Class 4 National Insurance Contributions

Lord Harris of Haringey Excerpts

Wednesday 15th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I am grateful to my noble friend. I think there is something for all the political parties to learn in terms of setting up policy reviews well in advance of the 2020 general election and involving party members and other people, as appropriate, as they develop their policies, rather than leaving things to the last moment. I therefore take heart from what he says. I am sure that we will all learn from what has happened today.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, many of those who are self-employed are also registered for value added tax. I declare an interest as such a person. However, the Government, with effect from 1 April, will introduce a flat rate for limited-cost businesses under the VAT flat rate scheme. This will have an immediate effect for many people in that position of increasing the money they pay to HMRC by a margin of 2% or 3%—in some cases more—of their turnover. Is that consistent with the spirit of the Conservative manifesto?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I assume those measures have already been approved by both Houses of Parliament, if they are going to come into effect next month.

Health and Social Care

Lord Harris of Haringey Excerpts

Thursday 15th December 2016 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

That this House takes note of the case for effective service user representation in health and social care, and of the case for enhancing the independence and capacity of Healthwatch England and of local Healthwatch groups.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, I am sure the whole House will want to begin by placing on record again its condolences to the noble Lord, Lord Prior of Brampton, who would under other circumstances have been replying to the debate. We are sorry he is not here because of both the circumstances and what he would have brought to the debate as a former chair of the CQC.

I begin by declaring some personal history. For 12 years I was director of the Association of Community Health Councils for England and Wales, which was then the statutory body representing the interests of NHS users at national level and supported a network of 200 or more member community health councils. That is what I bring to the debate.

I apologise in advance if my remarks are coloured by that experience, but it is good to start by considering why patient involvement matters. It begins with the interaction between patients and clinicians, or service users and those who are caring for them. The Eurobarometer qualitative study on patient involvement, produced by the European Commission in 2012, summarised this well, saying that better communication is the central idea of patient involvement:

“For patients, this meant practitioners explaining to them the diagnosis and treatment. For practitioners, it meant patients describing symptoms and keeping them updated”.

The objective is a partnership between the clinician and the patient. There is evidence that where such partnerships exist they improve the outcomes of treatment because the patient is more committed to the treatment proposed and understands it better.

Patient involvement is also critical to service design and organisation. Those responsible for a service often have little understanding of what it is like to use the service in question—although, I have to say, they think they do. The reality is different. A senior clinician or senior manager inevitably ends up being treated differently if they suddenly become a service user.

At the risk of boring your Lordships, I mention a personal anecdote, which one or two may have heard before. This point of not knowing what the service is really like was brought home to me rather forcefully almost 30 years ago. After speaking at a conference, I began to feel increasingly unwell. To cut a long story short, shortly afterwards I found myself at my local accident and emergency, being prodded by a junior doctor, who was clearly completely baffled—as, indeed was I—as to what might be wrong with me. He then did what a junior doctor always does under those circumstances: he follows the protocol, which is to say, “So tell me, Mr Harris, what do you do for a living?”. I know that I should under those circumstances have lied in the interest of getting the true personal experience, but what I actually did was say, “Well, in fact, I’m the director of the Association of Community Health Councils”. The junior doctor then went behind the curtain. Of course, it is a fallacy that you cannot hear what is going on on the other side of that curtain. I could hear him phoning the consultant: “I think you should come down, sir. He says he’s the director of the Association of Community Health Councils”.

That, of course, is the experience when any senior clinician or senior manager is taken into a casualty department or tries to use a service. The reality is that services are better if they reflect the needs of the users of that service, which is why putting patients first at the centre of the NHS has been the mantra underpinning every government statement on the NHS since it was founded in 1948. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, who is about to speak, will recall using very similar words during his time as Secretary of State. Incidentally, on the issue of personal experience, I seem to recall seeing all sorts of statements on what various clinicians would like to do to the noble Lord if they ever found him in their care, but fortunately that never happened during his period of brief notoriety in that role.

The most recent iteration of this mantra was probably NHS England’s five-year forward view, which advocated involving communities and citizens,

“directly in decisions about the future of health and care services”.

Since 1974, successive Governments have supported different models of involving the public in shaping services and of representing the voice of service users. First there were community health councils, until they were abolished in 2002 and replaced by patient and public involvement forums, which were in turn replaced by Local Involvements Networks—LINks—in 2008. They in turn bit the dust with the arrival of Healthwatch as part of the Health and Social Care Act 2012.

That Act had a tortuous passage through Parliament. Somewhere along the way, the model intended for Healthwatch at local level was changed. Those changes were given very little parliamentary scrutiny despite my personal best efforts, when I warned that the late changes to the Bill risked weakening the new bodies by starving them of resources and laying them open to conflicts of interest with local councils, which were to be their paymasters. The arrangements for Healthwatch England would inhibit its independence and effectiveness.

I am sorry to say that the concerns I expressed then have been borne out. Healthwatch England remains a sub-committee of a regulator, the CQC, a body that is already overstretched and to which requests for action and, from time to time, criticism may be directed by Healthwatch England or local Healthwatch. For Healthwatch England to be located there compromises its independence and must limit its scope to highlight when the CQC is not being as effective as it should be. Recent changes appear to have made Healthwatch England’s relationship with the CQC even more subservient, with changes to the chair and chief executive being used as an opportunity to make the role even more subordinate to the CQC.

