether the process that should be undertaken, in a sense, to justify giving up unanimity is robust.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, at this stage I should declare an interest, in that I have a family member who is about to go on six months’ maternity leave and is not at all sure that her Civil Service job will be there when she comes back. The Civil Service has changed a lot over the past 20 years—civil servants indeed have to apply for their next positions—so life is not as it was when the 1972 Act was founded. I reassure the Opposition that the Government’s intention throughout is to be as transparent as possible about the proposed scheme and the consultation with the unions. If it helps the Opposition, I am willing to give a clear commitment that the coalition Government will table a Written Ministerial Statement at the point at which the scheme is agreed, to make sure that both Houses are fully informed of what has been agreed.

In answer to what the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said about this being an unprecedented development, I say that I am not aware of any precedent in which proposals of this sort have to be submitted for the approval of both Houses. I do not think that the previous Government would have wanted to accept that, and I am not sure that this Government wish to do so. Therefore, Amendment 3 is one that the Government are not in any sense minded to accept. However, I am prepared to look again at the wording of the proposed new clause to which Amendment 4 addresses itself to see whether there is any way in which we can meet the noble Lord’s concern over the inclusion of the wording,

“such information as the Minister considers appropriate”.

On that basis, I hope that he will be willing to withdraw Amendment 3 for the time being.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for the assurance about a Statement being made to both Houses, and that he will look again in relation to the wording on the information that needs to be provided. We will reflect on the debate that we have had about Parliament’s approval, but I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 3. In doing so, I say that although Amendment 2 is not as we would most like it, it is a step in the right direction so we feel able to support it today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, logic might suggest that all we need in this Bill is Clause 1. I understand that point, but since the High Court judgment in May, it has become apparent that when the terms of the compensation scheme were subject to legal doubt, the purpose of restructuring within government might be stalled altogether, with consequential financial implications and uncertainty and consequent distress for staff. Having Clause 2 in reserve ensures that, if a scheme is subject to prolonged litigation, there is a provision which produces certainty and can be brought into force to prevent the process of government restructuring being put into limbo. Therefore, this is a reserve power which the Government are asking for which we hope will not be necessary. I stress again that it is a fallback in the event of refusal to agree followed by judicial challenge. The question then arises as to what the default position should be if a scheme is stalled by prolonged litigation. It is right that Parliament should decide in an Act of Parliament what the default position should be, hence Clause 2. I repeat: putting these limits into primary legislation leads to greater legal certainty and thus democratic accountability.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I will obviously not pursue the proposition that Clause 2 do not stand part of the Bill but, like the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, I am struggling to understand fully the Government’s position on this, particularly in relation to the fallback. Can the Minister be a bit more specific on the fear that the introduction of the scheme, by way of order in a parliamentary process, is somehow less secure than caps being included in primary legislation as a fallback, particularly when those caps are, pretty much across the range, substantially more adverse than the scheme which is going to be introduced?

It seems to me that Governments, as they legislate, could argue right across the piece that there is always the prospect of a challenge. Somebody might take a different view—the courts might take a different view to the Government—and there are consequences of that. If there are, the Government have to face those consequences. I suggest that to try and build in, or hardwire, if I may use the expression, a sort of fallback position in all sorts of circumstances, particularly these, does not seem appropriate. It is something which concerns us greatly and to which we shall certainly return on Report. It is not only our view. The Delegated Powers Committee made a further point about reviving these provisions but, if we adopted this across all government legislation, legislation would be littered with provisions so that if there were a successful challenge here, there or anywhere else, there would be something in your back pocket as a fallback. That does not seem a very sensible basis on which the Government should legislate.

