West Midlands Combined Authority (Transfer of Police and Crime Commissioner Functions) Order 2024

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Wednesday 13th March 2024 Lords Chamber

I agree and argue that the House should regret this statutory instrument on two grounds. I believe the throwing out of democratic norms in order to give your mate a job that he wants is the most grievous ground for the regret amendment. We should regret this statutory instrument both for the liberties it is taking with our democratic arrangements and for the mismanagement that means no one in the West Midlands knows, just 50 days before the election, how many elections there will be and who the candidates are. The House should surely say, “This is just not good enough”. I beg to move.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bach, for his devastating critique of this draft order. I have spoken many times in this Chamber on the need for combined authorities to have the consent of the public for what they do and for the decisions that they make. This includes appropriate and effective consultation and proper management of scrutiny, audit and risk of those combined authorities. As the noble Lord, Lord Bach, said, this draft order entails the transfer of power being completed without the consent of the other relevant local authorities and notes that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee concluded that the public consultation required by law was not commenced before an initial decision was made.

As the noble Lord, Lord Bach, drew our attention to, in the 17th report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, it is very clear that the Government have not understood the implications of their own legislation in the levelling-up Act. Secondly, it is very surprising that, when the consultation was done, the changes were opposed by a majority of residents expressing a view in public consultations and by other prominent figures in the West Midlands. This is simply unacceptable behaviour and, if the noble Lord decides to press his amendment to a vote, this side will support him.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, I come entirely fresh to this issue, but I would like to ask the Minister: what on earth is the point of a consultation if the majority says one way and the Government take no notice?

Contest: UK Strategy for Countering Terrorism 2023

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Monday 24th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I fear I cannot confirm whether that is the case. I will find out the answer and write to the noble Lord.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, in the other place, my right honourable friend Alistair Carmichael MP asked the Home Secretary about children who are UK citizens who were trafficked by ISIS and who are still in northern Syria, while our allies have repatriated their citizens in similar circumstances. The Home Secretary’s response had no bearing on the question, so can the Minister say whether there is anything in the strategy to tackle these very difficult cases, and what action the Government intend to take about them if not?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I am not familiar with the cases to which the noble Lord’s right honourable friend in the other place referred, how many there are or what is the substance of this particular inquiry. I suggest that it is a long way from the Contest strategy that we are here to talk about, but I will endeavour to find out a little more and come back to him, rather than giving him an inadequate answer.

Vagrancy Act 1824

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Wednesday 17th May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I think I have already answered questions around this particular line of inquiry.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I have listened carefully to the Minister’s replies to all the questions so far. I am still none the wiser as to why the Government are not delivering the repeal of the Vagrancy Act. It should have been repealed. I do not understand what is stopping the Government moving forward.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, as noble Lords know and as I have tried to explain, we are hard at work on coming up with a suitable replacement, which is not a like-for-like replacement of the Vagrancy Act in its current form. But it is right that the police, local authorities and so on have the tools that they need to respond effectively to begging and rough sleeping. That work is ongoing.

Immigration: Points-based System

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, in the coming months, we will engage widely with different sectors and, I hope, allay their fears. It is important to say, though, that employers should be moving away from reliance on the UK’s immigration system as an alternative to investment in staff retention, particularly in areas such as technology and innovation. There are two things that run alongside each other: immigration must be considered alongside investment in, and development of, the UK’s domestic workforce. That includes—and this relates to the noble Lord’s point—valuing care staff and paying them a decent wage.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, will the changes being made result in good-quality fruit and vegetables rotting in the ground because they cannot be picked? What assessment have the Government made of that?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, on 19 February, the Government published a new policy statement, to which noble Lords have referred. As part of this, we announced the expansion of the seasonal workers’ pilot, which raised the quota for this year from 2,500 to 10,000 places. It is not designed to meet the full labour needs of the horticultural industry; it is designed to test the effectiveness of our immigration system and to support UK growers during peak production periods, while retaining robust immigration control and ensuring that the impact on local communities and public services is kept to a minimum. It must be said that seasonal workers can stay in the UK for up to six months in any 12-month period.

Immigration: Overseas Students

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Thursday 17th November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I first congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, on her very thoughtful contribution in her maiden speech. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for giving us the opportunity to ask the Government to explain their policy which, as he said, is a complete mess and is losing the UK market share, when overseas students should be central to government thinking.

I agree entirely with the noble Lord and others that counting overseas students as part of net migration figures is a mistake. But there is an underlying conflict in government policy. There was a commitment in the November 2015 spending review to expand international student numbers, and a target of reaching a £30 billion education export figure for non-EU students by 2020. A crucial sentence from the spending review states:

“The number of students from outside the EU at English universities is expected to rise by 55,000, worth more than £1 billion, by 2020”.

There is no sign of this being achieved. It would require around 20% growth when, currently, numbers are broadly static. But the Government also have a target to reduce net migration to the tens of thousands from the current 300,000 and, as we know, they are counting students as part of the total number. They should cease to count them. Can the Minister explain how the commitment to increase the number of overseas students will be delivered given, first, the current malfunctioning of the visa regime and, secondly, the continued obsession with counting overseas students as part of net migration figures when they should not be?

Our country has justifiably earned a reputation as a destination of choice for international students. We have been the second most attractive destination after the USA, with 10.3% of all international students worldwide. We risk losing that reputation through illogical constraints on the issuing of visas. Already, since 2010, some 875 bogus colleges have had their licences to bring international students to the UK revoked. That must be a huge help in achieving the Government’s objectives and should not be used to restrict responsible universities from maximising their recruitment overseas when it is in our national interest that they do so.

