publications.parliament.uk...Vol. 753 No. 148 Monday 12 May 2014 PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD)...

Vol. 753No. 148

Monday12 May 2014

P A R L I A M E N T A R Y D E B A T E S

(HANSARD)

HOUSE OF LORDSOFFICIAL REPORT

O R D E R O F BU S I N E S S

QuestionsImmigration ..........................................................................................................................................................1643Independent Living Fund...................................................................................................................................1645National Health Service: Nursing Staff...........................................................................................................1648Ratification of the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict.1650

Transport for London Bill [HL]Motion to Agree .................................................................................................................................................1652

Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedule 5) Order 2014Motion to Approve ..............................................................................................................................................1653

Merchant Shipping (Convention Relating to the Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea) Order 2014Motion to Approve ..............................................................................................................................................1653

Immigration BillCommons Reasons and Amendments .................................................................................................................1653

Education: Free School FundingStatement ..............................................................................................................................................................1697

Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2014Motion to Approve ..............................................................................................................................................1701

Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 (Amendment) Order 2014Motion to Approve ..............................................................................................................................................1717

Licensing Act 2003 (FIFA World Cup Licensing Hours) Order 2014Motion to Approve ..............................................................................................................................................1718

Licensing Act 2003 (Mandatory Conditions) Order 2014Motion to Approve ..............................................................................................................................................1727

Representation of the People (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2014Motion to Approve ..............................................................................................................................................1731

Representation of the People (Scotland) (Amendment) Regulations 2014Motion to Approve ..............................................................................................................................................1744

Grand CommitteeCommunications Act 2003 (Disclosure of Information) Order 2014

Motion to Consider ......................................................................................................................................GC 419European Union (Definition of Treaties) (Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment and Protocolthereto on matters specific to Aircraft Equipment) Order 2014

Motion to Consider ......................................................................................................................................GC 424Renewable Heat Incentive Scheme (Amendment) Regulations 2014

Motion to Consider ......................................................................................................................................GC 428

Law CommissionQuestion for Short Debate...........................................................................................................................GC 434

Written Statements.............................................................................................................................................WS 195Written Answers ..................................................................................................................................................WA 461

£4·00

Lords wishing to be supplied with these Daily Reports should give notice to this effect to the Printed Paper Office.

No proofs of Daily Reports are provided. Corrections for the bound volume which Lords wish to suggest to the reportof their speeches should be clearly indicated in a copy of the Daily Report, which, with the column numbersconcerned shown on the front cover, should be sent to the Editor of Debates, House of Lords, within 14 days of thedate of the Daily Report.

This issue of the Official Report is also available on the Internet atwww.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201314/ldhansrd/index/140512.html

PRICES AND SUBSCRIPTION RATES

DAILY PARTSSingle copies:

Commons, £5; Lords £4Annual subscriptions:

Commons, £865; Lords £600

LORDS VOLUME INDEX obtainable on standing order only.Details available on request.

BOUND VOLUMES OF DEBATES are issued periodically during thesession.Single copies:

Commons, £105; Lords, £60 (£100 for a two-volume edition).Standing orders will be accepted.

THE INDEX to each Bound Volume of House of Commons Debates is publishedseparately at £9·00 and can be supplied to standing order.

All prices are inclusive of postage.

The first time a Member speaks to a new piece of parliamentary business, the following abbreviations are used to showtheir party affiliation:

Abbreviation Party/GroupCB Cross BenchCon ConservativeCon Ind Conservative IndependentDUP Democratic Unionist PartyGP Green PartyInd Lab Independent LabourInd LD Independent Liberal DemocratInd SD Independent Social DemocratLab LabourLab Ind Labour IndependentLD Liberal DemocratLD Ind Liberal Democrat IndependentNon-afl Non-affiliatedPC Plaid CymruUKIP UK Independence PartyUUP Ulster Unionist Party

No party affiliation is given for Members serving the House in a formal capacity, the Lords spiritual, Members on leaveof absence or Members who are otherwise disqualified from sitting in the House.

© Parliamentary Copyright House of Lords 2014,this publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament licence,

which is published at www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright/.

House of LordsMonday, 12 May 2014.

2.30 pm

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Oxford.

ImmigrationQuestion

2.37 pm

Asked by Lord Holmes of Richmond

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plansthey have to remove international students from theheadline immigration figures.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, HomeOffice (Lord Taylor of Holbeach) (Con): My Lords,the Government publish immigration statistics brokendown by category. The number of student immigrantsmay therefore be easily distinguished from other migrants.The independent Office for National Statistics’ netmigration statistics include students, and the Governmenthave no plans to remove them. This makes no differenceto the policy, which is that there is no cap and genuineinternational students are welcome.

Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con): My Lords, themessage must be clear to international students: wewant you and we welcome you. Can my noble friendthe Minister assure the House that the Governmentare doing everything to ensure that, when it comes toglobal higher education, the brightest and the bestchoose Britain?

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I think that the wholeHouse will agree with those sentiments. It is certainlythe Government’s policy, and I hope that it will bepossible to persuade universities and Universities UKto take this opportunity to improve our position as thesecond provider of higher education to the worldstudent population. This is a great opportunity for us,and we need to be united in sending that message.

Lord Bragg (Lab): My Lords, do the Governmentfully understand the damage that is being done? Ispeak as chancellor of the University of Leeds. I refernot only to the damage in fees, which is well over£1 million or £1.5 million—a lot to any university—butto the fact that we are excluding more than 23% ofpeople from China and India. Does the Ministerunderstand the value of those contacts, their value toour future negotiations, prosperity and culture and thelessening of value of our academic status in the worldby this policy?

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: The noble Lord willknow that there is no cap on numbers. We welcome thebrightest and the best, and I wish that noble Lordswould take that on board and persuade those universities

where they have responsibility that this is the Government’spolicy. If I may say to the noble Lord, visa applicationsfrom students sponsored by universities increased by7% in 2013, and applications from students going toRussell group universities rose by 11%. That is not anindustry that is suffering as a result of governmentpolicy; it is an industry that is taking advantage ofgovernment policy to show what a good offer we havefor students.

Baroness Williams of Crosby (LD): My Lords, Iwarmly welcome the Government’s wish to make itclear that overseas students are extremely welcome.However, I have two questions for the Minister. First,why do we need to continue to include internationalstudents in our overall immigration figures when Canada,Australia, the United States and our other majorrivals see no need to do that given that these are notmigrants but visitors who will return home? Secondly,what is the effect of a reduction in overseas studentson our crucial STEM courses—that is, courses onscience, technology, engineering and computing—asmany of those courses are at risk if they do not retain,and increase, the present proportion of overseas students?

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: My Lords, I must correctmy noble friend on a matter of fact in that all ourmajor competitors, including the US and Australia,count students as migrants. I hope I may explain whythat is the case. In 2013, 115,000 people who came tothe UK as students extended their stay—70,000 or so,or 62%, for further study and 38,000 for work. TheTier 4 system offers flexibility to allow these high-valueindividuals to extend their visa. However, not to includethem as immigrants is against the practice in othercompetitor countries and is against our interests inmaking sure that we know who is here, why they arehere and what they are doing when they are here.

Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB): My Lords, does theMinister recognise that this is not a problem of statisticsor the presentation of statistics? I entirely agree withhis very welcome statement of the Government’s intentionsbut will he add just a few words—that in future theGovernment do not intend to treat students as immigrantsfor public policy purposes?

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I have to make it clearthat we treat them as immigrants for statistical purposes.The point of my argument is that students come herenot just for six months or so but to pursue a course ofstudy and, following that course of study, they go onto do other things. We delude ourselves if we thinkthis is an alternative track that we can separate outfrom migration in general. The point I have made isthat it makes no difference to our policy position,which is that the brightest and best should come here.I did not answer my noble friend’s question on STEM.Of course, STEM subjects are important. That is whySTEM students from China went up by 7%, thosefrom Malaysia by 1% and those from Hong Kong by20% between 2011 and 2013. We are at one on this andI wish that noble Lords would accept the Government’sgood faith in that regard.

1643 1644[12 MAY 2014]Immigration Immigration

Baroness Knight of Collingtree (Con): My Lords,will my noble friend assure the House with regard to amajor problem that we all experienced in the House ofCommons for many years of students signing up tostudy at not very reputable places and then disappearing?Is that problem over?

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: Yes, my Lords. As mynoble friend will know, institutions which were guiltyof that practice are no longer able to sponsor students.I accept that universities are acting in good faith inconducting their responsibilities in this regard. All Iam saying is that the Government’s position is that wewant to back them in making sure that we tell theworld what a good offer we have in this country forstudents.

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab): Is not theproblem that the Department for Business, Innovationand Skills is actively trying to make sure that manystudents come here but the Home Office is doing itsbest to make sure that they do not get in? This hasbeen exemplified by the warm words said by theMinister today, which are simply not believed in manyof the places that traditionally have sent students here.What is he going to do to go on the front foot and getout there and persuade people that Britain is indeedopen for business and that our education system issomething that they should be joining?

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I do not think that thenoble Lord would have any doubts as to my good faithin this matter, and I am sure that that is true of mostnoble Lords because it is not the first time that we havediscussed this issue. Indeed, it has been a theme overthe past 12 months since the committee reported tothe House. I am anxious to join noble Lords who haveresponsibility within universities in making it clearthat the Home Office policy is not about making itdifficult for these people to be here; it is about facilitatingtheir studies and encouraging them to do so. As thenoble Lord will know, during the passage of theImmigration Bill through this House we debated thisvery issue and I said that I hoped to meet UniversitiesUK to talk about it, and that remains my intention.

Independent Living FundQuestion

2.46 pm

Asked by Baroness Campbell of Surbiton

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how theassessment guidance to local authorities under theCare Bill will address the particular needs of peopletransferring from the Independent Living Fund.

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Departmentof Health (Earl Howe) (Con): My Lords, one of the keyprinciples of the Care Bill is that people who requirecare and support should have choice and control overtheir lives. The Bill requires that all assessments willconsider the person’s needs, well-being and desired

outcomes. The requirements of the Bill, and of guidancesupporting implementation, will apply equally to alladults having an assessment, including those who aretransferring from the Independent Living Fund.

Baroness Campbell of Surbiton (CB): I thank theMinister for his considered reply but, given theGovernment’s emphasis on people who have directexperience of using care and support services beingcentrally involved in their design and delivery, will theMinister please explain why his Government think itunnecessary to set up a reference group, includingdisabled people, the Independent Living Fund, localauthorities and civil servants, to oversee this veryimportant ILF transition?

Earl Howe: My Lords, the noble Baroness willknow that she and I had a very useful meeting lastweek and I, with my honourable colleague NormanLamb, undertook to her that we would give thatproposal serious consideration, which we will certainlydo. I will be in touch with her in the coming weeks toarrange a further discussion about this. We are absolutelycommitted to co-production in this and to involvingstakeholders wherever possible.

Baroness Wilkins (Lab): My Lords, given that theGovernment have set the national eligibility criteria ata level that will not provide sufficient support forindependent living, will the Minister say whether andhow the Government will monitor the level of unmetneed of the transferred ILF clients if elements of theirpackage are not eligible for local authority funding?

Earl Howe: My Lords, 94% of ILF users receivesupport from both the ILF and the local authority.Local authorities will assess those who are transferringfrom the ILF. If a person is assessed as not havingeligible needs, the Care Bill provides authorities with apower to meet those needs, and they do so. Authoritiesshould also advise on what preventive services, informationor advice, or other support may be available in thewider community to help them achieve their particularoutcomes.

Lord Paddick (LD): My Lords, while the Government’spolicy of localism is to be generally welcomed, doesmy noble friend not agree that there should be someexceptions? If, as a result of devolving the IndependentLiving Fund, some severely disabled people can nolonger afford to live wholly independent and fulfillinglives, how is this in the best interests of those disabledpeople? Will he explain, bearing in mind the high costof social care and residential care, how that will be inthe best interests of the taxpayer?

Earl Howe: My Lords, the provisions in the CareBill will apply equally to everyone with care andsupport needs, including those who are currently receivingsupport from the ILF. The aim of the ILF is tosupport independent living for disabled people. Theoverarching aim of the Care Bill is to give people withcare and support needs more choice and control overtheir lives. It focuses specifically on their well-being

1645 1646[LORDS]Immigration Independent Living Fund

and the outcomes that they want to achieve, and putsthem at the heart of the system. That would be myreply. There is no question of forcing people intoresidential care. The starting point is: what are theneeds and wishes of the individuals involved, and howcan care be built around those?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab): My Lords, can thenoble Earl guarantee that no current recipient of thefund will lose out when money is transferred and it isthe responsibility of local government? Will he tell theHouse why this money is not being ring-fenced? Willhe acknowledge that in two recent examples of moneybeing transferred by his department to localgovernment—the Healthwatch budget and the publichealth budget—local authorities have not passed onthe full amount? How will he ensure that local authoritiesspend that money on independent living?

Earl Howe: As the noble Lord knows, local governmentsocial care funding is not ring-fenced. We believe thatallowing local authorities the flexibility to managetheir budgets locally means that they can respond tolocal needs and priorities better. The Care Bill, as Ihave just said, will require local authorities to involvethe person in the development of their care and supportplan and, as far as possible, agree that with them. Theperson’s care and support plan may be different fromtheir current package, but the central point is that theywill be at the heart of the process to ensure that thepackage provides them with choice and control overtheir lives.

Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl): My Lords, the Government’srecently published strategy, Think Autism, vowed tohelp people with autism spectrum disorder to liveindependent lives. However, the abolition of theIndependent Living Fund withdraws the very schemethat was set up precisely to help those vulnerablepeople to live in the community. How many peoplewith autism spectrum disorder currently receive supportunder the Independent Living Fund and will thereforebe affected by this closure?

Earl Howe: My Lords, I do not have that figure inmy brief but the number of people receiving paymentsfrom the Independent Living Fund is relatively few incomparison to the total number of people receivingadult social care and support. If I have any furtherfigures that I can supply to the noble Baroness, I shallbe happy to write to her.

Lord Laming (CB): Will the noble Earl share withthe House the objections to ring-fencing this fundduring the initial period to make sure that we havecertainty that the money will be used for the purposefor which it is intended?

Earl Howe: My Lords, the issue is that we essentiallyhave a two-tier system. That is at the heart of why theILF is being disbanded over the next year or so. As aresult of that, we know that there is some cross-subsidisation, with local authorities using ILF moneyto off-set the cost of social care. We are rechannelling

that money to local authorities in the expectation thatthey will use it for adult social care, as I have said. It isnot, however, ring-fenced.

National Health Service: Nursing StaffQuestion

2.53 pm

Asked by Baroness Kennedy of Cradley

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what stepsare being taken to ensure adequate levels of nursingstaff in the National Health Service.

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Departmentof Health (Earl Howe) (Con): My Lords, patient safetyis paramount. Patient safety experts agree that safestaffinglevelsshouldbeset locally.LocalNHSorganisationsare best placed to determine the skill mix of theirworkforce and must have freedom to deploy staff inways appropriate for their locality. We have commissionedNICE to develop guidance on setting safe staffinglevels and to endorse safe staffing tools. If hospitals donothavesufficientnurses, theChief Inspectorof Hospitalswill take action.

Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Lab): As today isInternational Nurses Day, will the noble Earl join meand many others in this House in paying tribute to thehard work of our NHS nurses? Further, can he explainwhy, since 2010, the actual number of qualified nurseshas fallen and nearly 4,000 senior nursing posts havebeen lost? What are the Government going to doabout that worrying reduction in experience and skillin nursing in our NHS?

Earl Howe: My Lords, I readily join the nobleBaroness in paying tribute to our nursing workforce,whether in acute settings, in the community or, indeed,in any other setting. In fact, if the noble Baronessconsults the official statistics, she will see that there aremore nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff atpresent than there ever have been in the history of theNHS. Since the election, more than 5,100 more nursesare working on our wards, there are more than 1,700 moremidwives and more than 2,000 more health visitors.We have been able to fund these increased numbers bya reduction in administrative staff—today there aremore than 19,600 fewer administrative staff. I wouldbe interested to hear where the noble Baroness gets herfigures from but, as she will have gathered, mine arecompletely in the other direction.

The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, given thecourt ruling last week against Thanet ClinicalCommissioning Group saying that it was obliged tofollow NICE guidelines unless a special factor couldbe determined that would justify departure, will HerMajesty’s Government give an assurance that the sametest will apply to NHS trusts in regard to the ratio ofnurses and patients?

1647 1648[12 MAY 2014]Independent Living Fund National Health Service: Nursing Staff

Earl Howe: The guidance issued today by NICE onstaffing ratios, to which I think the right reverendPrelate is specifically referring, is in draft, but thedeputy chief executive of NICE has stressed that thereare no floor or ceiling numbers on the required numberof nursing staff that can be applied either across thewhole of the NHS or in a particular ward setting.What the profession is seeking, and what NICE islooking to give it, is a reference tool or guideline thatwill enable it to judge correct staffing levels in accordancewith the particular circumstances of a ward and theskill mix of the staff on that ward. It is a guidelinerather than a mandatory prescription.

Baroness Manzoor (LD): My Lords, my questionrelates to specialist nurses. NICE has issued guidelinesin relation to TB, and I am delighted to see that PublicHealth England has also issued a strategy on TB,making it a key component. However, there are variationsin the number of TB nurses within trusts. How are theGovernment and NHS England going to adhere to theratios that have been advocated by NICE?

Earl Howe: My Lords, as regards specialist nurses,the Government have supported the development of arange of specialist roles within the profession. In theend it is for local NHS organisations, with their knowledgeof the needs of the local population, to invest intraining for specialist skills and to deploy specialistnurses. We recognise that more could be done by somelocal healthcare organisations in this area, and HealthEducation England is able to support employers withcontinuing personal and professional development—butwithin clear limits. The planning process has createdan opportunity for employers, through the LETBs—localeducation and training boards—to prioritise investmentin this area.

Lord Turnberg (Lab): My Lords, the number ofnurses may have gone up a little, but the main problemis the marked reduction in the number of senior nurseson wards. These are the women and men who are incharge of a ward and make sure that care is properlydelivered at the ward level. Does the noble Earl considerwhether this particular loss is because we do notreward and value these key individuals well enough torecruit or retain them?

Earl Howe: My Lords, as the noble Lord will beaware, finances in the NHS are tight. However, as Isaid earlier, there are now 5,100 more nurses on ourwards than there were in May 2010. That must indicatethat nursing is still an attractive profession for thebrightest and the best of our young men and women.

Lord Willis of Knaresborough (LD): My Lords, willmy noble friend accept that nurses do not work inisolation and that in order to deliver the high-qualitycare and safety that the Government rightly demand,the whole of the caring workforce needs to be properlytrained and properly educated? What steps are beingtaken to ensure that healthcare support workers in

particular—there are more than a million of them—getthe training that they deserve to give patients the carethat they too deserve?

Earl Howe: My noble friend is right. He may beaware that last month Health Education England,Skills for Care and Skills for Health launched the pilotfor the new care certificate, which is taking placeacross a range of health and social care settings. It willtest a set of standards designed to help employers toassess not only workers’ skills, but also the knowledge,behaviours and values that are required to delivercompassionate and high-quality care. That pilot willcontinue throughout the summer and, subject toevaluation, it is planned to introduce the care certificatenext March.

Ratification of the Convention for theProtection of Cultural Property in the

Event of Armed ConflictQuestion

3 pm

Asked by The Earl of Clancarty

To ask Her Majesty’s Government when theywill introduce legislation to ratify the 1954 Conventionfor the Protection of Cultural Property in the Eventof Armed Conflict and accede to its two protocols.

Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con): My Lords, I am notin a position to say when the Government will introducelegislation to facilitate the UK’s ratification of the1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of CulturalProperty in the Event of Armed Conflict and its twoprotocols. I confirm our commitment to heritageprotection and our respect for other nations’ culturalproperty. That is why we have pledged to introducelegislation as soon as parliamentary time allows.

The Earl of Clancarty (CB): My Lords, does theMinister agree that there is a growing feeling that, ifwe do not ratify this treaty, at the very least we shallnot have the necessary moral authority to speak outon, as well as to help to protect against, the destructionand theft of cultural heritage that continues to occur?The Government have been saying for years that theywill ratify the treaty when parliamentary time allows.There is now plenty of parliamentary time. Will theGovernment get on with it?

Lord Gardiner of Kimble: My Lords, I of courseunderstand the noble Earl’s position. It has not beenpossible for either the current or the previous Governmentto secure the parliamentary time needed to pass therelevant legislation. It was necessary for both Governmentsto take it up by giving priority to measures for economicrecovery and reform.

Lord Maclennan of Rogart (LD): My Lords, doesthe Minister recognise that there has in recent yearsbeen a considerable and avoidable loss of cultural

1649 1650[LORDS]National Health Service: Nursing Staff Protection of Cultural Property

heritage as a result of armed conflict? Does he notacknowledge that in 2008 the previous Governmentpublished the draft Cultural Property (Armed Conflicts)Bill for consultation? We have had 10 years since theGovernment’s concerns were removed by the passageof the second protocol. Can he not find some time forthis? Parliament would be very keen to see this enacted.

Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB): My Lords—

Lord Gardiner of Kimble: My Lords, again I understandmy noble friend’s position. It will help if I say that,because of anticipation of this country’s adoption ofthe convention and its protocols, it already informsthe Armed Forces’ law of armed conflict doctrine andtraining policy, particularly with regard to respect forcultural property, precautions in attack and recognitionof the protective emblem.

Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab): My Lords, theMinister’s words are welcome as far as they go, butwill he acknowledge that Governments have on previousoccasions made exactly the same commitment as hehas done today, yet the situation has persisted—disgracefully—that Britain is the only significant militarypower not to have ratified the convention? On this oneissue at least, will the coalition parties set aside theirdifferences and agree to put this measure in the Queen’sSpeech?

Lord Gardiner of Kimble: My Lords, I am certainlynot privy to the content of the Queen’s Speech. Itwould be fair to say that the coalition has takenforward many measures that are in the national interest.I am aware of and understand entirely the feelings ofyour Lordships and many outside who want legislationon this matter.

Baroness Butler-Sloss: My Lords, I must apologiseto the Minister. I am afraid that was overenthusiasmbecause something did just cross my mind: is this is anissue of time or of inclination?

Lord Gardiner of Kimble: My Lords, I think I haveemphasised in my replies that this is a question oftime. We have pledged that we wish there to be legislation,as indeed did the previous Government. I have readthe draft Bill published in January 2008. However, forvery legitimate reasons, the previous Government feltthat legislation was required to deal with the economiccrisis. That is what the coalition Government havedone and I believe it is bearing fruit—which is, afterall, in the national interest.

Lord Cormack (Con): My Lords, I do not think thatany noble Lords would doubt the inclinations of mynoble friend. However, 10 years is quite a long timeand 60 years is even longer. We have just had an extraweek of Easter Recess and we have an unnecessaryextra week of Prorogation. Can we not just find a littletime to get this very necessary measure—on which mynoble friend protests that everyone agrees—on to thestatute book?

Lord Gardiner of Kimble: My noble friend, as ever,makes a compelling point. However, I am afraid I amnot a magician and I cannot will the parliamentarytime. During this Session, we have undertaken a lot ofvery important work in the national interest, which iswhat your Lordships’ House does. I was looking at therecess weeks—they have been the same for the pastthree Sessions.

Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab): My Lords, themoral case for adopting this legislation is unanswerable.As we have heard, it is not really credible to say thatthis is about parliamentary time. I have heard what theMinister has said. Will he give a personal commitmentthat he will do what he can to ensure that this measureis included in the Queen’s Speech?

Lord Gardiner of Kimble: I am afraid that really israther above my pay grade. I understand entirely whatthe noble Lord is saying. We would ideally like this tobe put on the statute book but we are not in a positionto do that at the moment. What is important inpractical terms is that our Armed Forces are veryconscious of the protocol and the convention, which iswhy they adhere to what is intended. I have some veryinteresting details on what we have been undertakingin Afghanistan, for instance, where we very muchadhere to the requirements of the convention.

Lord Dobbs (Con): Would my noble friend acceptthat one of the prime casualties of any armed conflictis the truth, and that we set up the Chilcot inquiry toestablish the truth into that tragic war in Iraq? Thatreport has now taken longer to write than World War1 took to fight, and there is a rumour abroad that it isbeing held up by the intransigence of one very wealthyman. Would he not accept that the nation’s interests,and the interests of truth, far outweigh the interests ofany one man and can he tell us when that report willbe published?

Lord Gardiner of Kimble: I thank my noble friendbut all these reports take their course and take theirtime. However, it is obviously very important that wehave this report and have it in the proper time.

Transport for London Bill [HL]Motion to Agree

3.08 pm

Moved by The Chairman of Committees

That the Commons message of 7 May be nowconsidered; and that the promoters of the Transportfor London Bill [HL], which was originally introducedin this House in Session 2010–12 on 24 January2011, should have leave to suspend any furtherproceedings on the Bill in order to proceed with it,if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliamentaccording to the provisions of Private BusinessStanding Order 150A (Suspension of bills).

Motion agreed and a message was sent to the Commons.

1651 1652[12 MAY 2014]Protection of Cultural Property Transport for London Bill [HL]

Scotland Act 1998 (Modification ofSchedule 5) Order 2014

Motion to Approve

3.08 pm

Moved by Baroness Williams of Trafford

That the draft order laid before the House on17 March be approved.

Relevant document: 24th Report from the JointCommittee on Statutory Instruments. Considered inGrand Committee on 7 May.

Motion agreed.

Merchant Shipping (Convention Relatingto the Carriage of Passengers and their

Luggage by Sea) Order 2014Motion to Approve

3.08 pm

Moved by Baroness Kramer

That the draft order laid before the House on24 March be approved.

Relevant document: 25th Report from the JointCommittee on Statutory Instruments. Considered inGrand Committee on 7 May.

Motion agreed.

Immigration BillCommons Reasons and Amendments

3.09 pm

Motion A

Moved by Lord Taylor of Holbeach

That this House do not insist on its Amendments16 and 24, to which the Commons have disagreedfor their Reasons 16A and 24A.Lords Amendments 16 and 24

16: Before Clause 60, insert the following new Clause—“Child trafficking guardians for all potential child victims of

trafficking in human beings(1) If a relevant child has arrived in the United Kingdom and

is a potential victim of trafficking in human beings, an independentchild trafficking guardian shall be appointed to represent the bestinterests of that child.

(2) The child trafficking guardian shall have the followingresponsibilities to— (a) advocate that all decisions relating to thechild are made in the child’s best interest;

(b) ascertain the child’s wishes and feelings in relation to thosedecisions;

(c) advocate for the child to receive appropriate care, safeaccommodation, medical treatment, including psychological assistance,education, translation and interpretation services as required;

(d) assist the child to access legal and other representationwhere necessary, including, where appropriate, to appoint andinstruct legal representatives on all matters relevant to the interestsof the child;

(e) consult with, advise and keep the child informed of legalrights;

(f) keep the child informed of all relevant immigration, criminal,compensation, community care, public law or other proceedings;

(g) contribute to identification of a plan to safeguard andpromote a durable solution for the child based on an individualassessment of that child’s best interests;

(h) provide a link between the child and various statutory andother bodies who may provide services to the child, accompanyingthe child to any relevant meetings;

(i) assist in establishing contact with the child’s family, wherethe child so wishes and it is in the child’s best interests;

(j) where appropriate liaise with an immigration officer handlingthe child’s case in conjunction with the child’s legal representative;

(k) accompany the child to all interviews with the police, theimmigration authorities and care proceedings;

(l) accompany the child to any court proceedings; and

(m) accompany the child whenever the child moves to newaccommodation.

(3) A child trafficking guardian must have completed thetraining required in subsection (7) and may be—

(a) an employee of a statutory body except for an employee ofa local authority;

(b) an employee of a recognised charitable organisation; or

(c) a volunteer for a recognised charitable organisation.

(4) A person discharging duties as a child trafficking guardianshall not discharge any other statutory duties in relation to a childfor whom they are providing assistance under this section.

(5) Where a child trafficking guardian is appointed undersubsection (1), the authority of the child trafficking guardian inrelation to the child shall be recognised by any relevant body.

(6) In subsection (5), a “relevant body” means a person ororganisation— (a) which provides services to the child; or

(b) to which a child makes an application for services; or

(c) to which the child needs access in relation to being a victimof human trafficking; or

(d) any court or tribunal that a child engages with.

(7) The Secretary of State shall by order—

(a) set out the arrangements for the appointment of a childtrafficking guardian immediately after a child is identified as apotential victim of trafficking in human beings;

(b) set out requirements for the training courses to be completedbefore a person may exercise functions as a child traffickingguardian;

(c) set out the arrangements for the supervision of personsdischarging duties as a child trafficking guardian;

(d) set out the arrangements for the provision of supportservices for persons discharging duties as a child traffickingguardian; and

(e) designate organisations as a “recognised charitable organisation”for the purpose of this section.

(8) A person’s appointment as a child trafficking guardian fora particular child under this section shall come to an end if—

(a) the child reaches the age of 21; or

(b) the child leaves the United Kingdom.

(9) In this section, a child is considered to be a “potentialvictim of trafficking in human beings” when a referral has beenmade to a competent authority for a determination under theidentification process required by Article 10 of the TraffickingConvention (Identification of Victims) and there has not been aconclusive determination that the individual is not such a victim.

