Royal Albert Hall Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Baroness Barker

Thursday 19th October 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

Thanks to increases from the National Lottery as well, the Arts Council is spending £30 million a year additionally in this portfolio than in the last. The challenges of inflation certainly do beset many cultural institutions, and I speak to them about it, but I did want to correct what the noble Viscount said there.

More pertinently, the noble Viscount mentioned the decisions by previous Attorneys-General not to refer the matter to the tribunal. I cannot speak for decisions made by previous Attorneys-General, but the Attorney-General, as parens patriae, is the constitutional defender of charity and charitable property. She is required to prepare a report for the other place on certain private Bills affecting charitable interests. If she is asked to report on this Bill in another place, she will of course make her views known.

My noble friend Lady Stowell of Beeston and others referred to the loan which the Royal Albert Hall got through the unprecedented culture recovery fund. That £1.5 billion of funding provided assistance to more than 5,000 cultural institutions across the country during the challenging period of the pandemic. It was emergency support to help them through those difficult months, and no conditions were imposed upon it other than to make sure that where there were loans, they would be repaid. It was not designed as an instrument of wider policy, but as an instrument of assistance to organisations that needed it.

Other noble Lords have—

[Baroness Barker (LD)]

I wonder whether the Minister would agree with me on this point. All that he said about that loan is absolutely true, and the loan is repayable, I believe, at 2%. Does he not understand the point that some of us are trying to make that, for a member of the council of the Royal Albert Hall, which has to take decisions about the repayment of that loan, it is also possible for that same person to be the owner of a business which is conducted within the Royal Albert Hall, and that therefore they might well take the view that paying back to the Government at a low rate of 2% is better than having to pay back other loans at a higher rate? Therefore, what is actually happening is that something that was proposed for a particular public institution is actually benefiting private companies in a way that was not envisaged.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

The cultural recovery fund assisted more than 5,000 organisations across the country of different sizes, constitutions and setups. Some were given grants, while others were given loans, as the noble Baroness said, at a favourable rate to try to assist them at a time when the pandemic made the running of those businesses difficult. Where there are loans, the Government are clear that they must be repaid, but it is for institutions to make the decisions about how they run themselves in the light of that.

Noble Lords took the opportunity to raise a number of broader issues, which I am sure my noble friend Lord Harrington will want to reflect on when he concludes in a moment. Indeed, he may wish to reflect on them as the Bill proceeds to the Private Bill Committee.

Dormant Assets Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Baroness Barker

Consideration of Commons amendments
Wednesday 9th February 2022 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay) (Con)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 1 to 4. In doing so, I will briefly summarise the changes which have been made to the Bill since last it was before your Lordships’ House. All of the amendments which have been made were brought forward by Her Majesty’s Government and garnered support across all parties in another place. Commons Amendment 1 is minor and technical, responding to a drafting issue that was helpfully highlighted by the Investment Association in its written evidence to the Public Bill Committee. Amendments 2 and 3 respond to the lengthy debates on how dormant assets money should best be spent, and specifically the calls to establish a community wealth fund. Amendment 4 is wholly procedural and removes the privilege amendment made in your Lordships’ House, as is the procedure in these cases.

First, I will speak to Amendment 1. This is a minor and technical government amendment which is required to uphold the key principle of full restitution: to ensure that people can reclaim the amount owed had the transfer to the scheme not happened. This amendment clarifies that money derived from collective scheme investments cannot be transferred into the scheme as client money. This is in response to feedback we received from the Investment Association during the passage of the Bill, and we thank it for its helpful feedback on this issue.

Without this amendment, there would be an unintended loophole where ISA fund managers and investment platforms that hold collective scheme investments, and are able to convert them to cash, would be able to transfer this money into the dormant assets scheme under client money clauses. The investment and wealth management clauses of the Bill recognise the fluctuating market value of investments by entitling owners of dormant collective scheme investments to reclaim the value of the share or unit at the point of reclaim. In contrast, the right to reclaim under client money clauses does not account for the market value, as the asset is already held in cash. We believe that this applies to a small number of cases. However, if relevant institutions have the contractual cover to sell the asset on behalf of its owner and transfer the funds to the scheme as client money, this would mean that the owner would be treated differently from if their dormant asset had been transferred under the investment and wealth management clauses. Remedying this discrepancy protects the vital principle of the scheme: full restitution. It ensures that the collective scheme investments are excluded from the client money clauses, so that the owners of these dormant assets will not be treated differently depending on which type of investment institution happened to hold it for them. Unfortunately, this will have the effect of excluding collective scheme investments held by investment platforms and ISA fund managers from the scheme at this time. Bringing them into scope would require complex technical work, and we are working with the industry to understand if and how this can be accomplished in future under the power to extend the scheme through regulations. We thank our industry partners again for their thoughtful and very helpful feedback on this issue.