This debate, as we have heard, relates to our standing in the world. Our approach is not understood and it is damaging our reputation. It is also damaging the future potential growth of our economy because, in addition to our international graduates acting as ambassadors for the UK and the universities from which they graduate, those who stay create businesses or may work in shortage areas. We need them to succeed if our economy is to thrive post-Brexit. We also need to recognise that the viability of courses for UK students may be in question if overseas student fees are not underpinning them financially. Overseas students sustain many strategically important courses: for example, 28% of engineering and technology undergraduates and 18% of mathematics undergraduates are international students.

Then there is the impact of lower numbers on local economies. In the north-east of England, at the universities of Durham, Newcastle, Northumbria and Sunderland combined, there are more than 12,000 non-EU students from more than 100 countries, all of whom make a valuable contribution to university and city life. According to the 2014 UUK report on the economic impact of universities, the north-east’s international revenue amounted to £244 million in 2011-12. This, together with the estimated £213 million off-campus expenditure of international students, represented a total in export earnings of £457 million at that time. It is estimated that this figure today amounts to some £600 million—and, of course, those international students sustain several thousand jobs across the region. There is also the critical issue of the impact of lower numbers on university income. Tuition fee income from non-EU students makes up 13% of all income for higher education institutions and 29% of all tuition fee income, even though overseas students represent only 14% of all students.

The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, twice posed the question: what is the problem to which government policy is the answer? These are critical issues. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to give us a clear answer to that question.

Bus Services Bill [HL]

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Monday 4th July 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bradley (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall speak briefly to Amendment 42 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Berkeley. I understand that the amendment may not be perfectly drafted—it may be more appropriate to have “of” rather than “and to”, but we can deal with that when the Minister gives me comfort that he accepts its basic direction of travel.

The amendment’s purpose is to look at the role of the auditor. It would ensure that that role is restricted to areas that are both within the auditor’s competence and entirely focused on the matters set out in proposed new Section 123D(2)(a) and (b), which states:

“The auditor’s report must state whether, in the opinion of the auditor … the information relied on by the authority or authorities in considering”,

whether the authority or authorities would be able to afford, make and operate the scheme and whether the proposed scheme would represent value for money, is of sufficient quality and that the analysis of the information is also of sufficient quality.

Without this amendment, proposed new Section 123D(2) could be interpreted as giving the auditor a wider remit, given that, as drafted, the auditor must give an opinion on whether the authority,

“had due regard to guidance under Section 123B”.

This guidance covers a much wider range of topics than those set out in proposed new Section 123D(2)(a) and (b), including the effects of the scheme, comparison of the proposed scheme to one or more courses of action and the scheme’s contribution to the implementation of wider plans and policies. As such, the current drafting risks giving the auditor a role which is beyond their professional expertise as well as creating conditions whereby a third party is second-guessing a locally accountable authority’s assessment. This in turn could introduce the kind of hurdle that led to the failure of the 2000 and 2008 Acts in creating a simpler route to franchising for those authorities that wish to pursue—I stress those that wish to pursue—this option.

The Government have committed to introducing a practical and efficient method of introducing bus franchising and this amendment, as redrafted, looks to assist them in that process.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I should first declare my vice-presidency of the Local Government Association. In principle, I am in favour of the right of local authorities to franchise bus services. However, I expressed concern at Second Reading that the audit and scrutiny of proposed franchises needed to be tightened up, and I remain of that view.

I also said at Second Reading that the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill required substantial amendment to improve the effectiveness of audit and scrutiny to ensure public confidence in the financial robustness of franchising arrangements. Now, as the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, has pointed out, on Friday the Public Accounts Committee in its sixth report of this Session expressed some serious concerns about the extent to which consideration by central government of the local scrutiny arrangements had been adequate.

I quote, in particular, from its summary, which states:

“There has been insufficient consideration by central government of local scrutiny arrangements, of accountability to the taxpayer and of the capacity and capability needs of local and central government as a result of devolution”.

I have absolutely no doubt that local government may have the required capacity and capability—certainly in a number of places with which I am familiar. That is not to say that it cannot gain the capacity and capability to undertake successful franchising. However, I subscribe to the view that there has been insufficient consideration of this issue by central government and it really does matter.

In consideration of previous amendments, I noted that the Minister said that mayoral combined authorities were appropriate for taking forward the policies in this Bill and would have the necessary checks and balances in place. These amendments improve the checks and balances that the Government seek. If the Government listen very carefully to what is being said across your Lordships’ House, it is much more likely that franchising will succeed, and I am very keen that it should do so.

There are three amendments in this group. The one to which my name is attached tries simply to make it clear that the auditor should be independent of a local authority or a combination of local authorities. The other two amendments are in the same area, but address issues around affordability, value for money and the role of traffic commissioners. There are various ways in which that could be progressed. The Minister may say that this can all be addressed in regulation. However that is done, I hope that the Minister will be able to come back on Report—if he is not able to do so now—to explain that there is an understanding of the issue that the auditors’ scrutiny function in this case must be robust and seen to be robust and how the Government plan to take this forward to ensure that the public can have confidence in franchising arrangements.

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, on the amendments that we have discussed in Committee, many noble Lords have said how important it is for devolution to happen and for local authorities around the country to be able to operate franchises without too many controls from central government. Whether that happens or not, the importance of independence in the audit is vital, as other noble Lords have said. It would be so easy for some local authorities in the future to get it wrong and then for a rather nasty article to appear in Private Eye, suggesting that the leader’s brother-in-law was the auditor. I am sure that would never happen, but we do need independent checks. My noble friend Lord Snape’s suggestion of traffic commissioners appointing the auditor has enormous merit. The two issues in Amendment 42 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, and myself, about the affordability of the scheme and whether it represents value for money, are the two most important ones that should be focused on by the auditor. Then we would all feel comfortable that it would probably work very well.