1653 1654[LORDS]Scotland Act 1998 Immigration Bill

(10) For the purposes of subsection (9), an individual will notbe considered to have received a conclusive determination thatthe individual is not a victim of trafficking in human beings if—

(a) an individual is appealing or seeking judicial review of theconclusive determination; and

(b) the appeal or judicial review is not completed.(11) In this section—“competent authority” means a person who is a competent

authority of the United Kingdom for the purposes of the TraffickingConvention;

“relevant child” means a person who is under the age of 18and who— (a) requires leave to remain in the United Kingdomwhether or not such leave has been granted; or

(b) is a national of an EEA state other than the UnitedKingdom; “the Trafficking Convention” means the Council ofEurope Convention on Action against Trafficking in HumanBeings (done at Warsaw on 16 May 2005);

“trafficking in human beings” has the same meaning as in theTrafficking Convention.”

24: Clause 69 page 53, line 7, after “54” insert “, section (Childtrafficking guardians for all potential child victims of trafficking inhuman beings)”

Commons ReasonsThe Commons disagree to Lords Amendment No. 16 for the

following Reason—16A: Because it would involve a charge on public funds, and the

Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that thisReason may be deemed sufficient.

The Commons disagree to Lords Amendment No. 24 for thefollowing Reason—

24A: Because it would involve a charge on public funds, and theCommons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that thisReason may be deemed sufficient.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, HomeOffice (Lord Taylor of Holbeach) (Con): My Lords, Ihave no doubt that we all wholeheartedly agree acrossthe Floor of the House and in Parliament generallythat there is a fundamental need for victims of childtrafficking to receive the very best support that we canpossibly offer them. Noble Lords will be aware of thisGovernment’s absolute commitment to stamping outmodern slavery, including child trafficking, while buildingon the UK’s strong track record in supporting andprotecting victims. It is because of this commitmentthat this Government have signalled their intent tobring forward legislation to tackle the scourge ofmodern slavery. We intend to bring it forward as soonas parliamentary time allows. In addition, we aredriving forward a range of non-legislative measures totackle modern slavery and ensure that victims areidentified and supported both inside and outside thecriminal justice process and that perpetrators of thisabhorrent crime are brought to justice.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank thenoble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, mynoble friend Lord McColl, Mr Frank Field and othersfor their engagement with us outside the House on thisissue. I am also grateful to the other members of thePre-Legislative Scrutiny Committee for their hard workin scrutinising the draft modern slavery Bill. I agreewith the committee’s aims to make life as difficult aspossible for slave masters and traffickers and to transformthe position of victims of slavery, including children.

Lord Spicer (Con): My Lords, would the Ministerlike to add Anthony Steen to that esteemed list?

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I am very happy to mentionMr Steen, whose work has been exemplary on thisissue. I willingly accede to my noble friend’s suggestion.

Noble Lords may or may not be aware that therehave been a number of meetings to discuss this importantissue over the past few weeks, involving not onlymyself but also the Home Secretary and our legaladvisers. This reflects our determination to listen toconcerns and to ensure that we are doing all that wecan to deliver our common purpose, which is to ensurethat we deliver the best support that we can for thisparticularly vulnerable group of children.

The cross-party engagement on this issue heartensme greatly and shows just how much we are pulling inthe same direction to ensure that trafficked children—arguably some of the most vulnerable children in oursociety—obtain the protection and care that they sodesperately need, whether they have been traffickedacross or within our borders. The passion and fervourwith which noble Lords have campaigned to achievethe goal of giving these children the care and supportthat they need and deserve is laudable and I hope thatwe have demonstrated in our conversations with thenoble and learned Baroness and others outside theHouse and within the House of Commons that wewholeheartedly share the desire to do just that.

We are extremely grateful to all involved for workingwith us in the spirit of co-operation to find a workablesolution that will bring the very best outcome for thesechildren. I am pleased that we now have some consensusacross Parliament about the best way forward on theimportant issue of ensuring the right protection andsupport for child victims of trafficking. By announcingin January the trial of independent specialist advocatesfor child trafficking victims, the Government sent thestrongest signal of their commitment to take action onthis matter.

3.15 pmAs I said previously in this House, these specialist

and dedicated advocates will be both experts intrafficking and completely independent of the localauthority. Their role will be to steer the child throughthe complexities of the local authority social caresystem as well as the immigration and criminal justicesystems, and to ensure that the child’s voice is heard.For the first time, this vulnerable group of childrenwill be supported by a dedicated contact with thecapacity and expertise to address the additional needsof the child, including immigration issues, and, inparticular, to reduce the risk of the child going missingand being re-trafficked.

Importantly, these highly trained and dedicatedadvocates will be a consistent point of contact for thechild and will accompany them to meetings. They willsupport the local authority to assess the needs of thechild and will be advocates on their behalf. They willpromote the safety and well-being of the child, supportthe child in relation to the children’s social care,immigration and criminal justice systems, and,importantly, play a role in ensuring that key decisionsrelating to the child trafficking victim are made withthe full input and knowledge of the child’s wishesand needs.

1655 1656[12 MAY 2014]Immigration Bill Immigration Bill

[LORD TAYLOR OF HOLBEACH]The Government’s commitment to these roles was

further manifested by the indication by the Ministerfor Security and Immigration in the House of Commonslast week of our intention to include an enablingpower in future legislation. This would enshrine thechild trafficking advocate role in legislation, providinga statutory basis for the role and its interface withother agencies. Members of the House of Commonswere agreed on this matter and hoped that the argumentsput forward by the Minister for Security and Immigrationwould satisfy us here today.

As was pointed out in the debate in the House ofCommons, trafficking is predominantly an organisedcrime issue and significant aspects of the level oforganised criminality involved can be missed whentrafficking is viewed purely from an immigrationperspective. I suspect noble Lords will understandthat. Legislating on this matter in the Bill before ustoday risks undermining that message. We firmly believethat the right place for the statutory provision of thechild trafficking advocate’s role would be a future Billdealing with modern slavery, rather than the one beforeus today.

The proposed power in a future modern slavery Billwould provide a statutory basis for the role, by enablingarrangements to be made for child trafficking advocatesto represent and support children who there is reasonto believe may be victims of trafficking. This is wherethe outcome of the trials is crucial in informing whatthe very best provision of specialist dedicated supportlooks like. That is why we are eager for the trials tobegin as soon as possible—so that we can begin tomake that all-important difference for this extraordinarilyvulnerable group of children. Our thinking is that theenabling power would contain a provision to requirethe Secretary of State, within a certain time periodfrom Royal Assent, to report back to Parliament onthe steps she proposes to take in relation to the enablingpower as a result of the trials.

The Government have already stated their intentionto robustly evaluate the trials of the specialist independentadvocates for victims of child trafficking. We are inthe process of commissioning comprehensive andindependent evaluation, which will report after sixmonths of the trial and again at the 12-month stage.The evaluation, which we intend to publish, will includean assessment of how the process worked and whetherthere were any barriers to the effective provision of theadvocacy service, assessing what the very best lookslike in terms of what specialist services these childrenneed. That is why I am resisting the noble and learnedBaroness’s Motion A1 and Amendment 16B. Theywould be an unnecessary addition to the comprehensiveevaluations. With that, I beg to move.

Motion A1

Moved by Baroness Butler-Sloss

As an amendment to Motion A, at end to insert“but do propose Amendment 16B in lieu”.16B: Before Clause 60, insert the following new Clause—“Report on provision of child trafficking guardians for child

victims of trafficking in human beings

Within twelve months of the date of dissolution of the currentParliament, the Secretary of State shall report to both Houses ofParliament on the provision of child trafficking guardians forchild victims of trafficking in human beings.”

Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB): My Lords, I put downthis amendment during a period of intense discussionslast week in order to make it possible to continue thediscussions with the Minister, the Home Secretaryherself and the lawyers in the Home Office. I amabsolutely delighted with the prospect of these pilots;the sooner they come into effect, the better. I amentirely happy with what the Minister has said: itcovered every aspect of what my amendment says, butin the right place. I recognise that it is much better tohave this enabling clause, together with a report by theHome Secretary in the modern slavery Bill, when itcomes before both Houses of Parliament.

With that, I thank first the legal team in the HomeOffice, particularly the senior legal member of thatteam, Harry Carter, who could not have been morehelpful to me. I am very grateful for the discussionswith the Home Secretary and was particularly gratefulto get just the e-mail I needed over the weekend fromthe noble Lord the Minister from Lincolnshire. Withall of that, I beg to move and shall subsequently begleave to withdraw my amendment.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab): I wish to speakon this amendment—forgive me for being so tardy—asI just wish to place certain things on record.

I support the amendment tabled by the noble andlearned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and am deeplydisappointed and irritated by the amendment tabledby the Minister. While the noble Lord has just set outhis reasons for not accepting the original amendmenttabled by the noble and learned Baroness, the onlyreason given by the House of Commons was one offinancial privilege. As has been said on other occasions,when the Government use financial privilege as thereason for rejecting amendments in the Lords, it toooften looks as though the Government simply do nothave sufficiently strong arguments to counter the justand moral reasons given by the Lords. Yes, I wellunderstand that it is the Speaker who decides whetheror not financial privilege should be applied, but theGovernment could have asked the House to waivefinancial privilege and chose not to do so.

This is frustrating for us but, more importantly, ithas real implications for the small number of vulnerablechildren who are subjected to the evils of trafficking.These children have suffered the worst kind of traumaticexperiences and they are desperately in need of aguardian, appointed on a statutory basis, to accompanythem,“throughout the entire process until a durable solution in the bestinterests of the child has been identified and implemented”.

On the subject of financial privilege, I ask theMinister to provide us with the Government’s computationof the predicted costs of the amendment that wasrejected in the Commons.

Again I place on record my thanks for the extraordinarydiligence and dogged determination of the noble andlearned Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord McColl of

1657 1658[LORDS]Immigration Bill Immigration Bill

Dulwich, to get justice for trafficked children. I alsosay to the Minister that I still do not understand whythe Government have been so reluctant to act beforenow, why they could not have agreed to amendmentsin earlier Bills and why there was no provision forguardians in the draft modern slavery Bill. I know thatpilots have now been announced, but if that has beenthe Government’s intention for some time, why wasthere not an enabling clause in the draft Bill? I ampleased that the Government clearly now intend tointroduce an enabling clause by amendment, but theycould have done so much more.

In the absence of the amendment passed by thisHouse, an enabling clause in the modern slavery Bill iswelcome, but what would trigger that enabling power?Despite what the noble Lord just said, I am stillslightly concerned about the statutory basis for thescheme. I want to be absolutely clear that, when aguardian feels the need to give instructions to a lawyerwhere a child is incapable of doing so, that lawyer willhave the statutory basis to be empowered to representthe views of that child. Can the Minister give thatassurance?

I also have a question about the timings. Could theMinister confirm that the trial will start on 1 July?Could he further tell the House when the pilots aredue to end? As he would understand, it would beunacceptable if, when it came to the report that is inthe amendment of the noble and learned Baroness, theGovernment were able to say that they had not hadtime to assess the outcomes of the pilots. I want toensure that the timescale works.

The Minister in the other place said that the trialwould cover 23 local authorities. Will all traffickedchildren be placed within those authorities, so that alltrafficked children are covered by the trial?

I will mention one thing that may seem a bit pernickety.I was slightly concerned by some of the reasons givenby the Minister in the other place for rejecting thenoble and learned Baroness’s earlier amendment. Hesaid one reason was that it dealt with only childrenunder immigration control and that he wished in themodern slavery Bill to craft provisions covering alltrafficked children. Of course, there was nothing toprevent the Government accepting the amendmentand then repealing the provision if necessary whenreplacing it with a clause in the modern slavery Bill.

As I said, I welcome the fact that the Governmentare now introducing an enabling clause, but I amfrustrated that it has taken such a long time. I am alsorather frustrated that, in the end, the Governmenttook the advice from the Speaker that financial privilegeshould be attached to this specific amendment. Sometimes,of course there are questions of money but in this casethe money is negligible. Sometimes there are questionsof politics but this issue has had cross-party supportthroughout. I am just frustrated that it has taken solong to get to where we are. Of course, I trust what theMinister said. I just seek clarification on the variousquestions I asked.

Baroness Hamwee (LD): My Lords, I note that atthe last stage the noble Baroness and I both used theterm “dogged” to describe the work done by those

who advocated—if that is not the wrong term in thiscontext—the guardianship provisions. I sense that theHouse would like to move on as there is so muchagreement, so I will go straight to the one question Ihave left of those I had on the amendment.

There is a difference, in the normal understandingof the terms, between “advocacy” and “guardianship”.They are not the same thing. Of course, the detail ofthe role will be described when we come to the legislationso we will then understand just what it will cover. Nodoubt we will discuss that. The one question I have leftfor my noble friend that has not already been asked is:how will the Government assess and evaluate the trialsor pilots—whatever we call them—including assessingthe need for the provisions that are not included in thetrial? The noble Baroness mentioned the one aboutbeing instructed and being able to carry out instructions,which I was also concerned about that because of myown professional background. If the trials do notcover a part of the role, how are we going to knowwhether that role was necessary? I hope my noblefriend can explain what the approach to the assessmentand evaluation will be.

3.30 pm

Baroness Williams of Crosby (LD): My Lords, Ialso have a question before we conclude the debate onthis issue. I add my warmest thanks to the noble andlearned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, the noble Lord,Lord McColl, and the noble Lord, Lord Taylor ofHolbeach, for the huge efforts which have gone intodoing this, which I am sure the entire House appreciates.

My question is slightly different and relates to howthe so-called “relevant child” is to be identified. Canthe noble Lord, Lord Taylor, say anything about whatinstructions are likely to be given to the police and theborder agency regarding determining whether a childis being trafficked? We are all well aware, not leastwithin the European Union, that there is a very highlevel of child trafficking and that many of thosechildren are not identified as being trafficked until it istoo late and they have been handed on to anotherround of this ghastly trade. It may be too soon and hemay have to wait for the modern slavery Bill, but itwould be very helpful indeed if the Minister could saysomething about the operational effect on the policeand border agency relating to how they deal withchildren who might, conceivably, be trafficked, butwhere it is not quite clear that they have been.

Baroness Howarth of Breckland (CB): My Lords, Ihave one brief question. No one can doubt mycommitment to this group of children and to the workof my noble and learned friend Lady Butler-Sloss andthe noble Lord, Lord McColl. It is crucial that wemove forward and I am particularly grateful that theGovernment have decided to do this with a pilot. Thequestions that have been asked during this short debatereflect the complexity of the issue. Having been thedeputy chair and chair of CAFCASS for some eightyears, I know how crucial it is to ask the questionabout the difference between advocacy and guardianship.I presume these issues can be worked through duringthe pilot.


[BARONESS HOWARTH OF BRECKLAND]I am concerned that the funding for the pilot, and

for any future programme, should not come out oflocal government funding for child work generally orout of funding that would otherwise support childrenin the community. As a vice-president of the LocalGovernment Association, I am quite clear that thereare children who are, in many ways, equally vulnerablein their own homes—and some more so—who needequal support from social workers, who are extraordinarilypressed at the moment, as are the workers in CAFCASS.As the noble Baroness the Leader of the Oppositionmentioned, there are financial questions, so I simplywant the assurance that this money will not come outof mainstream childcare funding.

Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con): My Lords, I thankthe Minister very much for all his help and co-operation.He spotted three of us plotting in a corner of yourLordships’ House and, instead of avoiding us, hemade a bee-line for us and was open and friendly. Weare very grateful to him, especially on the about-to-bestatutory basis of the role. In our amendment, thenoble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, thenoble Lord, Lord Carlile, the noble Baroness, LadyRoyall, and I were concerned to ensure that the role ofadvocate met with international best practice, as wellas taking advice from charities that have practicalexperience in supporting trafficked children.

Finally, I thank the Government for listening to us,obstinate and difficult though we were on some occasions.We are grateful that it has turned out well. Thank you.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: My Lords, this has beenan interesting and useful debate. I deliberately did notmention the reasons for the commons rejection when Imade my introductory speech. It is for Erskine Mayrather than a humble Minister to determine thesematters. I thought it was more important to presentthe arguments on the issue to the House. I am pleasedthat we have had a chance to reconsider this. Thesepast few days have been very useful. I think nobleLords who have been involved will agree with that.

I thank the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, the noble Baronesses, Lady Royall and LadyHowarth of Breckland, and my noble friends LadyHamwee, Lady Williams and Lord McColl for theircontributions on these points. On the point made bymy noble friend Lord McColl, we agree that theseroles must have a statutory basis so that they have therespect and co-operation of all the various agenciesthat will engage with supporting the child. We willensure that provisions in future legislation will deliverthis. I will welcome the continued engagement of allnoble Lords who have spoken on this issue. I doubtthat noble Lords will be prepared to let this matter goon the back burner. I am sure that we will be underpressure and that I will be answering questions on aregular basis about how things are going.

Once we have a provider for the advocacy positionin place, I will be happy to place in the Library the sortof detail that has been asked for today by noble Lords.I would like noble Lords to be informed of where weare on the issue. On the particular request for interested

Members of House to be able to visit trial sites, I willask officials to discuss this request with the serviceprovider and local authorities. I doubt very muchwhether a request of that nature would be refused.

We all agree that these children are incrediblyvulnerable. As I have said, we cannot prejudge theoutcome of the trials, although I am sure the Secretaryof State will want to ensure that the learning from theindependent evaluation is acted upon so that everychild gets the most appropriate possible care.

The noble Baroness, Lady Royall, asked what wouldtrigger the enabling power. The Secretary of State willwant to ensure that the learning from the independentevaluation will influence the way in which the powerwill be exercised. There needs to be a connectionbetween what we learn from the trials, the nature ofthe problem, the ability of the trials to address theproblem and other aspects which become apparent tous during the course of the trials. Perhaps that answersthe question asked by my noble friend Lady Hamweeabout how it will be judged. It will be judged by aproper evaluation of the trial within the 23 areas inwhich it is taking place.

I think there is a general feeling that we know wehave to make a success of this because it is a greatopportunity to help these most vulnerable people. It ispatently obvious to me that we share the desire toprotect and support these vulnerable children. Thedisagreement is not about whether support and protectionare required, but about how we legislate to provide it.The Government are totally committed to running thetrials to ensure we have the very best insight into whatthese trials need.

My noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby wantedto know about how the operation would be conductedin other areas, and the noble Baroness, Lady Howarthof Breckland, asked how the funding would be dealtwith. I do not have to say to the House that fundingwill clearly be an important issue to get right. If theresources are not available, the project will not besuccessful. We understand that. How the funding isactually found is an important element of what we willlearn from the trials. There will, of course, be a certainamount of lead-in time for the organisation that willsupply the service. I therefore confirm that because ofthe delay it will not now be possible to begin the trialsby July. It is now intended that they begin by the endof September, and the Home Secretary will announcethe provider shortly.

I thank noble Lords for their agreement that thisBill is not the place for the issue to be resolved, and fornot insisting on the guardians amendment that wediscussed on Report.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I am gratefulto the Minister for saying that it is not now envisagedthat the trials will start before September, and ofcourse I accept that. However, the amendment proposedby the noble and learned Baroness states that thereport should be ready within a year of the dissolutionof Parliament, before the next Parliament begins. Canthe Minister confirm that there will be enough time forthe pilots to be appraised before the report referred toin the amendment comes before Parliament?


Lord Taylor of Holbeach: Yes. I can also confirmthat the way in which the enabling clause will beconstructed will make it clear that there will be tablingof regulations designed to bring in the necessary power.There will also be a section that will ensure that thereport is delivered so that we do not have to wait.Therefore, there will be an opportunity to discuss thereport before the regulations are actually tabled. Wehave to make up for some lost time here. I am notsaying that it was the will of the House that thesematters were delayed but, as it turns out, we havedelayed a process that I agree is quite time-sensitive.However, I think all noble Lords will agree that it ismost important of all to make sure that our judgmentis right on the issue and that when we introduce childadvocates we do so in a proper fashion.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: I apologise to mynoble friend for interrupting. Given the shortage oftime and the hope that we will bring in this pilotscheme as early as September, can the Minister give anassurance that the discussions that I referred to withthe police and the border agency can take place beforethat, so that we are well set up to try to identifychildren who have been trafficked?

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I will certainly recommendthat that is the case. It seems essential that we makesure that we know how the trials fit in with peoplewho, under existing arrangements, carry outresponsibilities connected with this area. They arediverse, as my noble friend points out. The borderagency, the police and local authorities are all involvedin this area, and getting them to work in a proper andco-operative fashion to make a success of this projectis essential.

I thank all noble Lords for their contributionstoday, inside and outside the Chamber. We are boundto return to this issue in detail as time goes by. In themean time, I hope that the noble and learned Baronesswill agree to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Butler-Sloss: My Lords, for the secondtime this afternoon, I apologise to the House, andparticularly to the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, fortrying to cut short any discussion—it has been extremelyinteresting and very constructive.

I will say two things about the Government. First, Iam very glad that we got so far; that seems to me to bea real step forward. I thank the Minister and theHome Secretary for the fact that the dreaded issue offinance being raised in the Commons did not frustrateus in having a really constructive discussion withwhich finance had absolutely nothing to do. TheGovernment are therefore really to be congratulatedfor being prepared to talk to the noble Lord, LordMcColl, and myself despite that issue having beenraised in the other place. I am very grateful for that.

3.45 pmI should have said earlier that this is the fourth time

that this issue has come before this House. All thoseoccasions have been the doing of the noble Lord,Lord McColl. It is thanks to his doggedness—eventually

supported by me—on human trafficking over 25 years,bringing the matter before this House four times, thatwe know that with the undertaking of the Ministerthere will be an enabling clause in the modern slaveryBill and a requirement for a report. That is a huge stepforward; I am very grateful.

I personally am not entirely happy about the use ofthe word “guardian”. “Guardian”presupposes CAFCASSand has a rather technical application in the ChildrenAct. A “child advocate”, as proposed in the modernslavery Bill, will be a much more sensible compromiseon this issue. I would be happier with that than thewording we had in this Bill. It gives me great pleasureto suggest that we remove it from this Bill and put it inthe modern slavery Bill. I beg leave to withdraw myamendment.

Motion A1 withdrawn.

Motion agreed.

Motion B


That this House do not insist on its Amendment18 and do agree with the Commons in theirAmendments 18A and 18B.Lords Amendment 18

18: Clause 60, page 47, line 29, leave out subsections (1) and(2) and insert—

“(1) A Committee of members of both Houses of Parliamentshall be established to consider and report on whether section 40of the British Nationality Act

1981 (deprivation of citizenship) should be amended to enablethe Secretary of State to deprive a person of their citizenship if—

(a) the citizenship status results from the person’s naturalisation,and

(b) the Secretary of State is satisfied that the deprivation isconducive to the public good because the person, while havingthat citizenship status, has conducted him or herself in a mannerwhich is seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the UnitedKingdom, any of the islands, or any British Overseas Territory,even if to do so would have the effect of making the personstateless.

(2) The Committee shall consist of six members of the Houseof Lords nominated by the Chairman of Committees, and sixmembers of the House of Commons nominated by the Speakerof the House of Commons, to be appointed on the passing of thisAct to serve for the duration of the present Parliament.

(3) Any casual vacancy occurring by reason of the death,resignation or incapacity of a member of the committee shall befilled by the nomination of a member by the Chairman ofCommittees or the Speaker of the House of Commons, as thecase may be.

(4) The quorum of the committee shall be two members ofeach House and the committee shall be entitled to sit and totransact business whether Parliament be sitting or not, andnotwithstanding a vacancy in the membership of the committee.

(5) Subject to the above provisions, the committee may regulateits own procedure.”

Commons Disagreement and Amendments to the words sorestored to the Bill

The Commons disagree to Lords Amendment No. 18 and proposeAmendments 18A and 18B to the words so restored to the Bill—

18A: Page 47, line 40, at end insert “, and


[LORD TAYLOR OF HOLBEACH](c) the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds for believing

that the person is able, under the law of a country or territoryoutside the United Kingdom, to become a national of such acountry or territory.”

18B: Page 48, line 2, at end insert—“(3) After section 40A of the British Nationality Act 1981

insert—“40B Review of power under section 40(4A)(1) The Secretary of State must arrange for a review of the

operation of the relevant deprivation power to be carried out inrelation to each of the following periods—

(a) the initial one year period;(b) each subsequent three year period.(2) The “relevant deprivation power” is the power to make

orders under section 40(2) to deprive persons of a citizenshipstatus in the circumstances set out in section 40(4A).

(3) A review must be completed as soon as practicable afterthe end of the period to which the review relates.

(4) As soon as practicable after a person has carried out areview in relation to a particular period, the person must—

(a) produce a report of the outcome of the review, and(b) send a copy of the report to the Secretary of State.(5) The Secretary of State must lay before each House of

Parliament a copy of each report sent under subsection (4)(b).(6) The Secretary of State may, after consultation with the

person who produced the report, exclude a part of the reportfrom the copy laid before Parliament if the Secretary of State is ofthe opinion that it would be contrary to the public interest orprejudicial to national security for that part of the report to bemade public.

(7) The Secretary of State may—(a) make such payments as the Secretary of State thinks

appropriate in connection with the carrying out of a review, and(b) make such other arrangements as the Secretary of State

thinks appropriate in connection with the carrying out of areview (including arrangements for the provision of staff, otherresources and facilities).

(8) In this section—“initial one year period”means the period of one year beginning

with the day when section 40(4A) comes into force;“subsequent three year period” means a period of three years

beginning with the first day after the most recent of—(a) the initial one year period, or(b) the most recent subsequent three year period.”

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: My Lords, I beg to moveMotion B in my name: that this House do not insist onits Amendment 18 and do agree with the Commons intheir Amendments 18A and 18B.

Now, we had some lively debates on this issue,particularly on Report. I listened with great care to theviews expressed on all sides of the House. I respondedas fully as I could to a great number of questions toensure that the Government’s position was clear. NobleLords have sought to replace the proposals originallyin the Bill with a measure to appoint a committee ofthe House to look at the issues in detail. That approachhas been rejected by the House of Commons.

Amendments 18A and 18B restore the clause to theBill, but with some key changes that respond to theconcerns that were raised in this House. This is anarrowly drawn provision, which is proportionate tothe risk created by harmful individuals. It is compatiblewith our international obligations, and closes a loophole

in our law that has been highlighted by the SupremeCourt. Noble Lords were concerned that the HomeSecretary should not be able to deprive an individualof their citizenship in circumstances under which theyhad no recourse to another nationality.

When I spoke in earlier debates, I was clear that inmost cases we would expect those who were deprivedto be able to acquire another nationality. Amendment18A now provides for a position where the HomeSecretary can deprive an individual of their Britishcitizenship only when they already hold another nationalityor when she reasonably believes that, under the laws ofanother country, they would be able to become anational of that country. That is a significant change.It means that, in cases where the Home Secretary doesnot reasonably believe that the person has a right inlaw, she will not be able to take deprivation action.

We recognise that this is not likely to be astraightforward decision as, of course, every countryoperates its own nationality law. As we have madeclear through the debates in both Houses, the HomeSecretary would reach a decision only after very carefulconsideration of the facts of an individual case. Shewill reach a decision based on whether she reasonablybelieves that the person has recourse to another nationalityunder the law of another country. In doing so, she willnaturally have regard to practical and logistical mattersrelated to that. If the person was at real risk ofpersecution from that country, that would also berelevant to whether they were able to acquire thatnationality. However, in most cases, the basis of theHome Secretary’s decision will be the law of the othercountry. Although aspects of these cases are likely toturn on closed material that will not be disclosed infull to the individual, the question of whether a personis, under the law, able to acquire another nationality isunlikely to be secret.

It has been suggested in previous debates that theHome Secretary’s decision to deprive should not takeeffect until an individual has secured another nationality.That requirement would render this provision ineffective.Indeed, such a requirement is really a description ofthe law as it stands. We must keep in mind that theseindividuals have acted in a way that is seriously prejudicialto the vital interests of the UK. We cannot compelthem to take action to secure the nationality of anothercountry, and it seems unlikely that they would lightlyaccede to a request to do so knowing that the consequencewould be that we could then deprive them of Britishcitizenship. Therefore, that cannot and must not be abarrier that prevents the Home Secretary taking actionto remove their British citizenship where she reasonablybelieves that they are able to obtain another nationality,and we should not attempt to impose an arbitrarytimescale within which that other nationality will beobtained.

Concern was also expressed previously that thepower would be exercised in an arbitrary way. Thatwill not be the case, as my next few comments willillustrate. The Home Secretary will certainly not takethese decisions lightly. Ministers fully recognise thatdepriving a person of British citizenship is a seriousstep. That is why the threshold for use of the power isset at a high level and why decisions will be taken only


after a great deal of research and careful consideration.This is not a speculative power: the Home Secretarymust rely on the circumstances that apply at the timeshe makes her decision. She cannot simply assumethat a person will be able to avail themselves of anothernationality.

We have been clear that the power will be used inonly a small number of cases. The existing power todeprive on non-conducive grounds has been used27 times since 2006. Noble Lords will be aware that itis a long-standing practice of government not to disclosein public data that could damage national security oroperational effectiveness, or which could cause individualsto be identified. That is why I cannot agree to requeststo provide more detailed information to the House.Our position is based on clear advice from the agenciesresponsible for protecting our national security. I have,however, written to the chairman of the Joint Committeeon Human Rights to make clear that such informationwould be shared with the individual whom we proposeshould conduct periodic reviews of the power introducedunder this clause, who would have the appropriatesecurity clearances. I have also expressed willingnessto provide a private and in-confidence briefing to theJCHR if such arrangements would be acceptable tothe current chairman, Mr Hywel Francis.

