Davies Commission Report

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Wednesday 1st July 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I reassure the noble Lord that, when he gets a chance to read the commission’s report, he will find that it has addressed all the concerns that he has highlighted, and it will be a significant part of the Government’s decision. With regard to the statement made in 2010 by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, as I said earlier, the proposal that was in front of him at that time, including some of the concerns that the noble Lord has just highlighted, merited what the Prime Minister said. However, we are quite clear: the commission has now produced its report; it is well balanced and has looked at many factors that the proposition in front of us in 2010 did not consider; and the Government will come back with their view in the autumn.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

Has the Minister noted the recommendation of the commission that:

“The Government should alter its guidance to allow the introduction of Public Service Obligations on an airport-to-airport basis, and use them to support a widespread network of domestic routes at the expanded airport”?

Given that if the third runway gets the go-ahead, it could be a number of years before it is actually in place, what is to stop the Government altering their guidance to bring it in line with a number of other European Union countries to enable further,

“Public Service Obligations on an airport-to-airport basis”,

being delivered?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

The Government consider their public service obligations very seriously, as I am sure the noble Lord knows. It is not that we have not interjected in recent times. For example, the route has been protected from Gatwick to Newquay, as have routes up to Dundee. Where the criteria are met, the Government have exercised their option and met their obligations. We are keen to ensure that public service obligations are, if you like, the backstop, to ensure that any concerns over particular domestic routes are retained.

North of England: Transport

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Wednesday 17th June 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving us the opportunity to have this excellent debate. A very wide range of issues have been covered and I hope he will be able to reply to all of them when he replies to the debate. However, some of those replies may, understandably, need to be in writing.

I acknowledge and welcome the Government’s focus on the north. It matters greatly that both Whitehall and Westminster and those of us who live and work in the north of England think in a pan-northern way. I also acknowledge the achievements of the previous Government and the intentions of this one, which are in truth built upon what the previous Government set on its way. However, it is only a start. In the course of this year we need to ensure that the structure is properly in place for Transport for the North to be a single body with a single agenda, and that the problems and opportunities are understood and shared by all partners, and then that the real outcomes should start to be delivered.

There has been some discussion about what the northern powerhouse is and where it is. Cumbria has previously been absent from the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, will be pleased to know that I have noted in my script that I should mention Cumbria and its importance as one of the first places you have to remember is in the north of England, not least because of its huge tourist industry. It is important that we do not think just in terms of the large core city regions but also include Cumbria, the Humber, Lancashire, Tees Valley, North Yorkshire and East Yorkshire. Indeed, the Chancellor himself, in a recent speech in Manchester, defined the northern powerhouse, as I recall, as covering the whole of the north of England. As we have been reminded in this debate, it is about not just transport investment and connectivity within the north of England, but how we connect to the east Midlands, West Midlands, the south-west, Scotland and London.

There were two things that the Minister said that I would like to comment upon. The first refers to the suggestion that there might be a decision to bring forward HS2 extensions around Leeds and linking Leeds and Sheffield. If that happens, will the context of that decision also look at the north-east of England? There is a need to speed up trains on the east coast main line between Northallerton and Newcastle—I recall in a previous debate on high-speed rail that the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, explained how east coast main line trains could be sped up between York and Newcastle. Given that the north-east of England will have some high-speed rolling stock, although not tracks, it is important to look at it holistically. The second was that, in terms of investment, it is good news that the Government are investing so much more in infrastructure in the north of England. Even with that, however, we should not forget that the imbalance between investment in London and the south- east and in the north of England is very wide indeed.

We have had a helpful debate—a lot has been said about Pacers, with which I concur, and about ports. In discussing Liverpool and Immingham and Humberside, let us not forget the role that Teesport and the Port of Tyne—both of which are expanding fast—have made and, therefore, the connectivity for freight purposes with those east coast ports. There was discussion on the A66 and the A69. I am one of those who believes that it will prove essential to dual both those roads, though of course that relates to the dualling of the A1, particularly for the Scottish freight traffic coming down, some of which at present uses the M6 and the A69 to get to the Port of Tyne, while some uses the M6 and A66 to get on to the A1(M). There may need to be further research or work on the order in which they should be done, because they cannot all—or at least the A66 and A69 cannot—be done at the same time.

We have heard a great deal about air passenger duty and the no-detriment principle to airports in the north of England and I subscribe entirely to that. We have heard about the crowding of the trans-Pennine route—I can personally attest to much experience of problems caused by crowded trains—and the timetable for electrification of that route, which needs an urgent answer. On terminology, we sometimes refer to east-west routes as HS3—that is what the idea was at its birth—but I think that it has been converted into the term “trans-north”. By its very nature—high speed—HS3 would not stop at many stations; trans-north is what we actually need and I hope that, in future, we will always talk in terms of trans-north, because it can stop at many more places.