Bus Services Bill [HL]

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Wednesday 8th June 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I declare my vice-presidency of the Local Government Association. I welcome the Bill, whose aim to improve bus services to the benefit of passengers is strongly to be welcomed. Putting passengers first is of course the primary purpose of bus services and public transport generally, and we should always remember that.

One of the complaints about the current system is that some bus operators can make higher profits than is the case in London. Deregulation helped drive better passenger services in its early years but that is now a distant memory, and we need to look again at how the public interest can be best secured. For one thing, there is not much competition in most areas, although competition was one of the purposes of deregulation.

The Bill could enable major improvements to be delivered for passengers. Those improvements could include integrated planning of local transport services, through-ticketing, quicker identification of new services needed, greater stability in provision, more and newer buses, better timetable information and more control over fares. In addition, the Bill seems to address a number of the problems with the current quality contracts and quality partnerships legislation, in that it makes the process easier to deliver than the tests in current legislation, which create barriers. For example, the Bill now simply requires a mayoral combined authority to satisfy itself that a franchising scheme is appropriate and viable. The legislation contains language such as “include consideration of” rather than pass or fail language such as “must achieve”, and that is important.

On risk management, I note that the Explanatory Notes say that the Government will not mandate which approach should be taken: bus franchising—the London system—voluntary partnerships, quality partnerships, advanced quality partnerships or enhanced partnerships. They are all different, which is to be welcomed because it enables local transport authorities to secure the best outcome for their areas based on their local knowledge.

While that is welcome, I noted the comment of the bus operators a few days ago to the effect that putting mayors in city hall offices in charge of running the buses when they have no experience could be a problem. Generally speaking, I do not subscribe to that view, because where there is a mayoral combined authority, expertise will exist—for example, it exists now with ITAs in securing services—and where there is not, the Secretary of State will in any case have to approve the scheme. However, even though the Government will not be mandating what happens, I hope they will start to advise at a very early stage in the planning of both partnerships and franchises across the country. That advice by the DfT could be very important.

The Bill may have simplified the set of tests required to proceed with a scheme. It will now be the relevant transport authority rather than an independent board that has to judge the viability of a scheme. This, of course, has the potential to be a two-edged sword. A few months ago, the independent board prevented the quality contract scheme proposed in Tyne and Wear proceeding, on the grounds of financial risk to the public purse. I noted the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, on this matter, but that decision was made by the quality contract scheme board, chaired by the traffic commissioner for the north-east. That is the current position.

When the Bill passes, if there is to be no independent check in the case of the mayoral combined authorities, as suggested in the Bill, at the very least there should be close involvement of DfT experts, giving advice to ensure that risk is properly managed. That is because getting it right matters. We do not want council tax payers or business rate payers—the Government are in the process of devolving business rates—to be exposed to unnecessary levels of risk, currently carried by the bus companies. For that reason, devolution of transport powers has to be managed with great care.

A franchising assessment must include consideration of the scheme’s contribution to the implementation of the policies of the authority and neighbouring authorities, of how it would be made and operated, of whether the scheme is affordable and represents value for money, and of whether the procurement approach is viable. But who will assess whether the assessment has been properly done?

During the passage of the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill, a number of changes were made by your Lordships’ House, and accepted by the Government, on scrutiny, risk and audit of combined authorities. It needs to be made very clear in this Bill that scrutiny, risk management and audit must be a process independent of the mayoral combined authority’s board so that proper investigation and evaluation are undertaken. The fact that the independent board required by current legislation will be no more could be a real difficulty if the scrutiny, risk and audit functions of combined authorities are inadequate. As my noble friend Lady Scott of Needham Market reminded us, all this is happening when government support for local authorities is being reduced and will go on being reduced, certainly in the lifetime of this Parliament. Therefore, great care will be needed.

I want to make three further points. I have noted that a council which is not part of a mayoral combined authority can introduce a franchising scheme in its area only with the approval of the Secretary of State. But what happens in a mayoral combined authority area where one of the councils that was expected to be part of it is not? I refer to the North East Combined Authority area, where Gateshead has declined to take part. However, buses will still run through that borough. On what terms will a council such as Gateshead, which is not part of a mayoral combined authority, be permitted to take part in the new structures? The Minister may be able to reply to that at the end of the debate but I understand that it may be necessary for him to consider it further. I am happy for him to write to me.

It has previously been mentioned that the Bus Services Bill retains the TUPE and pension protections of the current legislation to ensure the smooth transition of employee and employer rights. Interestingly, it requires the appointment of an independent auditor to verify the analysis of information in the franchising assessment. Perhaps that principle of independent audit, which in that context exists, ought to be extended much more widely, as I indicated earlier.

Can the Minister explain what is meant in the Bill by requiring a local transport authority to,

“facilitate the involvement of small and medium-sized operators”,

in the franchise? More detail is needed on exactly what is intended there. In many parts of the country there are some very big operators and, particularly in relation to school transport, some smaller operators. We need more detail to understand this commitment.