Any individual who is deprived of their nationalityhas a right of appeal under Section 40A of the BritishNationality Act 1981. That appeal is to the Asylumand Immigration Tribunal—or, more likely in thesecases, which may rest in part on closed evidence, to theSpecial Immigration Appeals Commission. The courtwill consider whether the Home Secretary has exercisedthe power lawfully and therefore whether she hadreasonable grounds to believe that the person in questionwould be able to acquire another nationality.

I turn to Amendment 18B, which reflects the positionthat I took on Report and responds to the requestmade by a number of noble Lords that there should bean independent review of the operation of the power.Our proposals provide for a review after the first12 months following commencement and triennialreviews thereafter. This review cycle recognises thatthe power will be exercised in a small number of casesonly, and a longer period of review will ensure thatthere is a better evidence base to consider. Reports ofthe reviews will be laid before Parliament.

Noble Lords previously noted that there would besense in combining this review role with that of theindependent reviewer of terrorism legislation. I canonly repeat what was said by the Immigration andSecurity Minister, Mr James Brokenshire, in anotherplace, when he noted that the Home Secretary iscertainly minded to discuss this role with David AndersonQC once the measure is on the statute book. She willwant to consider with him whether this additional rolecan be accommodated without detriment to his existingresponsibilities.

I am also aware that it has been noted that ouramendment about an independent reviewer does notinclude the word “independent”. That is not a trick.The wording reflects that in analogous statutory provisionsfor reviews, perhaps most notably that of Section 36 ofthe Terrorism Act 2006, which relates to reviews by the

independent reviewer of terrorism legislation. In otherwords, the provision that created the post of independentreviewer of terrorism legislation does not use the word“independent”, either. I can assure noble Lords thatthe person who carries out these reviews under theImmigration Bill provisions will be independent.

The amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, LadySmith of Basildon, would restore to the Bill the measurethat would provide for an appointment of a committeeof the House to examine the Government’s proposals.The Government’s position remains that this would bean unnecessary and undesirable step. It is unnecessary,because our proposals have been given a proper degreeof scrutiny by Members of both Houses of Parliamentand by the Joint Committee on Human Rights as wellas outside commentators. The Joint Committee hasacknowledged that the proposals are consistent withour international obligations and, although we haveheard other opinions expressed, those have not beensupported by evidence of customary international activitythat contests the Government’s position that we areacting in accordance with international law. Theamendment is undesirable, because we are seeking thispower to fill a gap in our law—one that has now beenhighlighted by the Supreme Court and one that individualswill attempt to exploit. That cannot be right, which iswhy we feel that we are right to insist on our amendment.

The government amendment is now very narrowlydrawn—much more so than before—and is targeted ata small number of very harmful individuals. YourLordships’House has quite properly carefully scrutinisedthe Government’s proposals and asked the House ofCommons to examine this issue again. It has nowdone so and clearly resolved both to reject LordsAmendment 18 and to agree the government amendmentsby a significant majority. Now that the elected Househas reaffirmed its view on this matter, I urge nobleLords not to insist on their amendment. I beg to move.

4 pm

Motion B1

Moved by Baroness Smith of Basildon

As an amendment to Motion B, leave out from“House”to end and insert “do insist on its Amendment18”.

Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab): My Lords, Ithank the Minister for his care in initiating this debateand addressing some of the issues that have beenraised here and in the other place. When your Lordships’House voted by a majority of 62 to refer the issue ofmaking someone stateless to a Joint Committee ofboth Houses, it did so not to frustrate the Governmentin any way but to assist them in their deliberations.

I will not rehearse the detail here but it was clearthat the Government’s proposed new clause to extendthe power to deprive an individual of naturalisedcitizenship, and in so doing make them stateless, hadnot been adequately or effectively considered in theother place. As we have said before, the amendmentwas tabled 24 hours before Report and there was noprior consultation or consideration in Committee, just


[BARONESS SMITH OF BASILDON]a last minute amendment and short debate before itwas accepted. I note the point the Minister has justmade about adequate consideration having been givento the measure recently in the other place. However, ithas to be said that even then the Deputy Speakerasked for brief speeches because of time constraints.We believe that further and more detailed considerationshould be given to the matter in your Lordships’House. In contrast to the other place, we had twoexcellent debates in Committee and on Report. Theoutcome of those two debates was that this matterrequired further examination because of the importanceand complexity of the issues raised. An amendmentwas then tabled in my name and in the names of thenoble Lord, Lord Pannick, the noble and learnedLord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, and thenoble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, waspassed by 62 votes, and returned to the other place forfurther consideration. The other place rejected ouramendment. However, we welcome the fact that theGovernment have taken note of some of the issuesraised in our debates and have brought forward theirown amendments. Government Amendment 18A refersto the reasonable grounds that the Home Secretarywould have to have before making a naturalised citizenstateless, and government Amendment 18B is about areview. We certainly welcome the fact that the Governmentrecognise the deficiencies in their original proposaland have sought to deal with some of the difficulties.

The reasons the Government gave for bringingforward the proposed new clause was the SupremeCourt’s judgment in the Al-Jedda case, in which it wasruled that by depriving Mr Al-Jedda of his naturalisedcitizenship on the ground that that was conducive tothe public good, the Secretary of State had made himstateless. The Supreme Court quoted from theGovernment’s own guidance in saying that it wasnecessary for a naturalised citizen to hold anothercitizenship not merely to apply for it, or have the rightor the ability to apply, for the Secretary of State to beable to withdraw citizenship and in effect make themstateless, which she should not be able to do. As I haveconfessed before in your Lordships’ House, I am not alawyer, and I listened with great care to those whohave far greater legal expertise in this area than I do.However, it seems that by amending the law throughAmendment 18A to ensure that the Secretary of Statemust have reasonable grounds for believing that theindividual is able to acquire another citizenship, shewould be able to deprive him of his British nationalityin those circumstances even if it made him stateless. Ithink that the Minister—the noble Lord, Lord Taylor—used the phrase “recourse to apply”. However, I rereadwhat the Immigration Minister, James Brokenshire,said in the debate in the other place. At col.191 ofCommons Hansard of 7 May, he said it was importantthat the person was able to acquire another nationality,and repeated that at col. 192. At col. 194, he said thatthere should be the “ability to obtain citizenship”, butthen said at col. 195 that the Home Secretary had tobe,

“satisfied of their ability to seek the citizenship of anothercountry”.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/5/14; col. 195.]

We need clarity on that point. Is it a question of beingable to gain citizenship or the ability to seek citizenship?All those phrases were used by James Brokenshire inthe other place. The noble Lord, Lord Deben, said inyour Lordships’ House on 19 March that,“to take away someone’s citizenship, it is not reasonable to saythat you assume that they can get another country’s citizenship. Itis only reasonable to say that you know that they have anothercitizenship; anything less than that is wrong. It may not beconvenient, but it is not right”.—[Official Report, 19/3/14; col. 213.]

I would therefore welcome further clarification fromthe Minister.

In the Al-Jedda case, the Secretary of State referredto the original nationality that Mr Al-Jedda held,whereas this amendment, if I have understood it correctly,refers to the Home Secretary having “reasonable grounds”to believe that they could obtain citizenship of anycountry. In which case, does this government amendmentgo further than what is required to comply with theAl-Jedda judgment?

Although the Al-Jedda judgment represented animportant principle in this debate, it was not the onlyissue that gave us cause for concern. Questions andissues remain around both the principle and practicalimplications, which I hope the noble Lord will addressin his response. It was the lack of certainty on thosepoints and those that arise from the new amendmentthat led to the need for further, more detailed examinationby a Joint Committee. Perhaps I may therefore raisethe concerns that remain about the implications forour relationship with other countries. I have read thelegal opinion of Professor Guy Goodwin-Gill, who isa professor of international refugee law at the Universityof Oxford, a senior research fellow at All Souls College,and a barrister at Blackstone Chambers. His opinionfrom looking at international law is that the Government’sproposals risk damaging international relations andcould lead to breaches of international obligations. Iknow that the noble Lord rejects that, but ProfessorGoodwin-Gill has provided a 20-page opinion thatraises a number of issues that, at the very least, shouldbe further considered and addressed to the satisfactionof your Lordships’ House.

I greatly welcomed the Government’s commitmentto respond to that opinion. I was sorry that it arrivedso late on Friday in order for us to have an opportunityto look at it. I am sorry that robust responses were notavailable for earlier consideration. However, I havenow had the opportunity to read that response. Althoughit deals with various treaty obligations, it does notaddress the practical or diplomatic implications that Iraised previously. We all know that the fight againstterrorism is international and global. That highlightsthe need for international co-operation and collaboration.We really need proper and proportionate considerationof the implications for national and international security.This amendment would allow terror suspects to beloose and undocumented in any country where theyhappened to be when their citizenship of the UK wasrevoked. When citizenship has been withdrawn fromcitizens who are overseas, will the country that hasadmitted that individual in good faith on a Britishpassport be consulted or advised at any stage that thatperson has had British citizenship withdrawn fromthem—even after citizenship has been withdrawn?


The noble Lord will recall that Professor Goodwin-Gillstated:

“Any state which admitted an individual on the basis of his orher British passport would be fully entitled to ignore any purporteddeprivation of citizenship and, as a matter of right, to return thatperson to the United Kingdom”.

The Government dispute that but the Minister confirmedto me in his letter of 25 March that the Governmenthave not discussed the development of what was thenClause 60, on deprivation of citizenship, with othercountries and do not consider it necessary to do so. Istill find it quite incredible that the Government donot think that they have to consider other countriesand debate this issue with them prior to implementation.In his letter, the noble Lord also relied on the statementthat other countries allow for deprivations to makepeople stateless. He used, as the Immigration Minister,James Brokenshire, used in the other place, the Republicof Ireland and Belgium as examples. I was not awareof the position of Belgium on the issue and whether ithas made anyone stateless in recent years, but theMinister could have quoted Tunisia, Lithuania, orcountries that have rendered political opponents orethnic minorities stateless—such as Zimbabwe, Burma,Serbia and Russia.

This country has a proud record over half a centuryof opposition to making individuals stateless. Whatabout our relationship with, for example, the USA,Canada, Australia, France, Germany, Scandinaviancountries and Italy? These countries have not taken apower to make citizens stateless. Again I looked at theresponse of Professor Goodwin-Gill in reply to theGovernment’s response. He took the view—I do notknow whether this is correct; it is one of the reasonswhy we consider that such examination by a JointCommittee of both Houses is essential—that it wouldappear that Her Majesty’s Government have neveraccepted that another state has a right and is ableunilaterally to denationalise its citizens while they arepresent in the UK, so making this country responsiblefor its residents’ safety and well-being. Are we imposingan obligation on other countries that we would notourselves accept?

I should like to raise a second issue which was alsoraised in the other place and it would be helpful if theMinister could respond on this point specifically. Itconcerns what will happen if someone cannot obtainanother citizenship despite their very best efforts to doso. The Government propose that the Home Secretaryhas to have reasonable grounds for believing thatsomeone can acquire another citizenship, but what ifthey cannot? It has to be recognised that althoughsomeone may be entitled to apply for the citizenship ofanother country, they may not in practice be able toacquire it. The Minister admitted as much in his letterto me of 25 March when he said:

“The number of people affected by this new provision will bevery low and not all remain stateless as some may be able toacquire or re-aquire another nationality”.

I know that that was written before the new amendmentbut it does not change the position of a person’sstatelessness or ability to gain another citizenship.

In responding to similar questions in the otherplace, James Brokenshire referred to those who makeno effort to obtain another citizenship. But that is a

completely different point. If the Home Secretary’sbelief that they could obtain another citizenship wasreasonably held but it was wrong and they were unableto do so, what action could then be taken to avoid alengthy period of statelessness? The Minister talkedabout not wanting an arbitrary time limit for such adecision to be made, but there is no time limit in theamendment for the Secretary of State to look again tosee whether it was a reasonable decision which was notcorrect.

The Minister spoke of a limited form of leave toremain being available to those stranded in country.What form would that take and what are the state’sobligations? How does that make UK citizens safer? Ifsomeone from outside the UK cannot obtain anothercitizenship, what are the implications? They may notbe in their country of birth or of a previous citizenship.Given that our Government have had no discussionswith other countries about this, the point being madeby Professor Goodwin-Gill about being returned tothe UK has to be a possibility at the very least. Thecountry that admitted them in good faith has done soas it believed them to have British citizenship at thetime. They will not be admitted back into the UK so Iam slightly alarmed that they might end up like thecharacter played by Tom Hanks in the film “TheTerminal”. I do not know whether the Minister hasseen the film but it is based on a true story of the caseof Mehran Karimi Nasseri who, having been expelledfrom Iran, was refused entry to London and sent backto France where he was arrested. I will not go into thedetails but he ended up spending 18 years in Charlesde Gaulle Airport because he was stateless. That is notthe only example, but I hope that it is the most extremeone. I found several cases of people being detained atairports for several weeks or months.

If the purpose of the clause is to make us safer fromterrorists, we need greater clarity and certainty onwhat happens to those who become stateless, particularlythose from outside the country. Unless there is certainty,we could end up in some kind of legal quagmire withcases being taken to court because of the lack ofcertainty. I am sure we all want to avoid that.

I shall touch briefly on Amendment 18B. We welcomethe review outlined by the Minister. I recall that asimilar amendment was tabled on Report by the nobleBaroness, Lady Hamwee. This amendment differs inthat the amendment of the noble Baroness referred toan annual review, which I think would be a muchimproved position on waiting, after the initial one-yearreview, for one every three years. That seems to be avery long timescale for the power that the Secretary ofState wants to take.

Our concern remains that this amendment stillallows for what the Supreme Court described as the“evil of statelessness”. Although the governmentamendment offers some concessions to the concernsraised by that particular case, I would welcome furtherclarity from the Minister as we are not yet convincedthat the argument has been made for individuals whoare terror suspects and are stateless. I am looking hereat the interests of national and international security. Ishall listen carefully to the debate, to the legal expertisethat we have in your Lordships’ House, and to the


[BARONESS SMITH OF BASILDON]Minister’s response. However, we need a full examinationof this issue to ensure that we fulfil our obligationswithout making people stateless, given the difficultiesand concerns that that raises. I beg to move.

4.15 pm

Lord Pannick (CB): My Lords, I am grateful to theMinister, Lord Taylor, to the Immigration Minister,James Brokenshire, and to the Bill team, who havedevoted an enormous amount of time to this difficultissue and have held meetings with noble Lords whoare concerned about it. For reasons that I will seek toexplain, I think that the Government have made a verysubstantial concession on this issue in Amendment18A, following the success of the amendment that Imoved on Report.

Before briefly explaining the reasons for taking thatview, perhaps I may mention that the original unacceptableclause—it was unacceptable—has been improved onlybecause of a coalition, if that is not now an unacceptablepolitical term, of the Opposition, led by the nobleBaroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, who has workedtirelessly and skilfully on this issue throughout thepassage of the Bill through this House, with considerablesupport from the Cross Benches and a very substantialLiberal Democrat rebellion on Report. I would addthat there was support from the noble and learnedLord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, who also voted for theamendment. As a result of that voting decision, thenew paragraph added in the House of Commons verysubstantially reduces the risk of leaving an individualstateless, although I recognise that such an event is stillpossible if the Secretary of State’s assessment, althoughreasonable, turns out to be inaccurate for whateverreason.

I have written to the Minister giving him notice of anumber of assurances that I seek and which I considerare important to the understanding of the protectionswhich are contained in the new paragraph. The first isthis. I understand that the reasonableness of the Secretaryof State’s conclusion that another nationality is opento the individual will be open to challenge in theSpecial Immigration Appeals Commission, and thatSIAC will have the power to determine whether theSecretary of State does have reasonable grounds forher belief that the individual is able to become anational of another country. I understand from theMinister’s opening remarks that he agrees with that.

The second assurance I seek is this. Does the Ministeragree that the material which is relevant to the Secretaryof State’s decision on this point—that is, the ability toacquire another nationality—would be very unlikelyto be secret? The material would be provided to theapplicant’s lawyers so that it could be fully debated inany appeal to SIAC. I would be grateful if he couldconfirm that.

Thirdly, am I correct in my understanding that thenew provision means that the Secretary of State hasno power to take away British citizenship if the matterdepends on a discretionary judgment by the foreignstate? I think that the words in the new paragraph,“able to become”, must mean that the matter is in thehands of the individual, who needs only to apply to

the foreign state, pay the relevant fee, provide therelevant documents and show their entitlement. Theparagraph does not say “able to apply”. There is goodreason to interpret this provision narrowly: namely, toprevent deprivation of British citizenship where itwould leave people in limbo, with the risk of statelessnessif the foreign country decides not to exercise anydiscretion in favour of the applicant. I therefore thinkthat this provision means that at the time of deprivationof British citizenship, the individual must have a rightto citizenship under the law of the foreign country.Does the Minister agree?

I seek reassurance on a fourth point. I think thatthe word “able”, which is the word in the new paragraph,must mean that there is no practical impediment toobtaining the foreign citizenship. For example, if thereis reason to think that the foreign state will not applyits own laws, or will not do so within a reasonabletime, the Secretary of State simply could not removeBritish citizenship. Does the Minister agree?

Fifthly, the word “able”, as well as general principlesof public law must mean that the Secretary of Statecould not exercise this new power to take away Britishcitizenship where, although the person is entitled toacquire the foreign citizenship, there is good reasonfor their being unwilling to do so. An obvious exampleis where the individual is a member of a group that ispersecuted in the country concerned. Does the Ministeragree that it would be wholly wrong and unlawful forthe Secretary of State, if she accepts that those are thefacts, nevertheless to go ahead and deprive that personof British citizenship?

Sixthly and finally, I think that the word “able” andthe general requirement that the Minister must exerciseher power in a reasonable manner must mean that thecourts would apply a “reasonable link” test. By that, Imean that the clause could not be applied by referenceto an individual’s rights to acquire citizenship in acountry with which he or she has no close link otherthan an entitlement to nationality. For example, surelythe Secretary of State could not rely on the entitlementof a Jewish man or woman to citizenship of the stateof Israel under the law of return if the individual hasno other link with the state of Israel; or rely on a wife’sright to acquire the citizenship of her husband in acountry that she has never visited. I have not thoughtup these examples. I take them from the judgment ofLord Wilson for the Supreme Court in the Al-Jeddacase last October, at paragraph 23. Therefore, the sixthquestion is: does the Minister agree in principle thatthere must be a “reasonable link” test implicit in thisparagraph, so that the clause could not be used incircumstances that would, in the absence of a reasonablelink, be wholly unreasonable?

On the basis of my understanding of this clause,this is a substantial and welcome concession by theGovernment. I hope that the Minister can reassure theHouse that my views are consistent with the Government’sinterpretation, because it is what the Minister says thatthe courts may look at in future.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill (LD): My Lords, I am amember of the Joint Committee on Human Rightsand I should declare an interest because, like the noble


Lord, Lord Pannick, I am a member of BlackstoneChambers, the same chambers as Professor Goodwin-Gill.As the House will understand, barristers are not likesolicitors: we are not in a firm and are perfectlycapable of taking completely different views fromsome of our colleagues. I have of course read GuyGoodwin-Gill’s opinion and his supplementary opinionsbut I do not think that they focus on the particularissues, practical and otherwise, with which we areconcerned in this debate.

As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, indicated, theJoint Committee on Human Rights welcomesthe concession that has been made. I was one of therebels—in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick—and am personally satisfied, for the reasons that thenoble Lord gave, that the concessions obtained in theother House ought to be acceptable and are in accordanceboth with international law and with the principles ofour own constitutional system of government and law.However, I also agree with the noble Lord, LordPannick, that the questions that he has raised are theright ones, and my support for the Government’sposition is dependent on satisfactory assurances beinggiven. It is very important that they are given, becauseone of the advantages of the Pepper v Hart doctrine isthat what is said by the Minister in reply will giveguidance about how this important provision is to beinterpreted.

I very much welcome the shift that has occurredand the fact that it has occurred because of pressurefrom across the whole House and not simply from oneparty. I do not agree with the position now being takenby Her Majesty’s Opposition—unless it is a probingposition. If they were to press their difference ofopinion to a vote, I would support the Government.

Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB): MyLords, on Report, I added my name to those of thenoble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the noble Baroness,Lady Smith, in proposing what is now Amendment18. I did so because, consistently with what I hadpreviously said in Committee, I was so strongly opposedto the United Kingdom lending itself to what has beencalled the evil of statelessness, with all the reputationaldamage which that would have occasioned to thiscountry. It seemed to me at that stage imperative thatthere should be pre-legislative scrutiny, as Amendment18 essentially proposes, before any such extreme positionshould be adopted.

On Report, I recognised that amending the legislation,short of leaving people stateless, could indeed well bejustified. I will quote just a sentence from what I saidat that point:

“By all means, let the Government reverse the decision lastyear of the Supreme Court in Al-Jedda and legislate, as LordWilson in his judgment there implicitly suggested, to allow us todeprive someone of their British citizenship, provided that theycan then immediately acquire the nationality of another state, as,indeed, it was assumed in the course of the litigation in that casethat Mr Al-Jedda himself could have done”.—[Official Report,7/4/14; col. 1174.]

Noble Lords should remember that this power is to beavailable only in the case of someone who has gainedhis British citizenship by naturalisation and who thenbetrays the trust that we as a nation put in him and

acts in a way which is seriously prejudicial to the vitalinterests of this country. Provided that that person canthen become a national of another country so as notto be rendered stateless, as was assumed in Mr Al-Jedda’scase, I see no real objection to our depriving him ofthe protection that we ourselves earlier conferred uponhim. The Government’s very welcome amendmentsseem to limit the power precisely to these circumstances.My understanding of the new paragraph that it isproposed be inserted into the nationality Act underAmendment 18A is that it is precisely the same as thatof the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. I will not go into allthe points again, but it is plain that it refers to apresent entitlement and not simply to a right to apply.The language is “to become” a national of anothercountry, not “to seek to become”. Provided that that isso and provided that the Minister gives—as I fullyexpect him to—all the assurances that the noble Lord,Lord Pannick, has invited him to give, the Governmenthave properly given way on this critical issue and, ifthe matter is put to the vote, I shall support theGovernment.

4.30 pm

Lord Macdonald of River Glaven (LD): My Lords, Ialso put my name to the amendment at Report. I havelistened with great care to what the noble Lord, LordPannick, has said. It seems that his remarks, if theyare adopted by the Government, indicate that the shiftin the Government’s position is substantial. If they arenot adopted by the Government, they amount to ademolition of the substance of this shift. I see thenoble Lord, Lord Pannick, nodding at that. I, for one,shall be listening extremely carefully to the Minister’sresponse to the six points made by the noble Lord,Lord Pannick.

I want to remind the House why it is important thatthe Government acknowledge those points. The HomeSecretary’s reasonable belief that a man or a womanmay avail themselves of the nationality of anothercountry will not assist a citizen in whose case thatbelief turns out to be ill-founded. He or she will bedeprived, in Hannah Arendt’s phrase, of the “right tohave rights” and locked out of any mechanism at allfor achieving those rights for ever, until another statedecides to take this individual on. If that is the positionthat the Government’s shift leaves us in, as a potentialresult of decision-making in the Home Office, thenthis shift does not go far enough.

For my part, I remain of the view that the UnitedKingdom should not embrace a policy where one ofits potential results is statelessness, associated with somany of the degenerate states of the 20th century, andwhere the outcome, if it is statelessness, is so hostile tohuman dignity in its most basic form. This is particularlyso where that policy is also bound to strike against theinternational accord that is so central to the maintenanceof security both between and within states. In the longrun, we cannot and will not make the United Kingdoma safer place by dumping our security threats abroad,sometimes into states where the capacity for dealingwith them is completely debased, so that they simplygrow. I agree with Professor Goodwin-Gill that arule-of-law country accepting a United Kingdom citizen


[LORD MACDONALD OF RIVER GLAVEN]on the basis of his passport, lawfully certified andissued by the United Kingdom Government, will beperfectly entitled to respond to our unilateral withdrawalof that passport by insisting that the United Kingdomtake this individual back. Which of your Lordshipscan doubt that if the tables were reversed we wouldtake precisely the same approach?

I will conclude by speaking frankly. The history ofthis matter is that it appears to have been conjured upto serve an entirely party-political purpose in themidst of a debate in the other place. It is illiberal, it isan affront to civilised international relations, it willnot improve our security and, in all likelihood, itthreatens a legal and diplomatic quagmire, to no usefulpurpose and to the detriment of the reputation of theUnited Kingdom.

Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab): My Lords, it isa pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald,who made a very powerful speech. I welcome the factthat there has been movement on the part of theGovernment in these amendments, and I very muchwelcome the helpful questions posed by the nobleLord, Lord Pannick, who has played such a role ingetting us to where we are now. However, as the nobleLord, Lord Pannick, acknowledged, some people maystill be made stateless as a result of the clause. Therefore,I am not as happy as some other noble Lords appearto be—or perhaps content is the word—and I supportMotion B1.

In the Commons, some of the most pertinentquestioning came from the Government’s own BackBenches. Sir Richard Shepherd asked,“how the people of Britain will know that the action has beentaken in a rational and reasonable way, when it is obscured frompublic view”.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/5/14; col. 194.]

Dr Julian Huppert asked:“What will happen if somebody in the UK goes through the

process, the Home Secretary believes that they are able to getcitizenship from another country and they make a bona fideapplication for that citizenship, but it is turned down?”.

In effect, this was also the question posed today by mynoble friend. When pressed—and he had to be pressed—the Minister, James Brokenshire, responded that theycould be given,“limited restricted leave to remain”.—[Official Report, Commons,7/5/14; col. 196.]

But that is not a satisfactory substitute for citizenshipand the rights that go with it.

My noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws andothers have expressed very grave concerns that theGovernment may well be waiting for someone to beout of the country to deprive them of citizenship. Oneconcern of the Joint Committee on Human Rightswas how often that has happened under the currentpowers. I very much welcome the fact that the Ministersaid he has responded to the Joint Committee’s latestletter about that and that he will make that informationavailable to whoever is given responsibility for thereview. I thank him for that.

In the Commons, James Brokenshire prayed in aidthe fact that the matter had been considered by theJoint Committee on Human Rights as well as inanother place—that is, here—to argue that,

“it is not correct to say that it has not been subject to carefulconsideration”.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/5/14; col. 213.]

Indeed, the Minister made the same point earlier. Butthe Joint Committee on Human Rights was very criticalof the speed with which this measure was introducedand we—I am a member of the committee—made itvery clear that we believed that a public consultation,“would have made for better informed parliamentary scrutiny ofthe Government’s proposal”,

and that the Joint Committee that was proposed wouldallow for just that kind of proper scrutiny.

Your Lordships’ House made it very clear that itdid not consider that there had been sufficient scrutinyby passing the amendment with such a significantmajority. The only thing that has happened since thenis that the House of Commons has debated for only90 minutes something of such grave constitutionaland moral importance. I really think that the case for aJoint Committee still stands. Indeed, the Home AffairsSelect Committee, which published its report oncounterterrorism after the debate in the Commons,has supported Lords Amendment 18, which underlinesthe point made by a number of organisations outsidethis House that the measure does not guarantee securityagainst terrorism in any way.

I, too, have read the legal debate between theGovernment and Professor Goodwin-Gill. As a non-lawyer, I am not in a position to be able to judge thatdebate. Surely, however, the fact that there is suchdisagreement reinforces the case for a Joint Committeeto tease out these very serious legal matters. The Floorof the House is not the place to do that. As the nobleLord, Lord Macdonald, has already made clear, somuch is at stake. I quoted earlier the noble Lord, LordDeben, who is now in his place, because what he saidwas so important. He said:

“Statelessness is one of the most terrible things that can befallanyone”.—[Official Report, 19/3/14; col. 212.]

The Minister spoke of the evil of statelessness. Anotherexpert in this area said that statelessness was a recipefor exclusion, precariousness and dispossession.

We have not completely averted the danger that wewill make somebody stateless as a result of theamendment, welcome as it is. I hope, therefore, thatnoble Lords will stand firm and support Motion B1because the amendment does not provide a cast-ironguarantee against the evil of statelessness.

Lord Avebury (LD): Like other noble Lords, I welcomethe concessions that have been made by the Governmentwhich do, to an extent—although this could be argued—reduce the risk that an individual might become stateless.However, the risk still exists and I still have someconcerns apart from those that have been expressed soably by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. I agree that weneed answers to those questions, but I would like totouch on some other concerns.

We have already heard that the Government recognisewhat the Supreme Court called, in the case of Al-Jedda,“the evil of statelessness”. They now purport to addressthat evil by providing in their Amendment 18A thatthe Secretary of State has “reasonable grounds forbelieving” that the individual she is depriving of hiscitizenship will be able to become a citizen of some


other state to which he formerly belonged. Thatassumption has been made by other states from timeto time, including—as the Immigration Law Practitioners’Association has pointed out—the Dominican Republic,in the case of persons born in Haiti, and Zimbabwe, inthe case of all residents who might have had a claimthrough having been born in some other country. Inthe UK, too, the Government asserted for many yearsthat persons of Indian origin who lived in Hong Konghad the right to reclaim the nationality of China—untilfinally in 2006 we satisfied them that they were wrong.