One issue that stuck in my mind, which came from the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, was on strategic planning with HS2 and HS3 and the location of the Sheffield station. I do not want to comment because I am no expert on whether the HS2 station should be four miles outside Sheffield or in the centre—others will examine that in greater detail—but I cannot understand our national strategic planning, which has an HS2 station four miles outside Sheffield but HS3 using the city-centre station. Of course, we have the same problem at Heathrow Airport, where HS2 will stop at Old Oak Common and join Crossrail but the link to Heathrow Airport will be a spur line. I seriously miss that strategic planning. I have said previously in your Lordships’ House that I could not understand why we had a roads strategy and a rail strategy but not an integrated transport policy for the country. I really think there is evidence now.

I turn briefly to the A1 and the dualling of it in north Northumberland. The Northern Powerhouse report reminds us on page 24 that we are going to have:

“34 miles of continuous Expressway”,

in Northumberland. But it goes on to say on page 26, in the list of schemes that will be developed for beyond 2020, that there will simply be an initiative to,

“examine the case for further extensions of the dualling of the A1 to the Scottish border”.

The A1, by its very name, was one of the very first trunk roads to be built, linking London with Edinburgh. It is going to be one of the last trunk roads to get dualled. I have come to the conclusion that this is in part a function of its distance from London. Seen from the perspective of Scotland and the north-east of England, it really is not good to have the disparity that such a major road has not got a clear plan to be dualled all the way through to Edinburgh. If the Minister cannot reply in this debate, I hope he will look carefully at the timetable for the dualling of the A1 and exactly what is planned, with some real dates that will be maintained. I look in particular for his confirmation that the announcement that was made a few weeks before the election that part of the route through Northumberland will be dualled will be adhered to.

In my final couple of minutes, I would like to say something about air connectivity. We have heard a little on this matter from the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Leigh, but not otherwise. For me, it is a pretty central issue. If the northern powerhouse is going to succeed, it needs to be more than just an exercise in rhetoric. I will take air connectivity as an example. If northern cities are to thrive, they need global connections. Across the north several airports have been locked out of Heathrow or have seen their routes deteriorate. Passengers cannot take a connecting flight from Heathrow to Merseyside, Teesside or Humberside, and if they wish to fly to Leeds they have only two flights a day to select from. In 1990 there were 18 UK cities with connections to Heathrow. Today there are just seven.

As the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Leigh, reminded us, it is true that airports across the north of England have had great success of late in growing direct routes to Europe, the Middle East, the Far East and the eastern seaboard of the US. But connecting to major and secondary cities in Asia and the Americas—the cities that are forecast to be the engines of global prosperity for the next half-century—will always remain an ambition too far for local demand alone to sustain frequent flights. I have concluded that access within the UK to a hub airport is essential.

I will conclude by going back to the principles underlying this debate. It is about devolving powers and responsibilities. It is also about capacity and money. It means that writing wish lists to government must become a thing of the past and that priorities should be defined, shared and agreed so that everyone knows what those priorities are and where the cash is coming from to pay for them. For example, 40 years ago, I well remember the opening of the Tyne and Wear Metro. It needs significant capital investment, not least in the train fleets, which are getting old. As a case study, it would be helpful to know what the plans are for funding that and how the funding will be guaranteed in the context of devolution.

I will stop at this point but thank the Minister again for enabling us to have this debate. There is a huge amount of detail and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s replies, either now in his response, or in writing at a later date.

Queen’s Speech

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd June 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, first, I declare my vice-presidency of the Local Government Association. I have found this an extremely valuable debate. A number of concerns, affecting a number of Bills, have been clearly identified, and I hope the Government will take steps to listen at a very early stage to all the specific issues that have been raised not only from these Benches but from around the whole Chamber. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Eden of Winton, on his excellent valedictory speech, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Salisbury and the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, on their excellent maiden speeches.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, I pay tribute to the work that local government has done. Despite the reductions in government support, the public give local government high satisfaction ratings. The noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, was right when he warned of the likely impact of future cuts, and he was right to say that the system of distribution of central government grant may need to be revised. The financial situation remains difficult for councils. Given that the Government are committed to no increases in income tax, VAT or national insurance, and also to the protection of some budget areas from cuts, this is going to make life very difficult for local government. We have to have a discussion about that. That is also why encouraging fiscal devolution is so important, so that local authorities can raise more of their own money and reduce duplication in public services at a local level, and thus generate significant efficiency savings. The Local Government Association has demonstrated in its publications how some of this can be achieved.

I echo previous comments in wishing the new Secretary of State success in his new role. I worked with him for almost three years on city deals and local growth deals and I know that his drive—along with that of others—has got us to the position on devolution within England that we have reached today.