Overall, I welcome the Bill. It has benefited from the consideration that has been given to its drafting over the recent months since it was announced. It gives a set of options to local areas to make decisions that are best for them, and I welcome that flexibility. Although it is very much a skeleton Bill, I hope the Minister can clarify what the regulations will look like as we proceed through Committee and before we get to Report. I am also looking for assurances that they will come to this House in the form of the affirmative procedure. We did have problems with the Housing and Planning Bill; a number of changes were made and we did then get more information from the affirmative procedure. However, I hope that it will not be necessary to have those debates on this Bill in Committee.

As I say, I welcome the Bill, but there are caveats, and I worry very much indeed about the potential risk in it to council tax payers and business rate payers. We have to be very careful that, as schemes proceed, protections are built in to ensure that if there is franchising, or any form of partnership, the public interest in the form of public finance has been safeguarded.

Immigration Bill

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Tuesday 9th February 2016 Grand Committee

[Lord Swinfen]

My Lords, I have been working in this House since the late 1970s for people with various forms of disability, and I note that British Sign Language is now accepted throughout. I do not understand why the Government are taking it out of the Bill. I know that it is unlikely to be used very often because it is much more difficult for someone who uses British Sign Language to be face-to-face with the public, but there are members of the public who use British Sign Language as their first language. Therefore, it is essential that some of the people with whom they have to relate when going about their business also use British Sign Language. It is important that the amendment is included in the Bill.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I am a signatory to the amendment. It is an extremely important issue because the assumption is that the code of practice and the public sector equality duty will be sufficient in this case. Clause 47(8), which I have reread a number of times, makes it very clear that somebody in a customer-facing role should speak fluent English. The Department for Work and Pensions has accepted British Sign Language as a language since 2003. We do not want to permit any confusion to arise, and the way to solve this is simply for the Government to accept the amendment because it makes it absolutely clear that British Sign Language is an acceptable language and that it is not just a question of an employee having spoken English.

I hope that the Minister will understand that there are some 70,000 people in this country for whom British Sign Language is their first language. As the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, made clear, this is not just about those employed in a customer-facing role; it is about how you respond to customers who want to speak to somebody who can communicate through British Sign Language. I hope that the Minister will not see this as some kind of bureaucratic minor matter, as it is very important in terms of the public sector equality duty. It cannot simply be left to a code of practice when it should be written clearly in the Bill so that there is no doubt about how public sector bodies should respond.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Paddick and I have three amendments in this group: Amendments 242C, 242G and 242J. Before I come to them, I shall say that I support the amendment on British Sign Language. My noble friend Lady Humphreys is in her place. She heard the confirmation about the Welsh language and welcomes it. I say that in the context of wishing this clause were not here at all. I appreciate that there was a line in the Conservative Party’s manifesto for the previous election and that is why I have not sought to take these clauses out altogether.

The impact assessment on these clauses confirmed my anxiety about their potential for encouraging discrimination and harassment. It says:

“The policy objective is to ensure a sufficient standard of fluent English is maintained and can be enforced … This is intended to improve the quality, efficiency and safety of public service provision and support taxpayers confidence they are receiving value for money”.

So far, so good.

“This proposal is expected to support current priorities for the management of immigration into the UK”.

I have littered questions marks, the word “prejudice”, an exclamation mark and the word “tangentially” around that statement.

We would prefer to take these clauses out altogether, but the first of our amendments looks at the provision for expanding the requirements into the private sector. It is a probing amendment, and I hope that the Minister is aware of the questions that I intend to ask. If this is of such concern, why, in a service context where so many public services are provided on behalf of the Government by the private sector, does the Bill not immediately extend to services which are contracted out? Will there be changes to the requirements as they affect contractors? Has consultation taken place with the private sector? Will there be a single code of practice? Since so much is outsourced, it seems odd if work which is outsourced is not covered, but I wonder whether the private sector will be happy with this as a requirement. I am interested in the consultation.

Amendment 242G is on the code of practice, which under Clause 50 may make different provision for different purposes. I have suggested,

“and for different roles or descriptions of roles”.

It may well be that the Minister will confirm that that is within Clause 50(6) because there are clearly different things that people in the public sector do in different roles or may need to do. The impact assessment states that the code,

“will be flexible enough to account for the differing requirements and existing arrangements of different public sector bodies”,

but it would be good to have confirmation that the legislation allows for that.

Amendment 242J would require a review within five years. I ask the Committee to understand this amendment in the context of my initial remarks. Noble Lords will understand from the points that I have listed in the amendment the matters with which I am concerned:

“the extent and types of authority subject to the requirement; … the standard required; … procedures for complaints”—

it has been pointed out to me that it is sad that requirements are being put in place and that it is felt necessary to have a complaints procedure designed from the beginning—

“direct and indirect discrimination which has or may have arisen; and … the resources required to meet this requirement”.

The Race Equality Foundation says,

“the draft code is poorly drafted, poorly structured and … there is nothing to prevent users of public services making complaints on the basis of accent and appearance. These provisions may encourage, and semi-legitimise, racially-motivated harassment under the guise of challenging someone’s ability to speak ‘fluent’ English. There is already evidence on the greater likelihood for black and minority ethnic people to be subject to the disciplinary process in public services”.

It is obviously concerned about these requirements expanding that likelihood.

The Institute of Equality and Diversity Professionals was very moderate in its language:

“No amount of guidance in the draft Code of Practice can save what is an irredeemably unworkable scheme”.

It talks about:

“The opportunities for directly and indirectly discriminatory, and harassment, claims”,

and reminds us that harassment is a form of discrimination under EU equality law. It asks about the constitutional basis. I think I would ask about the evidence base.

The institute also points out that:

“The use of the terms ‘high standard of English’ … and ‘fluency’ indicate a ‘mother tongue’ proficiency, which is not permissible in EU law”.