No doubt Ministers will say that what is now proposedis different, because instead of treating a whole classof persons the same, each case will be examinedindividually. However, in the case of the people whowere formerly dual Malaysians and British OverseasCitizens, and had renounced their Malaysian citizenshipin the hope of getting full British citizenship, they hadall applied individually and had all been rejected. Itwas only after several years of correspondence andmeetings with Ministers that in October 2013 the thenMinister wrote to me asserting that an agreement hadbeen reached with the former Malaysians on a schemeunder which they would return to their country oforigin, where they could enter a process of regainingthe equivalent of indefinite leave to remain after fiveyears; and after a further unspecified time, they wouldbe able to resume Malaysian citizenship. During thewhole of that period they would of course remaineffectively stateless, as they had been during the latteryears of their residence in the United Kingdom.

I wrote to the new Minister, James Brokenshire, on11 February, asking if I could have a copy of theagreement he had reached with the Malaysians, havinghad no response to a verbal request made to hispredecessor. I also asked about the experience of theone guinea pig returnee under the new arrangement.Having had no answer, I wrote again on 15 March,reminding the Minister of my earlier letter. After twofurther months, I had had no reply until, finally, aftera telephone call this morning, the Minister’s replyarrived by e-mail.

4.45 pmIt was not encouraging. There is no written agreement

but only guidelines, and the five-year residence permitsthat are to be granted to returnees do not provide anywritten assurance of entitlements, nor do they offerguarantees of citizenship at the end of the five years.In the mean time, the Malaysian Home Minister saidon 11 April that,“the Government will not give automatic citizenship to anyMalaysians who have renounced citizenship and as an alternative… they will have to be re-examined and may be granted residentpass only ... This is because among those people are some whoripped up their passport while abroad, who hold hatred towardsthis country … Some of them stabbed our country in the back”.

My point is that when we have stateless people herein the UK and we say that we have reached a solutionwith the country of their former nationality, it cantake years to sort out. It can take further years for theindividuals concerned to recover their previouscitizenship—if they ever do—when only the vaguestassurances have been given. When the Secretary ofState claims that she has “reason to believe” that

someone she is depriving of UK citizenship in aforeign country can regain his citizenship there, sheought to be obliged to state the reasons for her beliefand her statement should be subject to judicial review,rather than perhaps being relegated to SIAC where thepublic have no idea whether her reasons were satisfactory.

Obviously, as ILPA points out, the Secretary ofState could not have such a belief about a war-torncountry such as Syria, from which millions have hadto flee, nor about a country from which the person is arefugee. However, the Government do not envisage asituation where there are no grounds on which anorder could be made for a reason of that kind. Couldmy noble friend say in his reply whether, in the guidancethat we understand they propose to issue, exceptionsof this kind will be clearly defined?

I turn now to the exchanges the Government hadwith Professor Guy Goodwin-Gill—referred to by thenoble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon. Those exchangeshave been placed in the Library at my request. As theprofessor said, many of the issues covered in thoseexchanges will need to be settled by litigation, which islikely to be prolonged, expensive and divisive, particularlywhere children and families are forced apart. One ofthe professor’s main concerns is what he thinks of asthe simple issue of passports and returnability. TheSecretary of State may have reasonably believed thatthe person could obtain the citizenship of Saudi Arabia,for example, but Saudi Arabia has no proper nationalitylaw: it is entirely at the discretion of the monarch. Thesame thing goes for other states in the Gulf, such asBahrain.

The professor points out that the internationalregime regulating the movement of people betweenstates is premised on the credit accorded to nationallyissued passports the legally binding guarantee ofreturnability attaching to those documents and theimplicit prohibition on a state unilaterally resilingfrom that guarantee in violation of the rights of otherstates. The combined resources of the FCO and HomeOffice have been unable to provide a single instanceindicating either that a national passport has not beentreated in international law as guaranteeing returnability,or that a state has refused to accept back personsadmitted to another country on the basis of such apassport. I still have these concerns, in addition to theones so ably expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick,and my noble friend and colleague Lord Macdonald.

Lord Hope of Craighead: My Lords, I will add afootnote to the points made by the noble Lord, LordPannick, and my noble and learned friend Lord Brownof Eaton-under-Heywood. I join them in welcomingAmendment 18A and Amendment 18B, which falls tobe read together with it. Two questions lie behindone’s examination of Amendment 18A. The first concernsthe point mentioned by the Minister once, if not twice.Is the wording of the provision compatible with ourinternational obligations? The second concerns howthe provision will work in practice. This will be thesubject of the reviews referred to in Amendment 18B.

On the first point, the Minister said—I think twice,possibly more often—that the wording of the provisionis deliberately narrow. He said it was narrowly worded


[LORD HOPE OF CRAIGHEAD]and precisely targeted; it had to be narrowly wordedand precisely targeted to meet the requirements of theconvention. The international obligations are found inthe European convention on nationality of 1997. It isworth reminding ourselves that the preamble says thatit is concerned to avoid cases of statelessness “as far aspossible”. The principles set out in Article 4 includethat,“everyone has the right to a nationality … statelessness shall beavoided”,

and,“no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his or her nationality”.

I think it is well known that Section 40 of theBritish Nationality Act 1981, as substituted by theNationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, wasframed with very close regard to the provisions of thatconvention. One can see it, too, in the amendmentsintroduced by the Bill. The second condition set out innew Section 40(4A) refers to the situation where,“the Secretary of State is satisfied that the deprivation is conduciveto the public good because the person, while having that citizenshipstatus, has conducted him or herself in a manner which is seriouslyprejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom”.

The phrase “the vital interests” is a precise quotationfrom Article 7(1)(d) of the convention and one can seehow closely tied the wording of the statute is to that ofthe convention. It is important that the wording shouldbe narrowly framed in order to meet what the preambleand Article 4 were talking about, but that has anothersignificance when one looks at how the wording willwork in practice. It is well known that the courts willconstrue legislation on the assumption that Parliamenthas intended to legislate in accordance with this country’sinternational obligations. One would expect a court tohave regard to the wording of the convention and toconstrue the words narrowly. They are narrowly wordedbut they will be narrowly construed, too. The keywords already identified are “is able”. It is not “maybe”or a possibility; it is “is”, in the present tense. “Able” isitself a powerful word, and the new Section refers tobeing able to become a national of a country, not to anability to apply or be considered.

One other point is worth mentioning to appreciatethe full package with which this House has beenpresented. Section 40of the British Nationality Act, asamended, describes the obligation of the Secretary ofState in the event of an order being made under thatsection. It states:

“Before making an order under this section in respect of aperson the Secretary of State must give the person written noticespecifying … that the Secretary of State has decided to make andorder”—

this is really important—“the reasons for the order, and … the… right of appeal”.

These things must be set out in the written statement.Particularly important is the reference to reasons,which will be examined with great care should thematter go to appeal.

There is just one point that is worth bearing inmind: the reference to rights of appeal. Concern hasbeen expressed by Liberty, and perhaps others, aboutthe situation in which somebody would find themselveswhen faced with a written statement of this kind when

abroad and the prospect of an order of this kind beingmade against them. It would seem to require exercisingthe right of appeal from abroad. That is a practicalproblem which those individuals might face.

My concern is whether the review referred to inAmendment 18B would be capable of picking uppractical issues of that kind. It is difficult for us at thisstage and in these situations to forecast the future withany precision, but that is the kind of practical point—envisaging how the issue will be worked out in practice—that will require very careful consideration. The moredisadvantaged somebody would be by having to exercisehis right of appeal abroad, the more concerned onewould be about the fairness of the provision and,indeed, its compatibility with the convention. Whenthe Minister replies, will he be good enough to coverthat point about the scope of the review and whether itwould include the kind of practical problem to which Ihave just referred?

Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab): I have concernsabout the shift by the Government, although I welcomethat there has been a shift in the way that has alreadybeen described. My concern is that reasonable groundsto believe that a person may be able to acquire anothernationality does not really deal with the difficulty weface in the circumstances in which these cases arise.The cases that have taken place so far in which peoplehave had their citizenship removed have almostinvariably—certainly in my experience—involved personsabroad. The reason given is that the person is a threatto national security. I raise this question, among thosealready raised by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, andthe noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope: would anothercountry seriously consider giving nationality, even tosomeone who might have the ability to apply fornationality of that country, if it knew that Britishcitizenship had been removed on the grounds that theperson was believed to be in some way linked to, or tocondone, international terrorism? Do we seriously believethat another state is likely to grant nationality tosomeone where that has been the basis for the removalof citizenship by Britain? My grandparents were Irish,and I am sure that I am entitled to apply for an Irishpassport, although I have never done so, but wouldIreland seriously be interested in acquiring a citizenwho has already been deemed by Britain to be involvedin supporting, condoning or in some way furtheringterrorism? We have to be real about the circumstancesthat we are contemplating.

I want to add a number of questions to the onesthat have already been asked.

Lord Quirk (CB): Does the noble Baroness not notethat there is a difference between the case shementioned—of someone who would almost certainlybe refused citizenship by the putative country—andthe wording here, which is, “able to become”, not, asthe noble Lord, Lord Pannick, stressed, “able to apply”?Therefore, the premise is that the Secretary of Statehad already considered the point that the noble Baronessmade and that she was convinced that were the personconcerned to say, “I wish to be”, he or she wouldbecome a citizen of the said country.


5 pmBaroness Kennedy of The Shaws: There can be all

manner of speculation about whether, if someone wasborn in, for example, Somalia but left at the age ofthree, Somalia might afford citizenship to them. WouldSomalia give them citizenship in such circumstances ifBritain had removed citizenship on the basis that theywere a threat to national security here? Would Pakistan?Would Syria? Would Egypt? The test of reasonablegrounds for believing that the person would be able toacquire another nationality does not answer that question.What if they cannot do so? That is the question thatmy noble friend Lady Smith raised, and at the momentit has not been answered satisfactorily. I wait withinterest to hear what the Minister says.

There is a second matter: what constitutes service?It ties in with the point raised by the noble and learnedLord, Lord Hope. What constitutes service whensomebody is abroad? Is it good enough to serve noticeon relatives living in Britain? Why should it be assumedthat they would be able to inform adequately a personwho is living somewhere else that they have had theircitizenship removed? I would be very interested tohear the Minister’s response to what constitutes service.If someone is in a place such as Syria or Somalia, whatis the likelihood of being able to serve notice—in theway that we understand service normally in law—onsomebody in a war-torn area or a place where there ischaos and little in the way of government as weunderstand it?

What do we do about the issue of appeal, whichwas just mentioned by the noble and learned Lord,Lord Hope? At the moment, the normal period forappeal in the rules of citizenship is 28 days, andnothing suggests that that would change. Is someonein Somalia expected to be able to appeal within 28 days,not having been in receipt of service but having beeninformed days before, over a very poor telephone line,that they have the right of appeal but time is about torun out? What is the answer to the question of theappeal period?

If a person is unable to acquire another citizenship,will the withdrawal of citizenship then be negated?Will it fall away, and will the person then reacquiretheir British citizenship? Are we giving that as a guarantee?Will we see reinstatement if no other state is preparedto follow through?

I ask those who are international lawyers, orinternational lawyers advising the Government: whensomeone has a right to citizenship, is there not alwaysa level of discretion in a state to say, “Yes, you areentitled because you were born here, but then youwent away and you became a British citizen, but weare not going to allow you to apply and become acitizen of this country now because we believe thatthere is intelligence of your conducting yourself in away that might be inimical to our national interests”?The question is much more complicated than is beingsuggested by the way in which the Government areseeking to appease us at this moment. That is whythose of us who were concerned about this issuewanted there to be a much more considered reviewbefore the law was changed. I fall in line with others: Ishould like very clear answers to some of the questionsraised by the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord

Macdonald, and by the noble and learned Lord, LordHope, and to the questions that I have raised, before Iwould be satisfied that the movement by the Governmenthas been far enough.This is an issue of high moral import. This is an issuethat affects not only us here, but which will be lookedat around the world. There will be implications forpeople in other parts of the world, too. I ask theGovernment to take great care over the answers thatare given because, as we have heard from others,courts will deal with applications, appeals and reviewsbased on some of the answers given today.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, noble Lords will beglad to know that I will be as energetic as I can inediting my remarks to exclude questions which havealready been asked. However, I retain some points andconcerns on the amendments, including on the principle.

Questions have been asked about what is meant bybeing “able”, and also about the practicalities of thematter. The Minister in the Commons said: “I am surethat”, the Secretary of State,“would … have to consider practical issues and the other surroundingcircumstances … She will, therefore, wish to consider those otherpractical or logistical arrangements as part of her determination”.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/5/14; col. 193].

Can my noble friend give the House assurances as tohow all that will actually be reflected in statute or, ifnot in statute, then in guidelines? I mention here theguidelines published by the UNHCR on statelessness,which specifically refer to the application of nationalitylaws in practice being,“a mixed question of fact and law”.

On the right of appeal, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick,has said that he trusts that there will be an assurancethat the issues will be dealt with as open evidence. Iadd to that, while having the same hope, that if thereare aspects which cannot be dealt with openly, will theprovisions—I do not much like them, but they arewhat we have got—on gisting and special advocatesapply? I have seen some doubt as to whether thatwould be the case.

On the amendment for review, I am glad that theGovernment have tabled this, as I did both in Committeeand on Report. However, I stressed then the importanceof independence. That term is missing from theGovernment’s amendment. Perhaps I can put it thisway to my noble friend: can he confirm unequivocallythat the review will not be in the hands of somebodywho is within the Home Office?

Like others, I would welcome this being a matterfor the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation.Concern has been expressed about resources, but whoeverdoes the job is going to need the resources to do thejob. I, too, have a question about why, after the firstyear, it should be triennial. If we are dealing withsmall numbers, then the job should be correspondinglysmall. I also ask the Minister to give us an assurancethat the Government will support the reviewer undertakingmore frequent reviews if he considers that they shouldbe undertaken.

In debate, we have barely touched on the impact oncommunities of whom an individual in question isa member. I would support the appointment of the


[BARONESS HAMWEE]independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, becausethat postholder deals with people who are in ratherconnected situations where other measures might beapplicable—and, indeed, might apply if deprivation isnot to be used. It is clear that there is a danger that theuse of the state’s powers, which focus on neutralising—ifthat is the word—the individual without consideringthe negative effect on the community, is an issue, aswell as the specifics for the individual and their family.I am sure that the independent reviewer would focuson that as well.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: My Lords, this has beenan extremely good debate: a serious one, on a veryserious issue. We have been fortunate to be able to hearfrom a large and well qualified body of the Membersof this House. I am grateful to all noble Lords whohave spoken, and I will do my best to provide thoseassurances that have been sought by noble Lords. Thenoble Lord, Lord Pannick, in welcoming theGovernment’s move in tabling their amendments inthe Commons, wanted assurances. I am most gratefulto him for letting me have sight of the things he wasconcerned about so that I was able to address them. Ican say the same of my noble friend Lady Hamwee,who did not raise all the issues she had intended tobecause they had been raised by other noble Lords.However, I think that that most noble Lords have asimilar need for reassurance, and I am well aware ofthe responsibility to provide that assurance to Membersof the House.

Perhaps most important is the whole question ofthe meaning of “reasonable grounds to believe” andwhether those reasonable grounds of belief are appropriatefor determining the ability of a person to acquireanother nationality. The Home Secretary’s decisionmust be “reasonable” based on the evidence availableto her on the nationality laws of those countries andthe person’s circumstances. That will include havingregard to any practical arrangements, but those willvary from case to case, and it is not possible orappropriate to speculate about what weight those issueswould carry in a particular case. “Satisfied” has beeninterpreted to mean that SIAC decides for itself whethera person is a dual national. In some circumstances aperson, after being deprived of British citizenship,may take steps which guarantee that another countrywill not recognise him or her as a national. The appealshould therefore review the decision at the time it wasmade, which is why the phrase “reasonable grounds tobelieve” instead of “satisfied” is used.

Both the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the nobleBaroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, asked whatthe position would be if the foreign state had somediscretion in whether to approve an individual’s requestfor citizenship. I think that the noble Baroness went asfar as to say that she thought that there were likely tobe grounds for discretion in almost any case. Theclause refers to whether under the laws of a country orterritory a person is able to acquire the nationality ofthat country. The key issue will be whether the Secretaryof State reasonably believes that they are able toacquire the nationality. It does not say that the personmust have a right—an automatic entitlement—to that

other nationality. Where there is a discretionary judgmentthere may be reasonable grounds to believe that thediscretion will be exercised. However, reasonablenesswould require something more than saying that theperson should apply for the exercise of a generaldiscretion to grant citizenship to any country that hassuch discretion. I hope I make myself clear on that.The Home Secretary must have reasonable grounds tobelieve that, at the end of any application process—ifone is required—the person will become a national ofanother country.

5.15 pmThe noble Lord, Lord Pannick, asked whether there

was a reasonable link test, which would mean, forexample, that the use of the power would be limited tocases where the person would be reacquiring a citizenshipthat they once held. In most cases, the decision will bemade on the Secretary of State’s assessment of whetherthe person can reacquire a nationality that has previouslybeen held by that individual. But we cannot rule outcircumstances in which a person has recourse to anationality that they have not held recently. As wehave noted, the nationality laws of other countries canbe very complex and any decision will be entirelycase-specific. We cannot speculate on the way in whichan overseas jurisdiction would act under its own laws.The duty of the Home Secretary will be to take adecision on whether she reasonably believes that theperson is able under the law of another country toacquire another nationality.

The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, raised the questionof what would happen in the event that the othercitizenship is not granted and the other individual isabroad. The prime consideration for the Home Secretaryis the operation of the law within those countries.However, as part of the assessment made by the HomeSecretary, she will have regard to the practicalitiesassociated with acquiring that citizenship. As I set outearlier, the Home Secretary will consider the evidenceavailable to her on the relevant nationality laws ofthose countries and the person’s circumstances; shewill not be permitted to take deprivation action whenshe does not have reason to believe that the person hasa right in law to become a national of that country.The nationality laws of other countries can be complex,and every case will be different. We do not propose toissue guidelines, but the independent reviewer willlook at how the power is used in practice and Parliamentwill have his report and be able to debate it.

As I said, the wording of the review reflects thestatutory provisions for the review. I can assure mynoble friend Lady Hamwee that the person who carriesout these reviews will be independent. Our amendmentsets out the statutory requirement for reviews to beundertaken on the operation of this power. If issuesare raised in the first review period that may requirefurther attention, the Home Secretary would, of course,consider whether she should commission a furtherreview within a period of three years. I hope that thathelps my noble friend Lady Hamwee.

The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, asked whether itwas about the ability to seek or to acquire. The wholepoint is that it is about the ability to acquire anothernationality. She asked me to clarify when a person


need only have the ability to seek another nationalityrather than acquiring it. The terms of the clause areclear: the Home Secretary must reasonably believethat the person can, under the law of another country,gain the nationality of that country. The Secretary ofState will make the decision based on the informationthat she has before her. We cannot have time limits, asthe onus is on the individual to take the necessaryaction. As I said when I spoke earlier, these are dangerousindividuals—and I am sure that the noble Baronesswill understand the reason for us debating these issuestoday—who are likely to seek to create barriers toacquiring citizenship.

The noble Baroness also asked whether we shouldhave consulted other countries about the introductionof the power. She suggested that we needed to do so,but we cannot prejudge which countries will be involvedin future deprivation decisions. The circumstances ofeach case will be different, and it would be impossibleto consult all countries on a theoretical question. Weneed to act in the interests of the national security ofthe United Kingdom, and what is important is that itis clear that we are acting within our internationalobligations and under the law. In the context of anindividual case, we would not rule out consultinganother country, but that must not be a requirement.

The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and, indeed, mynoble friend Lord Macdonald of River Glaven askedabout comparisons with states which also have deprivationlaws. We cannot compare a carefully considered decisionabout an individual who presents a real national securityrisk to the UK with provisions in states where therehas been mass deprivation on the basis of ethnicity,for example. My noble friend Lord Macdonald andothers also asked whether the UK would have toadmit people who had been refused while they wereabroad. Noble Lords have repeated the view of ProfessorGoodwin-Gill that other states would be entitled toreturn deprived individuals. I have said in previousdebates that we do not agree with this. The UK has avery limited obligation to readmit people we havedeprived and there is no general obligation in internationallaw in this regard.

My noble friend Lord Macdonald and the nobleBaroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, talked about deprivingan individual in the UK and asked whether it madethem less of a threat. The ultimate aim of deprivationis to remove an individual from the UK. However, weaccept that this is not always possible. Deprivation isjust one of a number of tools that we can use either onits own or in conjunction with other immigrationpowers to disrupt the national security threat posed bycertain individuals. By removing an individual’s abilityto seek a British passport and to enter and remain inthe UK, deprivation can help by reducing the directthreat an individual poses to the UK—for example, byprecluding them from travelling under the protectionof a British passport to further the development ofterrorist networks.

The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, talked about thoseunable to reacquire nationalities, thereby giving themrestricted leave to remain, and asked whether this wasa substitute for citizenship. No, it is not. A smallnumber of dangerous individuals are involved in this

issue. I remind the House that it is a matter of principlethat these people should not be British. The HomeSecretary’s duty is to take a decision based on herreasonable grounds for believing that the person isable to become a national of another country. Mynoble friend Lord Avebury asked whether guidelineswere available on assessing those grounds and onsituations where the Home Secretary cannot deprivepersons of their citizenship. As I set out earlier, theHome Secretary will consider the evidence available toher on the nationality laws of the relevant countriesand the persons’circumstances. She will not be permittedto take deprivation action where she does not reasonablybelieve that the person has a right in law to become anational of the relevant country. The nationality lawsof other countries can be complex and every case willbe different. We do not propose to issue guidelines butthe independent reviewer will look at how the power isused in practice, and Parliament will have his reportand be able to debate it. The noble and learned Lord,Lord Hope of Craighead, asked whether the reviewerwould look at the practicalities of whether peoplecould appeal. The reviewer will look at how the powerhas been used and no elements or issues are off limitsto him in considering its operation.

The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, asked how wenotify someone of a decision when that person isoutside the UK. Regulation 10 of the British Nationality(General) Regulations 2003 sets out the procedures fornotifying a person of a decision, including when theperson is outside the UK at the time. They providethat where the person’s whereabouts are known, thedecision is served by delivering it to them personallyor by sending it to them by post. Where that person’swhereabouts are not known, the decision is served bysending it by post in a letter addressed to them at theirlast known address. That is customary practice ingovernment. We cannot require another state to act aswe would wish, but that may be one of the practicalitiesthat the Home Secretary has to consider when decidingwhether to deprive somebody of their nationality. Icannot be drawn on speculating on the exact positionin future cases. They will be very fact-specific andI hope that I have emphasised that in the way in whichI have presented my answers to noble Lords.

I wind up by saying that those who threaten thiscountry’s security put us all at risk. This Governmentwill take all necessary steps to protect the public. Thisproposal will strengthen the Home Secretary’s powersto ensure that very dangerous individuals can be excludedfrom the privileges attached to citizenship if it is in thepublic interest to do so. The Government’s revisedproposal—it is very much a revised proposal, based onlistening to noble Lords’contributions in this House—willenable the Home Secretary to deprive in a very limitednumber of cases. It will apply only to those who arenaturalised, not those who are British by birth orthose who register acquired citizenships under theprovisions of the 1981 Act, as those provide for childrenwho acquire British citizenship. It will apply only invery serious cases of people whose conduct—the nobleand learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, mentionedthis—is seriously prejudicial to the vital interests ofthe United Kingdom, and only when the Home Secretaryhas reasonable grounds to believe that under the laws


[LORD TAYLOR OF HOLBEACH]of a country or territory an individual is able tobecome a national of that country or territory. This isnot about arbitrarily depriving people of their citizenship.It is a targeted policy to be used sparingly against verydangerous individuals who have brought the actionupon themselves by terrorist-related acts. This amendmentaligns us more closely with those internationalcommitments as set out in the UN Convention on theReduction of Statelessness 1961 and the declarationthat the UK made in ratifying that convention in 1966.I hope that noble Lords will approve the Commonsamendments.

Lord Pannick: If I understand him correctly, theMinister is saying that the application of this clausewill depend upon the particular facts of theparticular case. Can I ask him whether, among therelevant facts that the Secretary of State will take intoaccount in deciding whether to apply this clause, andhow it should apply, she will consider whether theindividual has any link with the country concernedother than the ability to apply for nationality, andwhether the relevant facts will also include whetherthe individual has a good reason for not wanting toapply for nationality in that country—for example,because of persecution?

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I certainly can confirm tothe noble Lord that one of the factors that has to beborne in mind by a Home Secretary considering thesematters is the question of possible persecution. I assurethe noble Lord on that in relation to the specific casethat he mentioned and on the relevance of all factorsthat may impinge on a decision, which would includethe ability of the person to acquire nationality inanother country. They will be considered fully by theHome Secretary in all respects. The noble Lord askedabout whether the person had an association and soon would be considered. I am sure that these are thesorts of things that the Home Secretary will have toconsider in considering whether to exercise the powersin this clause. I am grateful to the noble Lord. He hasbeen a great encouragement in the initial meetingsthat we had when we discussed these issues. Incidentally,the House should know that we are very much at theposition that was suggested by a number of nobleLords right at the beginning; I am pleased that I havebeen able to satisfy some of the learned opinion thathas been available to us here in the House.

5.30 pm

Lord Avebury: Would the Secretary of State havethe power to consider the case whereby a person hasan entitlement to nationality of a state such as SaudiArabia where his residence could be more harmful tothe United Kingdom than if he were in the UKitself—as one knows from the fact that the vast majorityof people who committed the 9/11 atrocity were nationalsof Saudi Arabia? If we send people back to SaudiArabia and they become involved in these offences, itwould be immensely harmful to the interests of theUnited Kingdom?

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I am sure that the HomeSecretary will not exercise powers, which are clearlyvery important powers, carelessly or in any way thatwould damage the interests of the United Kingdom. Ican assure the noble Lord that all such factors will beconsidered by the Home Secretary when she considersthe question of deprivation.

Baroness Smith of Basildon: My Lords, I amgrateful to the Minister for the time he has taken andthe effort he has made to address the points that havebeen raised in the debate. I concur entirely with hisremarks about internal and international security.Obviously, the first duty of any Government is tokeep their citizens safe and secure at all times. Therehas to be consideration of those issues when theyare brought before your Lordships’ House. I canassure him that our consideration of these issues hasat its heart the security of this nation and our internationalobligations to tackle terrorism. As the noble Lordsaid, I am grateful to all those who have spoken inthis debate. We have benefited from substantial legalexpertise. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Listerfor confessing that, like the Minister and me, she is nota lawyer. It is significant that even with the legalexpertise in your Lordships’ House there is no completeagreement among lawyers, either. We made that pointearlier.

I welcome the fact that the Government havemoved away from the position that they took previouslywhen the issue was debated in Committee and onReport. I welcome the answers given by the Minister.A lot of the debate hinges on one particular issue. I amgrateful for the advice given to me by the noble Lord,Lord Pannick, in the conversations we have had. Oneof his questions summed up clearly the issue of thepower to take away British citizenship if it relies on adiscretionary power of another state. The noble Lordwas very honest in his response to that. We have nopower to know what another state will do. Other stateshave discretionary powers on whether to make peoplecitizens.

The Government’s Motion rests on whether somebodyis able to obtain citizenship. It hangs on the interpretationof that. We have concerns in that we want to avoid atall costs somebody becoming stateless—the evil ofstatelessness via the Supreme Court—and the dangersthat that would bring to citizens of this country andabroad. I mentioned that James Brokenshire, the Ministerin the other place, gave three different interpretationsof what being able to obtain other citizenship couldmean. If somebody is unable to obtain another citizenshipand they remain stateless, at what point would theHome Secretary have to say, “We have a problem; thisperson does not have citizenship of any country”?There is a danger in leaving somebody abroad who wethink is a danger to this country and involved interrorism, who is stateless in another country or whoremains in this country and cannot travel.

The noble Lord, Lord Lester, said that the intentionwas that those who are dangerous should leave—butthey cannot do so if they have not got citizenship ofany other country. The noble Lord also made thepoint that our position has changed. I can assure himthat our position has not changed. These are the very


same issues we raised in Committee and on Report,and we wanted to consider them in the light of thechanges that the Government have made.

We have to consider the practical and diplomaticimplications here. I know the Minister says that thereis no need to discuss this issue with other countries,but he was not even able to confirm to your Lordships’House that, if we remove citizenship from an individualwho we suspect of being involved in terrorist activitywhile they are in another country, we would notify theGovernment of that country that we were doing so.That seems to be a rather irresponsible attitude and Iworry that we will be passing the problems of terrorismon to other countries when international co-operationis so essential.

I do not wish to detain the House. We have had aninteresting and worthy debate on this issue. What theGovernment have not been able to do, however, is ruleout the possibility that we will make people who couldbe highly dangerous stateless. All it requires is that theHome Secretary must have reasonable grounds forbelieving that an individual can obtain other citizenship—but if those grounds are wrong and the individualcannot do so, we do not know what will happen tothat individual.

The point was made when we debated this previouslythat we are not saying to the Government, “No, thismust not happen”, but that there are still a number ofquestions which remain unanswered even at this latestage. They include the issue of what happens tosomeone when they have been rendered stateless andwhat the implications are for our relationships withother countries. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, gaveexamples, and I am not sure that the Minister’s answerwas that someone could not be made stateless.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I am most grateful to thenoble Baroness. To be clear, what I said about theOpposition was not that they have not changed, butthat they have not changed in the light of the changedcircumstances of this concession.