While I hear what the noble Lord said, I am not convinced by the proposition that he has made, certainly on the issues around the basis for discussion and interim solution. In a sense, that is now past and we have something which is, if not fully agreed, on the point of being implemented. Yet, as the noble Baroness said, Clause 1 has moved us on from it anyway, so I remain unconvinced. The issue of having a measure like this in the background, which of itself must be a deterrent for somebody who believes that they have a case in law to pursue, whether they are right or wrong, is that it must make it less likely that they would seek, in their terms, to get justice. That is a regrettable step as well.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

Since the High Court judgment—since, indeed, one of the unions decided to take what had until then been negotiations to judicial review—we find ourselves in a situation where it is possible that judicial review may be used as a means of delaying the introduction of the scheme. If that litigation were to take a sufficiently long time, the current default would be the previously existing scheme. Now, the previous Government negotiated for some 18 months to change that scheme, rightly insisting—and having the agreement of the unions—that the previous scheme was no longer viable or affordable. We wish to make it absolutely certain that, in the event of continuing litigation, the default to any failure to introduce the new scheme would be enshrined in primary legislation, which is therefore much less open to judicial challenge. That is the justification for Clause 2.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

We are in danger of getting a bit repetitive. Could the Minister say a little more about why the primary route is more secure? Fundamentally, if the Government’s judgment is that there are risks around a legal challenge that could delay the implementation of the scheme, I would have thought that the Government should be concerned about that and should seek to address it—not by having this fallback position, which they have accepted all along they do not want to deploy, but by looking at the arrangements that they will implement to ensure that those are less likely to suffer the legal challenge that the Government clearly fear on this. It seems to me to be the wrong approach. If we think that people’s rights are being impaired and are not secure in our judgment about this, I would have thought that the thing to do is to change arrangements until we are secure. I know there is never certainty in everything in life, but that seems to be the right route for the Government, rather than to have this back-pocket fallback that, at their own admission, the Government see as a blunt instrument that they never intend to deploy.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I used to teach international politics, not law, and this is the point where I should appropriately offer to write to the noble Lord, and place a copy in the House of Lords Library, about the statutory basis of the scheme as it applies to the cap and to make sure that there are some informal conversations between now and Report to tease out the details of this difference.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I am most grateful to the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

Could the noble Lord cover—or write to me on—the issue of timing? The issue was raised because I referred earlier to people knowing that the RDAs will go. With that knowledge, at what point do the processes start and at what point do either the current arrangements for compensation apply or new arrangements apply in the future? Does he feel comfortable about there being a level playing field in the way in which these are dealt with across the service?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord is aware that, although the RDAs will disappear, some of their task will be undertaken by the new LEPs and some of those involved will, naturally, be strong candidates to find posts in those new sectors. This is not completely a zero-sum affair. I am very conscious that in Yorkshire, we have one of the more effective RDAs. We are now in the process of agreeing local economic partnerships and I have no doubt that many of the staff in the Yorkshire RDA will work for the Yorkshire-based LEPs.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Colwyn)]

If this amendment is agreed I would be unable to call Amendments 12 to 14 because of pre-emption.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

Before I reply to this, perhaps I may say a little about changing patterns of employment which affect redundancy and people moving from one job to another. I think there are some generational issues here. My father spent 40 years in the same job, apart from Army service, from the age of 15 until he was 60. The old pattern of employment in which you left school and expected to be in the same career until you retired is one that those of us of a certain age still cling to, but our children by and large do not expect to do so. The levels of turnover in the younger levels of the Civil Service are higher than in the older levels of the Civil Service, so there are certain generational issues here. Our younger generation is more attuned to the idea that you do not have a single career pattern or job pattern for life, and they are prepared to move. That is certainly the Government’s hope.

In discussing Amendment 11, it is almost unavoidable that I trespass on the amendments that will follow because the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, has already mentioned the Delegated Powers Committee’s report. We have welcomed it and recognise that the sunset and sunrise clauses are open to question. We hope that the three-year time limit that the two government amendments in the next group will introduce will go a long way towards meeting the points raised by the committee about the power to revive Clause 2 by order. It seems to us that that is a reasonable response to the Delegated Powers Committee’s report.