I now turn to Amendments 2 and 3. As noble Lords know, a key topic of debate throughout the passage of the Bill has been the proposal to use dormant assets funding to establish community wealth funds in England. We have heard, both here and in the other place, the merits of considering this model, not least from the former Bishop of Newcastle before she left your Lordships’ House. This is a model whereby left-behind communities are empowered to make their own decisions on how best to develop vital social infrastructure in their local areas. This kind of devolved and very local decision-making is, of course, a key tenet of the Government’s levelling-up White Paper, which was published last week. We agree that this important proposal warrants careful consideration—not only by the Government, but by the public and voluntary industry participants that underpin the scheme’s success. In Committee in the other place, the Government made a formal commitment to include community wealth funds as an explicit option in the first consultation launched on the purposes of the English portion.

My honourable friend the Minister for Sport, Tourism, Heritage and Civil Society met Her Majesty’s Opposition and the co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for “Left Behind” Neighbourhoods to discuss this commitment. With their support, the Government brought forward Amendment 3 to place this commitment in legislation. This responds to calls heard in both Houses to refer to community wealth funds on the face of the Bill—making a clear statement that the Government are considering this model and are supportive of its underlying principles, while protecting the integrity of the consultation process. We maintain that an open and fair consultation, without predetermining its outcomes, is essential to securing the expanded scheme’s impact.

The Government are clear that Amendment 3 is the furthest that the legislation is able to go in this area, and that is why Amendment 2 removes community wealth funds from being pre-emptively named as a possible option in a future order, in favour of Amendment 3.

I thank noble Lords on all sides of the House for the constructive debate that we have had on this issue. I am very grateful for the spirit of positive collaboration shown throughout the passage of the Bill. It is in this spirit that the Government brought forward their amendments. I am also grateful for the scrutiny it has received in the other place, and I believe that this has presented your Lordships’ House with a strengthened Bill. I hope that noble Lords will, therefore, support the Government in these amendments, as was the case in the other place. Sending this Bill on its way to the statute book will enable the Government to shift our focus more swiftly to the implementation of the scheme expansion, including launching the consultation and unlocking hundreds of millions of pounds more across the UK. I beg to move.

[Baroness Barker (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of these amendments. It was most helpful, particularly about Amendment 1, which is very technical. Since it has come from the industry and the whole thrust behind the Bill came from the financial sector, which wishes to see many more assets unlocked in this way, we should accept his explanation and stand behind that.

Dormant Assets Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Baroness Barker

3rd reading
Tuesday 23rd November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barker (LD)]

My Lords, I also thank very much the Minister, his predecessor—the noble Baroness, Lady Barran—and the team. As is always the case with a Bill that is very technical and arcane, they had to display endless patience with the opposition as we painstakingly made our way to the place that they were already at. I also thank my noble friends Lady Bowles and Lady Kramer, who brought to the Bill a completely fresh eye from the financial sector and who set a very high standard of scrutiny for a Bill that is normally given over to those of us interested in the world of charity.

We achieved three things during the passage of the Bill. First, we made it clear that this is not simply an exercise in spending dormant money because it is there. We made sure that the scheme is about achieving impacts on financial inclusion in areas of deprivation. Secondly, we enabled it to be run using far more difficult asset classes than just bank accounts, and we made sure that the reporting systems for that were fit for purpose. Thirdly, we made sure that everyone involved in the scheme is under a duty to report—this is about additionality, not giving the Government a fund that they can dip into in difficult times.

In years to come, we will have reports from the disbursing body and the Secretary of State that I hope will show the impact of this, particularly in one respect: the endeavour to get rid of moneylenders in poor communities. If we achieve that, we will together have achieved something good and which we can be proud to support.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for their comments, and I echo the tributes that they paid to the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts and many others who contributed to the debates on this.