Baroness Smith of Basildon: The Minister cheersthe noble Lord on, but no one else is doing so. I said inresponse to the Government’s changes to their Motionthat they do not remove the danger of statelessness.The noble Lord referred to the Pepper v Hart ruling,and he is absolutely right. What the Minister here andthe Minister in the other place say is very important,but we have now had many interpretations from Ministersof what the amendment actually means.

Again, this has been a useful and interesting debatewhich I value, but we are seeking certainty on anumber of issues, and that has not been forthcomingtoday. I believe that this matter would benefit fromfurther consideration. It does not have to delay business.We are at the end of this Session, but it could bebrought back quickly at the start of the next Session.It is important that we understand the implications forthe security of this country and for individuals livingin it. Accordingly, I wish to test the opinion of theHouse.

5.37 pm

Division on Motion B1

Contents 193; Not-Contents 286.

Motion B1 disagreed.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Adams of Craigielea, B.Adebowale, L.Adonis, L.Ahmed, L.Anderson of Swansea, L.Andrews, B.Armstrong of Hill Top, B.Bach, L.Bassam of Brighton, L.

[Teller]Beecham, L.Berkeley, L.Bhattacharyya, L.Billingham, B.Blackstone, B.Blood, B.Boateng, L.Boothroyd, B.Borrie, L.Bradley, L.Bragg, L.Brennan, L.Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.Brookman, L.Campbell-Savours, L.Carter of Coles, L.Chandos, V.Christopher, L.Clancarty, E.Clark of Windermere, L.Clarke of Hampstead, L.Clinton-Davis, L.Cohen of Pimlico, B.Collins of Highbury, L.Corston, B.Coussins, B.Crawley, B.Cunningham of Felling, L.Davies of Oldham, L.Davies of Stamford, L.Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde,

B.Donaghy, B.Donoughue, L.Drake, B.Dubs, L.Elder, L.Elystan-Morgan, L.Falkland, V.Farrington of Ribbleton, B.Filkin, L.Foster of Bishop Auckland, L.Foulkes of Cumnock, L.Gale, B.Gavron, L.Gibson of Market Rasen, B.Giddens, L.Glasman, L.Golding, B.Gordon of Strathblane, L.Goudie, B.Gould of Potternewton, B.Grantchester, L.Grey-Thompson, B.Grocott, L.

Hanworth, V.Harries of Pentregarth, L.Harris of Haringey, L.Harrison, L.Hart of Chilton, L.Haskel, L.Hattersley, L.Haworth, L.Hayman, B.Hayter of Kentish Town, B.Healy of Primrose Hill, B.Henig, B.Hilton of Eggardon, B.Hollick, L.Hollis of Heigham, B.Howarth of Newport, L.Howie of Troon, L.Hoyle, L.Hughes of Stretford, B.Hughes of Woodside, L.Hunt of Chesterton, L.Hunt of Kings Heath, L.Hylton, L.Irvine of Lairg, L.Jay of Paddington, B.Jones, L.Jones of Moulsecoomb, B.Jones of Whitchurch, B.Jordan, L.Judd, L.Kennedy of Cradley, B.Kennedy of Southwark, L.Kennedy of The Shaws, B.Kerr of Kinlochard, L.Kestenbaum, L.King of Bow, B.Kinnock, L.Kinnock of Holyhead, B.Kirkhill, L.Knight of Weymouth, L.Lawrence of Clarendon, B.Layard, L.Lea of Crondall, L.Liddell of Coatdyke, B.Liddle, L.Lister of Burtersett, B.McAvoy, L.Macdonald of River Glaven,

L.Macdonald of Tradeston, L.McFall of Alcluith, L.McIntosh of Hudnall, B.MacKenzie of Culkein, L.McKenzie of Luton, L.Massey of Darwen, B.Maxton, L.Meacher, B.Mitchell, L.Moonie, L.Morgan, L.Morgan of Drefelin, B.Morgan of Huyton, B.Morris of Aberavon, L.Morris of Handsworth, L.Morris of Yardley, B.


Noon, L.Nye, B.O’Loan, B.O’Neill of Bengarve, B.O’Neill of Clackmannan, L.Oxford, Bp.Patel of Blackburn, L.Pendry, L.Pitkeathley, B.Plant of Highfield, L.Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.Prashar, B.Radice, L.Ramsay of Cartvale, B.Ramsbotham, L.Rea, L.Rees of Ludlow, L.Rendell of Babergh, B.Richard, L.Rooker, L.Rosser, L.Rowlands, L.Royall of Blaisdon, B.Sawyer, L.Scott of Foscote, L.Sherlock, B.Simon, V.Skidelsky, L.Smith of Basildon, B.Smith of Finsbury, L.Smith of Gilmorehill, B.Snape, L.Soley, L.

Stern, B.Stevenson of Balmacara, L.Stoddart of Swindon, L.Stone of Blackheath, L.Taylor of Blackburn, L.Taylor of Bolton, B.Taylor of Warwick, L.Temple-Morris, L.Thornton, B.Tomlinson, L.Triesman, L.Truscott, L.Tunnicliffe, L. [Teller]Turnberg, L.Turner of Camden, B.Uddin, B.Wall of New Barnet, B.Walpole, L.Warnock, B.Warwick of Undercliffe, B.Watson of Invergowrie, L.Wheeler, B.Whitaker, B.Whitty, L.Wigley, L.Wilkins, B.Williams of Elvel, L.Wills, L.Winston, L.Woolmer of Leeds, L.Worthington, B.Young of Hornsey, B.Young of Norwood Green, L.

NOT CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.Addington, L.Ahmad of Wimbledon, L.Anelay of St Johns, B. [Teller]Arran, E.Ashdown of Norton-sub-

Hamdon, L.Ashton of Hyde, L.Astor, V.Astor of Hever, L.Attlee, E.Baker of Dorking, L.Bakewell of Hardington

Mandeville, B.Balfe, L.Barker, B.Bates, L.Bell, L.Benjamin, B.Best, L.Bilimoria, L.Black of Brentwood, L.Blencathra, L.Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury,

B.Borwick, L.Bourne of Aberystwyth, L.Brabazon of Tara, L.Bradshaw, L.Brinton, B.Broers, L.Brooke of Sutton Mandeville,

L.Brookeborough, V.Brougham and Vaux, L.Brown of Eaton-under-

Heywood, L.Browne of Belmont, L.Browning, B.Burnett, L.Buscombe, B.Butler-Sloss, B.

Byford, B.Caithness, E.Campbell of Surbiton, B.Carlile of Berriew, L.Carrington, L.Carrington of Fulham, L.Chadlington, L.Chalker of Wallasey, B.Chidgey, L.Clement-Jones, L.Colwyn, L.Condon, L.Cope of Berkeley, L.Cormack, L.Cotter, L.Courtown, E.Craig of Radley, L.Craigavon, V.Crickhowell, L.Cumberlege, B.Dannatt, L.De Mauley, L.Dear, L.Deben, L.Deighton, L.Denham, L.Dixon-Smith, L.Dobbs, L.Doocey, B.Dykes, L.Eames, L.Eaton, B.Eccles, V.Eccles of Moulton, B.Edmiston, L.Elton, L.Empey, L.Falkner of Margravine, B.Faulks, L.Fearn, L.Feldman of Elstree, L.Fellowes, L.

Fink, L.Finkelstein, L.Finlay of Llandaff, B.Flight, L.Fookes, B.Forsyth of Drumlean, L.Fowler, L.Framlingham, L.Freeman, L.Freud, L.Garden of Frognal, B.Gardiner of Kimble, L.Gardner of Parkes, B.Garel-Jones, L.Geddes, L.German, L.Glasgow, E.Glenarthur, L.Glendonbrook, L.Gold, L.Goodlad, L.Goschen, V.Grade of Yarmouth, L.Greengross, B.Greenway, L.Grender, B.Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.Hamilton of Epsom, L.Hanham, B.Hannay of Chiswick, L.Harris of Richmond, B.Henley, L.Heyhoe Flint, B.Higgins, L.Hill of Oareford, L.Hodgson of Abinger, B.Hodgson of Astley Abbotts,

L.Hollins, B.Holmes of Richmond, L.Hooper, B.Hope of Craighead, L.Horam, L.Howard of Lympne, L.Howarth of Breckland, B.Howe, E.Howe of Aberavon, L.Howe of Idlicote, B.Howell of Guildford, L.Humphreys, B.Hunt of Wirral, L.Hurd of Westwell, L.Hussain, L.Hussein-Ece, B.Inglewood, L.James of Blackheath, L.Jay of Ewelme, L.Jenkin of Kennington, B.Jenkin of Roding, L.Jolly, B.Jones of Cheltenham, L.Jopling, L.Kakkar, L.King of Bridgwater, L.Kirkham, L.Kirkwood of Kirkhope, L.Knight of Collingtree, B.Kramer, B.Laming, L.Lamont of Lerwick, L.Lang of Monkton, L.Lawson of Blaby, L.Lee of Trafford, L.Leigh of Hurley, L.Lester of Herne Hill, L.Lexden, L.Lingfield, L.Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Liverpool, E.Livingston of Parkhead, L.Loomba, L.Lothian, M.Luce, L.Luke, L.McColl of Dulwich, L.MacGregor of Pulham

Market, L.Mackay of Clashfern, L.MacLaurin of Knebworth, L.McNally, L.Maddock, B.Maginnis of Drumglass, L.Manzoor, B.Mar, C.Marks of Henley-on-Thames,

L.Marlesford, L.Martin of Springburn, L.Mawhinney, L.Mawson, L.Mayhew of Twysden, L.Montagu of Beaulieu, L.Morris of Bolton, B.Nash, L.Neville-Jones, B.Neville-Rolfe, B.Newby, L. [Teller]Newlove, B.Nicholson of Winterbourne,

B.Noakes, B.Northbrook, L.Northover, B.Norton of Louth, L.O’Cathain, B.Oppenheim-Barnes, B.Paddick, L.Palmer of Childs Hill, L.Palumbo of Southwark, L.Parminter, B.Patel, L.Patten, L.Perry of Southwark, B.Phillips of Sudbury, L.Popat, L.Powell of Bayswater, L.Purvis of Tweed, L.Quirk, L.Randerson, B.Rawlings, B.Razzall, L.Redesdale, L.Rennard, L.Ribeiro, L.Ridley, V.Risby, L.Roberts of Llandudno, L.Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.Rogan, L.Roper, L.Rowe-Beddoe, L.Ryder of Wensum, L.St John of Bletso, L.Sanderson of Bowden, L.Sassoon, L.Scott of Needham Market, B.Seccombe, B.Selborne, E.Selkirk of Douglas, L.Shackleton of Belgravia, B.Sharkey, L.Sharp of Guildford, B.Sharples, B.Sheikh, L.Shephard of Northwold, B.Sherbourne of Didsbury, L.


Shipley, L.Shrewsbury, E.Shutt of Greetland, L.Skelmersdale, L.Smith of Clifton, L.Spicer, L.Stedman-Scott, B.Steel of Aikwood, L.Stephen, L.Sterling of Plaistow, L.Stevens of Ludgate, L.Stewartby, L.Stirrup, L.Stoneham of Droxford, L.Storey, L.Stowell of Beeston, B.Strathclyde, L.Suttie, B.Taverne, L.Taylor of Goss Moor, L.Taylor of Holbeach, L.Tenby, V.Teverson, L.Thomas of Gresford, L.Thomas of Winchester, B.Tope, L.Trefgarne, L.Trenchard, V.

Trimble, L.True, L.Tugendhat, L.Tyler, L.Tyler of Enfield, B.Ullswater, V.Vallance of Tummel, L.Verjee, L.Verma, B.Wakeham, L.Wallace of Saltaire, L.Wallace of Tankerness, L.Walmsley, B.Warsi, B.Wasserman, L.Watson of Richmond, L.Wei, L.Wheatcroft, B.Whitby, L.Wilcox, B.Williams of Crosby, B.Williams of Trafford, B.Willis of Knaresborough, L.Wilson of Tillyorn, L.Woolf, L.Wrigglesworth, L.Younger of Leckie, V.

Motion agreed.

Arrangement of BusinessAnnouncement

5.52 pm

Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con): My Lords, thereis a question that I have been asked on many occasionsover the past week and I am now able to answer it.Now that the progress of business is certain, it may befor the convenience of the House if I indicate that Iexpect Royal Commissioners to attend this House atthe end of business on Wednesday this week to signifyRoyal Assent to several Bills and to prorogue Parliamentuntil 4 June. The exact time of the ceremony will besettled on Wednesday itself, once the flow of businessin both Houses is clear.

Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab): My Lords, I amgrateful to the noble Baroness for her statement advisingthe House of the date of Prorogation. I make onesimple point. We on these Benches have long predictedthis particular day in view of the flow of governmentbusiness. However, the House is being underused. It isclear from the figures that we are losing about 10% ofactive days of consideration in your Lordships’ House.I am sure my colleagues share my view that this ishighly unsatisfactory. We do a very good job and wedo it well, but it is not right for the Government toplay fast and loose with this House when it comes tothe proper consideration of business.

I welcome what the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay,has said, and I am glad that the statement has beenmade. It gives some certainty to Members of yourLordships’ House. However, the other matters bearfurther consideration.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, in the pastthe Leader of the Opposition has made points aboutsitting patterns, and certain figures have been shown

to her. Therefore, I am more than a little surprised thatthe noble Lord, Lord Bassam, continues to allege thatthis House is somehow sitting for some 10% less thanits normal pattern. I just happen to have the figureswith me.

The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, raises a seriouspoint. This House is very adept at holding the Governmentto account and I know that it will continue to do so.The Opposition Front Bench is charged with that taskand always carries it out to a high level of ability. I donot underestimate that at all.

It might be helpful if I refer to the working daysavailable to this House. Without wishing to be tootedious, over the three most recent Sessions, if onelooks at working days lost—in other words, workingdays on which we did not sit—at Christmas 2011 itwas 10, at Christmas 2012 it was 10 and at Christmas2013 it was 10. At Easter 2012 it was 15, at Easter 2013it was 15 and at Easter 2014 it was 15. At Whitsun itwas six days in 2012, including the extra bank holidayfor the Diamond Jubilee, last year it was six and thisyear it will be six. With regard to Prorogation, in theSessions 2010-12 and 2012-13 it was four days. ForProrogation last year it went up to seven. It has comedown to five this year. There has been a perception—itis only a perception—that we have had longer, becauseof the way in which public holidays fall for Easter,Whit and Prorogation. On this occasion, Prorogationand Whit happen to be consecutive, but they wouldhave happened anyway. I have plenty more figures, butthat shows that we have a pattern and that we havekept to it.

Comments have been made about the SummerRecess. It is true that we went down to nine weeks lastyear, but it was 10 the year before and it is 10 this year.I have every confidence that this House will do the jobthat it does superbly, which is to hold any Governmentto account at all the proper times.

Lord Elton (Con): Will my noble friend kindly tellus at what time the House will sit on Wednesday?

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, theannouncement I made was in the normal format but Iknow that the normal format is rather opaque, soI understand why my noble friend asked that question.I cannot give the exact time of Prorogation untilWednesday, because another place will still be dealingwith divisible government business. As to the startingtime, on Wednesday we will start at the published timeof 3 pm. That is because it is appropriate for thosewho have their Questions that day to ask them at thetime they expect. As I explained last week to theOpposition Chief Whip, it is appropriate that we andanother place should try to get to the point of Prorogationat about the same time. In that way, there is only asmall hiatus while the House adjourns during pleasurebefore we have the ceremony of the commissioners.We shall begin at 3 pm on Wednesday, by which time Ihope to be able to give a better indication of exactlywhen on Wednesday Prorogation might be.

Lord Martin of Springburn (CB): I put it to thenoble Baroness, Lady Anelay, as gently as I can that,while I understand all the difficulties that can be

1695 1696[12 MAY 2014]Immigration Bill Arrangement of Business

[LORD MARTIN OF SPRINGBURN]brought about by Prorogation, it should be borne inmind that many of us travel a considerable distance tocome here. In doing so, we usually make arrangementsa fortnight in advance for Monday to Thursday. Thechange to a Wednesday therefore causes considerabledifficulties in arrangements for those Members whoare travelling several hundred miles. I have accommodationin London, but I know that other colleagues who haveto stay overnight have to make not only travelarrangements but overnight bookings. Perhaps thiscan be considered in future.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I have a simple question.Will the noble Baroness agree to publish, in a letterplaced in the Library, the stats on a per annum basisfor the number of sitting days that the House has hadsince 2010?

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I cancertainly look at that and see what helpful figures—helpfulto the noble Lord—we can give. With regard to advancenotice, I sympathise with those noble Lords who travela great distance here and try to have some regularpattern of attendance. The problem normally arisesonly with Prorogation, as it is simply impossible topredict when it might take place. I follow the pattern,which has always been the case, that one can make theannouncement only once this House has completed itslegislative business. That, of course, does not includestatutory instruments but only the substantive primaryBills themselves. I could have waited another 24 hours,because normally one gives only 24 hours’ notice.However, I am always keen to give as much advanceinformation as possible because I recognise, with sympathy,that Prorogation can cause a particular difficulty.

Education: Free School FundingStatement

6.01 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State forSchools (Lord Nash) (Con): My Lords, with the leaveof the House, I will repeat in the form of a Statementthe Answer to an Urgent Question given in anotherplace this afternoon by my right honourable friend theSecretary of State for Education. The Statement is asfollows.

“I am delighted to be able to update the House onprogress in providing new school places. Just lastweek, the Public Accounts Committee congratulatedthe department on the clear progress that has beenmade in delivering new school places through the freeschool programme, with costs significantly lower thanunder the previous Government’s school buildingprogramme.

Free schools cost around half what schools builtunder Building Schools for the Future cost. Thanks tothe savings we have made, and thanks to the success ofour long-term economic plan, we have been able toinvest far more than the previous Government increating new school places, especially in areas of need.We are investing £5 billion over the life of this Parliamentin giving money to local authorities for new school

places. That is more than twice what the previousGovernment spent over the equivalent preceding period,despite repeated warnings that the population wasincreasing. We plan to invest even more in the nextParliament, with £7 billion allocated for new schoolplaces.

As a result, we have delivered 212,000 new primaryschool places between 2012 and 2013 and we are oncourse to deliver another 357,000. Thanks to the effortsof many great local authorities, we now have fewerpupils in overcrowded primary schools than we had in2010. As well as the expansion of existing local authorityprovision, we have also created, on top, 83,000 placesin new free schools. The budget for these schools hasbeen just under 10% of the department’s total capitalspend.

Free schools are, so far, outperforming other schoolsinspected under our new and more rigorous Ofstedframework. Schools such as Dixons Trinity in Bradfordand the Canary Wharf free school in Tower Hamletshave been ranked outstanding months after opening.Free schools are now oversubscribed, with threeapplications for every place and, indeed, the longerfree schools are in place, the more popular they are.Schools such as the West London Free School and theLondon Academy of Excellence are becoming themost oversubscribed schools in their area.

It is important to remember that we have met thedemand identified by local authorities for new schoolplaces and have also set up seven out of 10 free schoolsin areas of significant population growth. Indeed, asthe National Audit Office has pointed out, £700 millionof the £950 million spent on the free schools so faropened has actually augmented the money given tolocal authorities for new school places. Other freeschools have been set up to provide quality provisionwhere existing standards are too low or schoolimprovements have been too slow.

We should never be complacent about educationalstandards but we should today take time to thanklocal authorities and all our school leaders and teachers,because no child in this country is without a schoolplace, fewer are in overcrowded schools and Ofstedreports that more children are being taught good andoutstanding lessons by more highly qualified teachersthan ever before.

In short, thanks to the rigour with which we haveborne down on costs, the innovation unleashed by theacademy and free schools programmes, and the successof the Government’s economic strategy, we have beenable both to provide all necessary school places anddrive up quality across the board”.

6.05 pm

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab): My Lords, Ithank the Minister for the Statement. However, thefact is that the free school project is becoming moreand more a source of embarrassment for this Government.In short, the Secretary of State seems to be runningout of friends. Last week, the Public Accounts Committeereported that at least £240 million had been spent onbuilding 42 free schools where there is no shortage ofschool places, diverting money away from the areas ofgreatest need. Meanwhile, it seems that the Treasury

1697 1698[LORDS]Arrangement of Business Education: Free School Funding

has raised concerns about the runaway costs of freeschools, at both official and ministerial level. Even theDfE’s own civil servants are scrabbling around toeffect some political damage limitation from the fall-outof the failing free schools. Now their coalition partners,the Lib Dems, are alleging that the basic needs budget—intended for extra school places in the most overcrowdedareas—has been raided to expand the free schoolprogramme.

I listened carefully to the Secretary of State’s responseto this accusation in the other place. He seemed todeny that the basic needs budget had been—or wouldbe—raided to fund free schools and, indeed, he claimedthat the free schools budget would be reduced if necessaryto fund the basic needs programme. Can the nobleLord clarify who is right on this matter—David Lawsor Michael Gove? Will he also acknowledge that theshortage of primary school places continues to be anissue and that, at the next election, more infants willbe taught in classrooms with more than 30 pupils thanwas the case in 2010? When will the Governmentfinally introduce some proper controls on this runawayexpenditure, as demanded by the Treasury and thePublic Accounts Committee? Does he accept the latestOfsted evidence that free schools have a failure rate of11% compared to just 3% for maintained schools, sothey are not the great success story that Michael Govelikes to claim? Finally, does he have some sympathywith the Conservative Association in Crawley—homeof the disastrous Discovery New School—which, whenasked if it would like a ministerial visit, replied, “Pleasesend anyone but Michael Gove”?

6.07 pm

Lord Nash: The noble Baroness is of course onlydoing her job in pointing out the few failings in thefree schools programme. However, overall, the programmeis a massive success, as witnessed by the number ofMPs across the other place this afternoon who praisedthe free schools in their constituencies and by themassive demand from parents, witnessed by their beingthree times oversubscribed.

Overall, free schools are far more likely to be ratedoutstanding within only three months of opening thanother schools. Any failings in our school buildingsprogramme is but nothing compared to the massivefailure of the previous Government’s Building Schoolsfor the Future programme, which ran at least £10 billionover cost. That failure was coupled with their completefailure, apparently, to anticipate the looming crisis—despite repeated warnings and their immigrationpolicy—in school places which we are now fixing.

I thought that the Public Accounts Committeereport was very balanced and very fair. In particular, itwas quite muted compared to the committee’s 2009 reportinto the Building Schools for the Future programme,which contained phrases such as,“poor planning and persistent over-optimism”,

and said the department had,“wasted public money by relying on consultants”,

and was “complacent”.Rather than the free schools building programme

taking money away from basic needs, it is in factenhancing it: £1.1 billion has been allocated for 174 free

schools, 70% of which are in areas of basic need; inthe free school round announced in January this year,all our new maintained schools are in areas facing ashortage of places; and it looks likely that the latterwill pretty much be the case as well for the new roundto be announced shortly. We have been able to meetthe demand for school places which we were left withby the previous Government, who in fact reduced thenumber of primary places by 200,000 despite thewarnings. The noble Baroness referred to the DiscoveryNew School. We have closed half of another school.We have in fact closed schools with 200 places in themwhich compares with the 150,000 new places that wehave created under the free schools programme.

6.09 pmBaroness Perry of Southwark (Con): Will my noble

friend confirm that one of the most heartening aspectsof the free schools programme is that every free schoolis opened only after extensive consultation with thelocal community? By the time the free school is open,it has huge community support, and the parents whohave been involved in the setting up of the school haveoverwhelming enthusiasm and are greatly involved inthe life of the school in a way that, in my experience,has been seen in very few local authority schools.

Lord Nash: I can confirm what my noble friendsays. I encourage noble Lords from across the Houseto visit schools such as Dixons Trinity Bradford, ReachAcademy Feltham, Canary Wharf College or ARKConway Primary Academy, all of which have beenrated outstanding within months of opening.

Lord Storey (LD): The Minister is right to point tothe fact that there are problems of overcrowding inmaintained schools. In fact, a survey by the LocalGovernment Association found that in 2012 one-fifthof primary schools were full, with the obvious problemof increased class sizes. Will the Minister confirm thatevery parent who wishes to send their child to amaintained primary school will be able to do so? Willhe confirm or deny that no money has been divertedor augmented from the basic needs budget to the freeschools programme? Will he confirm that it is stillgovernment policy that no free school should be runas a business? This has somehow been caught up in theissue of the meals programme for key stage 1 children.Will he confirm that the Government are fully committedto that programme?

Lord Nash: Local admissions arrangements are forthe local authority in the area, although it is true thatvirtually all academies and free schools use the localauthority admissions process. I have already answeredthe second point about money being directed frombasic needs to free schools. We have a very strictpolicy: no free school or academy can be run as abusiness. Indeed, no one with any close relationshipwith a free school or academy can provide any servicesto that school except at cost. The Government arefully committed across party to the universal freeschool meals programme.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton (Lab): My Lords,the Minister said that no money has been diverted intothe free schools programme. Will the Minister confirm

1699 1700[12 MAY 2014]Education: Free School Funding Education: Free School Funding

[BARONESS FARRINGTON OF RIBBLETON]that the Treasury set a limit? If, for example, the percapita payment per pupil—not the building cost, butthe per capita cost per pupil—is higher for free schools,then both the local authority maintained schools andthe voluntary sector schools are deprived of resources.I, for one, take offence when it said that free schoolshave more highly qualified teachers when actuallythey are allowed to employ unqualified teachers. Iconsider that to be a slur. I admit that I am biased, butdoes the Minister accept that in Lancashire parentsjoin in their local schools, be they church schools—ofwhich Lancashire has the largest number—or otherschools? When the Minister says that seven out ofevery nine free schools are justified, two out of everynine are not justified. County schools, local authorityschools and the voluntary aided sector cannot use thatmoney if it is being spent to support a whim of theSecretary of State.

Lord Nash: All academies and free schools arefunded on an equal basis to maintained schools. Theymay get some start-up grants, but their annual revenuegoing forward is equal. As regards the slur to whichthe noble Baroness referred, the Statement says quiteclearly that Ofsted has reported that all schools, notjust free schools, have more highly qualified teachersthan ever before.

Baroness Williams of Crosby (LD): My Lords, Iunderstand that the very first duty of any educationdepartment is to ensure that every single parent willhave the opportunity to place his or her child in amaintained school if that is what he or she wishes. Iam concerned by what appears to be a fog ofmisunderstanding. My understanding is that there areat least 12 local authorities—I give as examples Teeside,Ruislip, Croydon and Bristol—where it is said to beimpossible for a parent to find a place in a maintainedprimary school. That should be the first duty ofGovernment. It would be very helpful if the Ministercould say specifically that he does not know of localauthorities that cannot find a primary school place fortheir children. If someone wants to send their child toa free school that is perfectly fair, but it should not beforced on them.

Lord Nash: I have said quite clearly that we havesatisfied all the demand for free school places and wehave funded local authorities to be able to satisfy thatdemand. Of course, we now have a system in which60% of secondary schools and 12% of primary schoolsare academies. It may well be that in some areas thenearest school which the allocation process in the localauthority directs parents to will be a free school ratherthan a local authority maintained school.

Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment)(No. 2) Order 2014

Motion to Approve

6.16 pmMoved by Lord Taylor of Holbeach

That the draft order laid before the House on31 October 2013 be approved.

Relevant document: 13th Report from the JointCommittee on Statutory Instruments. Considered inGrand Committee on 31 March.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, HomeOffice (Lord Taylor of Holbeach) (Con): My Lords,the Government seek to control khat as a class C drugunder the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, to protect thepublic from the potential harms associated with thisdrug and the threat posed from its international trafficking.

Through the second draft order laid by the Ministryof Justice, the Government are seeking to extend theuse of penalty notices for disorder—PNDs—to the offenceof simple possession of khat, when it is the secondtime that the offence has been committed. By a negativeinstrument, the financial penalty for the khat PNDwill be set at £60. On the first occasion that an offencehas been committed, a person is likely to be issuedwith a non-statutory “khat warning”. Anyone caughtpossessing khat for the third time or more will facearrest. This reflects the policing strategy for khatpossession cases agreed with the national policing leadfor drugs. Both draft orders were considered in GrandCommittee on 31 March. The House will be awarethat both draft orders have been approved in theHouse of Commons. I commend the two orders to theHouse.

Amendment to the Motion

Moved by Baroness Smith of Basildon

At end to insert “but that this House regrets thatHer Majesty’s Government’s plans for the introductionof the Order do not include provisions for a 12-monthreview of the impact of the reclassification of khatin view of the highly unusual community focus ofits use, for putting a detailed policing strategy inplace before a ban takes effect, or for a healthstrategy to prevent a transfer of addiction to othersubstances; and do not commit the Department forInternational Development to do more work withthe government of Kenya to alleviate the effect ofthe reclassification on the Kenyan economy.”

Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab): My Lords, I amgrateful to the Minister for his explanation. I shallexplain why we have brought this amendment beforethe House today.

It is around six weeks since we discussed this issuein Grand Committee. I thank the noble Lord forasking to meet me prior to this debate and for thediscussion we had on the issue during the Recess. InCommittee, the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, respondedfor the Government. He agreed that this was a finelybalanced decision. The Advisory Council on the Misuseof Drugs, the ACMD, does not advise that the drugshould be banned, due to a lack of robust evidence. Infact, it considers it to be,“a much less potent stimulant than other commonly used drugs”.