I am grateful to have received in advance of this debate a letter from David Behan, chief executive of CQC, seeking to reassure me of the independence of Healthwatch England from the CQC, but in it he records:

“The National Director for HWE will be line-managed and accountable to myself as the CQC Chief Executive”—

apparently a new distinction. He further states:

“The HWE Chair is already accountable to the CQC Chair”,

and that the strategy of Healthwatch England has to be submitted to the CQC board for endorsement. That hardly sounds like independence.

Healthwatch England is reasonably generously resourced for what it does, with a budget of £4.5 million, but in 2015-16 it could not spend that and used only £3.7 million, a 17.3% underspend. A very small proportion of that goes on developing and supporting local Healthwatch. Nor does local Healthwatch feel that Healthwatch England is there for them and they have little scope to influence it or its work.

Healthwatch England also seems to fail in capturing and articulating the views and concerns of local groups, so much so that a private company, Glenstall IT, has stepped into the void by collating reports and publications of local Healthwatch groups, something you might have expected Healthwatch England to do, and selling the digest back to 2,000 health and social care professionals. The fact that Healthwatch England is not doing the job means that a private company has come in to sell it back to the people funding the system.

What about the resourcing of local Healthwatch groups? In 2013-14, the Department of Health passed over £43.5 million to be included in the local authority block grant to fund local Healthwatch organisations, but the total funding given to local Healthwatch groups in that year amounted to only £33.5 million—£10 million had disappeared along the way. That is before taking into account the cost of the cumbersome arrangements for competitive tendering and commissioning through third parties imposed by those late changes to the Health and Social Care Bill.

While there was £33.5 million in 2013-14, that fell to £31.8 million in 2015-16 and again to £29.9 million in this financial year—a third less in cash terms than the DoH thought was necessary and had handed over three years earlier. I warned the Department of Health that this would happen and that other pressures on local authority budgets would produce this squeeze, yet it acquiesced in allowing the money to go across unring-fenced. Was this a deliberate attempt to hobble patient representation and independent local scrutiny?

There is a big variation in the funding of individual local Healthwatch groups. Bristol provides £400,000, while Manchester only £80,000. Are the needs of the citizens of Manchester for effective patient representation one-fifth of those of the residents of Bristol, whose population is 50,000 less? Some areas have seen big cuts year on year: Barnsley down 25%; Blackpool down 50%; Bradford down 25%; Ealing down 25%; Harrow down 40%; Hounslow down 50%; Leicestershire down 30%. I could go on.

Some of the reductions are of course a consequence of the enormous continuing pressure on local council finances, but how much is it a consequence of local Healthwatch having a role in monitoring local social care provision—the responsibility of the same local authority that fixes their budget and may perhaps not like the criticism that an effective local Healthwatch group might occasionally have to make? Local authorities have a conflict of interest here and I am told of a number of local Healthwatch areas where this has had a deadening effect, particularly on the willingness of paid staff members to criticise those who provide their monthly paycheques.

One example is of a 30% reduction in funding imposed on Oxfordshire Healthwatch by Oxfordshire County Council, which seemed to follow, as night follows day, from criticisms that the local Healthwatch had made of the county council record on social care—precisely the job that Healthwatch was created to do. As one of its board members tells me, “The cut inflicted on us drove us to relinquish our strategically located premises close to the CCG headquarters and move to the cheapest possible accommodation on the edge of a farmyard in remote countryside. We have had to cut back on project work, assistance for voluntary groups and a range of community engagement activities. All this arose because our funding was not independent and ring-fenced, and was routed through a body we had criticised”.

In Manchester, the city council swallowed most of the Healthwatch budget, leaving what has been described to me as, “a puny organisation. They are not very effective and they don’t relate to any of the other patient organisations”. As the King’s Fund put it in its review carried out for the Department of Health:

“Local Healthwatch organisations are very small in comparison to the potential scope of their statutory activities, and the population and services they cover”.

The effectiveness of the input that local Healthwatch can provide is critical at present, as the sustainability and transformation plan process rolls forward throughout the country. According to NHS England, this process is supposed to be about building and strengthening local relationships, and service users should be at the heart of the process.

How has this worked out? Frankly, it is very variable. In some areas—Sheffield, Staffordshire and Bath—there is good involvement, but not in others. In Berkshire, Devon and County Durham, local Healthwatch was neither involved nor consulted. In Liverpool, local Healthwatch complains that the process has not been open or transparent. Its chair says, “We have not yet had the opportunity to review or scrutinise the detail of the plan”. In the East Riding, there has been no involvement. The MP for Tottenham had to ask a Parliamentary Question to find out who was consulted during the development of the STP for North Central London. None of the local Healthwatch groups was part of the transformation board. As one local Healthwatch rep from elsewhere in the country put it, “The STP thing is a nightmare. They think we patient reps are just a box to tick and the patronising attitude from some is breathtaking”.

Local Healthwatch also has the important power to enter and view services, but the King’s Fund study for the Department of Health found that this power was used in a wide variety of ways, with some of the case study sites doing none because they were unclear about what would justify an enter and view visit. Many local Healthwatch groups only carried out visits on a prearranged basis. Some saw it as a routine part of their intelligence gathering, while others felt it was only justified when “serious or multiple concerns are raised”. Clearly, there is no guidance and local Healthwatch organisations are left time and again to reinvent their own wheels.