In the few moments I have, I want to concentrate on two matters: first, devolution within England; and, secondly, the urgent need to build more homes. The two are related because local government could build more if it had the powers to do so. I welcome the devolution agreements that have taken place and the creation of the several combined authorities under the 2009 Act as steps in the right direction. Five years ago, it would have been hard to think that there would be such a sea change in the location of power within England. We now need counties to follow, and I welcome the recent indication from the Secretary of State that progress will be made on this—I hope within the next few months. Even though my party is not now in government, we shall offer constructive opposition that enables the broad thrust of government policy on devolution to be progressed.

I have two questions on the housing Bill. Despite a lot of reading and listening to your Lordships’ debate today, I am still unclear about what net increase in homes the Government plan to deliver in the course of the next five years. Secondly, what are the Government’s plans to build affordable homes in the quantities we need? Last week I read two figures in national newspapers —first, that the Government plan to build 150,000 houses a year by 2020, but also that they plan to build 200,000 a year by 2020. Whichever it is, both figures are actually under the rate at which new housing is needed.

Several contributions in this debate have demonstrated that there are serious problems with the proposal to sell off housing association homes. It is hard to see how the one-for-one replacement policy could work, given the failure over so many years to replace council housing stock. Why are the discounts proposed so high, with discounts of up to £104,000 in London and £77,000 elsewhere? Is the National Housing Federation right when it says that this policy will cost over £5 billion? What assessment have the Government done on the cost? Finally, can the Minister assure the House that assets of registered providers, which have mostly been publicly funded, will not be sold off without the taxpayer getting their money back? Those are my questions, and around your Lordships’ House there have been a range of other questions in relation to this Bill. Urgent discussions are needed to assess the viability of the proposals as they stand within the housing Bill.

We have heard a bit about the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill, of which we take Second Reading here in your Lordships’ House on Monday. The speed of progress on devolution is good to see, but we must not make mistakes. We must connect the whole structure, not just the metro mayor, with the ballot box. There have been a huge number of reports over recent years on the benefits of devolution for a whole range of bodies, and they all point in the same direction—that you can drive growth faster and join up public service delivery through devolution, as well as making government more responsive to the needs of local people.

There are four issues, and one relates to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury, about the northern powerhouse. In his announcement on 14 May on this matter, the Chancellor said that the northern powerhouse covered the whole of the north of England—that it was not just Manchester, nor was it just Man-Shef-Leeds-Pool. But we need some clarity in government and in the north of England about what is meant, first, by “the north” and, secondly, by “powerhouse”. Indeed, I noted that my noble friend Lord Greaves has a Question for Written Answer on the Order Paper to be answered by 11 June on these very points, and the position may become clearer then.

I accept that we have to start somewhere with connecting new structures with the ballot box, and metro mayors are a start. I am slightly uncomfortable about the fact that for two years Greater Manchester will have a metro mayor who has not been elected by popular ballot. We need to be much clearer about governance and about who has what responsibilities and what powers, whether it is the mayor, the mayor’s officers, political advisers, council leaders, or whole councils and opposition parties. We need to know the powers that will leave or remain with local government and the powers that will leave or remain in Whitehall. We need to understand better the powers to precept by a mayoral combined authority and how those powers will operate in practice.

The combined authorities in the 2009 Act have responsibilities for economic development, regeneration and transport across a functional economic area. To that list can be added social care, healthcare, skills, police, housing and strategic planning. I am concerned that there is an assumption that one person can handle all those things, because I doubt that they can. I share the concerns expressed a moment ago by the noble Lord, Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury. Although an assembly for Greater Manchester has been ruled out, at least for the time being, I am not sure that that will stand the test of time.

We need to look at the voting systems for local government. I agree entirely with the point made by my noble friend Lord Tyler about the need for proportional representation in local government, and we need to look more closely at whether the supplementary vote system is right for the election of a metro mayor.

I finish as we started today from these Benches. It has been a very sad day for all of us in politics with the loss of Charles Kennedy. He was a very good friend to so many of us, and we shall miss him.

[Noble Lords]

Hear, hear.

Police and Crime Panels (Modification of Functions) Regulations 2012

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Thursday 12th July 2012 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, I will come to the regulations in a moment. First, I will set the context and talk about police and crime panels more generally. The introduction of directly elected police and crime commissioners is the most significant policing reform in a generation. It was set out in the coalition agreement and is now enshrined in the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act. Forty-one directly elected police and crime commissioners will take office across England and Wales on 22 November this year, having been elected by the public the week before. The first commissioner is, of course, already up and running in London: in January 2012, the Mayor of London took over responsibility for oversight of the Metropolitan Police.

The Act lays out the framework for the strict checks and balances that will be fundamental to the reform. A key element of this is the introduction of police and crime panels, comprising local councillors and independent members. Panels will be established in every force area and will undertake an important scrutiny function, providing both support and challenge to police and crime commissioners as they perform their duties. It is vital that there are no barriers to panels being established. Every force area must have a panel, with arrangements in place to ensure that police and crime commissioners are appropriately scrutinised once they are elected in November.