As with much of the Bill, this is a question of how we ensure that we come to a satisfactory and stable settlement on the new compensation scheme by agreement as far as possible with the unions, but avoiding litigation that would challenge the new scheme. It is our hope and intention that Clause 3 would not have to be used for a further revival of the Bill at any point, but it is there to ensure that we have the necessary guarantees. I have already explained to noble Lords opposite what our hope and intention is when this Bill receives Royal Assent, so we hope that much of the Bill will thus be superseded. I hope that when we move on to the next group of amendments the noble Lord will recognise that the Government have moved some way towards recognising the concerns which the Delegated Powers Committee expressed and which this amendment seeks to address.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, there are some further comments, and perhaps we can pick them up in relation to the next group that we are about to debate. I accept that the Government have moved some way but, I suggest, not very far. We can come on to that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Drake]

If I might concur with my noble friend Lord McKenzie, given a sunrise provision with a life of three years and a reading of the amendment which seems to suggest that there can be unlimited occasions on which it can be extended, that does not seem much of a concession—if I may presume, having not been in Grand Committee before. Even listening to the Minister’s argument that there is a need for a fallback position, surely that is still taking the need for it to an extreme extent, because if there were to be a human rights challenge from one or more of the unions I am sure that it would manifest itself very quickly. I cannot see them waiting indefinitely or until thousands of people are made redundant before they would make such a challenge.

I remain extremely concerned that this seems a very open-ended provision, even allowing for the argument put about the need for the Government to have a fallback position in the event of a legal challenge. If I were a trade union negotiator, I would feel very anxious about the integrity of the negotiating process on an ongoing basis if there were such an unlimited sunrise provision.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, there were two questions which I will take. One was the question that was rightly raised—I thank the noble Lord for reminding me—of scrutiny only by the other place. The second is on the justification for three years, which might be extended.

On the first, noble Lords will recall that there was some debate in the other place on whether this should be considered a money Bill, because it involves public expenditure. The justification for scrutiny only by the other House is that changes made by order under the Bill could have a direct impact on public expenditure, for example by changing the level of the caps as provided for under Clause 2 or by reviving the powers to impose caps under Clause 2 using the powers in Clause 3(4). These seem to the Government to attract Commons financial privilege. It is therefore entirely defensible for the Bill to have been drafted to allow scrutiny of these delegated powers in that House and not this one.

On the three-year time limit, it is not simply a question of when a judicial or a legal challenge might be mounted; it is a question of how long it might take for a process of appeal—for a legal challenge—to be worked through. I am sure that noble Lords who have been involved in trade union negotiations will recall how lengthy litigation can be as one moves from lower courts to higher courts and, when human rights considerations are at stake, even occasionally appealing to the European Court of Human Rights. The only reason why the three years is there—and why there is a permissible clause for extension by order each time, which has to be laid before the House for six months at a time—is for the extreme case that such successive appeals might be taken in an extended judicial process to try to prevent a compensation scheme being implemented.

I am willing to take this back to see whether it is possible to squeeze the three-year extension any further, but we are playing, as we can, with making the workable scheme possible. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord may be willing to accept the government amendments as they stand.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for expanding on some of those points. Certainly, we do not propose today to oppose the amendments, but, as I said earlier, we will want to revisit them on Report. I am grateful for his offer to look at whether he could squeeze the number of opportunities in which the period could be extended. In doing so, in a sense, the Minister has accepted that, as drafted, you could have a succession of six months extensions which would go way beyond three years and six months. It could go on for a very long time.

There is no qualification here or criteria attached to when that extension might be sought. Despite the fact that it may be an order that has to go to Parliament, there are no criteria under which Parliament is able to judge whether that is a fair outcome or not. On the grounds that it is potentially more than three years, I am grateful for the Minister’s offer on that. It seems to be three years regardless of the circumstances. There needs to be no trigger which causes that extension to take place, which seems to be unfortunate as well.