As one local Healthwatch activist put it to me, “Too many of us do little E&V. What they do is announced and done by employed staff who have a vested interest in not rocking the boat”, because their salaries are paid by those they are inspecting. All this comes at a time, as the CQC admitted recently to the Health Committee, when it is struggling to manage inspections of establishments every other year. Local Healthwatch could provide an enormous resource to supplement and inform inspections by the CQC, but its potential enthusiasm is simply being stifled.

None of this should be taken to imply that the work done by hundreds, maybe thousands, of local Healthwatch volunteers is not valuable. I am aware, of course, of the many dedicated staff supporting them, but the reality is that the Department of Health has set up a deliberately flawed system. In the name of localism there is allowed to be an enormous variation in how local Healthwatch organisations structure their governance, as highlighted in the King’s Fund review. As a result, there is a lack of clarity in who speaks for local service users. Is it the board, is it its members, is it the host organisation, is it the staff or is it the volunteers? As a result, the authority of that voice is undermined. The King’s Fund criticised the lack of transparency of local Healthwatch and, as one volunteer put it, its structure and governance should follow the same pattern everywhere and not be determined on the whim of a local authority or a private host company.

It could be so different. As the King’s Fund review said:

“Some of the challenges that local Healthwatch face could be addressed through greater support, advice and shared learning on how to operate effectively”.

The tragedy is that Healthwatch has enormous potential. It could be a tremendous force for good in enabling health and social care services to be much more effective and user-centred. It should not be a box-ticking exercise or provide a woolly voice, but provide effective scrutiny with real influence and a real ability to involve the public. That is what the vast majority of those engaged in Healthwatch activities want to do but, alas, their ability to fulfil that role has been hampered by the cack-handed way the system was established, by the department’s failure to prevent the erosion of funds and, just possibly, by the fact that too many local and national service managers would prefer a quiet life, without having to respond to an effective user voice. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, I am enormously grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to today’s debate. I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm, for standing in at short notice and speaking from the Front Bench, and to my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe, who at even shorter notice has stood in for our Front Bench, who are also away for reasons of illness and other matters.

This has been an interesting debate, and lots of important points have been made. I particularly welcome the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, that shared decision-making in terms of the individual should happen anyway, irrespective of the structures in place. He outlined—and I do not dispute it—that when he was Secretary of State the Government’s objectives in creating Healthwatch were good, and the intention was to improve the system. It is just a question of how well it has worked subsequently. He asked a very valid question about why the Labour Government abolished community health councils. That is a question that I certainly asked at the time. I am sure that, had he been in his place, my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, who was the Minister at the time, may well have wanted to comment on those matters. The fact that the arrangements that were then put in place were felt not to be working only a few years later suggests that perhaps the model was not absolutely right.

My noble friend Lady Pitkeathley, along with a number of other contributors, talked about the whole point of the involvement of patients being that it challenges the existing power structures and orthodoxy, which therefore produces a backlash. She also made the point, which I agree with, that in the Bill that ultimately became the Health and Social Care Act, the creation of Healthwatch was potentially a ray of hope in terms of how things would progress.

The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, quite rightly reminded us of the role of the voluntary sector and the way in which users can shape the different patient pathways that are available. That too is something that often gets neglected. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, talked very pointedly about the lack of local knowledge about Healthwatch and its role, as well as the suspicion that is growing about the STP process—which could be extremely important, because it is intended to be transformational—in terms of the lack of openness and transparency. It is an important process, which is why it was so vital that health service users and social care service users were fully involved in the process.

My noble friend Lady Warwick of Undercliffe talked about how the role of local Healthwatch could be critical and said that it was one of the few organisations that really has an overview across the health and social care divide. She highlighted the concerns about the changed relationship between Healthwatch England and the CQC. She also reminded us, very importantly, of the potential role of housing associations. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, talked about the value of senior people listening to service users. That is the essence of most of the models that have existed over the years—senior people directly hearing the voices that are there. The noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, also made that point when she talked about challenging the orthodoxy. She made interesting points about how users should influence and shape things.

I was very amused by one element of the speech made by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, because she said it was not the Liberal Democrats who had said that the structure should work through local authorities. In that case, I am beginning to wonder whose idea it was. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, speaking 10 years ago about the previous system, said that LINks may “struggle to be credible as long as they are funded through local government”. Just a few years later, he felt impelled by something or someone—we now know it was not the Liberal Democrats—to say that the new system should be funded through local government, with the consequences that I have described.

The noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm, in her reply, tried to reassure me about the relationship between Healthwatch England and the CQC, and reiterated what I already see as the accountability lines which render independence slightly more difficult. She then told us that the CQC would in future be deciding the funding of Healthwatch England, which seems to put even more into question the way in which that independence would operate. She also talked about local councils’ accountability for how much they allocate to Healthwatch England. This is very important, but the sanction Healthwatch England has available—which I think we have discussed before in your Lordships’ House—is that it can send a letter to the council lead saying it is not good enough. As a former council leader, I know what response I always gave to letters saying that something that my local authority was doing was simply not good enough.

In conclusion, I am grateful to all noble Lords who contributed to the debate. There is a great warmth around the House about what could be achieved by Healthwatch, both locally and nationally, and the message going back to the Department of Health must be that it is important to build on the Healthwatch network. If it really wants to get this right, and deliver what all your Lordships have said they want to happen, then it needs to resource local Healthwatch organisations properly through a freestanding Healthwatch England. I suspect we might then well find that we have a system which genuinely delivers a user voice and influence into the centre of health and social care in this country.

Motion agreed.