I turn to the secondary legislation that is intended to provide this safeguard, which is the subject matter of today’s debate: that is, the regulations before us. They provide that, where a local authority defaults on its duty to nominate and appoint one or more councillors to the police and crime panel, the authority will no longer be required to agree the arrangements that govern the establishment and operation of the panel. As we have constantly emphasised, local leaders, not politicians or bureaucrats in Whitehall, will know what works best for them. Local negotiations are critical and the Act requires that all local authorities across the force area should work together to establish and maintain their panel, including agreeing panel arrangements and membership.

We understand that local government is rising to this challenge and we anticipate that panels will be established in all areas across England and Wales. However, in the event that a local authority chooses not to engage or is deliberately obstructive, it is important that it is not able to frustrate the efforts of the remaining local authorities in that force area to establish the police and crime panel. To this end, the regulations provide that where a local authority defaults on its statutory duty to nominate and appoint one or more councillors to the police and crime panel, that authority will no longer be required to agree the panel arrangements. This will allow the remaining local authorities to establish a police and crime panel and, crucially, will ensure that panels are in place in time for the arrival of the police and crime commissioners in November.

The regulations have been developed by the Home Office in consultation with key stakeholders representing those who will be affected by the proposals set out in the regulations. The regulations provide clarity and necessary safeguards while minimising bureaucratic burdens and central prescription relating to the panels. They will help ensure that police and crime panels are established later this month and that they are in full flow by November, in time to provide vital support and scrutiny to the new police and crime commissioners when they take office.

In conclusion, as I said earlier, Parliament has spoken on the police and crime commissioner model. The Government’s focus is now on making the model a reality and maintaining progress in local areas. The regulations before us are an important part of the legislative jigsaw that will make this happen. I commend them to the Committee.

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, the purpose of the regulations is to stop a defaulting local authority from preventing the making of panel arrangements. This is understandable and should be supported. However, there are two issues of detail that I would appreciate the Minister’s clarification of in order to avoid doubt.

First, the Secretary of State has the power to nominate and appoint the appropriate number of members in the event of a failure by a relevant local authority to exercise its power to nominate or to appoint. It would be essential for the Secretary of State, in exercising this duty, to have due regard to the opinions of the other local authorities and to maintain due political and/or geographical balance in making such appointments. I say that because during the passage of the Bill there was significant discussion about the importance of geographical balance and political balance and, where there are two-tier authorities, of lower-tier councils having representation on the panels.

Secondly, will the Minister clarify the meaning of the words in paragraph 2:

“In the case of a multi-authority police area, all the relevant local authorities, with the exception of a defaulting local authority … must agree to the making or modification of the panel arrangements”?

I seek clarification of the words “must agree”. Do they mean that the relevant local authorities are compelled to agree by the decision of the Secretary of State—that is, they must agree to what the Secretary of State wants—or do they mean that only with the agreement of those authorities can the panel arrangements proceed? I took the Minister to mean that it was the latter, but I seek confirmation of my interpretation. If it is the former, I seek the Minister’s reassurance that due regard will be had by the Secretary of State to full consultation with the remaining local authorities and balance being secured in any nominations or appointments that the Secretary of State deems it necessary to make.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, the Minister has explained the reasons for the order. I will be interested to hear the response to the two points that have been raised. On the second one, where reference is made to the wording,

“In the case of a multi-authority police area, all the relevant local authorities … must agree to the making or modification of the panel arrangements”,

it cannot be a requirement that they must agree or presumably the order would not be necessary, because the defaulting authority would not be able to block it. That would be my interpretation, at least, but of course it is what the Minister says about the Government’s interpretation of the wording that counts.

I have a couple of further points. Will the Minister confirm that the Local Government Association does not see any difficulties in implementing the order as it stands? I take it that this is, let us just say, to clarify certain wordings in the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act.

The Minister made reference to police and crime panels. We have doubts, which we expressed during the passage of the Bill, about the extent to which they will be any meaningful check on the exercise of his or her power by the police and crime commissioner. Do the Government intend to monitor the development of the effectiveness of these panels when they are operational? Will it be their intention to brief Parliament on the findings of any monitoring exercise that they carry out if it is their intention to do so?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Henley]

I do not want to be overprescriptive on these matters, particularly as every authority varies quite dramatically. I will use my own county, Cumbria, as an example because I happen to know it well. Cumbria County Council coincides with the police authority and so it is quite an easy one to do. There is a county council that has elections every four years. There are six district councils, one or possibly two of which have an election every four years while the other four have elections in the three years when there are not county elections. So everyone is electing at different times in different ways. All we are trying to do is ensure that local authorities act together to try to produce something that is reasonably practical. Possibly the model that the noble Lord is suggesting is not a bad one. He was taking it from the Local Government Association. We are not demanding anything absolutely precise; we are just trying to make sure that, as far as is reasonably practical, all views can be taken into account.