I will certainly discuss the point that the noble Lord raised with my honourable friend Nigel Huddleston, the Minister with responsibility for the Bill, in his capacity as Minister for Charities and Civil Society, as we just heard in Questions. I am sure that he will want to continue the discussions that we have had on community wealth funds as the Bill goes to another place but, as I say, I am very grateful that it does so with genuine cross-party support and a fair wind behind it. I grateful to all noble Lords who have ensured that this is so.

Charities Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Baroness Barker

Thursday 18th November 2021 Other Business

[Baroness Barker (LD)]

I am sorry, but this is getting a bit Jarndyce v Jarndyce. That case has not been concluded. There has been no clarification on that point of charity law. That is the problem.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I am sorry, I should have said that I am glad that the long saga to which my noble friend referred has come to an end, but these are complex issues. We do not think we should give too much prominence to one case, long and complex though it may be. We do not think we should look to legislate to remove what is an important check and balance in the system on the basis of the evidence from that unique case, but I have heard the points of concern raised by noble Lords not just today but throughout our consideration of this Bill. We will certainly take away Amendment 6 from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, to consider it further ahead of Report, but I repeat that I hope my noble friend Lord Hodgson will withdraw Amendment 5.

Dormant Assets Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Baroness Barker

Report stage
Tuesday 16th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barker (LD)]

My Lords, when I initially heard about community wealth funds, I was rather sceptical, and I perhaps remain on the more sceptical end of the spectrum in your Lordships’ House. But during discussions on the Bill, I have become less sceptical about the idea, as the noble Lords, Lord Bassam of Brighton and Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, have talked to me, along with the groups mentioned by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ely.

Two things in particular have caused me to think again. The first is the experience of the pandemic and how everybody’s sense of locality and place has changed. I happen to live in south London, and one of the many things that got me through the toughest of times was discovering local parks that I had never come across before. Watching other people having to live their lives in a much more geographically restricted scope has made a new sense of place. I now understand —in a way that I perhaps did not before—that being able to appreciate and develop your community space will be a very important part of people’s physical, economic and mental well-being in future.

The second reason why I have changed my mind is this. The noble Baroness gave a long list of community initiatives that have flowed out over the past 30 years, many of them from the National Lottery, the new deal for communities and so on. Pretty much all of them were the release of resources into a community, with varying degrees of restriction on how they could be spent—but they were resources to be spent in poor communities.

This is about something different. It is about an investment fund that has to generate wealth within those communities. To do that, the people who will be managing it locally will have to learn and display economic development skills themselves. That is a different proposal from the ones before. The noble Baroness is right that, as we move through a huge period of economic change—green development and the green economy—if we get away from the old idea of development solely in buildings and talk about investment in economic skills and new jobs, managed in a much more local way, that has the potential to be different.

The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, was absolutely right: we had to grab a passing Bill and shove something on to it. But the very purpose of this Bill is to take assets that are lying dormant and put them into communities where people are financially excluded, do not have business skills or need some help with the generation of wealth and well-being. This is about doing that with people in their community, not yet another building. So I have changed my mind and think this is something different, and therefore I now think it is worthy of support.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle, and my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts for tabling this amendment relating to community wealth funds. I am also grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ely, who spoke on behalf of his right reverend friend, who, as he explained, has made her valedictory speech to your Lordships’ House and is therefore unable to speak today. I offer my best wishes to her as she leaves your Lordships’ House for a well-earned retirement and thank her for her contributions, both here in your Lordships’ House and across the diocese; it is one I hold particularly dear, having been baptised in it and having many relatives who live there still. I know that she will be much missed, but we are delighted that, through the apostolic succession, the right reverend prelate the Bishop of Ely was able to speak for her today.

I hope that, during my remarks, I can reassure all noble Lords who have spoken that it is already possible for community wealth funds to be a named cause in an order made under Section 18A, and that I can demonstrate why this amendment, even in its semi-skimmed form—if that is the evolution from the full-fat version to which the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, alluded earlier—is still unnecessary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barker (LD)]

My Lords, I will just add two points to the very convincing case made by noble friend Lady Kramer. First, the Minister knows from all our discussions that we on these Benches have concerns about the loose nature of this scheme and the somewhat loose definition of its purposes. Therefore, it remains a concern that it is a not insignificant pot of money that can be very easily diverted. Part of what we are trying to do this afternoon, in a number of different ways, is to bring this scheme under a much tighter definition and close loopholes.