Parliament and Central Government: Relocation

Lord Harris of Haringey Excerpts

Tuesday 29th November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen]

I am surprised the noble Baroness says that. That is what we are doing with devolution. We are not interfering. That is the whole point: for it to go out into the communities for them to be in charge of what they want.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, is there not a nasty tone in some of this debate, of people attacking our capital city? Given that the people of London subsidise the rest of the country to the tune of billions of pounds each year perhaps it would make sense if, before we go down the road of automatically deprecating London, we remember that it would be a very satisfactory outcome as far as the people of London were concerned if the principle of devolution were followed and London had full fiscal autonomy.

[Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen]

The noble Lord certainly has a point. London is our capital, but I do not think noble Lords were denigrating it when they were talking about moving things to the north. Our capital is very important, and that is why I think we feel that this is where government should be.

Policing and Crime Bill

Lord Harris of Haringey Excerpts

Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard - part two): House of Lords
Wednesday 9th November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Wheatcroft (Con)]

I support the amendment. I cannot claim to be an expert on sport, but my noble friend Lord Moynihan most certainly is. His sporting legacy to this country is extraordinary, not least the performance of our team in the London Olympics, which was engineered by his work as chairman of the British Olympic Association, but also the extraordinary performance of our team in Rio. At first glance, the amendment appeared to be radical but, having heard the argument, I understand that we are lagging behind on this important front. That is not the right position for this great sporting nation to be in.

Beyond that, I fear that by not taking strong action against the use of drugs in sport, we are sending the wrong message to our youngsters, who look on sport as a career opportunity and wonderful thing, and to those who play sport as their great heroes. If people are banned from sport for a year or two and then come back, that seems to be acceptable. A prison sentence would be in a different league. That would send a message to our youngsters that this is something that they should not tolerate, and certainly not toy with. That is a very important message for this House to send. I support the amendment.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, support the amendment. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, I do not claim to be an expert in or have anything much to do with sport under most circumstances, but the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, is extremely important. This is about the confidence of the public and the importance to them of feeling that the sporting events they watch or participate in are genuine and not distorted in the way described. It therefore sends a powerful signal and if it indeed brings us back into line with other countries around the world, it is an extremely important thing for us to be doing.

My question—the noble Lord may have answered it in his remarks but if so I did not catch it—is: how broad are the sporting activities which the amendment covers? He talked about international sporting events, and we all have memories of what happened in the recent Olympics, in particular with the Russian team. However, as I understand it, the amendment covers all competitive organised sporting events where they are subject to a governing body. I should be grateful for that clarification and the extent to which it extends right the way through, because the governing bodies of the sports of which I have some knowledge are increasingly seeking not only to arrange the high-profile events but to encourage more people to participate at a lower level in local, regional or county events. It may be less likely that performance-enhancing drugs are used in those environments. However, I assume that this legislation is intended to pick up on those issues as well. It would be helpful if we had that clarity because it is important for people to have confidence in all sporting activities in this country, not just those at the highest level.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

I sometimes wonder about the priorities of this House and of government in considering these sorts of issues. I think most of those who know me recognise that I am fairly hawkish on counterterrorism, but the number of people in this country who have died as a consequence of terrorist acts since 2005 is less than the number of people who die in a single year because of drunk-driving between the limits that are currently against the law and those proposed by the noble Baroness.

Let us go back over all the legislation since the current limit was introduced—the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, took us back to what it was like in those times when we were all much younger—and consider how many pieces of legislation, full Bills, have been brought forward by the Home Office to deal with the threat from terrorism. It is usually about one a year, sometimes more—full Bills containing lots of new offences. Yet there is clear evidence that these new limits would reduce the number of deaths, they are fairly straightforward to administer and yet we keep waiting and putting off the decision. That seems to me an issue that we should all address, and we should be conscious that sometimes we have double standards. I will continue to argue for stronger counterterrorism, but it is rather striking that we do not resolve something like this, which would make a real difference, and would stop the wrecking not only of the lives of the families of those who have died but also of the lives of those who cause the deaths.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, Amendment 214C, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, and supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and my noble friend Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, reduces the legal alcohol limits in England and Wales to match the limits introduced by the Scottish Government on 5 December 2014.

My noble friend Lord Harris made a particularly powerful point in respect of deaths caused through drink-driving. I am very supportive of this amendment, as I think we need tough laws on drinking and driving that are effectively enforced.

I also think that it would be quite good to have the same limit across the whole of Great Britain, and ideally the whole of the United Kingdom. This would make it much easier to understand for everyone concerned. I am also not against having a lower limit for commercial drivers and novices.

There is clear evidence that a reduction in the drink-drive limits would save lives. No one has said that is not the case. We have the highest limits in Europe. Only Malta has the same drink-drive limit we have in this country. The limit introduced by the Scottish Government is the same one that is in force in Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Slovenia and Switzerland. So the case is powerful. In none of these countries is there a problem with the limit being effective.

The second amendment in the group, again in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, and my noble friend Lord Brooke, seeks to create a lower limit for novice and professional drivers. Again, I think that this is something we should consider. Many countries have this. That is certainly the case in many of the countries I read out, including Ireland and North Ireland. I think that it is important, if you are a professional or a novice driver, to have a lower limit.