[Lord Shipley]

Can I just explain further my concern about political balance? There are existing committees, joint boards and so on that cross council boundaries and there are clear rules that apply to political balance in those cases. I hope that in the regulation it will be made absolutely clear that one-party control of panels would not be acceptable, even if all the councils in a given geographical area belong to one party.

[Lord Henley]

That is what we are saying in the regulations. As far is practical, we want to make sure that there is this cross-party control. This does not happen in Cumbria, but even if all six councils happened to be Labour-controlled, we would not envisage that all the members of the panel should be Labour. We should get the appropriate balance that broadly reflects how people voted. The same will be true in the north-east and here, there and everywhere. It is balance—a word that I have been using a great deal since I came to the Home Office—that we are seeking, and balance is not just in the regulations but in the Act itself, set down there in letters of stone.

Alcohol Strategy: Role of Drinks Industry

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Tuesday 10th July 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, for initiating this debate and for enabling us to scrutinise the performance of the drinks industry. Here I declare my interest as a patron of Street Pastors in Newcastle upon Tyne.

Since the Portman Group was founded in 1989, the affordability of alcohol has increased by 32%. The number of alcohol-related deaths in England has doubled from 3,157 to 6,669, and the number of alcohol-related hospital admissions in England has doubled in the 10 years since 2002 from 510,000 to 1.173 million. Today half of violent crime and domestic abuse is linked to alcohol, some 1 million cases in 2010-11.

Industry bodies such as the Portman Group and Drinkaware promote education, but the evidence says that on its own, education does not change behaviour. In fact the World Health Organisation document, Alcohol in the European Union states:

“There is evidence that social responsibility messages … benefit the reputation of the sponsor more than they do public health.”

I question why the Portman Group has attacked independent reports that support minimum unit pricing despite independent evidence that says that reducing the affordability of alcohol is critical. Why does the Portman Group do this? The industry blames a small minority of people for drinking irresponsibly, but all the evidence tells us that it is no longer a small minority. Specifically, we should note that the industry spends some £800 million a year on alcohol marketing, and that the industry is not protecting children. In the UK we have some of the laxest alcohol advertising regulations in Europe. Why is alcohol advertising allowed in cinemas showing 12 and 15 certificate films? The regulations allow alcohol advertising to be shown as long as the under-18 audience does not exceed 25%. Yet the proportion of the UK population made up of under-18s is actually only 21%. Worryingly, the industry is moving its marketing spend online, where children are particularly vulnerable. Some 34% of Facebook users are under the age of 18. With regard to television, Alcohol Concern estimated that 5.2 million children could have been exposed to alcohol advertising during TV coverage of the 2010 World Cup.

Crucially, there is a fundamental conflict of interest. The alcohol industry has a legal duty to maximise its return for its stakeholders, and yet reducing harm relies on reducing consumption levels across the population. That can be done only by minimum pricing. Evidence from Professor Petra Meier from the University of Sheffield has estimated that if everyone drank within recommended guidelines, industry profits would fall by 40%.

The industry has, in my view, presided over the destruction of our traditional drinking culture. Most people now drink at home; most alcohol is purchased in supermarkets; alcohol has, until recently, been getting stronger; measures have been getting larger; alcohol has been sold as a loss leader and can be cheaper than water; and traditional neighbourhood pubs cannot compete and are closing. I have concluded that the alcohol industry has become part of the problem. Self-regulation and voluntarism does not work, and the industry should not be permitted to have a role in influencing the making of policy on alcohol when it has such a clear financial interest in the outcome. It should now, and in future, implement decisions made by others.

International Women’s Day

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Thursday 1st March 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, my contribution to this debate derives from reading, a couple of years ago, some research on the impact on growth of empowering women in sub-Saharan Africa. That research said that, where women are more empowered, where they are educated and have access to healthcare and where they can earn money, economies grow faster. That is because women work co-operatively and spend money differently from men, investing in growing food for their families and investing in their families’ education and health. Both the UN and the World Bank have demonstrated that income per head could rise by at least a fifth in emerging economies were it not for the secondary economic role of women in so many countries. Across the world, women own only 1 per cent of land, and more than two-thirds of the 1 billion people living on $1 a day are women.

I welcome the Government’s commitment in this Parliament to focus on key outcomes in both bilateral aid and our support to international organisations. Some of the objectives of that policy are the education of 11 million children, half of whom will be girls; preventing death in pregnancy and childbirth of 50,000 more women; stopping 250,000 newborn babies dying needlessly; and helping 10 million women to access modern family planning. All those will help women. However, I particularly welcome the new strategic vision document for girls and women from the Department for International Development which concentrates on stopping poverty before it starts by directing resource specifically to girls and women.

Education is key to gender equality and economic growth. Education for girls and women leads to higher wages, which lead to higher spending, which leads to more focused spending on things that help drive gender equality. Moreover, that money is reinvested, creating a virtuous circle in economic growth.