Secondly, we listened very carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and the noble Lord himself, when we had discussions. They explained to us, in particular, that the new purposes under the Bill—financial inclusion and the very ambitious programme that Fair4All Finance has of putting loan sharks out of business—might necessitate the sorts of skills that are not commonly found within the social enterprise or charitable sector. It might require there to be companies in forms that are not usually found within the social enterprise sector, either. So I would like the Minister to acknowledge, in dealing with this amendment, that it is specifically that part of the scheme which has caused us to move. We are not talking about private companies entering into the other parts of the Bill, to my mind—unless he can make a case for them to do so.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Baronesses for their amendment and for their vigilance and scrutiny in this area. I am grateful also for their time the other day, when we had a helpful discussion.

Amendment 2 concerns the direction of the English portion of dormant assets funding and seeks to ensure that money cannot be used purely for profit but must have public good at its heart. It is already enshrined in primary legislation that dormant assets funding must be distributed to initiatives with a social or environmental purpose. This is a clear and core function of the scheme and it remains unchanged in the Bill. The Government of course agree that private profit is not the purpose of the dormant assets scheme.

The noble Baronesses’ concerns, as expressed in the amendment and their contributions today, relate to the scheme’s current support for social investment. As I mentioned in the debate on the previous group, dormant assets funding has provided £465 million to Big Society Capital and Access over the last 10 years. During that time, social impact investing in the UK has grown almost eightfold, increasing from £830 million in 2011 to £6.4 billion now, thanks in large part to those two organisations. It is largely by leveraging private capital alongside dormant assets that the market has been able to expand in this way, providing the voluntary, community, and social enterprise sector with access to billions of pounds of investment.

To give an example, dormant assets funding enabled Big Society Capital to invest £6 million in the Fair By Design fund, which aims to eradicate the poverty premium by 2028. Fair By Design invests in several initiatives, including some businesses with considerable impact which provide services in sectors such as energy, insurance, borrowing, transport and food, to support over 340,000 people across the country. Its work has helped those people collectively to save £12 million per year on goods and services for which they were previously paying more than those who were financially better off. The scheme advances important opportunities such as this for collaborating with the private sector and civil society organisations to amplify its impact, within the boundaries of governance structures which ensure that the money is managed appropriately.

I hope I can reassure noble Lords that robust systems are in place to ensure that the money funds projects delivered by organisations that prioritise impact. As a registered charity itself, Access employs strict eligibility criteria for its funding, which ensures that money flows only to those social enterprises and charities that it was created to support. Similarly, £2.5 billion from Big Society Capital and its co-investors is being used to support over 1,500 social enterprises and charities across the country. Both organisations apply layers of due diligence to ensure that the intermediary fund managers with whom they work also have impact embedded in their approaches. Fund managers applying for Big Society Capital funding are required to present a social impact plan during the due diligence process, and Access requires its funds to be held in finance structures that cannot be used commercially.

As these existing structures have operated effectively over the past decade, we do not consider it necessary to place in primary legislation a requirement such as that proposed by Amendment 2, though we understand the concerns the noble Baronesses had and the vigilance which led them to table it. The scheme already ensures that funds go towards organisations with the overall aim of delivering public good, and we will ensure that this continues to be the case.

Ultimately, it remains the Government’s priority to afford people the opportunity to have a say in how funds are distributed in the country, including whether social investment should remain a priority. That is why we have committed to a public consultation to welcome wide-ranging views on how these funds can best have an impact on social and environmental priorities in England. Those are the reasons we cannot accept the amendment, and I hope that the noble Baroness will be satisfied to withdraw it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barker (LD)]

My Lords, I wish to add two points to those made by my noble friend Lady Kramer. It is right that in the next government amendment there is reference to a report and the additionality principle being included in that report. The reason why we drafted this amendment in the way we did was the requirement for the Secretary of State to certify the matter. One of the criticisms that was initially made of this Bill by the Delegated Powers Committee was the number of Henry VIII powers being assumed by the Minister.