I passed my driving test 36 years ago. I remember getting my first car—you are let loose and you are in there on your own. If you think about it, you are not very experienced at that point. Therefore it would be a good to enforce a lower limit. The fact is that our limits are comparatively high. I hope the Minister will respond to the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge. It is very good, and I hope that we will get a positive response from the Government. If not, I hope that the noble Baroness will bring it back on Report. I assure her that if she wants to test the opinion of the House at that point, we will support her.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

Since we are having open season during this intervention in the Minister’s speech, could we also deal with why other countries’ records are worse although they have tighter limits? This debate is not about behaviour in France, or in Estonia, and I do not want to get into a pre-Brexit rant about the behaviour of foreigners, or anything like that. If those countries felt that the problem was so bad that they needed to take even tougher measures, that is a matter for them. We are talking about proposals that would save lives in this country at the present time. That is what these amendments are about.

[Earl Attlee]

I hope the Minister will finish by saying that when we get the statistics from Scotland she will study them carefully and possibly review the policy. But claiming that lowering the limit will reduce fatalities is an assertion, and it is not necessarily the case. We need to wait for the evidence, particularly relating to fatalities caused by those people who are far over the limit. I do hope the Minister will say something useful about how she will take full account of the statistics we will shortly get from Scotland.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, we are in Committee and we can do what we like. The noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, put the argument very clearly in relation to the number of deaths that occur as a result of people who have more drink in their blood than the limit she is proposing but less than the current limit. If those deaths could be prevented that would be a net gain.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I understand the argument but the difficulty is that those offences could just be caused by people making a stupid mistake and I am not sure that lowering the limit would solve the problem.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen]

I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Berridge for explaining the purpose of her amendment. The Government are mindful that forced religious marriage may be a deliberate attempt to avoid financial consequences in the event of the break-up of the marriage. The existing position is that the financial orders provided for in the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 are available only where a marriage is capable of legal recognition in England and Wales and where it is being brought to an end—or where judicial separation is ordered. However, where a marriage is not capable of legal recognition, parties have the same recourse to the court as unmarried cohabiting couples on the breakdown of the relationship. This applies to the division of any property and to financial provision for any children the couple have.

For those in a marriage that has no legal validity, the pressure from families and communities to stay together is no less strong because of the fact that the marriage has no legal consequences. It does not make it any easier for an individual to escape an abusive relationship, and we share my noble friend’s concern that it leaves women in particular vulnerable to hardship when the relationship breaks up, since there is no recourse to the court for the financial orders available to divorcing couples. The Government take this issue very seriously, and it is central to the independent sharia law review launched by the current Prime Minister in May this year. The Government will wish to consider the issue further in light of the findings from the review.

None the less, the law governing marriage, divorce and matrimonial property is complex, nuanced and finely balanced, reflecting as it does the wide range of personal circumstances in which people find themselves. The amendment would introduce a disparity with unmarried cohabitants and with those who are in unregistered marriages that are not forced. There is no evidence at this stage that the amendment—

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

I understand the point the Minister is making about consent, difficult precedents, cohabitation and so on. But we are talking about a specific circumstance here, which is about coercion. These are not proper arrangements, because somebody has been forced into marriage against their will. That is the context we are talking about. We are not talking about a sort of touchy-feely cohabitation relationship which then breaks down, but about somebody who has been forced into an arrangement of this sort, which is totally inappropriate and wrong in law.

[Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen]

I was not suggesting that, just that there are difficulties—other reasons why it could be more difficult to bring in. That is not to say that we are not keen to look further at this issue. However, because we want to consider the findings of the sharia law review, I ask my noble friend to withdraw her amendment so that we have a chance to do that.

Electoral Fraud

Lord Harris of Haringey Excerpts

Monday 12th September 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen]

As I said in answer to my noble friend Lord Cormack, we have no plans for that. In fact, the Australian system has not been absolutely perfect. There are still quite a lot of people who do not vote. It is not failsafe.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister talked about the integrity of the voting system, and that is obviously something that we all want to see. Why, then, are the Government pressing ahead with boundary changes on an electoral register which they know is out of date given that so many extra people registered in time to participate in the European referendum? Would it not be better for the integrity of the voting system to use a register which is more current than the one they have chosen to use?

Bank of England and Financial Services Bill [HL]

Lord Harris of Haringey Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd May 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

My Lords, this amendment gives the Treasury a power to provide financial assistance to bodies for the purpose of taking action against illegal money lending. It also gives the FCA an obligation to raise a levy, which will apply to consumer credit firms, in order to fund this financial assistance.

Loan sharks prey on some of the most vulnerable people in society, cause untold misery to their victims and have a damaging impact on the communities in which they operate. As well as lending money illegally at high levels of interest without FCA authorisation, loan sharks frequently use blackmail, as well as violence, to intimidate their victims into repaying legally unenforceable debts.

Loan sharks are currently investigated and prosecuted by the England and Wales illegal money lending teams and the Scottish Illegal Money Lending Unit. The cost of the teams is around £4.7 million. While the FCA will consult on precisely how the levy will be apportioned and collected in its annual fees consultation, the cost of the new levy to individual firms in the £200 billion consumer credit market is anticipated to be small.