The gender gap in schooling and work is very marked in some countries. For example, girls’ entry and completion rates at primary schools in sub-Saharan Africa run 10 percentage points below those for boys, and the gap can widen significantly at secondary level. The World Bank has reported that,

“girls’ education yields some of the highest returns of all development investments, yielding both private and social benefits that accrue to individuals, families and society at large”.

That raises the question: why are there not more girls in school? The answer, in part, is cost, but more importantly, there is not an understanding of how girls’ education can drive economic growth. There is perceived to be no economic return to a family in educating girls, which leads to the girls being taught home-based tasks to prepare them for domestic life.

I therefore welcome the vision of the Secretary of State for International Development in his commitment to deliver outcomes that are specifically addressed to girls and women. We should support this programme’s four principles: to delay the first pregnancy and support safe childbirth, to direct economic assets to girls and women, to get more girls through secondary school and to prevent violence against girls and women.

All four goals are important so, crucially, each is underpinned by a programme of action to deliver a step change in very specific areas. For example, girls in their teenage years are five times more likely than women in their early 20s to die in pregnancy or childbirth, hence the plan to save 50,000 lives. Agricultural outputs in sub-Saharan countries could rise by up to 20 per cent if women had equal economic opportunities to men, hence the plan to secure access to land for 4.5 million women. We know now that just one extra year of schooling would increase the wages of girls by between 10 and 20 per cent. It is therefore good to know that half the children whom the UK will be supporting in primary schools will be girls and that, by 2014, 700,000 girls will be supported in secondary education. Preventing violence through plans to help some 10 million women to access justice through the courts, police and legal assistance will also be crucial in delivering gender equality. Crucially, there will also be greater access to financial services for several million women.

All those initiatives are inter-related. We should therefore acknowledge and support the new emphasis that the Government are giving to promoting the vital importance of empowering girls and women. There is a great deal to do, but the policy is vital and the prize substantial. Empowerment of women is just in itself, but as we now understand better, it also helps to drive economic growth, and it does so faster than if the same resources were given to men.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Wednesday 14th September 2011 Lords Chamber

The noble Lord, Lord Wasserman, has been mentioned. I admire much in America, but I do not advise your Lordships’ to support our emulating the politicisation of its police service at the local level.

[Lord Shipley]

That form of politicisation will not occur, as the panel—which the noble Baroness supports—will be made up of elected local councillors with party-political labels, who will themselves elect the person who becomes the commissioner. In that sense, because there will be virtually no independent members of that panel, the person who is appointed will have a party-political background and role.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Wednesday 20th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness O'Loan]

My Lords, I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. We have to revert to what is happening to policing at present. We cannot make decisions without focusing on those issues. As I have said previously, the reality is that the police are fighting many battles on many fronts, particularly in the context of terrorism and organised crime. We have very serious problems internationally, but more than that the police are operating in a context of serious economic instability across the world. We all know that the almost inevitable effect of economic instability is a rise in the levels of crime. Opportunities are presented by this situation, which exists not just in the United Kingdom but in other countries. The questions around the model of a police and crime commissioner on which the Government are clearly set, which is based on the United States model but does not have the protections afforded by that model, are not answered by the amendments which the Government have tabled. Such a model will inevitably cause problems such as have been experienced in the United States where chiefs are sacked by mayors at regular intervals. This is accepted as a political reality. They then move from major city to major city to run other forces, which leads to huge instability.

The reality for the people, too, will be that if a Tory, Labour or Lib Dem police and crime commissioner is elected, there will inevitably be a perception among the public that the policing will be delivered in accordance with that party’s policy. No matter what you try to tell them, that will be the perception. That perception will inevitably lead to distrust in some areas of the country. There is a very clear need to focus on the issues raised in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and in particular to place a statutory obligation on police and crime panels to focus on integrity and impartiality.

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, I will speak in a moment on Amendments 2 and 3, but I would like to speak briefly to Amendment 13, which stands in the names of my noble friend Lady Hamwee and myself. This relates to the checks and balances which are, in theory, to be strict; it also relates to the substitution of or deputising for any member who is unable to attend a meeting of the panel, and to the quorum and the need to define the quorum required for a meeting of the panel actually to be held. There are important reasons why this matters.

At Report, my noble friend the Minister said that substitutes would be permitted at meetings of the panel. I seek further clarification as to exactly how this is going to be done, because it matters. In terms of the two-thirds of the membership of the panel having the power to veto appointment of a chief constable or the precept, then who attends the meeting and what the quorum is matter: these points become material. One has to maximise the number of people who can attend, and if a member of the panel cannot attend then the Bill should state who would be permitted to attend that meeting of the panel on behalf of that same local authority. Also, as there will be decisions to be made which do not require a two-thirds majority but nevertheless will be decided after debate on a simple majority basis, how many people are required to attend the meeting to make it valid seems to be highly material. I am looking for further clarification about this matter from my noble friend the Minister because we see it as being very much part of the checks and balances on the police and crime commissioner, without which it is not clear that those checks and balances would function correctly.