As I identified in Grand Committee, successiveGovernments have considered whether khat should bebanned, but the evidence has not been clear or strongenough previously to support such a ban. It is clear

1701 1702[LORDS]Education: Free School Funding Misuse of Drugs Act 1971

from the evidence base in the Explanatory Memorandumand the Government’s assessment of the options thatthe decision remains a finely balanced one. One of thenew considerations is the impact of the ban by otherEuropean countries.

Having considered the evidence, we accept that thebenefits of a ban could outweigh the risks. However,as I stated previously, there are a number of assurancesneeded from the Government before that is clear.When we debated this in Committee and soughtassurances from the Government, we did not do sounexpectedly. My colleague in the other place, theshadow Home Office Minister, Diana Johnson, haddiscussions with the Minister who had responsibilityfor this order. Curiously, this was not the Drugs Minister,Norman Baker, but another Minister, Karen Bradley.She spoke to her regarding our concerns and theconditions we consider to be essential if a ban is to beput in place. These were raised in the debate in Committeein the other place on 31 March and indeed in our owndebate on the same day. I had also notified the Minister’soffice of our concerns. Both Diana Johnson and Iwere disappointed with the responses from theGovernment, so this amendment is another attempt toseek reassurances from the Government on theimplementation of such a ban. There are no surprisesand no reasons of which I am aware that a full answerto the points we have raised should not be forthcoming.

I do not think I need to repeat the detail of theCommittee debate on the harms of the drug or therisks associated with a ban. They are welldocumented in those debates, the ExplanatoryMemorandum, the impact assessment and, indeed,the letter from the Home Secretary. We are aware ofthe social and possible health harms associated withkhat and which communities—largely the Somali andYemeni communities—in the UK are most likely touse the drug. Overall, just 0.2% of the population haveused khat but some 50% of Somali males are thoughtto be users, and up to 10% daily users. We are alsoaware that it is very difficult to separate the socialharms of khat from the wider social issues faced bythe Somali community and, to a lesser extent, theYemeni and Ethiopian communities. We are also awareof significant and strong support from within theSomali community for a ban.

However, it must also be recognised that neither theACMD nor the Home Office review has been able toisolate khat as the cause of problems or as exacerbatingexisting social problems. Khat has been linked tohealth harms including liver toxicity and tooth loss, aswell as issues relating to the manner in which it isconsumed, and mental health problems in the Somalicommunity. But again, the evidence in relation tophysical health is not considered by the ACMD—thecommittee that advises the Government on the misuseof drugs—as being robust enough to justify a ban.

We must also examine the risks of banning khat.We recognise that in assessing the risks we have toconsider the risk of the UK becoming a hub for illegalexports to the US and other EU countries which havealready implemented bans. I understand that is a keyissue behind the Government’s intention to ban thedrug.

In Committee, I asked the Minister, the noble Lord,Lord Ahmad, whether there was any evidence thatkhat imports into the UK were increasing and that theUK was being used as a base for illegal imports. Hewas able to advise that there had been a changealthough I am not 100% clear from the figures howsignificant that change is. Of course, that is a veryreasonable issue for the Government to take intoaccount and clarification of the scale of the problemwould be helpful. When looking at the risks, it isrelevant for the Government to consider the impact onthe criminal justice system and to recognise that theenforcement costs may be high initially.

The Government recognise that there is a significantrisk that a ban could damage community relationsbecause khat use is both common and widely acceptedwithin the Somali, Yemeni and Ethiopian communities.That would mean that banning khat would criminalisean established and accepted social practice.

The amendment would not prevent the ban but,because the impact must be fully understood andhandled very carefully, we have identified four areasthat are essential to ensure that any ban does notdamage community relations and does not lead tokhat’s displacement by other drugs, leading to moreserious social and health impacts. As the noble Lord isaware, we wish to raise four issues that we think areessential before any ban should proceed.

The first is the review. Particularly because this is avery finely balanced decision, we think that there mustbe a review after 12 months that looks at the impact ofreclassification, including on organised crime as wellas community relations. That should include a monitoringframework, as outlined by the Home Affairs SelectCommittee; it was the second recommendation in itsreport. I know that the Government already collectsome data in relation to drugs but, because khat isunique among drugs in that it is focused in particularcommunities, specific data need to be collected oncommunity relations. Rather than that just being publishedas part of the overall publication of statistics andfigures on crime, community relations and drug use,there should be a separate review published on khat.

One issue that the Minister very helpfully discussedwith me when we met was policing. Because khat ishighly prevalent in the Somali and Yemeni communities,the introduction of a ban would allow any Somali orYemeni male to be subject to stop and search. I knowthat the Minister recognises that this could have aseriously detrimental effect on community relations,and the Government are bringing in changes to stopand search. Although we discussed this, it would behelpful if the Minister could put on the record how theGovernment will ensure that this does not underminethe Prevent agenda, which is now being focused on theSomali and Yemeni communities.

One risk that we can particularly identify, becausekhat is a social drug, is that it is linked to numerousbusinesses, including cafés and community centres, sopolicing has to be very sensitive to those risks. Toensure that this happens, we want a specific policingstrategy, agreed by the ACPO lead for drugs and thePrevent team. That should be in place before a ban isin force.

1703 1704[12 MAY 2014]Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act 1971

[BARONESS SMITH OF BASILDON]I mentioned my meeting with the Minister and his

officials. He was able to outline some of the issuesregarding policing. I am aware that the Governmentare giving serious consideration to them. He agreed atthat meeting to provide me with details and a copy ofthe draft guidance currently being considered but Ihave not yet had it. I know that he would want me tohave a copy of that. It would have been helpful for thedebate today but, if we could have a copy of that, itwould be very helpful.

When we met I also reiterated the need for a programmeof engagement and support for the Somali community.There needs to be some kind of education about thedangers of drugs and alcohol. As the advisory committeerecognises, the evidence on the harms is not robustenough for a ban and the last thing that I thinkanybody wants to see is khat being replaced withillegal or prescription drugs or alcohol. That would bea very serious matter and could cause greater healthharms. When we discussed this, the Minister was notable to provide me with any further information otherthan that he was sure that this was ongoing. Theseprogrammes will be essential, and if he is able toprovide more information today that would be extremelyhelpful to our considerations.

My final point is on international development, anissue recognised by the Select Committee in the otherplace. The Department for International Developmenthas to commit to work with the Kenyan Governmentto alleviate the effect of the khat ban on the Kenyaneconomy. When we discussed this, the Minister wasconfident that Kenyan farming was robust enough todiversify. He is more of an expert on farming than Iam—I hope that will be the case. The Select Committeeidentified this as a very serious issue. My understandingis that the department is working with the Kenyanauthorities. We need more information on this, as partof the review that should be undertaken and reportedon in a year’s time, so that we can understand the workthat is ongoing.

These are very real and genuine concerns. As I said,we are not opposing the ban but we really considerthat before any ban is implemented these kinds ofissues have to be considered and dealt with first. Ihope that we will have a positive response from theMinister today. I beg to move.

6.30 pm

Baroness Hamwee (LD): My Lords, I have difficultieswith both the substance of the order and the amendment.It seems that we may be in a world of policy-basedevidence and an amendment that is being brought tothe House because the Opposition are looking forsomething to object to without objecting to the banitself. The matters identified in the amendment seemto be good reasons to oppose the ban, but the Oppositionsupport it.

The ACMD not only recommended no change inthe status of khat—that it not be controlled under theMisuse of Drugs Act—but set out a number of otherrecommendations dealing with local needs assessments;education and prevention initiatives; culturally specificand tailored treatment and recovery services; partnership

working; addressing the problems through engagementand dialogue with the local community and interagencyworking; working through community safety partnerships;and regular monitoring and returns. It also made aspecific recommendation about data to form the basisof future research. Those would themselves have formeda very good amendment, but that is not what isbefore us.

The ACMD was quite clear on the merits of theban. The Secretary of State, on the other hand, seemsto be saying—if I can summarise it—that since it isbanned in the rest of the EU, it must be banned here.The ban was announced last July. Will the Ministertell the House what evidence there has been of thedrug’s use since that announcement? Some time hasnow gone by. Indeed, it has been banned in the rest ofthe EU since January of last year, so if there areconcerns, some of those might have come to light.

One of the reasons that we are given for the proposedban is the risk of this country becoming a regionalhub or a haven for criminals. I was interested to readsome of the characteristics of khat, one of which isthat it has a very short life. The active ingredientdeclines a couple of days after being picked; it needsto be fresh for it to have an effect. I have no doubt thatthe users of it, as consumers, are as demanding asconsumers of most products, so is it a genuine concernthat we would become a regional hub, if what mightbe distributed through the hub has, in fact, lost itsefficacy by the time it is traded on?

The risks identified from a ban include the usersmoving towards more addictive, harmful and expensivesubstances; a black market; and organised crime steppingin to supply the drug and criminalising—inevitably—theusers. I appreciate the proposals about applying anescalator to how offences are dealt with, but we wouldbe criminalising users and suppliers, and we know thatone crime leads to another.

Of course, I am aware that the Minister in theCommons and the Home Secretary, in her response tothe Home Affairs Select Committee, have presentedthe matter as finely balanced, and that the communitieswhere use is widespread are divided. Looking at thereports, I have been wondering how broadly women inthose communities want a ban and men do not. Iwonder whether that is rather simplistic reporting. Ifind it difficult to believe that a ban would instantlylead to such a considerable behavioural change andmake model husbands of former users. I have mydoubts about that. There is one view that clearlycomes from the Somali community, and that is thatthey would prefer their children to use khat ratherthan alcohol or tobacco. The ACMD has reportedthat the use of khat has been decreasing over recentyears.

In the Commons, there was very little discussion—nothing from the Minister, I believe—about the broaderissues of drugs policy or the wider context, to whichreference has just now been made, of the economy ofKenya and the potential instability and risks associatedwith that. I would be very wary of banning somethingof cultural significance, with the risk of driving awedge between the police and the already quitemarginalised communities. The references in the reports

1705 1706[LORDS]Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act 1971

to the use of khat at weddings made me think ofsugared almonds at weddings in some other traditionsand how one might respond to any suggestion thatthat tradition be changed. In summary, I am notpersuaded by the orders, but I am not persuaded bythe amendment: I would leave the balance as it is.

Baroness Meacher (CB): My Lords, I support theamendment to the decision of Home Secretary to bankhat under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, although Iidentify with the comments of the noble Baroness,Lady Hamwee, in relation to the amendment. Thereare very good reasons to oppose this ban. I make clearat the outset that if khat presented a serious healthrisk to users, I would support a ban on the importationand sale of the substance. On the other hand, we nowhave sufficient evidence to show that banning thepossession and use of psychoactive substances—evendangerous ones—is counterproductive. Of course, theexcessive use of khat by small groups of Somalis needsto be tackled; the question is how. We know that banson possession and use delay treatment. They divertresources away from public health and education initiativesand into the criminal justice system. We also knowthat a criminal record is extremely damaging to anyone’semployment prospects. The criminalisation of thesepeople will therefore tend to lead them to continuewith their drug habit or—if they ever get away fromit—to return to it. There are very severe and negativeconsequences of banning, particularly on the consumerside.

That is the evidence framework within which I havethought about the Home Secretary’s decision to ignorethe advice of the ACMD and ban not only the supplybut the possession and use of khat. This is a mostserious decision for the communities involved, peopleprincipally from Somalia, Yemen and Ethiopia. Thesmall but vociferous group of campaigners from Somaliabelieve that a ban on khat will get rid of the problemsas they perceive them—social problems within familiesand so on. In reality, those using khat will continueusing the substance at a vastly increased price. TheHome Affairs Select Committee’s ninth report suggestedthat a hundredfold increase in price could be expectedfrom a ban on khat. The khat user who continued touse khat would also risk, as I said, a criminal record.The alternative, to which other noble Lords havealluded, is that khat would be replaced by alcohol inparticular. We know that alcohol is far more dangerousand would have all sorts all sorts of consequences thatkhat does not have. Either alternative, therefore, wouldbe much worse than the status quo. I am not suggestingthat the status quo is wonderful, but it is nothing likeas serious as the possible consequences of a ban. Theidea that the household would have more cash tospend on food is, sadly, a delusion. Some womenmight see their husbands spending £25 on khat andthink, “I could do with that to buy some shoes for thekids”, but it is a little more complex than that.

The ACMD had clear, scientific reasons for advisingthe Home Secretary that,“the evidence of harms associated with the use of khat is insufficientto justify control and it would be inappropriate and disproportionateto classify khat under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971”.

These are very strong words from the ACMD and,particularly, a council led by Professor Leslie Iversen,whom I know quite well and who is a highly regardedscientist known for his incredible moderation, gentlenessand so on. He is not a wild man; if he allows suchwords to go forward to the Government, we reallyneed to take note.

The two central findings concern the medical andsocial harms, as others have indicated. The ACMDconcludes that khat has no direct causal link to adversemedical effects, other than a small number of reportsof an association between khat use and significantliver toxicity—a small number and an association. Inscientific lingo, as we know, “association” simply meansthat the two things tend to happen alongside eachother. There is no indication of a causal link betweenthe use of khat and medical consequences. On thequestion of anecdotal evidence of social harms, theACMD concludes that its research into these hasfound no robust evidence that demonstrates a causallink between khat consumption and any of the harmsindicated.

Professor Iversen emphasised in his letter to theHome Secretary that the council’s recommendationswere based on a rigorous and systematic process ofevidence-gathering and subsequent analysis of whatwas submitted and presented to it. In other words, as Iunderstand it, the recommendations should not be setaside other than for matters of serious national securityor national interest. Now my understanding is that themain reasons for the Home Secretary’s decision havenothing to do with medical and social risks, and aretwofold. First, as others mentioned, Sweden and theNetherlands in particular have banned khat and wouldfind it helpful if the UK took the same step in order toavoid this “hub”. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee,dealt very effectively with that point, bearing in mindthe very short life of the substances within khat thatpeople are interested in.

The other issue raised, which I find utterly peculiar,is that there is some relationship between khat use andterrorism. That is quite remarkable. I will deal with theterrorism issue very quickly. A very small trade in aperfectly legal, low-cost substance in a few BMEcommunities is just not a serious candidate for aterrorist threat or interest. Indeed, the ACMD was notprovided with any evidence of al-Shabaab or anyother terrorist group’s involvement in the export orsale of khat, despite consultation with the relevantnational and international official bodies. I understandthat the Home Secretary has claimed that the ACMDwould not have been aware of these things. However, itwas aware of the people who are aware of them—andconsulted them. The fact that the ACMD picked upnothing in this area should be taken seriously. On theother hand, banning a substance such as khat andincreasing its value a hundredfold or more really mightinterest terrorists. Even on that count, this ban couldbe—and could be expected to be—counterproductive.

The first question one must ask on the hub possibilityis whether the bans in these other countries are working.There is apparently no evidence that they are, or thatthey are even helpful. I would not expect them to behelpful. The idea that we follow other people simplybecause they want us to seems a little wrong.


[BARONESS MEACHER]I want to put a proposal with respect to khat. The

Government introduced temporary-class drug ordersfor the purpose of controlling new psychoactivesubstances. I will not go on for very long on this but Iwant to put it forward. I applaud the Government fortheir policy. Its great strength is that these TCDOs donot criminalise the possession and use of these drugswhile the TCDO remains in place. However, it providesfor the ban of production and sale of substances thatmay prove dangerous. These orders were designed toenable the ACMD to analyse new drugs and determinewhether a full ban under the Misuse of Drugs Act1971 could be justified. The only possible justificationgiven by the Government and Home Secretary—Iemphasise that—for a ban of khat concerns the supplyof khat to other European countries or supply involvingterrorists, not that that point needs to be taken seriously.An order along the lines of a TCDO, which avoidedcriminalising users of khat, would fulfil the Government’sobjectives while avoiding unnecessary and severeconsequences for the BME communities affected.

The 12-month review proposed in the amendmentwould then evaluate a narrower issue: the supply banand, for example, the price increase and illegal activitythat will inevitably result. The ACMD could do thatwork, its findings could be put to the Home Secretaryand, if the supply ban was seen not to be in thenational interest, it could be dropped. If the ACMDrecommended education and preventive initiatives, tailoredtreatments and other social interventions could thenbe funded instead of that money going into the criminaljustice system. There is an awful lot to be said for thatapproach. The ACMD thought about this very carefullyand that is what it came up with.

The above proposition is relevant even at this stage,if I may say so. We know that some 40% of legislationis never implemented. It is surely possible for theGovernment to implement only the supply side oftheir ban and defer—I hope indefinitely—theimplementation of the ban on possession and use ofkhat. Such a plan would enable a more focused 12-monthreview, as I have already mentioned. I hope the Ministerwill be willing to take this idea away, even at this latestage: a supply ban only could be introduced and thenevaluated to see whether it should continue.

6.45 pm

Lord Rea (Lab): My Lords, of course, in focusingon a topic such as this, almost everything that could besaid has been. My noble friend already included fourreasons in her amendment for not going ahead withthe reclassification of khat. All four reasons werecovered fairly fully by other speakers. There are anumber of other cogent reasons why the Governmentshould not go ahead with this proposal. Of course,a lot of them have been spoken to by other speakersas well.

Some of those reasons were stated very clearly inthe report of the ACMD—which the noble Baroness,Lady Meacher, described fully. That was sent to theHome Secretary in January last year and, after that,the Home Affairs Committee reported on this inNovember. I am not aware that the effects of khathave changed much since those reports were published.

The ACMD says that khat has no causal link toadverse medical effects other than a small number ofreports of an association between khat use and significantliver toxicity, which were not of sufficient importanceto recommend controlling the substance under theMisuse of Drugs Act. The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher,mentioned that it was an association, not a provencausal link. However, the report from the ACMD alsohad—as the noble Baroness said—a number of veryuseful recommendations to health and social careboards regarding khat that central and local governmentwould do well to study and implement.

The main argument put forward by the HomeOffice for banning khat is that otherwise the UKmight become a hub for its distribution—as mentionedby both the preceding speakers. However, if that werelikely to happen it would already be occurring, whereasin fact the use of khat in this country—and I assumethe importation of khat to this country, too—is falling.I repeat the question of the noble Baroness, LadyHamwee: can the Minister give us any figures aboutthe use and importation of khat in this country? Isthere any evidence of the smuggling of khat out ofthis country to Europe? As the noble Baroness, LadyHamwee, said, that is very difficult because it must bedone within two or three days or khat is more or lessunsalable.

The most important reason for not going aheadwith this order is—as the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher,said—the unintended consequences that will follow.Just to start with, the use of khat will probably notcome down any faster than it already is. Banningsubstances that are widely used has little effect on thelevel of use. This is a fact that Governments—not onlythis one—are rather reluctant to accept. Another seriousconsequence would be—as the noble Baroness, LadyMeacher, said—to criminalise a section of an alreadypoor and marginalised community: the Somalis inBritain and, to a lesser extent, some Kenyan immigrantsand Yemenis. Perhaps the most important consequencemight be the substitution of khat by more powerfulalternatives, as already mentioned, including alcoholand other stimulants such as crack cocaine and otherforms of speed—amphetamines or mephedrone. I joinwith other noble Lords and Baronesses in pleadingwith the Minister to reconsider the proposal to goahead with this order for the very good reasons thatthe noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, put so cogently.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: My Lords, I welcome thisfurther opportunity to set out the Government’s approach,which allows me to focus, in particular, on the activitiesto support the successful implementation of the banon khat. That has lain at the heart of concerns raisedby noble Lords, which I take seriously. I am reassuredthat the points raised in today’s debate are nearly allmatters that were taken into account in the earlystages of our decision-making when we consideredour response to the issues associated with this drug.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the nobleLord, Lord Rea, asked what new figures we had onthis drug. The new evidence, including reports fromlaw enforcement agencies, emerged after the ACMDpublished its report and the Dutch banned khat inJanuary 2013. It pointed to an increase in the volume


of khat in transit via the UK to European countrieswhere it is banned. The latest update for the first threemonths of this year shows that 17 seizures of khat—witha combined net weight of over 11.5 tonnes—originatingin the UK, were made in France en route to othercountries where it is banned, including Denmark,Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands. This is evidencethat this country is becoming a substantial hub for thismaterial.

Before I address the particular concerns of thenoble Baroness, Lady Smith—

Baroness Smith of Basildon: The Minister hasgiven helpful figures, but can he give comparativefigures on how the situation has changed over time?The premise is that if seizures of illegal imports are up,they must be up against another figure. I made thispoint in Committee; we had figures but not comparativeones.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I do not have those figuresto hand. I think the noble Baroness will understandthat, if this material is arriving here to be distributedto other countries, as I have illustrated, it confirms theview that this country is serving as a distribution hubin a way that would not have happened before thosecountries banned its use. That is the point which theGovernment have had to consider. The noble Baronesscame to see us and we had a good and useful meeting,talking about issues that concern her. I will addressthese but I would like to consider the points made byother speakers first.

My noble friend Lady Hamwee wanted to knowwhat the Somali network’s report had to say. Animportant aspect of this is that, according to testimonygiven by community leaders and mothers, several areasof a person’s life can be affected by khat use.Disagreements and frustration over drug use can causefamily arguments and affect personal relationships;legal and health problems associated with khat useadd to the strain on personal, financial and workrelationships; and chewers of khat tend to be moreinward looking rather than reaching out to others,fuelling further segregation. In other words, it can beanti-social in its impact.

The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, rang me thismorning to advise me that she wanted some assuranceson this issue. I cannot give her the assurances that sheis seeking but I can, at least, explain the Government’sthinking. She asked what the ACMD thought of ourdecision to control khat. The ACMD acknowledgedthe lack of robust evidence on whether khat causedmedical or social harm. It understood that the scopeof issues that the Government will take into accountto make a decision on drug control would go beyondthe remit of the committee itself. Before the decisionwas publicly announced, the Government discussed itwith the chairman of ACMD, who accepted that wecame to a different view on this occasion, based onconsideration of the wider issues beyond those thatwere the immediate responsibility of ACMD.

The noble Baroness asked about temporary bans.They form part of the Police Reform and SocialResponsibility Act 2011 but they are very different.Temporary class drug orders were introduced as a

swift legislative tool to tackle the fast-paced emergencein the UK of psychoactive substances or so-called“legal highs”. I have debated these with the nobleBaroness on other occasions. In essence, they are usedwhere there is an urgent or significant threat to publicsafety or health. There is often very little evidence ofthe harm these drugs do, for the simple reason thatthey have been available only for a matter of months,if not weeks. Under a temporary class drug order, theadvisory council has just 20 working days to adviseand only looks at medical harms. Temporary bans arethe exception, not the rule, and only last for 12 months.Khat is not a new drug where such swift, temporaryaction is demanded.

The role of advisors is to advise—

Baroness Meacher: Does the Minister accept thatthe whole point about khat is that the ACMD did lookat the potential medical and social harms and concludedthat they did not justify a ban? The supply-sideissues, which Professor Iverson accepts may be slightlybeyond the council’s remit, are separate. My point isthat, if you accept the ACMD’s conclusions that themedical and social harms are low and would notjustify a ban—and it was very clear about that—thecase for criminalising possession and use really is notthere. Hence there is a value in something akin to atemporary class drug order: I was not suggesting thatyou literally translate it completely. Does the Ministeraccept that focusing simply on supply makes sense, interms of the Home Secretary’s comments and theevidence available?

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I cannot accept that.When I spoke to the noble Baroness earlier, I said thatI did not think I would be able to give her muchcomfort. We did not reject the ACMD’s report. As Iexplained, the ACMD is there to advise on particularaspects but, in the end, Ministers have to make decisionsand be prepared to stand by them.

I turn to the points made by the noble Baroness,Lady Smith of Basildon. She has considerable concernsthat we have not made proper efforts to prepare affectedcommunities for this ban. I want to reassure her thatwe have done exactly that. We acknowledge that this isa finely balanced decision that needs careful and extensivepreparation at national and local level. Our plans,which have been worked up over a couple of months,are in place and are ready to be rolled out once thedraft order completes its parliamentary passage. Weare waiting on a decision of the House to approve theorder today.

I ask the House to note that, although we took adifferent view from the ACMD, we took on board itsrecommendations for locally led health and community-based interventions to meet local khat needs and formonitoring the situation in communities. I know thatthe noble Baroness would like to have a review after ayear. We see it as a matter of continuous review andare specifying that a close eye will be kept on theimpact of the ban. In this, we are going beyond theusual approach to the monitoring of newly controlleddrugs, to ensure that locally and nationally collecteddata provide an evolving picture after the ban.


7 pmOur policing response must be fair, consistent,

proportionate and sensitive to local issues and communityrelations. We are grateful to the national policing leadon drugs, Chief Constable Andy Bliss, for taking apersonal interest in the development of the lawenforcement approach to khat and consulting policingleads on counterterrorism, stop and search and out-of-court disposals, which are all aspects that policing hasto consider.

Working with the police, we have bespoke nationalpolicing guidance with a graduated system for dealingwith khat possession cases. I apologise to the nobleBaroness if I have not made a copy of that available toher. It is not a Home Office document but a policedocument. I will seek to secure it for her. In addition,we have a national community impact assessment,informed by 13 high-priority police forces, highlightingthe specific issues that require a tailored communitypolicing response. We expect it to be updated followingthe ban, and this will feed in to our monitoring activity.

The noble Baroness was very mindful of the needto support Somali communities. The Government haveintroduced reforms that empower local authorities toserve their communities’ needs. Khat is a local issue inmany places and is best addressed through commissioningappropriate services tailored to the local community.This approach is in keeping with the advisory council’sfindings, which made specific recommendations in thisregard.

Public health directors and commissioners of healthservices will be central in delivering and reviewing ourhealth and prevention response. Khat is now part ofPublic Health England’s joint strategic needs assessmentguidance which analyses the health needs of a localpopulation and informs how health, well-being andsocial care services are commissioned within localauthority areas.

The Government’s drug information service FRANKwill support wider prevention work, including onlinematerials, such as the khat fact sheets translated intoArabic, Amharic, Somali and Swahili for use by localorganisations.

We know that community leaders and relevant localauthorities are ready to act. We have seen case studiesof local partnership preparations which set out actionsfor community engagement and co-ordinated approachesacross health, prevention, integration and law enforcement.We will also publish them so that learning can beshared and promoted.

The noble Baroness is right to raise the concernthat khat users might replace it with other drugs oralcohol. We have considered this complex questionwith the Department of Health. The department’sapproach will focus on preventive activities, includingpublic health messaging, to alert khat users, specificallydependent and vulnerable users, to the dangers ofother drugs and signpost them to support services.

The noble Baroness mentioned the conversation wehad about support for Kenya. It is right that ourdecision to control khat is concerned primarily withthe protection of the UK public and with the UK’sability to reduce the threat posed by the international

khat-trafficking trade. Nevertheless we are committedto giving as much notice as possible to our internationalpartners, including Kenya. The UK has a long-standingand constructive relationship with Kenya, a friendlynation. Our engagement includes a programme of aidto development that supports the delivery of independentprojects, such as the market access programme, whichis working to lift low-income Kenyan households outof poverty through access to high-value markets.

This co-ordinated response is in keeping with ouroverarching aims: to protect the public and communitiesfrom drug harms and to support dependent and vulnerableusers into recovery. I assure the noble Baroness, LadySmith of Basildon, that our response has been devisedwith those communities that use khat very particularlyin mind, and we will continue to work with ourpartners, including those communities, to support thesuccessful implementation of the ban.

This is the Government’s response to the amendment.I am sorry that the noble Baroness felt she had to tableit. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have illuminatedthis debate. I respectfully ask the noble Baroness towithdraw her Motion, and I commend the two ordersto the House.

Baroness Smith of Basildon: My Lords, as on manyother occasions, I am grateful to the Minister for thetime and care he takes in responding to issues raised indebate. I hope he understands that the only contributionsmade in your Lordships’ House today have expressedconcerns about the Government’s actions regardingthe ban on this drug. Our concern is that, with adecision as finely balanced as the Minister said, how itis implemented is very important.

I was somewhat surprised at the uncharacteristicallyungenerous comments made by the noble Baroness,Lady Hamwee. She said we were looking for somethingto do. I find that a curious expression when we arelooking at a very serious issue on a busy day in yourLordships’ House. These issues strike at the heart ofhow such a policy would be implemented. The nobleBaroness said that she was unhappy with the amendmentbefore us, but it is open to any Member of yourLordships’ House to table a regret Motion or anyother kind of Motion.

We debated this issue in Grand Committee andtoday. Noble Lords will understand that there aregrave concerns about the Government’s action. I amgrateful to the Minister for giving us more informationon policing. My greatest disappointment is on theissue of health. In a previous debate on drugs, towhich I think the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, responded,I said that the FRANK website is not really an answerin cases such as this because somebody has to beinterested in order to access it in the first place. As theGovernment are seeking to ban this drug, they have tobe very proactive.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I am sure the nobleBaroness will admit that this is not the sole interventionthat the Government are making but is part and parcelof a package of health and community activities thatthe Government have commissioned. Public HealthEngland is and will be very active in pursing this ban.


Baroness Smith of Basildon: That is helpful, and Ilook forward to receiving more information. The pointis that the measures must be in place and understoodprior to the implementation of any ban. My greatestdisappointment is that the Minister has failed to committo a review. For us, that is crucial. At the 12-monthpoint, there should be a full understanding and publishedfigures and information. Given that it is such a finelybalanced decision, to say that there will be continuousreview seems to be an opportunity not to have theserious review that we are seeking. I am grateful to theMinister for his response, but I am disappointed thathe has not been able to address all the points that weraised. I wish to test the opinion of the House.

7.08 pm

Division on Baroness Smith of Basildon’s amendment tothe Motion.