It is absolutely right that industry meets the modest costs of funding the teams—all participants in the consumer credit market benefit from their enforcement work. The teams ensure that the consumer credit market remains legitimate and credible by keeping illegal money lenders out of it. The amendment will ensure that the funding that the illegal money lending teams need to continue their crucial work is put on a sustainable, long-term footing. I beg to move.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of the National Trading Standards board and welcome this government amendment to put the funding of the illegal money lending teams on a stable footing. As the Minister said, the teams do an enormous amount of extremely important and valuable work. A recent prosecution dealt with an individual who was charging those unfortunates whom he was offering allegedly to help interest rates of 400,000% per annum. Figures I have for England and Wales show that the work of the illegal money lending teams has led to the writing-off of debts in excess of £55 million. So the work is value for money and extremely important. It is quite right that the funding of these teams should now be put on a long-term, sustainable footing and it is entirely proper that the legitimate part of the lending industry should make sure that those who operate illegally and prey on people who are in a state of considerable distress are dealt with appropriately.

[Lord Sharkey]

My Lords, this is a very good amendment and we support it. Until now, funding for action against illegal money lending has come mostly from BIS with occasional help from the Treasury reserve. As Harriet Baldwin noted in the Commons committee, this funding was constantly being questioned in spending reviews and she rightly saw the need to protect it from the depredations of Chief Secretaries. This amendment does that by changing the funding mechanism to a levy on consumer credit firms. These firms benefit from being within a robustly enforced perimeter and we welcome this change. We welcome the move to provide sustainable and stable funding for the fight against illegal money lending.

Housing and Planning Bill

Lord Harris of Haringey Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, I put this in a separate amendment because I wanted it set out and because it is the fundamental thing that people outside the system are going to complain about with regard to private provision of the processing of planning applications. The potential for conflicts of interest is high. The Government say they will produce regulations to stop that and make sure it does not happen. We will see how they do that.

There is a perception of conflicts of interest in a system that, as was said earlier, is already believed by many people to be utterly biased towards large developers and against ordinary people—rightly or wrongly, there is a widespread belief that that is the case. If, instead of being processed by local government officials, planning applications are processed by private companies, people will look for the links between those private companies and developers putting in applications and, whatever safeguards the Government put in, they will find them. They will find family relationships, school relationships, board memberships and so on—all manner of relationships. It is a huge can of worms.

If the Government are going ahead with these pilots, this is a fundamental issue that they have to tackle and do their very best to get right. I doubt they can get it right but it is at the heart of this proposal. I beg to move.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for putting this unexpected discussion before the Committee. I am conscious that there are 11 more groups, which, in the course of a normal Thursday, would need to be discussed in the next hour and seven minutes. Perhaps I can abuse the fact that I am now standing up to say that it would be very helpful if we could have a statement from the Government Chief Whip in, say, 15 minutes, explaining his intentions for the remainder of Committee. It is clearly unreasonable—to the Minister and the shadow Ministers—to be continuing in this way, making such slow albeit quite proper progress, because these are important issues. It would be extremely helpful if we had a statement from the Government Chief Whip about the Government’s intentions for dealing with the Bill because, frankly, this is not a sensible way for legislation to be properly scrutinised by your Lordships’ House.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

My Lords, why can we not simply convert the first day of Report into a Committee day and have a proper debate on the day we come back?

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

That the House do now resume.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, given that the Government Chief Whip has not yet arrived in the Chamber to explain what the intention is—although we may be about to get a message from him—to expedite matters, in order to see exactly what the Government’s intentions are, I beg to move that the House do now resume.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

My Lords, I argue that the House should not resume. Discussions are ongoing with the Chief Whip as we speak. I suggest to the House that we continue. The Chief Whip will come into the Chamber as soon as he is able to update us on progress on the Bill.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

On the basis of that assurance that the Government Chief Whip will be joining us in about 10 minutes, I will not press my Motion to a vote at this stage.

Motion withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

That the House do now resume.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, the Government Chief Whip briefly appeared in the Chamber. I now see that the Leader and Deputy Leader of the House are here. I am minded to move that the House do now resume, unless we are about to get a Statement.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Harris, continues, for the benefit of the House I should like to inform your Lordships that the Chief Whip will be making a brief Statement at 7 pm on the subject of the progress of the Bill.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

I am sure that this will be helpful. It is clearly progress and we all want to get on with this. But it would be useful for the House to know what the intention of the Government is as far as the progress of this Bill is concerned. So, unless we are going to be given more information, I will again put a Motion that the House do now resume.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

It may be helpful for the noble Lord to know that is has been agreed with the usual channels to have the Statement at 7 pm.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, I am sure that that is the case, but I am not a member of the usual channels. There are Members sitting in this Committee who are interested in this Bill or in particular clauses or aspects of it. We have a right to know the intention in terms of the remaining groups on this Bill. That is why I therefore move that the House do now resume.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, perhaps I might speak as the Minister who is on the Bill. We have spent many weeks on it. The one thing that we do not do is the job of the usual channels. With respect to the noble Lord, I ask him to respect this convention and allow the Chief Whip to make a Statement at 7 pm. In the mean time, could we please get on with this Bill because we all want to go home?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, for the convenience of the House I shall now seek, representing the opposition Chief Whip, discussions with the government Chief Whip and the noble Lord, Lord Newby, as soon as I have left the Chamber. I hope that my noble friends will allow us to continue business until that is concluded.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, if it helps the House, given the assurance from my noble friend that these discussions will take place and that we will get a report, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion that the House will be now resumed—but I may come back to it if there is no sign of progress.

Motion withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, I intend to make myself extremely popular by not speaking to this amendment, other than to say that I am extremely supportive of the amendments in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Goss Moor—and to say that my speech is available by email if anyone would like to read it later.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, I want to speak to this group of amendments because I think they are very important. Earlier on in the Committee today, I specifically raised the importance, in terms of planning, of looking at the concept of what is the community that you are trying to create—and making sure that the community is sustainable and has all the benefits you would hope for.