I turn to Amendments 2 and 3 briefly, because there has been a very good and helpful debate on this matter. As someone who has listened to that debate, it seems to me that the two amendments are not incompatible, but there are differences between them. It would be very helpful if my noble friend the Minister could take those two amendments away and see if they could be redrafted in a way which would meet the requirements and wishes of all sides of your Lordships’ House. It seems now that there is an opportunity for this to be done.

[Baroness Henig]

My Lords, I will speak extremely briefly—I realise that we have had a good debate on this. I wish to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Dear. It seems that the difference between these two amendments goes to the heart of the issue of corporate governance.

The first amendment, tabled by the Government, is very much in line with the Government’s model that the panel scrutinises the commissioner and the commissioner scrutinises the police. That is the Government’s model, and I have understood that right the way through. What my noble friend’s amendment tries to do is to develop a more corporate approach to try and give the panel more input, and therefore to have a more corporate approach as between the panel and the commissioner in scrutinising the police. That is the intent of the amendment, and that is a big, fundamental difference. While I accept all the points about the need in the future particularly for chief officers to have more support—and this will come out in later amendments—good governance structures need to be in place: that is fundamental. If we are going to make changes in policing, good governance structures have to underpin those changes. At the moment, those structures are not there. That is one of the problems that we have.

I support all noble Lords who have said, let the Government take the summer to look at this. That is absolutely right, but my point is that it is going to take a fundamental re-look at things. As long as the Government’s model gives one politician on a party political ticket such huge influence over policing—one person, without good governance structures in place—grave concerns are going to remain. That is the fundamental issue. While I therefore support all attempts to try and get the Government to look at this again, unless the model is changed fundamentally those central concerns will remain. That needs to be put on the record, because it is the big difference between these two amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Browning]

I am grateful to my noble friend because I was about to turn to the amendment that she and my noble friend Lord Shipley tabled.

The intention of Amendment 13 is for panels to include specific provision in their arrangements for substitutes or deputies where a panel member cannot attend proceedings, and provision for the quorum for a meeting of the panel. This was an issue discussed during Report stage. Your Lordships will recall that during that debate I stated that provision for substitutes or deputies for the panel's vote on the precept and the appointment of the chief constable could be included in the regulations dealing with those specific procedures. We will consider using these powers with partners should we feel that they are necessary, but we start from the position—and I hope that noble Lords will agree—that the authorities around the PCP table are responsible bodies that will take their statutory duties seriously and ensure that their rules and procedures more broadly cover this ground.

As to the veto, we have the power to intervene and regulate on this should we feel it necessary. There is also general provision in the Bill for panels to make their own rules of procedure, including rules on the method of making decisions. That is the mechanism for panels to make their own rules on matters such as a quorum. We start from that point but, none the less, I am happy to say to noble Lords that we will look at this in regulations if it is felt that changes are needed.

[Lord Shipley]

Is it the intention that regulations may be made to enable substitutes to attend meetings that are discussing matters other than the veto on the appointment of a chief constable and on the precept?

[Baroness Browning]

I understand that point and it is certainly something that we will look at in terms of regulations. At the moment, I cannot say how that will be described.

Perhaps I may come back to my noble friend Lady Hamwee’s point and concerns. I have to say to my noble friend that we feel that the Bill as drafted and amended provides the checks and balances that she is asking for.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Thursday 14th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, I have a query in relation to Amendment 245. A number of years ago, I was a member of the complaints committee of Northumbria Police Authority. I well remember being advised that every complaint that was written down was provided to the committee to see, whether or not it was regarded as spurious and whether or not action had been taken or was going to be taken. We were given all the original correspondence and a summary of the action that had been or would be taken. That system seemed to work well.

However, I would appreciate the Minister’s clarification on a point in the Bill. Paragraph 8(2) of Schedule 14 to the Bill substitutes paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002 with a new sub-paragraph which states:

“Where a complaint is made to the Commission, it shall give notification of the complaint to the appropriate authority”.

So far, so good, but it then states:

“But the Commission need not give that notification if the Commission considers that there are exceptional circumstances that justify its not being given”.

It is not clear to me, but it may be made clear by regulations or other means, what the definition of “exceptional circumstances” is. Years ago, I was in a position where every complaint was written down and was provided to the complaints committee. We need to be reassured that a structure is not being created whereby complaints made are simply not acted upon because there are deemed to be exceptional circumstances that justify there being no further progress on them.

[Baroness Browning]

My noble friend’s amendment would mean that the responsibility for dealing with appeals in relation to low-level complaints against the Metropolitan Police would be handled by the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime rather than the responsibility resting with the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. While the Government recognise that giving the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime responsibility for dealing with appeals against the handling of low-level complaints is one way of providing some independent scrutiny of such matters, we are not persuaded that the duty to consider individual appeals should rest with the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime.