Another of its comments says,

“these measures will leave public bodies open to extensive litigation, primarily on grounds of race and ethnic origins, but also on grounds of disability, in relation to … discrimination and harassment claims”.

I said—I think at Second Reading—that I regard the ability to communicate as important, indeed essential, in the public sector, as in all other parts of life, but I cannot be the only person in this Committee who has encountered someone whose English is perfect but who cannot make themselves understood.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shipley]

I thank the Minister for that. I think that that would help because I had not understood what the problem was with making this amendment to the Bill. I hope that, if we come back to this matter on Report, we may have some greater clarity on it because it seems to me that that would solve the problem.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I am obliged to the noble Lord. He will appreciate that I, too, am concerned about whether it is necessary for such a provision to appear in the Bill. Our view is that the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, is an important one but that it is already accommodated by the terms of the Bill. However, as I said, I will reflect on that.

I turn to the observations made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in addressing Amendments 242C, 242G and 242J regarding the implementation of the various duties, as well as the observations made by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, on the question of public sector workers.

Beginning with Amendment 242C and the question of public and private sector workers, I shall seek to allay the concerns of the noble Baroness but will resist the amendment. We have no desire at this time to lay regulations before further consultation. At present, the Government are committed to carrying out an open consultation before calling on the reserve powers to expand the scope of the duty to the private and third sectors. That is why the provision is expressed in its present form.

The government response to the open consultation, which is scheduled to be made available to noble Lords for our Report stage discussion, will provide preliminary views on this matter. At present, the responses are quite balanced. Many welcome the expansion specifically for the safety and comfort of patients in the social care sector, for example. Others are understandably concerned in case any costs of enhanced recruitment practices have to be passed on to public authorities which are contracting. We do not accept that such costs will increase. Public authorities can simply make job descriptions more specific; there is no need to increase costs. So we do not consider it necessary at this stage to contemplate the proposal in Amendment 242C.

Regarding the noble Baroness’s second amendment, Amendment 242G, I seek to provide reassurance that the principal focus of the code of practice underpinning this duty will be to assist public authorities in setting language expectations for different job roles. I hope, therefore, that she will agree that there is no need to provide for this in the Bill, as it will be an element of the code of practice.

I am conscious of the variations that may occur so far as fluency in language is concerned. Indeed, as a Scot, it is a matter of particular concern to me as well. Clearly fluency will be determined by the employer—and, in this context, by the employer alone.

Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill [HL]

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Tuesday 12th January 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I have not spoken to the leaders of Chesterfield or Bassetlaw councils but I have spoken to the leaders of Derbyshire County Council and Nottinghamshire County Council. It is an area I know quite well, but I accept we are not going to agree on all our points.

This is also an area of considerable natural beauty with a thriving tourism industry. I would be grateful if the noble Baroness could talk about the devolution deal for Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire. Discussions are taking place with those councils, but there are concerns. They are worried that any deal there will be potentially undermined by having further discussions about other councils leaving that area. This is not a good way of going forward.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, there are advantages and disadvantages when this House considers a Bill in advance of the House of Commons. The advantages are that we can take an early view of proposals and make suggestions for the other place to consider. Among the disadvantages is that we can be asked to consider a very large number of amendments from the Government at a very late stage. This afternoon, we have 87 government amendments, of which 59 are in this group alone. This adds to the complexity and means that we have to be very careful in agreeing to amendments, as we have not had fuller consideration of them in Committee.

That said, in many cases, the amendments proposed by the Government improve the Bill. They clarify and enable, and they promote localism. We will shortly, I hope, have a further discussion about Amendments 31A and 36A, but the Minister has moved that we agree with Amendments 1 to 18 at this stage, and I want to say one or two things about the overall content and context of the amendments under discussion. The promotion of localism has to be a partnership if it is to be successful, which I think is what the Minister has said. For that reason, the additional powers now being proposed for the Secretary of State need to be used very sparingly, and I hope we will hear from the Minister further confirmation as the afternoon progresses that this is indeed the Government’s intention. In that context, Amendments 31, 31A, 36 and 36A are extremely important, and I support the amendments which will be moved later this afternoon by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham.

We have also received the advice of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which published its comments on 22 December. That committee rightly pointed out that when we considered the Bill in the summer, the Government gave assurances that the powers of the Secretary of State over brokering bespoke deals would be constrained by the need for all councils in a given area to consent. That requirement no longer has to apply, at least until March 2019.

On these Benches we have always been strong advocates of localism and the further devolution of powers to local authorities or combinations of them. But partnership and consent matter if devolution is to work. For that reason, I hope that we will hear assurances from the Minister that the powers will be used very sparingly, that they will only be used in circumstances that promote effective localism and that the procedural guarantees sought by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, will be followed so that local authorities are encouraged to work collaboratively together.

I have two further points. The Minister referred to the fact that there will be an annual report. I am very pleased about that in the context of all our debates in Committee and on Report. Although not all of the amendments proposed by your Lordships’ House were agreed in the other place, the annual report will give a focus for clarifying and sharing what has happened, what good practice has been promoted and which pilots have proved successful. It is very important that that does not stay in Whitehall with Ministers but is shared with the whole country. I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that not only will that annual report be issued but this House will have the opportunity to debate it.