Over the past 20 or 30 years there has been enormous progress in understanding what makes a community work. It is not simply the number of homes. It is not simply the mix of homes. It is also what else is there. That is the place-making function. This is the content of Amendment 103, moved by my noble friend: it has focused on the series of expectations about the role that the new town development corporation—or whatever else—might use in trying to create a community.

The issue is not simply identifying the possibilities for development and putting up more new homes. That would be the route to some of the urban disasters that we have seen over the past 30 or 40 years. It is about creating a place. It is about creating an environment in which people can live and have a sense of community. The content contained in the amendment refers specifically to the vibrant cultural and artistic development of the community. It talks about protecting the natural and historic environment and the importance of high quality and inclusive design. This is about creating places in which people actually want to live. That should be fundamental to the whole planning process, and writing those into the legislation—the Local Government, Planning and Land Act, and the New Towns Act 1981 —is exactly the right way forward for the Bill. However, my concern is that they have not been included in the Bill up to now. I hope that the Minister—she is now nodding, so perhaps that is a good sign—will be able to tell us that the Government accept the principles behind my noble friend’s amendment.

On the point that has just been made by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, about the importance of consulting and involving communities, communities live and thrive only if they have the support of the people who are going to live there. That is why consultation and involvement in that process are such a critical part of making sure that those communities and places are indeed viable. That is my understanding of the intention of these amendments, and I hope that the Minister is going to tell us that the Government wholeheartedly embrace that and are going to accept them.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

My Lords, the amendments are indeed very timely. On Amendment 103, I say at the outset that I wholeheartedly endorse the importance of creating sustainable, well-designed places and I agree that, as the Budget announcement makes clear, statutory delivery vehicles can have an important role to play in achieving that. However, I echo what my honourable friend from the other place said: I am wary of creating new definitions and prescribing a long list of objectives for new town development corporations and urban development corporations, however worthy those objectives are in principle.

The NPPF already provides a clear view of what sustainable development means in practice, and to a very large extent it incorporates the objectives set out in the amendment. However, I accept that there is a case for change, and I am happy to look further at the objectives of the new town development corporations and how they could be extended, with a view to introducing an amendment that reflects this debate on Report. I hope that in light of this undertaking the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, on behalf of his colleagues, will withdraw his amendment.

I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Taylor, for Amendments 103A and 103B. The Government are committed to updating the New Towns Act 1981 so that we can better support local areas that want to bring forward new garden towns and villages. I emphasise that our focus is on locally led new garden towns and villages, and we will back proposals that have been developed locally with local support. We will absolutely not impose new towns and villages on communities.

The amendments set out one of the key changes that need to be made to the New Towns Act 1981, which is sound in its fundamentals but is showing its age. I am supportive of a modernised process that is consistent across both types of delivery vehicle, and therefore ask noble Lords not to move these amendments with a view to the Government producing similar amendments, which we will table on Report. I hope that I have reassured noble Lords.

--- Later in debate ---

Schedule 19 agreed.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, I see the Chief Whip hovering and unless he is coming to the Dispatch Box now, I will beg to move that the House do now resume.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)]

My Lords, I have had discussions in the usual channels, and we are going to be able to make quite a considerable amount of headway very quickly indeed. If noble Lords will bear with me, I said I would make a statement at 7 pm or thereabouts. I am willing to do so, but I know that the next group of amendments to be debated will be brief. I am also assured that the subsequent group will not be moved. There are then two groups of government amendments. I have agreed with those who have tabled the last group of amendments—which we will not reach—that they can be brought back on Report and debated under Committee rules. That is a practical solution, and I hope that noble Lords will agree it is a sensible way forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I have been a cause of trouble on the Bill, in that I was very keen that we finished exactly at 7 pm. That seems to me now to be ridiculous. Everybody wants to finish at 7 pm. In the last hour we have wasted a quarter of an hour arguing about whether we finish at 7 pm or 7.15 pm. My very strong view is that we should now continue to the end of the Bill, which we will do very shortly.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, I think I have moved that the House do now resume. Can I just clarify before I decide whether to press that to a vote whether we have now heard the Chief Whip’s Statement or whether he intends to make his Statement at the conclusion of the next group? Have we now got a procedure for going forward or has he now amended it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord True]

My Lords, I will not give the House a heart attack, but would the noble Lord consider before Report that surplus land in London might also go to boroughs, as well as to the mayor?

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, will be surprised at this, but I support his amendment. If you believe in the concept of a strong mayor—whether a strong Mayor of London or a strong mayor in combined authorities—what is proposed in these amendments is absolutely right. If you believe in a localist agenda, which I understand that the Government purport to do, this is the right approach. This should be how decisions about surplus land should be made.

On the basis of the comments I have made during the course of today’s Committee, it is important that there is the opportunity for people to make places. The people best placed to do that in this instance will be the mayors; the Mayor of London and the mayors of combined authorities. This is an opportunity. If it is the case—and I believe that my interventions in the last hour perhaps helped facilitate the discussions that may have led to an agreement—that the Government are going to accept the principles behind this, then I, for one, will be delighted.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Lord Bridges of Headley) (Con)]

My Lords, I, too, will try to be relatively brief. It is very good to be here at last; good things come to those who wait. The noble Lord has just raised some important points about these amendments. Let me turn directly to Clause 183, which requires Ministers of the Crown, in developing proposals for the disposal of their interests in land, to engage on an ongoing basis with each local authority in whose area the land is situated and other public authorities specified in regulations.