Contents 125; Not-Contents 216.

Baroness Smith of Basildon’s amendment to the Motiondisagreed.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Adams of Craigielea, B.Adonis, L.Alli, L.Anderson of Swansea, L.Andrews, B.Armstrong of Hill Top, B.Bach, L.Bassam of Brighton, L.

[Teller]Beecham, L.Berkeley, L.Blood, B.Boateng, L.Borrie, L.Bradley, L.Brennan, L.Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.Brookman, L.Carter of Coles, L.Clark of Windermere, L.Collins of Highbury, L.Crawley, B.Davies of Oldham, L.Davies of Stamford, L.Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde,

B.Donaghy, B.Drake, B.Dubs, L.Eames, L.Elder, L.Elystan-Morgan, L.Farrington of Ribbleton, B.Finlay of Llandaff, B.Foster of Bishop Auckland, L.Foulkes of Cumnock, L.Freyberg, L.Gale, B.Gibson of Market Rasen, B.Giddens, L.Glasman, L.Goldsmith, L.Gould of Potternewton, B.Grantchester, L.

Grocott, L.Hameed, L.Harris of Haringey, L.Harrison, L.Hart of Chilton, L.Haworth, L.Hayter of Kentish Town, B.Healy of Primrose Hill, B.Howe of Idlicote, B.Howie of Troon, L.Hoyle, L.Hughes of Stretford, B.Hunt of Chesterton, L.Jones, L.Jones of Whitchurch, B.Jordan, L.Judd, L.Kennedy of Cradley, B.Kennedy of Southwark, L.Kinnock, L.Kinnock of Holyhead, B.Kirkhill, L.Knight of Weymouth, L.Layard, L.Lea of Crondall, L.Liddell of Coatdyke, B.Lister of Burtersett, B.Low of Dalston, L.McAvoy, L.McFall of Alcluith, L.McIntosh of Hudnall, B.MacKenzie of Culkein, L.McKenzie of Luton, L.Massey of Darwen, B.Maxton, L.Meacher, B.Mitchell, L.Moonie, L.Morgan, L.Morgan of Drefelin, B.Morris of Handsworth, L.Noon, L.Nye, B.O’Loan, B.

O’Neill of Clackmannan, L.Pendry, L.Pitkeathley, B.Plant of Highfield, L.Ramsay of Cartvale, B.Rea, L.Reid of Cardowan, L.Rendell of Babergh, B.Richard, L.Rosser, L.Rowlands, L.Royall of Blaisdon, B.Sherlock, B.Simon, V.Smith of Basildon, B.Smith of Finsbury, L.Soley, L.Stern, B.Stevenson of Balmacara, L.Stone of Blackheath, L.

Taylor of Bolton, B.Temple-Morris, L.Thornton, B.Tonge, B.Tunnicliffe, L. [Teller]Turner of Camden, B.Wall of New Barnet, B.Warnock, B.Warwick of Undercliffe, B.Watson of Invergowrie, L.Wheeler, B.Whitaker, B.Whitty, L.Wigley, L.Wilkins, B.Wills, L.Worthington, B.Young of Hornsey, B.Young of Norwood Green, L.

NOT CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.Addington, L.Ahmad of Wimbledon, L.Anelay of St Johns, B. [Teller]Arran, E.Ashdown of Norton-sub-

Hamdon, L.Astor of Hever, L.Attlee, E.Bakewell of Hardington

Mandeville, B.Barker, B.Bates, L.Benjamin, B.Berridge, B.Bilimoria, L.Blencathra, L.Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury,

B.Borwick, L.Bourne of Aberystwyth, L.Brabazon of Tara, L.Brinton, B.Brooke of Sutton Mandeville,

L.Brookeborough, V.Brougham and Vaux, L.Browne of Belmont, L.Browning, B.Burnett, L.Byford, B.Caithness, E.Carlile of Berriew, L.Carrington of Fulham, L.Chadlington, L.Chalker of Wallasey, B.Chidgey, L.Clement-Jones, L.Colwyn, L.Cope of Berkeley, L.Cormack, L.Courtown, E.Craigavon, V.Crickhowell, L.Cumberlege, B.Curry of Kirkharle, L.De Mauley, L.Dear, L.Deben, L.Denham, L.Dobbs, L.Donoughue, L.Doocey, B.Eaton, B.Eccles, V.

Eccles of Moulton, B.Edmiston, L.Elton, L.Empey, L.Faulks, L.Fearn, L.Fink, L.Finkelstein, L.Flight, L.Fookes, B.Forsyth of Drumlean, L.Fowler, L.Framlingham, L.Freud, L.Garden of Frognal, B.Gardiner of Kimble, L.Gardner of Parkes, B.German, L.Glasgow, E.Glenarthur, L.Glendonbrook, L.Gold, L.Goodlad, L.Grade of Yarmouth, L.Greenway, L.Grender, B.Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.Hamilton of Epsom, L.Hanham, B.Henley, L.Heyhoe Flint, B.Higgins, L.Hill of Oareford, L.Hodgson of Abinger, B.Hodgson of Astley Abbotts,

L.Holmes of Richmond, L.Hooper, B.Horam, L.Howe, E.Howell of Guildford, L.Humphreys, B.Hunt of Wirral, L.Hussain, L.Hussein-Ece, B.Inglewood, L.James of Blackheath, L.Jenkin of Kennington, B.Jenkin of Roding, L.Jolly, B.Jones of Moulsecoomb, B.Jopling, L.King of Bridgwater, L.Kirkham, L.Kirkwood of Kirkhope, L.


Knight of Collingtree, B.Lamont of Lerwick, L.Lang of Monkton, L.Lawson of Blaby, L.Lee of Trafford, L.Lexden, L.Lingfield, L.Linklater of Butterstone, B.Liverpool, E.Livingston of Parkhead, L.Loomba, L.Luke, L.Lyell, L.McColl of Dulwich, L.MacGregor of Pulham

Market, L.Mackay of Clashfern, L.Maclennan of Rogart, L.Maddock, B.Maginnis of Drumglass, L.Mancroft, L.Manzoor, B.Marks of Henley-on-Thames,

L.Marlesford, L.Martin of Springburn, L.Masham of Ilton, B.Mawson, L.Mayhew of Twysden, L.Morris of Bolton, B.Neville-Rolfe, B.Newby, L. [Teller]Newlove, B.Noakes, B.Northbrook, L.Northover, B.Norton of Louth, L.Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.O’Cathain, B.Oppenheim-Barnes, B.Paddick, L.Palmer of Childs Hill, L.Parminter, B.Patel, L.Perry of Southwark, B.Popat, L.Purvis of Tweed, L.Randerson, B.Rawlings, B.Razzall, L.Redesdale, L.Rennard, L.Ribeiro, L.Ridley, V.Risby, L.Roberts of Llandudno, L.Rogan, L.

Roper, L.Rowe-Beddoe, L.Ryder of Wensum, L.St John of Bletso, L.Sanderson of Bowden, L.Scott of Needham Market, B.Seccombe, B.Selkirk of Douglas, L.Shackleton of Belgravia, B.Sharp of Guildford, B.Sharples, B.Sheikh, L.Shephard of Northwold, B.Sherbourne of Didsbury, L.Shipley, L.Shrewsbury, E.Shutt of Greetland, L.Spicer, L.Stedman-Scott, B.Steel of Aikwood, L.Stephen, L.Stoneham of Droxford, L.Storey, L.Stowell of Beeston, B.Strathclyde, L.Suttie, B.Taverne, L.Taylor of Goss Moor, L.Taylor of Holbeach, L.Thomas of Gresford, L.Tope, L.Trefgarne, L.Trimble, L.True, L.Tugendhat, L.Tyler, L.Tyler of Enfield, B.Ullswater, V.Verjee, L.Verma, B.Wakeham, L.Wallace of Saltaire, L.Wallace of Tankerness, L.Walmsley, B.Walpole, L.Warsi, B.Wasserman, L.Watson of Richmond, L.Wei, L.Wheatcroft, B.Whitby, L.Wilcox, B.Williams of Trafford, B.Willis of Knaresborough, L.Wrigglesworth, L.Younger of Leckie, V.

Motion agreed.

Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001(Amendment) Order 2014

Motion to Approve

7.20 pm


That the draft Order laid before the House on4 November 2013 be approved.

Relevant document: 13th Report from the JointCommittee on Statutory Instruments. Considered inGrand Committee on 31 March

Motion agreed.

Licensing Act 2003 (FIFA World CupLicensing Hours) Order 2014

Motion to Approve

7.21 pm


To move that the draft Order laid before theHouse on 1 April be approved.

Relevant document: 26th Report from the JointCommittee on Statutory Instruments

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, HomeOffice (Lord Taylor of Holbeach) (Con): My Lords,this order makes provision for the relaxation of licensinghours in England during World Cup matches in whichEngland is playing. The 2014 World Cup will behosted by Brazil, and the difference between the respectivetime zones means that several matches will kick offlate in the evening and finish after the traditionalclosing time of 11 pm. The purpose of the licensinghours order is to allow people to enjoy the matcheswhile minimising the administrative burden on licensingauthorities and licensed premises, which would otherwiseneed to provide notice that they intended to extendtheir hours.

Section 172 of the Licensing Act 2003 allows theSecretary of State to make an order relaxing openinghours for licensed premises to mark occasions of,“exceptional international, national or local significance”.

The coalition Government consider that England playingin the World Cup is an event of exceptional nationalsignificance, which many people will want to celebratetogether.

We consulted in March on whether to relax licensinghours nationally. We received nearly 1,500 responsesto our online consultation: 500 of those were frommembers of the public and 75% of all responses werein favour of the national relaxation. In addition, weconsulted key strategic partners who represent a rangeof views, including the police, licensing authorities,the licensed trade, residents’ associations and healthbodies. Some of these stakeholders raised concernsabout late-night drinking leading to crime, disorderand public nuisance. We have sought to strike a balanceby limiting the periods when licensing hours will berelaxed.

We believe that the vast majority of people willenjoy watching matches responsibly. The British Beerand Pub Association, in partnership with the LocalGovernment Association and the Association of ChiefPolice Officers, has published guidance for licensedpremises which intend to show the World Cup matches.The guidance aims to encourage the licensed trade towork together with the police and licensing authoritiesto ensure the safety of the public.

The order would apply to all licensed premises inEngland. It will cover the sale of alcohol and late-nightrefreshment for consumption on the premises duringthose matches in which England is playing. It willapply for a maximum of four hours for matches with ascheduled kick-off time of 8 pm or later, to a latesttime of 1 am.

1717 1718[LORDS]Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 Licensing Act 2003 Order 2014

The order will apply to England only. We consultedon whether the order should have effect in Englandand Wales, or England only. We received only 25 responsesfrom people who live or work in Wales, just over 2% ofthe total received. While Welsh respondents wantedlicensing hours to be relaxed during the World Cup,the majority favoured it being done using the existingsystem of temporary event notices, rather than a blanketrelaxation. This is consistent with what the Governmenthave done: a national blanket relaxation in England,with licensed premises able to use the temporary eventnotices in Wales.

The Government have sought the views of thosewho would be affected by a relaxation in licensinghours. We have carefully considered their responses,including concerns about increased crime, disorderand public nuisance, and balanced this with reducingthe burden on businesses which would otherwise needto use a temporary event notice to extend their openinghours. We have limited the relaxation to a maximumof four hours after the scheduled kick-off time, to alatest time of 1 am. This is a modest relaxation inlicensing hours to allow those who wish to celebratethe occasion to do so.

I hope that noble Lords will agree with the Governmentthat the licensing hours order is an appropriate use ofthe powers conferred on the Home Secretary by theLicensing Act. With that, I commend the order to theHouse.

Lord Addington (LD): My Lords, briefly, this orderthat we extend licensing hours is an appropriate responseto the celebration of a major national occasion. However,I would like to ask the Government a couple of otherquestions. The unfortunate fact is that things such asdomestic abuse tend to go up when alcohol is consumedaround sporting events. I was recently made aware ofthe White Ribbon Campaign, which tries to deal withother sporting groups, making sure that they are awarethat this goes on and is unacceptable.

Will the Government be doing something to makesure that people such as, for instance, the footballauthorities—those who profit from this—accept thatthis type of behaviour is as unacceptable after theevent as anything that would go on at the event,effectively making people aware that if you have had afew drinks and a great night out, you should not takeout any frustrations on the person at home when youget back? It would be a good idea if that responsibilitywas passed on to all those who profit from this. Mostpeople do not indulge in this; it is not a compulsoryelement, so a ban is not appropriate. Those who profitfrom this should be making sure that those who mightuse this as cover for anti-social behaviour, particularlyin the privacy of a home, are aware that it is notacceptable.

I hope that the Government have a reasonablypositive attitude towards this, if only as somethingthat will develop out of this in the future. We must beaware that celebrations can mask anti-social activity.

Lord Rosser (Lab): My Lords, I thank the Ministerfor explaining the purpose and intent of the order,which we shall not be opposing as we accept that thereshould be arrangements for extending licensing hours

during the World Cup. However, the order raises asmany questions as it answers, although in one area it isvery explicit. In paragraph 37 of the impact assessment,it says:

“While England are certain to be playing in the matches in thefirst period, there is a high probability that they will not beplaying in the later matches”.

It is good to know what the Government think ofEngland’s prospects.

As the Minister has said, Section 172 of the LicensingAct 2003 confers on the Secretary of State the powerto make a national licensing hours order if she considersthat a period—I gather it is known as the “celebrationperiod”—marks an occasion of exceptional international,national or local significance. The specified period,which is part or all of the celebration period, cannotexceed four days but means that premises’ licences andclub premises’ certifications have effect as if timesspecified in the order were included in the openinghours authorised by the licence or certificate. Thealternative option available would be to use the existingsystem of temporary event notices, which means thatdecisions would be made locally and specific conditionscould be attached to the granting of any notices toreflect the local situation, or an extension could berefused for specific premises about which there wereconcerns.

The Government have come to the conclusion thatEngland’s participation in the World Cup this summer,however brief they think it might be, is an occasion ofexceptional national significance which justifies theextension of licensing hours to enable fans to watchthe matches at pubs and other licensed premises acrossthe country. The other occasions on which the Section172 power was used were the royal wedding in 2011and the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee in 2012. The footballWorld Cup is now on a par with those two occasions,as the power has never before been used for a sportstournament. It would be interesting to know whetherthe Government will also consider the likely participationof the England women’s football team in the WorldCup—which I think will be held in Canada nextyear—as a similar occasion of exceptional nationalsignificance.

7.30 pmThe order extends licensing hours with regard to

England’s group matches with Italy and Uruguay,since these games will not kick off until the lateevening our time due to the time difference betweenourselves and Brazil. It will also extend the licensinghours with regard to any matches in the later stages ofthe World Cup in which England participate—althoughthat will of course be dependent on England still beingin the tournament. The Government’s proposal is thatfor all England matches in the World Cup with ascheduled kick-off time of 8 pm or later, licensinghours should be extended until four hours after kick-offbut no later than one in the morning.

Can the Minister confirm that even though we livein a multinational society, this order will not extend toany matches in which England are not participating,and thus would not cover the World Cup final if, forexample, Spain played Brazil or another European

1719 1720[12 MAY 2014]Licensing Act 2003 Order 2014 Licensing Act 2003 Order 2014

[LORD ROSSER]country in that final? Can he confirm that any licensedpremises that wish to extend their licensing hours forthe final in this situation would have to do so througha temporary event notice? If so, what is the Government’sestimate of the likely number of such applicationsbearing in mind that the impact assessment seems toindicate that the degree of interest in the final wouldbe on a par with any England match, which theGovernment deem it necessary to deal with by thisSection 172 order? Can the Minister say how manylicensed premises covered by this order have everpreviously applied for a temporary event notice? Inother words, will establishments which have neverbeen through the process of meeting the requirementsof a temporary event notice be granted an automaticextension to licensing hours under this order?

The government consultation on this issue ran from13 to 26 March. As the Minister said, the ExplanatoryMemorandum says that there were just under 1,500responses to the online consultation. The departmentalso wrote to nine key stakeholders asking for a moredetailed response. The Explanatory Memorandum saysthat those representing licensing authorities andenforcement bodies were not in favour of a nationalrelaxation, while those who represent the licensedtrade or football supporters were in favour.

The Explanatory Memorandum is a little thin onthe downside of the Government’s proposals. It tellsus that the financial benefit to on-trade premises couldbe £1.35 million, and we also learn from the impactassessment that the preferred option presents the“maximum benefits to business” and that the policyobjective is to enable businesses to fully reap thebenefits of increased licensable activities during theWorld Cup. No other considerations seem to get muchof a look-in. As far as additional policing costs areconcerned, the document tells us that,“the operational response will vary from force to force and withinforce, depending on the perception of likely crime and disorderassociated with late night opening. We do not know how manymore officers police forces would have to roster or for how long,so we are unable to monetise these costs”.

It seems rather odd that it is not possible to provideany figures. Are the police saying that they cannotprovide an estimate? Perhaps the Minister can saywhether that is the case and whether the Governmenthave asked the police. One would have thought, forexample, that a police and crime commissioner mighthave been interested in additional costs that are likelyto be incurred as the result of a government decision,bearing in mind that the additional costs are mostlikely to be incurred in respect of licensed premisesthat might have had their applications for extensionsdeclined or conditions attached to them under theexisting locally based temporary event notice procedure,but will apparently get the extension automaticallyunder this government order. Who will be responsiblefor finding the money for any additional policing costsincurred? Will it be the taxpayer, whether national orlocal?

The Government have decided not to use the existinglocally based system of temporary event notices. Doesthat mean that they do not feel that local licensinghours for England matches at the World Cup is an

issue on which it is appropriate to have local decision-making that takes into account the differing circumstancesand views there may be in different areas? The enforcementand licensing authorities may well have very goodreasons for feeling that it would not be appropriate forthis extension in licensing hours to apply to specificestablishments. There may be particular locations wherethere would be strong objections from local residents.What happens in those circumstances? Does that meanthat the licensing hours are extended in respect ofspecific establishments irrespective of objections, howeverwell founded or legitimate, by the enforcement orlicensing authorities or by local residents? If that is thecase, how does that decision relate to the Government’slocalism agenda?

The Local Government Association said in its responseto the Government:

“A blanket extension to opening hours, determined nationally,runs counter to the objectives set out in the Licensing Act 2003and would remove the ability of councils to take local issues intoaccount when reaching licensing decisions. Further, a one size fitsall approach would mean that councils are not able to agreeconditions that help to mitigate any potential problems … Ablanket extension would make it difficult for the local council andthe police to have a definitive picture of which premises intend toremain open for longer, making effective planning much harder”.

The Association of Chief Police Officers said in itsresponse:

“I have no doubt whatsoever that a blanket relaxation oflicensing legislation during the period of the 2014 World Cup inBrazil would lead to a rise in public order related incidents and,by extension, increased demand upon the police service. The taskof monitoring, predicting and reacting to football related incidentswill be made significantly more difficult should the governmentdecide not to require licensed premises to apply for TemporaryEvent Notices during the World Cup. Without the ability to focuson specific premises, forces would potentially have to over-predictthe likelihood of public disorder which, in turn, would result ingreater cost to the public purse. The advantage of TemporaryEvent Notices is that they allow police forces to adapt their publicorder plans to more accurately reflect the probable demand basedupon targeted intelligence”.

We can also look at what the Mayor’s Office forPolicing and Crime had to say in its response to thegovernment consultation:

“MOPAC believes that a local approach to licensing hoursduring this period would therefore be most appropriate. Leavinglicensing decisions to local determination means that any applicationsfor extended opening hours (using the Temporary Event Noticesystem) can be balanced against local circumstances and anypotential adverse impacts on the surrounding community. LocalCouncils and partners such as the Police understand the natureand operation of establishments in their areas and are best placedto grant or refuse these requests”.

The Government also asked for the views of theNational Organisation of Residents Associations, whichin its response said that the temporary event noticesregime,“a simple and economic facility for those licensees wishing toextend their licensing hours, gives some influence to the policeand environmental health officers to limit and prevent seriousproblems where they know they might occur. To remove thisfacility that protects the community and other football supportersis surely unwise. Granting this proposal to relax the licensinghours regulations for the 2014 World Cup matches involvingEngland is highly likely to lead to avoidable serious adverse eventsaffecting residents, who after all comprise the general public”.

I hope that the Minister will respond to the pointsand questions that I have raised and that he willexplain in a bit more detail why the Government

1721 1722[LORDS]Licensing Act 2003 Order 2014 Licensing Act 2003 Order 2014

decided not to give greater weight to the views of thepolice, residents, local authorities and the Mayor’sOffice for Policing and Crime. The argument of theorganisations and bodies to which I have just referredis not that no extension of hours should be agreed forEngland matches but that the decision should bemade, as now, locally, rather than by a blanket nationalorder, which does not allow local knowledge,circumstances or objections to be taken into accountwhen making decisions, thus enabling where justifiedsome applications to be rejected and others to haveconditions attached to them.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: My Lords, I welcome thedebate on this order. I am not entirely sure where thenoble Lord, Lord Rosser, stands on the issue beforeus—

Lord Rosser: I thought that I made that clear whenI started. I said that we were not opposing it as weaccepted that there was a need to provide arrangementsfor extended hours during the World Cup. What I amraising with the Government is how views were soughtfrom a number of stakeholders, to which I have referred.They covered the police and the Mayor’s office, as wellas local government and residents, who were not sayingthat there should not be an extension but asked whywe could not stick with the current procedure oftemporary event notices, which allow local circumstancesto be taken into account, rather than doing it on ablanket basis, which, unless the Minister is going totell me to the contrary, does not allow local circumstancesto be taken into account.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: It was that point of whichI was uncertain—as to whether the Opposition were infavour of doing it through this measure. I am stillunsure. I understand exactly what he has said—

Lord Rosser: I am asking the Minister to explain inrather more detail why, in the face of those pointsmade by the organisations to which I referred, theGovernment are saying that the best approach is thenational blanket decision rather than a continuationof temporary event orders. We are not opposing thisorder as we recognise that there has to be a facility forextension of licensing hours. But we are curious as towhy the Government are so keen to go down the roadof the national blanket order, which does not allowlocal circumstances to be taken into account, bearingin mind the nature of the comments that came backfrom the police and the Mayor’s office, residents’organisations and the Local Government Association.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: Of course, the overwhelmingnumber of comments were in favour of using thismeasure. I accept what the noble Lord says. He is quiteright to challenge the Government on why they havemade this decision. I think that England’s participationin the World Cup is an occasion that many people willwant to enjoy in an atmosphere of clubs or bars wherethey will be enjoying themselves with other people. Weconsider it appropriate that the World Cup is seen asan event of exceptional national significance for thepurposes of Section 172 of the Licensing Act.

Before I go on to the points raised by the nobleLord, Lord Rosser, I would like to respond to mynoble friend Lord Addington, who mentioned thevery serious consideration of domestic violence. It isinteresting that we have a domestic violence debatetomorrow, which I am also involved in. In truth, thereis very little recent evidence that shows that incidentsof domestic violence increase during sporting events,although in the past there have been occasions whensuch phenomena have been reported. Women’s Aidwill run a campaign to raise awareness about domesticviolence during the period of the World Cup, and thatcampaign is supported by the Home Office.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked whether we aregoing to extend the blanket provision to matches whenEngland is not playing, such as the World Cup final. Itis acknowledged that an awful lot of people willprobably watch those games, but the power underwhich this order is being made allows for the relaxationfor events of exceptional national significance and weconsider that this would not meet the criteria if Englandwas not playing in the final.

On that basis, the noble Lord has clearly read withinterest the impact assessment. I am pleased that he isimpressed by the intellectual rigour with which theGovernment draw up those assessments. He is quiteright. It says that England are certain to play in thematches of the first period of the tournament—Ithink that we can all agree on that—but that there is ahigh probability that England will not play in latermatches. That is a matter of opinion, and I am surethat other noble Lords will have different views onthat issue. But the use of Betfair and its interactivewebsite was the basis for that assessment.

7.45 pm

Lord Rosser: As I understand it, the Minister hassaid that a blanket order could not apply to the final ifEngland was not participating in it. Am I not right insaying that Section 172 can be applied to mark occasionsof exceptional international significance as well asnational significance?

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: The noble Lord is absolutelyright, but the Government have not taken the viewthat that particular definition applies in this instance.We are limiting it to those games in which England isplaying.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked about additionalpolicing costs, crime and disorder and the cost to thetaxpayer. We are mindful that late-night drinking canlead to crime and disorder as well as public nuisancebut, because these matches will be identified and thesituations known, the order is restricted to the sale ofalcohol and late-night refreshment in pubs, clubs andanywhere else where alcohol is consumed on the premises.It is not an off-the-premises order.

The noble Lord asked about giving the police extrafunding for this. No, this is not an event for whichextra funding would be provided. He also asked whetherthere would be other occasions on which footballevents would be covered, and mentioned the women’sWorld Cup. Each occasion is assessed on a case-by-casebasis, based on whether they could be considered of


[LORD TAYLOR OF HOLBEACH]significance, alongside other circumstances, such astime, location, and the impact on public safety. Thosethings are carefully considered before orders such asthis one are brought before the House.

The noble Lord asked how it would be possible toplan policing. The police will use their relationshipwith premises to determine which premises would beextending their licensing hours and will manage risksaccordingly. He asked how we squared this proposalwith our localism approach. The Government havedecided that England’s participation in the World Cupis an exceptional national event. Due to the late kick-offtimes, which we cannot help, since Brazil is west ofhere, it is appropriate to relax licensing hours for amodest length of time in relation to these matters.This order provides a temporary change only in licensinghours during World Cup 2014.

Licensing hours have been relaxed before, as I havesaid. The order provides a temporary change, specificallyfor England’s matches. Future events and occasionswill be considered on a case-by-case basis. This licensinghours order will reduce the burden on businesses,which is why we have chosen this path, when otherwisethey would need to use temporary event notices toextend their opening hours. It will reduce the burdenon licensing authorities, which would have to processthe notices.

Lord Rosser: I am still not clear on the question ofadditional policing costs. Can the Minister say thatthe additional policing costs will be less than what theGovernment described as the benefit to on-trade premisesof £1.35 million?

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: My Lords, I cannot saycategorically what the actual increase in costs will beand I certainly cannot state categorically the degree towhich the order will increase police costs. I think thata far more difficult situation would arise if Englandwere playing, clubs, pubs and bars were not open andthere was informal activity on private premises. Atleast the order allows policing to be planned as itenables the police to know which licensed premiseswill be open during these events.

Lord Addington: Before my noble friend sits down,I hope that I can ask him one more question. I askedwhether those who will profit from the World Cup willbe given a little more encouragement to make sure thatdomestic abuse issues are brought to the public’s attention.As the audience we are talking about is predominantlymale and the problem to which I referred is predominantlya male problem, this might be a good time to raiseawareness of it and establish an ongoing duty in thisregard. That was what I was trying to get at. I did notget a chance to speak to my noble friend about thisissue before the debate as he has been so busy but Iwonder whether he could give his thoughts on thatissue.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I certainly understandexactly what my noble friend is saying. As I said, theHome Office is supporting an awareness campaign onthis issue. I cannot give him a specific promise that

there will be a continuing commitment in this regard.However, we will discuss this issue tomorrow afternoonand I hope that the noble Lord will participate in thatdebate. I am prepared to write to him about a continuingcommitment if that would be helpful in the event thathe is not able to attend tomorrow’s debate.

Lord Rosser: I wish to ask the Minister a questionfollowing what he said a moment ago—that premiseswhich decide to stay open later under the blanketorder will have to advise the police in advance of theirdecision to do so. I thought the Minister was arguingthat the blanket order made it easier for the police tokeep control of the situation. However, the letter fromthe Association of Chief Police Officers says that theadvantage of temporary event notices is that theyallow police forces,“to adapt their public order plans to more accurately reflect theprobable demand based upon targeted intelligence”.

Does it mean, therefore, that under this blanket orderpremises which are intending to stay open later withinthe terms of the order will have to advise the police inadvance?

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: No, that is not the case.However, the police will be able to ask whether suchplaces intend to remain open. That is entirely up tothem.

Lord Rosser: Can we be clear, therefore, that underthe blanket order the police have to ask premiseswhether they are staying open whereas under thetemporary event notice, where people would have toapply, the police would know in advance who wouldbe staying open?

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: If the police consider it isimportant for them to know that information, theywill ask the question. If they do not think it is importantto know that, they do not have to ask the question; it isentirely up to them. It is a policing matter, not aquestion of the licensing arrangements. We are makingit clear that the whole point of this measure is toliberalise the licensing hours available to licensed barsand pubs to enable them to have extra licensing hours,if that is what they seek, to enable their customers towatch matches and have a drink at the same time. Ithink it is quite clear what the arrangements will be. Iwould have thought that the noble Lord would acceptthat it is a perfectly sensible and practical arrangement.As I said in my opening speech—

Lord Rosser: The Minister says he hoped that Iwould accept that this is a perfectly practical arrangement.I have made it clear that there is no argument aboutthe need for a procedure for extended hours. However,the points I am raising are ones the police have raised.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I think I have given theanswer, have I not? My job is to present the reasonswhy we have chosen to go ahead with the order. Wehave done so because we consider that this is an eventof national significance. As it is an event of nationalsignificance, we have decided that the Licensing Actapproach is the right one to take to provide theopportunity for licensed premises to stay open during


the matches. We have made it quite clear why we havedone that. The job of the police is to maintain order.They are entitled to say that they do not particularlylike our approach; that is entirely up to them. However,the Government have made this decision because theythink it is in the interests of the public as a whole thatthey have an opportunity to view the matches whileattending licensed premises. I think that is a perfectlyreasonable thing to do. The order is conditional onEngland playing in any particular match. The coalitionGovernment believe that the decision to relax licensinghours for England matches during the World Cupstrikes the right balance between recognising the benefitsof alcohol when it is enjoyed responsibly and maintainingproper safeguards for the public. On that basis, I hopethat these orders are agreed.