The second issue I want to draw attention to from the Minister’s opening speech is her use of the words strong governance. She said that an elected mayor model is a model for strong governance, so that the public know where responsibilities lie. I have expressed doubts about the single-leader model and the ability of a single person to do so many things—perhaps, to be the police and crime commissioner or to take on responsibility through the combined authority structure for fire and rescue. If NHS matters or responsibility for children’s services are to be devolved to a combined authority level, it seems difficult for one person to do so very much and remain democratically accountable. I can hear the Minister’s reply, which will be that those matters will then be devolved to other leaders within the combined authority. We have had these debates before in the summer. Of course, we do not have elected mayors yet in most places and will not for the next two or three years, but it will be very important to review how they are performing as part of the annual report.

I have two concerns about this in a democratic sense. One is that councillors of constituent authorities will know less and less about what is actually happening in their areas because more and more decisions will effectively be centralised. Secondly, the general public may not understand who will be responsible for a decision and where it should be challenged if they do not agree with it. Reviewing that constantly seems very important.

That is all I want to say at this stage. I may say a bit more when the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, moves his amendments to Amendments 31 and 36 but, for the moment, I think that there is a different mood in England now about devolution. There are problems and, in some places, occasional conflicts, but, in the main, there is a willingness to accept devolved powers from Whitehall and Westminster—indeed, a very strong desire to do so. The moves of the previous Government and this one have demonstrated that the appetite is there for those devolved powers to be granted.

--- Later in debate ---

I also think that we all await with great interest the outcome in Greater Manchester. It is an attractive concept but it may have different implications for different areas and may not be quite as straightforward as we would like to think. My fear is that county districts joining, for some purposes but not for others, a combined authority may not really have been given any serious consideration. If it has not thus far—bearing in mind the Manchester experience as it evolves—it should certainly be the subject of further consideration and discussion, not only with health bodies but also with local government.

[Lord Shipley]

From these Benches, I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Warner, for the success of all his work and for the determined way in which he made his proposals. It proves the value of this House in the legislative process and demonstrates one of the advantages of our getting a Bill first because some of the scrutiny work was done at that stage.

In the context of annual reporting, to which I referred a little while ago, when there is an annual report about the success of NHS devolution, will it not simply reflect the views of the NHS and the combined authorities but the views of all stakeholders in health and social care? It is a very simple thing, in a sense, but it could be easily missed. It would be very helpful to have a response to that request on the record.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)]

My Lords, I am sorry I was not here at the beginning of this short debate. I had a meeting with a Minister on another matter. It was my privilege to consider with the noble Lord, Lord Warner, his original amendment. I supported it at that time, although not to the extent of going to the Division when he pressed it. From the answer that my noble friend had given, I believed that Ministers would take account of this. I sensed, possibly rightly, that it had not been very fully considered up to that point. I am glad that it is now being considered.

My concern is really the same as that of the noble Lord, Lord Warner. If it is not properly done, this kind of devolution could damage the nationality of the National Health Service, making it local with a postcode lottery according to where you happen to be. The amendment proposed by the Government is different in its way of approaching the matter and has dealt with that in a satisfactory way. I find it difficult to know the position about social care. I understand it is still a local authority responsibility and not for the National Health Service. The difference in funding is important in this connection also. I shall be glad to hear what the Minister has to say in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, on that point and on how the report will deal with the views of stakeholders other than just the central authorities themselves.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Shipley]

Leave out “agree” and insert “disagree”.

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, back in July, on Report, this House voted by 221 votes to 154—a majority of 67—that 16 and 17 year-olds should have the right to vote in local elections. When the Bill went to the House of Commons, this decision was reversed and, as a consequence, the matter has returned to this House to be considered once again.

I find it strange that so much emphasis is put on citizenship in young people’s education but that the natural extension of this to enable them to vote is a step this Government seem reluctant to take. Ten years ago, the Power commission, funded by the Joseph Rowntree Trust, concluded in its report on how to increase political participation that the voting age should be lowered to 16. It was one of its key recommendations, but it has never been acted on.

We cannot complain that younger generations are not engaging with politics when they cannot participate fully. Young people surely have a right to a say in how the communities they live in are run. They use public services locally; they are very politically conscious and we ought to build on that. Crucially, we need to get young people into the way of voting and starting at 18 can be too late, as turnout levels of people under 25 show. Our democracy depends on high levels of participation, and voting at 16 would instil in more young people the habit of voting. We now have the precedent of the Scottish referendum, 16 months ago, when 16 and 17 year-olds were entitled to vote. Although Scotland is outside the scope of the Bill, this precedent has served, in practice, as a pilot and has changed mindsets because it was a clear success.

Noble Lords are all aware that votes at 16 has been the subject of ongoing debate in this House since the general election. In recent months, we have had significant debates on the right to vote at 16 in the EU referendum Bill. We asked the Government to rethink their position, but this was reversed in the other place and, by a narrow margin, not pressed further in this House. In the context of that decision on the EU referendum Bill, I have carefully considered whether there is a justification for asking the House of Commons to think again about lowering the voting age in the context of this Bill. For this is a different Bill: it relates to local government, not to a referendum, and I have concluded that there is a case and a justification for doing so. The issue is important: it relates to the nature of our democracy and young people’s engagement with the democratic process. In the House of Commons, on 17 November, the Minister said that:

“It is undeniable that there is a debate to be had on the issue”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/11/15; col. 556.]

I agree with him, and I think this House would do so, too. However, it is not clear to me when the Government plan to have that debate. I will listen very carefully to anything further the Minister has to say in response to this debate but, for the moment, I beg to move.