I would stress that all of this is second order for us because we do not want it there anyway and we will continue to do what we can to get it removed. I hope, in that context, that the Minister will do what he can to see whether it can be further constrained. It does not seem to have moved that far from the starting position in the Bill.

Superannuation Bill

Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Lord Wallace of Saltaire

Tuesday 26th October 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I shall come in a moment to Clause 3, which is of course different. I am advised that Clause 2 is useful and necessary for spelling out the minimum that, under any conditions and without negotiation, the Government would offer. In answer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, it is the Government’s intention to repeal Clause 2 by the time the new scheme is in force. Clause 3 allows for the Bill to lapse once the new scheme is fully in operation. That is the timescale under which we will allow the Bill to fall in the sunset clause.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

Can we be clear on that? Is the Minister saying that if there is a repeal of Clause 2 once the settlement is under way, he will be amenable to the removal of the revival provision in Clause 3, which could bring back the sunset clause?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

The question of the zombie clause, the revival clause, or however one wants to put it, needs to be discussed further in Committee, when the Government may wish to return to that question in some detail with new proposals. All of us who have looked in detail at the legislation understand that sunrise clauses and revival clauses are a delicate issue for Parliament as a whole.

On turnover and natural wastage, I confirm that the Civil Service is suffering something of the order of 7.5 per cent a year. We nevertheless anticipate that the reduction in some areas will be a good deal more than that and that it will be necessary to ensure that the provisions set out in the Civil Service protocol for redeployment and assistance when people become redundant will be thoroughly available for all those who go through this scheme. Our preference is, where possible, for voluntary redundancy and redeployment, and we will be working extremely hard with the unions and with different departments to ensure that that is the case.

The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, also remarked that there has been an explosion in public sector pay and that the private sector finds it difficult to accept the levels of compensation provided in the Civil Service. I noted in the PCS briefing, which was helpfully sent round to all of us, that the 1972 Act was intended to bring pubic sector packages up to the level of the private sector. The evidence to the Public Bill Committee from the Hay Group was that public sector packages are now in many areas better than those in the private sector. We are doing our best to keep them roughly in parallel. In the higher levels of the Civil Service, of course, the comparative level of award falls away, but this is partly because the narrower distribution of pay levels within the Civil Service does not compare to top executive pay.

On compensation, any statutory arrangements in relation to employment provide a minimum underpin for all workers. However, the Government are attempting, through negotiation, to provide an example to other employers of good practice in staff issues. Again I emphasise that negotiations are continuing and that a much more generous package than the minimum is on offer.

The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, asked about human rights issues and accrued rights. The Government’s human rights analysis has been set out in the Explanatory Notes to the Bill. In sum, we do not consider that Civil Service benefits are possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Even if, contrary to the Government’s view, the changes we propose are seen as representing an interference with possessions, we believe that such interference is fully justified in light of the pressing need to reduce the budget deficit.

As I understand it, the judgment of Justice Sales was not about accrued rights but about the form of agreement under the existing legislation. This legislation therefore removes the basis for the judgment of Justice Sales. In any event, I emphasise that the limits in Clause 2 do not apply to departures agreed before the Bill comes into force. We are not trying to take away from staff a right that has been upheld by the court, because the court did not rule that staff had a right to the current terms. The question is about the nature of the negotiations and the right of the unions to veto any agreement made. Again I stress that we have been, and continue to be, close to an agreement and I hope that we will succeed in reaching one.

Our intention is to provide amendments that both reinforce the requirement for the Government to consult and ensure that the extent and outcome of the consultation is made more transparent. This will be further informed by points raised today before we present the necessary amendments to your Lordships’ House in Committee.

I confirm that the level and quality of support offered to surplus civil servants who are made redundant will continue at the current level and that a copy of the April 2008 protocol for handling surplus staff situations is now in the Library of the House. That protocol will be updated to reflect the additional measures that the Government intend to introduce.

I hope that I have covered the points made by noble Lords in a serious and sober debate about what we all recognise is a difficult issue. I look forward to further discussions in Committee.