The second reason is that the next government amendment refers to:

“Periodic review and report to Parliament”.


It does not say what those periods should be. Therefore, we are trying to deal with exactly the sort of scenario outlined by my noble friend Lady Kramer, where the Government suddenly dip into this back pocket of money and start to use it. That is the reason why it is there and why we think it is so important.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Kramer and Lady Barker, for tabling Amendment 6 on the additionality principle. I also thank the noble Baronesses for their time in the productive discussion that we had on this issue. I hope that during the course of my remarks I can reassure them and other noble Lords that the intentions of this amendment are sufficiently covered both in the 2008 Act and through the Government’s Amendment 7, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, just alluded.

The principle of additionality has successfully under- pinned the scheme since its inception and will continue to be a core principle of its distribution across the UK. In line with the proposed wording in Amendment 6, the 2008 Act already describes additionality as the

“principle that dormant account money should be used to fund projects, or aspects of projects, for which funds would be unlikely to be made available by … a Government department”

or devolved Administration. Therefore, the principle as defined by this amendment is already enshrined in legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

The commitment is already made in the 2008 Act. If there is a change in distributor, or if an additional distributor is established— and I should stress that there are currently no plans for that—there are already powers in the 2008 Act to amend the legislation to ensure that any new or additional distributor must similarly report on their policy and practice in relation to the additionality principle.

However, we have responded to the noble Baroness’s desire to see the Secretary of State more specifically held accountable to the principle, and we have reinforced its importance even further by including it within Amendment 7, which we will come on to shortly, on reviewing the scheme and reporting to Parliament. The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, said in Committee:

“We must also be able to work out from all the reporting that we do get to see that the principle of additionality is being adhered to.”—[Official Report, 21/6/21; col. GC 9.]

We thoroughly agree, which is why our Amendment 7 will ensure that the report must include any policies and practices of the principle by the Secretary of State as well as the National Lottery Community Fund. This provision responds to requests made by noble Lords that the Secretary of State should be held more expressly accountable for ensuring that and explaining how dormant assets funding is used in ways that are genuinely additional to central Government expenditure. This demonstrates our ongoing commitment to ensuring that the principle continues to be honoured, including the ways in which funding flows to distributing bodies and on to beneficiaries.

That is why we cannot accept the amendment. I hope I have reassured the noble Baronesses that we understand their concerns, and that is why we have brought forward the additionality provision in our review and reporting amendment, Amendment 7. I can see the noble Baroness is rightly consulting the 2008 Act for the references to it. I hope on that basis she will be content with what we have proposed and content to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Barker (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the attention he has given to this, but I will pick him up on one issue. A power to do something is only a power; it is not an undertaking that the thing will be done. I do not think he has spelled out, as I hoped he would, how exactly the Secretary of State would be reviewing the additionality and demonstrating the additionality. It may be that he is going to come on to that under Amendment 7. But it seems to me that it is only the Secretary of State who can determine whether something is additional or not, because only the Secretary of State can have full knowledge of what the Government’s overall intentions were. I think this is important. I think we have had the example my noble friend talked about, and I would therefore like to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

We do; we keep it under review and, if the oversight trust took on a broader role, would review whether it would need additional resources. For the reasons I have set out, we cannot accept Amendment 9, and I hope the noble Baroness will be content to withdraw it.

[Baroness Barker (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his full answer. It will come as no surprise to him that we do not intend to seek to put the amendment in the Bill, but the issues we have raised have a great deal of merit.

When we met Sir Stuart Etherington, the chair of the oversight trust, he set out clearly to us, as the Minister just has, exactly what the responsibilities of the trust are and how it goes about discharging them. He said that, although it has a responsibility to look at governance and management arrangements that impact on reporting, and has the power to remove directors and the chair, the oversight trust regards that as being a nuclear option—it would have to be something rather major for it to do that. By the time it got to that stage, there would already have been a significant scandal. That is what we are worried about with this whole scheme, and have been since the very beginning, because there are so many loopholes.

However, I hear what the Minister says about this being kept under review, alongside the periodic review of the whole scheme. With that assurance, I am quite happy to withdraw the amendment.