[The Earl of Listowel (CB)]

My Lords, adolescence is a difficult time for all young people, whether they grow up in loving families or not. I remain concerned that the amendment would put an additional burden on adolescents. I am also worried that it would put a target on the back of young people for unscrupulous politicians, which might be unhelpful. Finally, I agree with Barry Sheerman, a very well-respected Labour MP who was, for many years, head of the Education Select Committee in the other place. In recent discussions on the franchise in that place, he talked of his concern about the shrinking of childhood.

Many noble Lords support this proposal: I ask them to consult on it with experts in child development. So far, only the Government have referred to the evidence about adolescence. They have referred to neurobiological research into adolescence terminating in the early 20s but, so far, I am not aware of that evidence being referred to by those proposing the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I think I had better quickly break up the fight. When is the right time to have the debate on the franchise? It is most certainly not in a devolution Bill, in the House of Lords, when the House of Commons has voted decisively, on two occasions, to overturn this amendment. As for any arguments in addition to those I have already made, I have nothing much to add other than to back up the points that the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, made at the previous stage of the Bill. The Electoral Commission has also voiced concern about this amendment. Other than that, I have nothing further to add. It is not the time, it is not the Bill and we are not the House to be deciding this.

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, I am very grateful for the contributions that we have had from a number of Members of the House. They have at least helped to inform our thinking. I listened very carefully to the Minister’s reply, which has not added much at all. I conclude two things. First, there was no indication in that reply that the confirmation by the Minister in the other place, James Wharton, in November, that it was undeniable that there is a debate to be had on the issue, will be acted on by the Government. I think that it should be.

Secondly, this House supported the lowering of the voting age when it last considered the matter as part of this Bill. I think it is for the House to decide whether it wishes to press the matter further. I hope that it will. It is very important that we should engage young people with the democratic process at an earlier age than 18, and I therefore beg leave to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I cannot really account for it but somehow Part 5A of the Local Transport Act 2008 has managed to escape my notice hitherto. I am interested to see that the Government have decided to incorporate reference to transport infrastructure in the devolution Bill, and that is very welcome, but I am not entirely clear about the scope of the proposals before us. Clearly, I welcome the Commons amendments here but, on the face of it, they appear to relate to Highways England and to rail matters, which of course are very important, but I could not see any reference to such issues as ports and airports as part of the functioning of these transport bodies. Perhaps the noble Lord could advise whether they are included and, if not, say why not.

Of course, those of us in the north—the noble Lord has referred to Transport for the North—are very conscious of the huge disparity in the expenditure on transport infrastructure in our part of the country and the vast amounts that have been poured into Crossrail, which we have heard recently is to be further extended. Rather worryingly, it is to go under the block of flats in Balham in which I have a flat. That will no doubt take some time but the disproportion in expenditure is quite remarkable. It is a huge factor and one hopes that it will be redressed.

I am not entirely clear about the likely size of these sub-national transport bodies. A lot of the work will serve to connect different parts of the country but in the part of the country that I come from, in particular, we will be looking at cross-country routes to the north-west—to Cumbria and Carlisle from Newcastle and Sunderland and places on the east coast. For the purposes of these bodies, will we not be looking at, for example, simply the combined authority area, because that does not extend beyond the borders of Northumberland and Cumbria? If the area is to go beyond that, what sorts of boundaries will we be looking at? If it does not go beyond that, what mechanism will exist to bring together areas which are not part of the same combined authority?

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, first, I thank the Minister for his briefing note, which I received last week, on the proposals in this amendment for sub-national transport bodies. I welcome the switch in emphasis that he has referred to. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, talked about levels of expenditure and, in particular, the enormous amount that is spent on London and the south-east in comparison with the north of England. Having a sub-national transport body of this kind will be extremely helpful in refocusing the attention of Whitehall on the need to fund the north better than it currently does. Therefore, I thank the Minister for that and I think that the proposals are absolutely right but I want to say two things.

The first concerns the question of to whom the sub-national transport bodies will be accountable—in other words, the extent to which the constituent councils of those sub-national bodies will have a regular reporting mechanism. It seems to me very important that there should be a regular means of providing feedback from those councils to the sub-national transport body. Secondly, I hope that the Minister will agree to a system of annual reporting, which occurs elsewhere in the Bill in relation to combined authorities, elected mayors and other matters. Can he confirm that there will also be annual reporting by the sub-national transport bodies? I would find that extremely helpful.

My last point relates to the use of the negative procedure as opposed to the affirmative procedure. The Minister will have seen the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which challenges the use of the negative procedure. The grounds are that the powers will exist for a limited period of time. The definition of a “limited period of time” does not appear anywhere. Is it a matter of a few months or of two or three years, or is it a matter of something more significant?

I hope that the Government might be persuaded of the importance of using the affirmative procedure. Given the scale and magnitude that this proposal represents in reality, I think that using the affirmative procedure would be better than using the negative procedure. Does the Minister have any comments on that?

[Lord Smith of Leigh]

My Lords, I also welcome these amendments, and I thank the Minister for the way that he has introduced them. Obviously, this is very important activity, and without statutory backing Transport for the North has already had a major in-fight over agreeing the northern franchises for the rail networks that affect all our northern counties.

In terms of reporting back, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, that in the process of franchising we in Greater Manchester have had regular reports from our delegates at Transport for the North. There is accountability for what goes on.