Clause 183 was inspired by local authorities which have experienced varying levels of engagement from central government, ranging from excellent to none at all. The aim is to ensure consistency in the way the Government engage with them. Amendments 105 to 109 would undo that common approach by making separate provision for the way authorities in London engage with each other. Amendment 108 could create particular confusion by requiring authorities in London to have regard to two sets of guidance, one published by the Secretary of State and the other by the mayor.

Turning briefly to Amendment 106, Clause 183 provides for the Minister for the Cabinet Office to issue statutory guidance on how the duty to engage is to be complied with. The clause is framed in this way to allow for flexibility. The duty to engage is new and we want to be able to monitor how it works in practice so that the detailed requirements can be fine-tuned if necessary. However, I agree that the regulations and guidance will need to take account of the role of the mayor in London. The mayor has a fundamental role in housing, planning and regeneration in London and has wide powers to acquire land, including by compulsion, and to develop or dispose of land as appropriate to a given scheme. Noble Lords will know much about that.

In view of that important role, I can reassure the noble Lord and the noble Baroness that we will specify the Mayor of London in regulations made under this clause, so that Ministers and public bodies, when developing proposals for the disposal of land in London, will need to engage with the Mayor of London.

Clause 184 is a transparency measure. It aims to incentivise bodies to release land in a timely manner, and where they have good reasons for not doing so, ensures that these are made transparent. Reports are not intended to be provided to a particular body, but made available publicly so that bodies can be held to account in respect of their use of surplus land. Reports will be readily accessible by the Mayor of London and there is no need for the express provision sought by Amendment 110. However, it will be important to ensure that the mayor is made aware of any reports under Clause 184 which include land in London. We will therefore undertake to consult the mayor when drawing up regulations under subsection (9) to ensure that the mayor’s views on how they should be published are taken into account.

Turning to mayoral combined authorities, I am unconvinced that the amendment would be helpful, as it would add to bureaucracy and reduce efficiency by requiring authorities to provide information to the mayoral combined authority or requiring the mayoral combined authority to request information from local authorities in its area. Individual local authorities will take decisions as to which land is surplus and will have this information readily to hand. Requiring individual authorities to report is the simplest and most straightforward approach.

Amendments 112 and 113 would insert two new, almost identical clauses which would prevent a relevant public body from disposing of any surplus land without first giving a mayoral combined authority, or the Mayor of London respectively, the right of first refusal to acquire that property, either at best consideration or at a sum that is less than best consideration by consent of the Secretary of State. Here, I point out that the mayor already has significant powers in relation to land. The mayor can acquire land, including compulsorily with the consent of the Secretary of State, and can develop and dispose of land and property. Where large, strategic opportunities arise, the mayor is empowered to designate a mayoral development area, which then triggers the establishment of a mayoral development corporation. For smaller opportunities, the London Land Commission has been established to play a strategic role in brokering agreements between land-owning bodies and government departments to facilitate development.

I am concerned that the amendments would add time and complexity to the disposal process without guaranteeing the best disposal routes. While there will be instances in which the mayoral combined authority or Mayor of London will be an appropriate disposal route for sites, they will not always be so. Schemes such as large urban extensions or garden cities require authorities to work with a number of developers and other partners, often over a number of years. In such instances it would not be appropriate for authorities to offer land to a mayoral combined authority or the Mayor of London, or for the mayoral combined authority or Mayor of London to dictate what the disposal route should be. Moreover, the proposed process would add considerable time and complexity to the disposal process.

Amendments 114 and 115 would amend Clause 185 to devolve the power to order disposal to the Mayor of London for relevant public authorities in Greater London. The bodies to which the power applies are not limited to local authorities but include a range of authorities with public functions, which span the whole country. How authorities with a national focus use their land must be judged in the wider context, taking account of their strategic need for land now and in the future. It would be inappropriate for the Mayor of London, with functions concentrated within the boundaries of Greater London, to make a judgment on whether a given piece of land within London is surplus to requirements. Devolving the power could risk undermining the ability of such bodies to carry out their functions properly. Government Ministers have the strategic overview necessary to identify where local directions to dispose of land may have a broader impact nationally.

Finally, Clause 183 already provides for regulations to be made setting out how relevant public authorities should engage with other relevant public authorities when taking forward plans to dispose of land. Clause 184 would require authorities to publish details of land that has been declared surplus for two years or more, or six months in the case of residential land. The Government are also consulting on updating the transparency code to require local authorities to record details of their land and property assets on the Government’s electronic property information management system. Given these new measures, which will improve engagement and increase transparency, it is unclear what Amendments 117 and 118 would add.

I hope I have dealt in some detail with some of the points raised by the noble Lord and noble Baroness, that I have been able to give some reassurance in the area in which it was sought, and that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Tope, decides whether or not to withdraw his amendment, can we have a little more clarity as to why the Government believe that Amendments 112 and 113 would add significantly to the time taken to dispose of assets? This is simply giving the Mayor of London or the mayor of a combined authority an opportunity to consider whether to acquire or to refuse to acquire, whereas the route that the Minister described required the creation of a mayoral development corporation. That seems to be a much longer, more drawn-out process than the one in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Tope.

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

I would be happy to discuss this with the noble Lord privately to explain our views. We believe it would add unnecessary bureaucracy, time and complexity, but I am happy to discuss this further with him.