Introduction and the Import of Cultural Goods (Revocation) Regulations 2021

Debate between Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Baroness Barker

Wednesday 30th June 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I am grateful to noble Lords for their comments and questions on these regulations. I will do my best to cover the range of questions raised but, as ever, will make sure I consult the exchanges and write with further detail, where I am not able to do so.

The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, asked why we have chosen to revoke rather than amend the regulations. As I tried to set out in opening, even if these regulations were not legally deficient, the general prohibition would raise other issues of concern for us. It applies to a wide range of cultural goods, regardless of their age or value, who is importing them, for what purpose or when they were exported from their country of creation or discovery. That gives it a very broad scope. Any cultural goods within its scope could be prohibited from entering the United Kingdom if they were believed to have been unlawfully exported from their country of creation or discovery, even if they have been, to all intents and purposes, lawfully owned for years, decades or, in some cases, even centuries by private owners or museums, without their legal provenance being questioned. We think that it could prevent cultural goods created or discovered within Great Britain from being returned, if they had previously been unlawfully exported from this country.

Moreover, there is no requirement for anyone to provide evidence of either lawful export or unlawful removal from the country of creation or discovery. In the event of a claim that cultural goods were unlawfully removed, it is not clear where the burden of proof should lie. I hope that sets out some of the concerns we had with the regulations and the thinking that underpinned our decision to revoke. As we already have existing legislation that has proved to be effective in tackling the illicit trade in cultural goods, we think it better to revoke the general prohibition to clarify the position and avoid confusion.

The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, also referred to the Hague convention of 1954 which, he rightly points out, is some time ago. The UK is also party to the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. The requirements and obligations of both those conventions are reflected in our domestic law, most notably in the Dealing in Cultural Objects (Offences) Act 2003 and the Cultural Property (Armed Conflicts) Act 2017, both of which are more recent pieces of legislation. The UK and its authorities are members of international organisations, such as Interpol and the World Customs Organization, which enable them to co-operate and share information and intelligence with their counterparts in other countries, as well as make sure that our response is fully up to date in the ways the noble Lord raised. I should point out that the other types of culture that he mentioned in his question are not reflected in the EU regulation either.

I will take the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, up on his offer to write, after I have checked with lawyers why they chose the word “tangentially” in paragraph 7.5.9 of the Explanatory Memorandum. I would be happy to write when I have that explanation, and I shall take back the suggestion that he made about the Law Commission to the department.

The noble Lord politely suggested that I had glossed over the impacts on Northern Ireland. That was not my intention, although I do not think that is what he was suggesting either. The Northern Ireland protocol has been and continues to be well debated in your Lordships’ House. We do not expect the general prohibition to have a significant impact on the import of cultural goods into Northern Ireland, including from Great Britain. At this stage, it is not possible to say how significant that impact might be.

The noble Lord, Lord German, asked about the application of the law to Scotland. The 2003 Act does not apply to Scotland, but other legislation and relevant international law does. I mentioned a couple of Acts in opening—the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 and the Cultural Property (Armed Conflicts) Act 2017—both of which apply to Scotland. Retained EU law is, of course, a matter for the UK Government.

The noble Lord, Lord German, and others suggested that revoking these regulations might risk sending the wrong message about the UK’s commitment to tackling the illicit trade in cultural goods. We do not believe that is the case and are determined to tackle that illicit trade. The UK has a strong record of finding and returning unlawfully removed cultural goods. In opening, I mentioned the example of a statue that was recently returned to Libya. To give another example, in 2019, a Mesopotamian kudurru or boundary stone, which was probably stolen in 2003, was seized by HMRC at Heathrow Airport and subsequently forfeited to the Crown. It was formally returned to Iraq in March 2019. Over 150 Mesopotamian cuneiform tablets, seized by HMRC in 2011, were also returned to Iraq in August 2019. So I hope there is no doubt about our commitment, determination or track record in tackling the illicit trade in cultural goods.

We will explore the issue which the noble Lord, Lord German, raised about a database, but it is worth saying that we already share intelligence via our role in Interpol, where we are a key player, and through the World Customs Organization.