I will probably upset the Minister but, while I am on my feet, I will say that one of the great aspects of the deal for devolution in Greater Manchester was the prospect of franchising the buses, which of course account for the vast majority of transport movements in those areas that are involved. I recognise that that will come under separate legislation, a buses Bill, but we still await sight of that Bill and hope that it is not going to be too long.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, this amendment is welcome and has been warmly supported by the national parks authorities, although I understand that there was some slight misunderstanding about that on the part of the Opposition in the House of Commons. Certainly, we want to endorse the sentiments of the noble Baroness about the potential for each national park authority. Of course, I come from a part of the world where there is a remarkable national park, and it occurs to me that the Government might want to facilitate a close relationship between combined authorities such as the one in the north-east and, I suspect, the one in the Sheffield area with the Peak District National Park, so they can collaborate in a way that perhaps was not possible before. It would of course be a matter for the authorities, rather than for legislation, but it is something the Government might encourage.

One matter that was raised in the House of Commons was clarified at the time by the Minister, but I invite the noble Baroness to repeat the assurance that nothing in this proposal would facilitate the adoption of fracking in any national park area—that is, that it would not be open to a national park authority to allow such a development. It would be good to have it on the record in your Lordships’ House as well as in the Commons.

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, I welcome the proposal for the national parks. As with the rest of the Bill, a regular review of how this power is being used would be welcome, and I am sure we will have that.

We thank the Minister for her leadership on the Bill. It has been seven months since we began the process, which we have found rewarding. Although from time to time there have been differences—some still remain—the truth is that the outcome is in the interests of stronger government at the sub-regional and local level in England, and I welcome that. We will see how it goes over the next few years, but I am very optimistic that the groundwork put in by the Minister and her colleagues during this Parliament and the last one is going to bear fruit.

Economic Case for HS2 (Economic Affairs Committee Report)

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Wednesday 16th September 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Prescott, and I agree with much of what he said, not least about investment in the north and the importance of having a transport investment plan.

I was a member of the Economic Affairs Committee that undertook the HS2 inquiry, and I believe that our report asked a set of pertinent questions that deserve clear answers. The report was supported in a letter at the end of May to the Prime Minister from 35 very senior engineers, transport planners and economists in the UK, which called for a pause to,

“look again at alternative ways of tackling the problems that HS2 is supposed to address, and allow a thoroughgoing review of how best to bring our national rail system holistically into the 21st century”.

I think that they are right to ask for that review, but it should be done during the passage of a hybrid Bill.

I have been a very strong supporter of HS2 for many years, and I remain a supporter in principle because a high-speed rail link that can increase capacity of train paths, reduce journey times and improve connectivity in the UK has to be of benefit. However, I have to admit that some of my preconceptions were challenged by hearing evidence. I have concluded that if such a large sum—and it is a very large sum of public money—is to be committed, we have to be certain that it is spent in the best way to improve our rail network.

Ten years ago, I thought that HS2 would be part of a UK-wide transport infrastructure plan, but that is absent, as our very first conclusion demonstrates. I thought that HS2 would include Scotland. I thought that it would integrate places and modes of travel. I fear that those early expectations are unlikely to be met, and I find that a matter of increasing concern.

The noble Lord, Lord Prescott, mentioned the Northern Way. I was a member of the Northern Way Transport Compact when it looked at northern priorities for HS2. From the perspective of the north-east of England, I expected that HS2 would give links to London much faster than the east coast main line, and that is likely to happen. I expected that the cities and conurbations of the north, the Midlands and Scotland would be linked to each other and to London by high-speed rail, but if you look at the map in the committee’s report, you can see that, mostly, that is not the case—they will not all be interlinked, as I had hoped that they might.

I had thought that there might be high-speed links from the north, Scotland and the Midlands to Heathrow, the UK’s airport hub. There were even suggestions some years ago that passengers would check in on the train and have their baggage moved on arrival at Heathrow. We now have a stop at Old Oak Common, and there are some understandable reasons for that. However, we must be very clear about how access to Heathrow Airport can be made available to people, particularly those who do not have air links to Heathrow.

A few years ago, I thought that we would have a high-speed direct link with Eurostar at St Pancras. Well, we are not going to. I thought that there would be no negative impact on future investment on the east coast main line, most of which will not be served by high-speed rail, either the full HS2 or the classic compatible system—that is, the link between Newcastle and Edinburgh and the line south of York to London. The Secretary of State said to the committee that there would be no negative impact on future investment on the east coast main line, and I hope very much that the Minister will be able to confirm that that still remains the case.

Finally, I thought high-speed rail would integrate properly with local and regional transport services, but our committee discovered that the £50 billion cost of HS2 does not include any connectivity between HS2 stations and the local transport network and that there are no plans for how that provision will be made.

Mention has been made of whether HS2 will take investment money from other rail services. HS2 documentation suggests that a large number of towns and cities will have a worse rail service as a consequence of HS2. In the north, I mentioned Berwick, Carlisle, Durham and Lancaster as examples, but there are others. The TransPennine route has been mentioned. The Government have again said that the delay to what we termed HS3 is temporary and that it will work, but will they confirm that that remains the case and say how HS3 is going to integrate with HS2? I was very struck by the comment the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, made in July. He pointed out that HS2 will go to a station in Sheffield which is four miles away from the station to which HS3 would go.

We then have issues around Euston and whether HS2 should stop at Old Oak Common. And then we have Scotland. There may not be a business case, as High Speed Two (HS2) Limited has said, for linking Scotland fully to the HS2 system, but my view is that there is a political case for doing that.

In conclusion, I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, said. It was noticeable that what his speech omitted was that most of the economic gain from HS2 will go to places with HS2 track and stations, and HS2 track stops halfway up the United Kingdom. My great fear now is that investment which might otherwise go further north and go into Scotland may be made further south. I do not think that would encourage an integrated United Kingdom, so I hope that the report and the issues that we have raised in this debate will be fully considered in the next few months before the hybrid Bill comes before your Lordships’ House.