It is commonplace for complaints to be decided—as the noble Baroness said, because I think she has heard me say this before—within an organisation rather than by an external arbiter. In practice, the chief officer will not be hearing an appeal against his own decision. The duties will be delegated so that, for example, the initial decision is taken by the line manager of the officer complained against and the appeal is conducted by the professional standards directorate. A complainant who feels that an appeal has not been properly considered will have further routes of redress, first to the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime, which can direct the chief officer to look again at the matter, and secondly to the courts if the decision is irrational or unfair.

The Government consider that these safeguards are sufficient and achieve the same effect as this amendment suggests. Further, we are concerned that giving the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime responsibility for hearing all low-level complaints against the Metropolitan Police would place a significant burden on the office and distract it from its core duties of securing the maintenance of an efficient and effective force and holding the commissioner to account for the exercise of his or her functions.

As a final point, the amendment would mean, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has already identified to my noble friend, that the police complaints regime would operate differently in London from the rest of England and Wales where low-level appeals would remain the responsibility of the chief constable.

With regard to the interpretation of “exceptional circumstances” raised by my noble friend Lord Shipley, rather than giving a detailed explanation off the top of my head, I will take advice and write to him about it. I hope that will be of help to the House. On this basis, I hope that my noble friend will not press her amendment.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Wednesday 13th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Condon]

My Lords, I support the amendment. We discussed this in Committee. I can think of virtually no circumstance where every member of the police and crime panel would be ineligible to stand as acting commissioner, if the circumstances warranted it. I can think of many sets of circumstances where it would be inappropriate for every single member of the elected commissioner’s staff not to be eligible to be the acting commissioner for the very circumstances set out by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. If the elected police and crime commissioner has been suspended or has had to stand down temporarily because of allegations of corruption or other behavioural issues, it would not be in the public interest for a member of what is going to be, in the Minister’s own words, a very small number of support staff to stand as the acting commissioner if there were a serious allegation of corruption against the commissioner. The Minister has been reasonable and conciliatory on many of these issues. This is a blindingly obvious case where it would be far more appropriate for a suitable member of the police and crime panel to act in circumstances where the elected police commissioner is no longer eligible to be commissioner for a period.

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, I add my voice to those who support this amendment because I see it as a critical part of the necessary checks and balances on the powers of the commissioner. I say that for two reasons. First, the acting commissioner could be in post for eight to nine months—that is, for up to six months as permitted in the Bill, together with the period during which a replacement is elected. Frankly, to have an unelected acting commissioner for that length of time is unacceptable as they will set the budget and the precept. Although there is a veto on the precept, nevertheless they will be responsible for making the proposal on the precept and they will make a decision about the budget. All those functions should be undertaken by people who have been elected as opposed to people who have not been elected.

Secondly, the commissioner will have appointed the staff member to their substantial post. The only power that the panel will have is over which staff member is nominated, although they have to bear in mind the advice given to them by the commissioner who is incapacitated. I regard this as an absolutely fundamental issue. The panel must be able to appoint from among its own members. Between now and the next stages of the Bill, I very much hope that my noble friend the Minister will make clear to colleagues in the other place that this matter is of fundamental concern to a large number of Members of your Lordships' House.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I correct my noble friend Lord Hunt, who has underestimated the extent of the precept as a percentage of the local council tax, which would fall potentially to the acting commissioner to levy. It is 11 per cent in England and 15.5 per cent in Wales—even greater than my noble friend indicated. I respectfully suggest that there is potentially an equal underestimate in relation to the period of vacancy. As I read the Bill, the six-month period after which a vacancy would have to be declared and a new election take place, which would add to the length of time in any event, arises in connection with incapacity. However, there are other grounds on which a vacancy might arise. In particular, there is the possibility of a police and crime commissioner being suspended. That could conceivably take an even longer period to resolve, so there is the potential for this position to be filled by a second-hand appointee, as it were, for a long period. Of course, the whole rationale of the proposal for police commissioners—flawed in the opinion of many, certainly on this side of the House—is that it is necessary to have somebody who is elected and who has a direct mandate for the purposes of exercising the functions that the Bill confers on the holder of the office.

There will be no such democratic element in the event that the procedure currently in the Bill is enacted. There would be no democratic mandate of any kind—direct or indirect. It is intolerable that that should be the case when within the police and crime panel, there will be people with a mandate—not the complete mandate—that will be claimed for the police and crime commissioner in as much as he or she will be elected for the whole force area. There will at least be some democratic mandate for those elected local councillors who will constitute the majority of members of the police and crime panel. In those circumstances I can see no argument for allowing—indeed requiring—the appointment of somebody who has no mandate when there are those available within the structure who would have at least some mandate.

I hope that the Government will think again. The noble Baroness was unlike her old self, if I may say so, at the beginning of this debate when her rather surprisingly peremptory statements were made. I would like to see her return to what your Lordships might think is the much more acceptable Browning version.