The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, suggested that Northern Ireland risks becoming a gateway for unlawfully removed cultural goods to enter the EU from the UK. We do not believe that will be the case. Importing unlawfully removed cultural goods into the EU via Northern Ireland would be a lengthy and costly route for anyone who chose to do so, and there would be many opportunities along the way for unlawfully removed cultural goods to be detected and seized. Our customs and border authorities will continue to do their utmost to prevent unlawfully removed cultural goods entering the UK and ensure that such goods are not transferred to Northern Ireland with the intention of moving them on from there to the EU.

To address the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, no export licence will be required for movement from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. Other checks are a matter from HMRC but will not include any new measures for the general prohibition. The noble Lord also referred to our art market, which is the second-largest in the world and has a notable and deserved worldwide reputation. There is no evidence that it is underhand or acts outside the law. I am sure that is not what he was suggesting.

To respond to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, I do not regret the way I set out these regulations. I hope that the consideration that your Lordships have given them in Grand Committee today has afforded the proper opportunity for scrutiny and, through my answers, some clarification. I will follow up in writing with further points where that is needed.

We believe that this statutory instrument will provide clarity and certainty for the UK’s museums and art market, allowing them, and their partners and clients, to bring cultural objects into the UK without fear that they will be delayed or detained at the border because of any unsupported claim of unlawful removal from another country at some point in the distant past. Our existing legislation was robust in protecting cultural goods before the general prohibition came into effect, and it will continue to provide protection against the illicit trade in cultural goods. In cases where there is evidence or information that an object was unlawfully removed from another country, our customs and border authorities will still be able to detain it and deal with it accordingly, using their existing powers and procedures. I end by re-emphasising that this statutory instrument will not change that.

Motion agreed.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)]

The Grand Committee stands adjourned until 4.10 pm. I remind Members to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving the Room.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Debate between Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Baroness Barker

Committee stage & Committee: 6th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 6th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 10th February 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all the noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. As the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, set out, Amendment 163 seeks to allow victims of domestic abuse who have a joint social tenancy with the perpetrator to transfer the tenancy into their own name and to prevent the perpetrator from unilaterally ending the tenancy.

We certainly recognise and sympathise with the motivation behind this amendment, as expressed very eloquently by all noble Lords who have spoken. As the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, said, abusers who seek to control their victims by threatening to unilaterally end a tenancy and make their victim homeless—or indeed who actually do make them homeless in this way—are exercising a particularly cruel form of control.

The amendment would apply to local authority and housing association tenancies. By way of background—as I am sure noble Lords will know—these social tenancies are usually in place for a tenant’s lifetime, as long as the tenant adheres to the terms of the tenancy and, as such, a lifetime security of tenure is a valuable asset. That is why we are including provisions in the Bill which seek to protect the security of tenure for victims of domestic abuse when they are granted a new tenancy by a local authority for reasons connected to that abuse.

The current legislation means that, where any joint tenant of a periodic tenancy serves a notice to quit, it ends the whole tenancy and the landlord is able to seek possession of the property. This is a long-standing rule, which has been established in case law and was upheld by the Supreme Court in the 2014 case of Sims v Dacorum Borough Council. The rule seeks to balance the interests of each joint tenant, as well as those of the landlord. For example, a victim of domestic abuse who has a joint tenancy with the perpetrator, and who has fled their home to escape abuse, would be able to end the tenancy to ensure that they are no longer bound to it with their abuser.

We do recognise that, in some cases of domestic abuse, as noble Lords have pointed out today, a perpetrator could use this rule to exert control. We understand how this proposed new clause seeks to overcome this important issue. The victim through it would be able to apply to the court to remove the perpetrator from the tenancy, which would effectively transfer the tenancy into the victim’s name. The perpetrator would also not be able to end the tenancy unilaterally.

We have certainly looked carefully at it and I am afraid we have some concerns with the effect of the amendment as drafted. One is that the amendment does not consider how any liabilities that might have occurred during the course of the joint tenancy, such as accrued rent arrears or damage to the property, would be apportioned between the tenants. As the perpetrator would no longer be a tenant, they would no longer be liable. That certainly ought to be considered. As a result, the victim and any remaining joint tenants would be left responsible for any liabilities, even if they were not fully responsible for contributing to them. We need to ensure that the victim and any remaining joint tenants are not put at any disadvantage by changes to the law in this area.

Another concern, picking up the point raised by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham is that the amendment does not provide for how the interests of third parties—including the interests of any other joint tenants, children, or those of the landlord—might be taken into account by the court.

It is for landlords to decide whether to grant a tenancy for their property, and on what basis. This amendment would mean that, where a landlord grants a joint tenancy to two or more individuals, the number of tenants could be changed without consideration or consent from the landlord as the owner of the property. Landlords may decide to grant a joint tenancy for a number of reasons, including affordability and because joint tenants are jointly and severally liable for paying rent or looking after the property. In addition, this could result in interference with a housing association landlord’s own rights under human rights law. Since this engages other parties’ human rights, including those of the perpetrator, we need to consider very carefully the right approach in order to balance those rights, and to ensure that any interference is proportionate and justified.

It is important that we carefully consider the practical and legal issues, such as these, before we decide what the right approach is to protect victims in this situation, and whether that includes making changes to legislation so that we can ensure that any proposals have the outcomes which I am sure all noble Lords intend them to have.

Today’s debate has certainly contributed to that process. We would welcome further evidence on the scale of the issue, including how many victims wish to remain in a property where the perpetrator knows where they live. I understand that officials at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government are continuing to engage with the domestic abuse commissioner and her office, as well as the domestic abuse sector more widely, on the termination of joint tenancies in order better to understand this issue.

We understand how important this issue is as part of a whole housing approach. I would like to take this opportunity to recognise the work that is being done by the domestic abuse and social housing sectors together in supporting victims of domestic abuse. I am aware that many landlords are already committed to taking action through sector-led initiatives such as the Making a Stand pledge.

I am very happy to underscore our commitment to continue working with the sector in considering these issues, with a view to arriving at a workable solution. I repeat my thanks to the noble Lords for their contributions today, which have contributed to that important debate. We will certainly continue to consider it, but in the meantime I would ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)]

I have received a request to speak from the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark.

Uighur Forced Labour: Xinjiang

Debate between Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Baroness Barker

Thursday 17th December 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

As I say, my Lords, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has consistently raised that there should be independent fact-checking through the UN Human Rights Commission or some such body to go in and establish the facts. That is something that we want to see happening quickly. On sanctions and designations, we keep all evidence and potential listings under close review.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Barker) (LD)]

The noble Baroness, Lady Helic, is not there so I call the next speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws.

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab) [V]]

I want to reinforce what the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, just said. The Magnitsky Act and the Magnitsky lists are intended to deal with this kind of exigency. There is clear evidence of serious crimes being committed against the Uighur people; the Magnitsky law that we introduced is to deal with this kind of emergency. We heard yesterday in the Commons about fears of asset flight. We really have to address this and, as the Chief Rabbi said, not allow silence to be complicity. Inaction becomes complicity.

Yesterday, I heard evidence from a number of Uighur on a webinar. Noble Lords would have wept if they had heard their accounts. There is no shortage of evidence that there is terrible persecution taking place against the Uighur; one of the things that is happening is forced labour. We should be acting now in relation to our companies that are doing business with the Chinese, including buying cotton and goods that are the product of forced labour.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I wish the noble Baroness and all noble Lords a very merry Christmas.

The UK has played a leading international role in holding China to account for these violations, leading joint statements at the UN’s human rights bodies and underlining our concerns directly to the Chinese authorities at senior levels. We raised this latest deeply concerning new evidence with the Chinese embassy in London this week, and we have raised concerns about forced birth control, including sterilisation, alongside 38 other countries in a joint statement at the UN General Assembly’s third committee in October.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Barker) (LD)]

My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.

Global LGBTI+ Rights

Debate between Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Baroness Barker

Thursday 17th December 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

The noble and right reverend Lord makes an important point about the role of faith leaders in this area. He might like to know that the FCDO funded a project which delivered the Global Interfaith Commission’s first multifaith religious leaders’ convention, which took place yesterday. It delivered a declaration condemning violence and discrimination against LGBT people, and obviously has an important role to play.

[Baroness Barker (LD)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a trustee of the charity GiveOut. In light of the statement made today by the Secretary of State for International Trade and Women and Equalities that she intends to pivot from “fashionable” race and gender issues to focus on poverty, does the Minister agree that it is pointless having funds and priorities if people in government taking decisions do not understand who poor people are and how discrimination is a driver of poverty?