Motion agreed.

Licensing Act 2003 (MandatoryConditions) Order 2014

Motion to Approve

7.56 pm


That the draft order laid before the House on9 April be approved.

Relevant documents: 40th Report from the SecondaryLegislation Scrutiny Committee, 26th Report fromthe Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, HomeOffice (Lord Taylor of Holbeach): My Lords, the ordermakes provision for the introduction of a mandatorylicensing condition banning the sale of alcohol belowthe cost of duty plus VAT. Some noble Lords willnotice that the substance of this order has been debatedpreviously, as the Licensing Act 2003 (MandatoryLicensing Conditions) Order 2014. After some debate,the order did receive the approval of the House.Unfortunately, the process necessary for formal approvalof the order did not take place, so we must give theorder our consideration again.

The Policing and Crime Act 2009 amended theLicensing Act 2003 to confer a power on the Secretaryof State to specify further mandatory licensing conditionsrelating to the sale and supply of alcohol. NewSections 19A and 73B of the Licensing Act allow forsuch conditions where the Home Secretary considersit appropriate for the promotion of licensing objectives.The order will apply to all licensed premises in Englandand Wales. Scotland and Northern Ireland are subjectto different legislation.

The Government are committed to reducing alcohol-related harms. We have taken a decision to ban the saleof alcohol below the permitted price—that is, the costof duty and VAT. This fulfils a commitment in thecoalition agreement. It will ensure that the worst casesof cheap alcohol are banned from sale. The ban willprevent anyone selling alcohol at heavily discountedprices. A can—that is, 440 millilitres—of average-strengthlager will now cost no less than 40p, and a standardbottle of 70 centilitres of vodka no less than £8.89.

The ban aims to reduce excessive alcohol consumptionand its associated impact on alcohol-related crime andhealth harms.

It is estimated that overall alcohol consumptionwill fall by 10.5 million units in the first year alone,resulting in 900 fewer crimes and 100 fewer hospitaladmissions. After 10 years, there will be 500 fewerhospital admissions and 14 lives will be saved eachyear. It is vital that we reduce alcohol-related harm,which is estimated to cost society £21 billion per year,with £11 billion of this being alcohol-related crime. Innearly half of all violent incidents the victim believedthe perpetrator to be under the influence of alcohol.The most common type of anti-social behaviourexperienced or witnessed—by one in 10 people—wasdrink-related. This measure will ensure that we take astep towards a much needed reduction in the £21 billionbill that this country faces as a result of alcohol.

In the previous debate, the noble Baroness, LadySmith of Basildon, raised concerns regarding theevidence upon which we based the policy. I reiteratethat the benefits of this policy have been assessedusing the University of Sheffield’s School of Healthand Related Research model. This is accepted as thebest model available for estimating the benefits of thispolicy. I hope that the noble Baroness found helpfulmy correspondence following the debate setting outthe modelling in more detail. More detailed informationon the modelling used by the University of Sheffieldcan be found at annexe 3 of the impact assessment,which was published alongside the order.

My noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, who is not inhis place this evening, raised during the previous debatea question on minimum unit pricing and its effects inCanada. As I noted then, the context of sale in Canadais quite different from that in England and Wales. Ihope that my noble friend found my subsequent responseoutlining the studies helpful.

The modelling from the University of Sheffieldestimates that this policy is worth £3.6 million a yearin crime reduction benefits in England alone. Thisfigure was laid before Parliament in the impact assessmentand the Explanatory Memorandum. The health benefitshave also been considered and again laid beforeParliament. The Explanatory Memorandum notes anestimated benefit to the public sector in England aloneof £1.15 million per year on average over the first10 years. The impact assessment estimates the widerhealth benefits to society, as well as the public sector,to be £5.3 million per year.

While the reduction in average consumption ismodest, this policy will impact the most on hazardousand harmful drinkers. We know that there is a directlink between the price of alcohol and the quantityconsumed by the heaviest drinkers, who tend to favourthe cheapest alcohol. We also know that hazardousand harmful drinkers generate the biggest costs foralcohol-related crime. What this policy seeks to achieveis 900 fewer crimes in the first year alone, with areduction in hospital admissions from 100 in year 1 to500 in year 10. Two consultations have been held onthe Licensing Act and alcohol strategy, in 2010 and2012-13. Following the results of the consultations,banning the sale of alcohol below the cost of duty


[LORD TAYLOR OF HOLBEACH]plus VAT was considered to be the most pragmaticway with which to tackle the worst examples of cheapalcohol.

I hope that noble Lords will agree with the Governmentthat the introduction of the ban is an appropriate useof the powers conferred on the Home Secretary by theLicensing Act 2003. Accordingly, I commend the orderto the House.

Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab): My Lords, I amgrateful again to the Minister for his explanation, andI admire his ability to keep going today, as this is thefifth debate in which he has taken part. I do not intendto repeat the comments I made previously when thismatter was debated. He will recall—he alluded tothis—that I challenged the Government on the robustnessof the evidence he provided for the policy and itsimpact. Indeed, I used the 32nd and 35th reports ofthe Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Iconcurred with its conclusion that the effect of thispolicy, as outlined in the order, “appears to be negligible”.As I recall from the debate, he said that the level ofreduction in alcohol consumption would be 10.5 millionunits in the first year. When the matter was consideredfurther by the committee, it said that that was equivalentto one large glass of wine a year per individual. Thatdoes not have quite the same impact as saying 10.5 millionunits. There was no robust evidence to show that thosewho most needed to reduce their alcohol intake woulddo so under this policy.

The Minister alluded to the letter that he wrote tome following the debate. I admit that I had not expectedthis order to come before us again. Had it done sowith no changes, my comments would be very brief,but there are significant changes and new evidence towhich he did not refer today. It might be helpful if Idid so. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committeein its 40th report drew attention to those changes. Ishare the committee’s disappointment that neither theExplanatory Memorandum nor the impact assessmentwas revised on being re-presented to your Lordships’House in light of the strong and justified criticismshighlighted in the previous debate. It would have beenhelpful if those had been taken into account beforere-presenting the Explanatory Memorandum and impactassessment to your Lordships’ House.

I will raise two issues on which I seek the Minister’scomments. In terms of new evidence, consideration ofthe Budget is important in assessing the impact of thispolicy. As was evident from the previous debate, therewould be a marginal impact, which has failed toconvince the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committeethat the costs to industry, which would be significantin implementing the permitted pricing policy, couldbe justified. The impacts would be low and marginal—onelarge glass of wine a year. The Wine and Spirit TradeAssociation claimed that the Budget would save theindustry £175 million in additional duty payments.That, in turn, would bring down the permitted priceat which alcohol would be sold. If the Minister isrelying on a higher permitted price to reducealcohol consumption, he perhaps ought to talk to theChancellor, who has ensured that the permitted pricewill be reduced by the reduction and freezing of dutyon alcohol.

Other evidence from the Cardiff University studywas presented in the committee’s report. I do notknow if the noble Lord has had an opportunity toread it, but it makes interesting reading around thereasons for a significant fall in violent crime. Thestudy was unconvinced that alcohol pricing is the mostsignificant factor. There was a 12% reduction in injuriesfrom violent incidents in 2003 and, for the fifth consecutiveyear, the NHS has recorded a decrease in injuries fromviolence. This issue has to be looked at again, given thelarge implementation costs and the impact on theindustry. What added value will this policy changebrought forward by the order produce for the NHSand policing if you also take into account the economicand social factors, and the policing initiatives thathave led to the fall in violent crime? What additionalchange will this order bring about?

Finally, the impact assessment suggests that doublingthe level of alcohol excise duty will reduce alcohol-relatedmortality by an average of 35%, traffic-crash deathsby 11%, sexually transmitted diseases by 6%, violenceby 2% and crime by 1.4%. Although the impact assessmentdoes not specify the timeframe, it says that that wouldbe the impact. That would be pretty impressive but itis not what this policy seeks to do. It is based only onmaintaining the current level of excise duty, but theChancellor reduced it in the Budget. Can we take itthat we should now seek an increase following thereduction in excise duty?

We all want the harms from excess alcohol, towhich the noble Lord referred in his comments ondomestic violence, reduced. However, I have seriousconcerns.

Lord Tyler (LD): The noble Baroness seems to becoming to the end of her speech. Can she be optimisticfor once? We have so much pessimism from theOpposition. Will she make a firm commitment? Doesthe Labour Party understand that the principle ofminimum alcohol pricing is important? Are we not allin favour? This order may not go far enough for her; Iunderstand that, but could she for once be optimisticand say that this may be a step in the right direction?

Baroness Smith of Basildon: There is a coalitionGovernment and it is pretty hard to be optimistic. It isnot about minimum alcohol pricing; that would be acompletely different debate. The Government haveruled it in, then ruled it out—it will happen, it will nothappen. This is about a different issue altogether. I amquestioning whether the measures taken and the wonderfulresponses and results they are supposed to give reallymeasure up. The Secondary Legislation ScrutinyCommittee does not think so, and neither do I.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: My Lords, I tend to agreewith my noble friend Lord Tyler. We have had situationstoday where the measures are agreed in principle butthen the Government’s reasoning is challenged. This isanother case in which the Opposition are not quitesure where to be on this issue.

Baroness Smith of Basildon: The Minister is right.It is the Opposition’s job to challenge the Governmentnot just on policy but on implementation. In accusing


the Opposition of being negative I remind him thatthis policy was looked at by a cross-party group ofesteemed Members of your Lordships’ House on aSecondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. If I amnegative and pessimistic, so are they.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: The noble Baroness isquite within her constitutional rights to be critical ofthe Government. If the Opposition welcome a change,which I am sure they do, it would be rather nice if theysaid so. After all, this policy will deal with a particularclass of drinker that I think the noble Baroness and Iagree is a problem. We are talking about hazardousand dangerous drinkers, the very people who are attractedby the offer of cheap alcohol, as existed in the past.This measure is designed particularly at them. Weknow that savings to the National Health Servicealone are £5.3 million and the costs related to crimeare £3.6 million. We welcome the general trend of adrop in violence, and alcohol is only one factor in anumber of measures being taken to deal with violence—just as price is only one factor to deal with alcoholabuse. It does not invalidate its use.

The noble Baroness asked about the Budget andwhether we should have changed the figures in thelight of the Budget. I emphasise that it is a targetedmeasure, as alcohol harms. It will stop the worstinstances of deep discounting which result in alcoholbeing sold cheaply and harmfully. The whole point ofthe order is to ban the worst cases of cheap alcoholsales, but other actions that help local areas to identifyand tackle alcohol-related issues are all part and parcelof the coalition’s commitment to dealing with alcoholabuse. I hope that the noble Baroness will recognisethe purpose of bringing forward this order and welcomeit. With that in mind I ask that the order be approved.

Motion agreed.

Representation of the People (England andWales) (Amendment) Regulations 2014

Motion to Approve

8.14 pm

Moved by Lord Wallace of Saltaire

That the draft Regulations laid before the Houseon 24 March be approved.


Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD): In many ways Ideeply regret that we are coming to this very late in anempty House. I know that the noble Lord, LordKennedy, and I agree that this is a very importanttransition. It is in the interests of all parties that we getthis transition to individual registration right. Perhaps—Iraise this as a question for the new Session—it mightbe appropriate before the summer to have, if theOpposition care to suggest it, another debate on wherewe are and how confident we are that the transition isgoing ahead.

The Electoral Commission reported in its readinessreport published at the end of March that significantprogress had been made in preparing for the transition,and that there was no reason to delay the implementationof IER. Since the commission made its assessment,further progress has been made, particularly in thetesting of the IT arrangements that will support thenew system. Thus, all is going well. From my perspectiveall is going much better than I thought when I wasoriginally briefed some 18 months ago. IER is set tostart in June in England and Wales and in Septemberin Scotland.

The draft instrument for England and Wales beforethe House today will enable a significant change tohelp the electoral registration officers—EROs—in two-tierlocal government areas to make their registers asaccurate and complete as possible. The two instrumentsalso make further refinements designed to get IER offto the best possible start. The significant change is thatthe draft regulations for England and Wales will providefor local data matching in two-tier areas. They willauthorise EROs in two-tier local government areas,which are appointed by district councils, to inspectrecords kept by the county council and to make copiesof information contained in them. This will removethe current anomaly that allows EROs in unitaryauthorities to inspect a wider range of locally helddata such as—this is highly relevant to the concerns ofthe noble Lord, Lord Kennedy—lists of school studentswho are approaching voting age, than their counterpartsin two-tier areas.

In addition, the regulations will authorise but notrequire the authority by which the ERO was appointed,and in two-tier areas the relevant county council, todisclose to the ERO information contained in recordsheld by that authority. This can happen only if anagreement is in place between the authority and theERO as to the processing of the information. This willput all EROs on an equal footing as regards the rightto inspect information. It will also permit, subject toconditions, the disclosure of data by local authoritiesto EROs in a form suitable for electronic matchingagainst the electoral register. The Cabinet Office ranpilot data-matching schemes in 2013 which indicatedthat as many as 100,000 eligible voters might be identifiedthrough two-tier data matching. I hope that yourLordships will agree that this measure will be veryhelpful to EROs in getting as many of these additionaleligible people as possible on to the electoral register.

I know that there has been some disappointmentthat this instrument does not do more. I am familiarwith the initiative in Northern Ireland to raise registrationlevels among attainers—that is, 16 and 17 year-olds—inschools. Bite the Ballot has been active in promoting asimilar scheme in Great Britain, and I wish to take thisopportunity to congratulate its members most sincerelyon their efforts. The Northern Ireland initiative hasworked well in the Northern Ireland context. That iswhy we have learnt from the work of Northern Irelandcolleagues when considering what to do in GreatBritain—but life moves on, and what works well inone place may well not necessarily work so well inanother.

1731 1732[12 MAY 2014]Licensing Act 2003 Order 2014 Representation of the People Regs. 2014

[LORD WALLACE OF SALTAIRE]There are good reasons why we cannot simply

replicate exactly the same approach for Great Britain.For example, the delivery structure in Great Britain isdifferent. There is one single registration service inNorthern Ireland as against 363 in Great Britain.Regulations in Northern Ireland enable the chief electoralofficer to request post-primary schools to provide himwith lists of the names, addresses and dates of birth ofpupils. This would be almost impossible to replicate ina place such as London, where pupils at an individualschool might come from any or all of London’s 32boroughs, each with its own ERO, or indeed fromlocal authorities outside the London area. Further,some students may not be British or Commonwealthcitizens.

Crucially, we are introducing online registration forthe first time. This was not available at the time of theintroduction of IER in Northern Ireland, which wastherefore required to be based on paper forms thatEROs took into schools. We expect online registrationto be by far the easiest way for young people toregister, and the paper-based approach practised inNorthern Ireland would therefore be a step backwards.

I understand, too, that EROs across Great Britainalready take proactive measures to encourage youngpeople to register to vote and to promote democraticparticipation generally. Local authority staff have madevisits to schools and colleges to give talks on voterregistration and to get young people to fill in registrationforms. EROs have facilitated organisations such as theUK Youth Parliament by providing advice and equipmentfor running youth elections and have organised eventssuch as “political speed dating” and young mayorcompetitions to encourage interest in democracy andput young people in contact with their electedrepresentatives. Much is being done already on themainland to encourage young people on to the register.

None the less, the Northern Ireland Schools Initiativehas played an important part in providing the evidenceand the business case for developing the Rock Enrol!exercise. Rock Enrol! is a learning resource that isfreely available from the Cabinet Office. It gives youngpeople the opportunity to register to vote and allowsthem to discuss the importance of doing so. TheGovernment have announced that all local authoritiesin Great Britain, alongside five national organisations,will share £4.2 million in funding to maximise registration.EROs have been encouraged to use this funding tosupport the delivery of Rock Enrol! in their area inorder to ensure that we target attainers effectively aspart of our maximising registration work.

Your Lordships will have observed that theseregulations do not include any provision for local datasharing in Scotland. This is because the different localgovernment structure in Scotland renders unnecessarya provision for two-tier areas data sharing as draftedfor England and Wales. However, the Cabinet Office isconsulting EROs and local government bodies in Scotlandto establish whether there is any need to make provisionfor disclosure of information to an ERO by the councilwhich appointed him or her. If there is such a need, itwill be included in a suitable future instrument.

I turn now to the provisions for the further refinementsthat we are making to the IER arrangements. Bothsets of regulations will disapply the usual requirementsfor follow-up actions by the ERO where the ERO hasinvited a person to register to vote who he or she hasreason to believe would, if registered, be registered asa special category elector such as an overseas elector, aperson with a service declaration or an elector with ananonymous entry. These are small but importantcategories. The effect of the current regulations is thatEROs are required to take specified steps to encourageapplications to register in certain cases. They mustsend an invitation to register and, where necessary,two reminder letters and a canvasser to the elector’sresidence.

There is, of course, some enthusiasm among EROsto be sent to canvass overseas electors in places such asthe United Arab Emirates, Australia, New Zealandand Florida, but noble Lords will understand the issueof the costs involved. They will appreciate that thesesteps can be impractical and/or expensive, and theneed for greater sensitivity in the case of anonymouslyregistered voters will often make letters or visitsundesirable. I can assure your Lordships that thelegislation will not prevent EROs sending invitationsto register to special category electors. It will merelychange the subsequent actions from a mandatory processto one that will be at the discretion of the ERO.

The Government are working with the ElectoralCommission to provide guidance to be issued to EROsin the summer of this year specifically encouragingthem to be proactive in carrying out their duty ofinviting those whose registration has expired to register.It will reinforce the need to send follow-up remindersto special category electors where the ERO believesthat this will be effective.

The Government will introduce further secondarylegislation that will require EROs to encourage specialcategory electors to reregister before their registrationexpires. Under existing regulations, EROs are requiredto send a reminder to reregister to special categoryelectors, excluding anonymous electors, between twoand three months before their registration expires. TheGovernment will amend these regulations to compelEROs to send an additional reminder. This has twoadvantages over the reminders sent following an invitationto register. First, it will reduce the burden on electorsby preventing the need for a completely new application.Secondly, it will reduce both the cost and time burdenon EROs by allowing electronic communication of thereminder notice.

The second instrument—the draft regulations forScotland—also confirms that the date for the introductionof IER in Scotland will be 19 September 2014. TheHouse will have observed that in this respect theregulations amend legislation that was passed quiterecently. I ought to explain why that is. We are awarethat the combined effect of previous instruments couldresult in a lack of clarity as to whether the start datefor IER in Scotland is 10 June 2014 or 19 September2014. The Electoral Registration and AdministrationAct 2013 (Commencement No. 5 and TransitoryProvisions) Order 2014 clearly sets out that the startdate in Scotland is 19 September 2014. The draft

1733 1734[LORDS]Representation of the People Regs. 2014 Representation of the People Regs. 2014

regulations for Scotland are intended to minimise anypotential for confusion on this important point.

I reassure the House again that we are continuingto work to maximise electoral registration. We areconsidering running further data-matching pilot schemes,building on the work done in previous years to matchelectoral registers against data held by public authorities.This will help us see what additional data sets might beable to add to the processes for verifying electors’details and helping find potentially eligible electorswho are not yet registered.

The draft Representation of the People (Supply ofInformation) Regulations 2014 were laid on 6 May2014. Should Parliament approve them, the regulationswill allow political parties the information they willneed to promote IER among electors who are not yetindividually registered. This is in response to a requestfrom the political parties that at the end of the 2014canvass they should be given a specific new list ofthose electors on the register who have been carriedforward but not confirmed or registered under IER.The parties have recently told the Cabinet Office thatthey remain in favour of such a list and are expectingit to be made available to them. I trust that the Housewill have the opportunity to consider that instrumentin the near future.

I return to the two statutory instruments beforeyour Lordships. Each will, in its own way, play a partin the successful implementation of individual electoralregistration in Great Britain. I commend them to theHouse.

Amendment to the MotionMoved by Lord Kennedy of Southwark

At end to insert “but that this House regrets thatthe Regulations do not go far enough to address theproblem of young people not registering to voteand, in particular, that this statutory instrument isnot more closely modelled on the proven and successfulNorthern Ireland Schools Initiative.”

Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab): My Lords, inmoving this amendment to the Motion, I first notethat as far as it goes, this regulation has my supportand that of noble Lords on these Benches. That is whymy amendment is carefully worded in regretting thefact that it does not go further. The regulations are auseful addition to the tools that electoral registrationofficers have at their disposal to improve the accuracyof the electoral register. It is ridiculous that until thispoint, EROs in two-tier local government areas hadno right to inspect records held by county councilsthat might have helped them to maintain improvedaccuracy of the register.

We have had many debates, discussions and questionsabout the electoral register, the registration processand connected matters in this Chamber and in theMoses Room. We have much more work to do inupdating and improving the processes that we employto ensure that they make a difference in getting themillions of our fellow citizens on to the register who,as I have repeatedly raised in this House, are eligible tobe on the register but are not currently registered.

Like many noble Lords I have been out and abouton the streets for the local and European elections.What I find particularly depressing is when you godown a street or on a council estate and you seegaps in the register—no one at the address is on theregister to vote, but clearly somebody is living there.There are now too many of these gaps for it alwaysto be because those people are not eligible to take partin elections. It is very depressing for anyone whobelieves in democracy and citizenship that people arenot registered to vote. We could do much more to findnew ways of identifying those people and gettingthem registered to vote. I have always thought thatthere must be more scope for looking at the waycitizens engage with the state and making thatengagement play its part in a process of checking ifthe person is registered to vote. There must be apresumption that the state has a duty to get its citizensregistered to vote.

8.30 pmIndividual electoral registration is not a tool to

increase the number of people on the register. If weare lucky, it may improve accuracy, but it will not helpcompleteness and, if implemented badly, it could havea negative effect and make the situation much worse. Iam pleased with the assurance the noble Lord hasgiven the House that things are going well on IERand I certainly agree with him that there needs to bea debate before the Summer Recess. However, thereare of course particular groups that are more likelynot to be registered, including ethnic minorities, peopleliving in rented accommodation, students and youngpeople in general. I would be interested to hear fromthe noble Lord what the Government are doing witheach of those particular groups to get more peopleregistered. The Government record on this is not goodand they must do much more. I do not accept theargument that it is all going well and that a voluntaryprocess is best, as has been stated many times previously.There are millions of our fellow citizens who are notregistered, and IER will do nothing to address this.The fact that it is not being addressed is a matter ofmuch regret.

I cannot understand why the Government did notfollow on from the successful schools initiative inNorthern Ireland and introduce the same measure inthe rest of the United Kingdom. They had the opportunityto do so in the regulations today. The noble Lord,Lord Wallace, said that there may be some disappointmentin this—that is something of an understatement. Canthe noble Lord tell the House, clearly and in muchmore detail, what the reasons are for not doing that?The schools initiative is very simple and has provedvery effective, because all secondary schools and furthereducation colleges are obliged by law to give the ChiefElectoral Officer for Northern Ireland the informationnecessary to enable him to register their pupils orstudents, with their consent. Every local school in alocal authority area would know who their ERO isand could give that information to them quite easily.Having these 300 or 400 extra people is not a reasonwhy it would not work. There is a legal obligation onschools to provide for the necessary underpinning tomake the scheme effective.

1735 1736[12 MAY 2014]Representation of the People Regs. 2014 Representation of the People Regs. 2014

[LORD KENNEDY OF SOUTHWARK]I do not accept that doing this would be the backward

step suggested by the noble Lord. We could moveforward. What we have here is really a halfway houseand a kind of “good as far as it goes” approach. Itwould be so much better if the Government looked atthe facts and the evidence and did the right thing, andI find it strange that the noble Lord has not come tothe Chamber today and done that. I find his argumentswholly unconvincing and think that the Governmenthave to do much more. I agree that we do not wantEROs travelling the globe, but we need some moreEROs on a few more council estates, up and down afew more streets and in some schools and colleges.There are millions of citizens not registered to voteand we need to do much more about that.

The Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland,Mr Graham Shields, has attributed the initiative asbeing paramount in the success that he has had ingetting an additional 50% of the entire population ofNorthern Ireland on to the register. Given that it isestimated that only 50% to 60% of young people areactually on the register, consider what that schemecould do if the rest of the United Kingdom took partin it.

I have heard nothing from the noble Lord as to whythey have not acted in a more prudent way to try tomake sure that this actually happens. There are anumber of noble Lords in the Chamber who have a lotmore experience than I have in these matters, and Ilook forward to their contributions. Maybe togetherwe will be able to get more understanding from thenoble Lord. I beg to move.

Lord Tyler (LD): My Lords, I have a lot of sympathywith the amendment moved by the noble Lord, LordKennedy. We should be quite clear about the contextof this—it is a very serious situation indeed. Underthe existing register—even before we move fully throughthe transitional period into IER—the latest audit ofpolitical engagement by the Hansard Society showsthat nine out of 10 people think they are on theexisting register, while fewer than seven out of 10 ofthose in the 18 to 24 year-old group think they are onthe register. That is actually wildly optimistic, as weknow from the previous research that has been undertaken.At the time when we thought that more than 90% ofpeople—92%, I think—were on the existing register, itwas actually something in the 80s. It is not true that wecan expect to move from a good situation to a lessgood situation—we are going to move from a notgood situation to a potentially disastrous situation.Incidentally, in the 18 to 24 year-old age group, only24% are certain to vote at the present time accordingto the Hansard Society audit. That is appalling—it isreally serious. Of course, if it is only 24% of perhaps50% who are registered, we are into very seriousdemocratic deficit.

From these Benches, we tabled an amendment tothe Electoral Registration and Administration Bill inOctober 2012 which sought to “authorise or require”establishments providing secondary education to discloseinformation to electoral registration officers for thepurposes of getting attainers—those rising to the 18year-old threshold—on to the electoral roll. The

instrument before us now goes some way along thatroad, and for that it is welcome. It authorises suchinformation to be disclosed, but it does not require it.That is the importance of this opportunity to debate itthis evening, however late it may be. I believe that theGovernment should think very carefully about goingfurther.

My noble friend the Minister has set out a strongargument that a transition to individual electoralregistration in Great Britain should be much bettermanaged than the transition in Northern Ireland. Iunderstand that argument. However, during the passageof the Electoral Registration and Administration Act,we argued successfully from these Benches for a longertransitional period. Before the Bill was introduced, weargued successfully to retain compulsory registration,to retain an annual canvass and to make the bestpossible use of data matching. That was all verywelcome. However, we also went on to suggest that weshould now be looking at votes for 16 year-olds and17 year-olds, and we have recently reaffirmed thatcommitment at our York conference. As others inyour Lordships’House will know, I have been promotinga Private Member’s Bill, with cross-party support, tothat end.

Bite the Ballot has done remarkable work in tryingto increase awareness of the need for registration. Thenoble Lord, Lord Kennedy, who has today and onprevious occasions been very active in promoting thiscampaign, has made it clear that it sees that there is areal problem that we should all face, and that schoolsare a critical and integral part of extending the registrationprocess, making it possible to extend the franchise tomore of those to whom it is now an important civicduty as well as a civic principle and right.

We should see a seamless path from the citizenshipsyllabus through the final years at school to the pointwhere a civic adult is in a position to take the next stepto becoming a full, integral participant in the electoralprocess. That is what democracy is all about. Giventhe very low participation levels among the 18-24 agegroup, it is incredibly important that, with IER, wemake it clear to people who will remain in their homearea only up to a certain point—often they are movinginto further education or their first job away fromtheir home area—that that is still the natural place forthem to take the first step in this process towardsregistration, during their last few months or year insecondary education. We must create an environmentwhere young people see the vote as part of theirprogress, with their peer group, towards civic adulthood.They will then go on to vote there on the first occasion,with their peer group. We know that if you start votingat the youngest possible age, you are likely to continueto register and to go on voting, rather than lose thehabit.

I turn to my noble friend’s specific argument inintroducing this debate. The complexity of introducingregistration in schools in England and Wales—andScotland, for that matter—is much more difficult thandoing so in Northern Ireland; he spoke about thedelivery mechanism. I do not accept that, simply becausewe now have a move towards online registration, theelectoral registration officers in England and Wales


would somehow find it more difficult to make thatprocess effective in schools. Since most secondaryschools are amazingly online these days—you go intoa sixth form and see hardly a book—it would beimpossible for the electoral registration officer not tomake that process immediately accessible, availableand natural within schools.

Of course, as my noble friend said, it is true that inNorthern Ireland there is one chief ERO and a smallernumber of schools to deal with. Indeed, in England,the interaction with schools and FE colleges might bemore complex than in Northern Ireland. There are,after all, a plethora of different kinds of schools andFE colleges, but none of them is secret. Every localauthority knows the schools and FE colleges in itsarea.

EROs in England, Wales and Scotland already dealwith a great many complex interactions, the greatest ofwhich is the administration of the annual canvass—theessential ballast and building block for a comprehensiveregister. The canvass is different in different parts ofthe respective countries of the United Kingdom, withdifferent challenges and different approaches, but theduty to conduct the canvass and create a comprehensiveregister is the same right across the United Kingdom.We could have done better in this order than simplypermitting schools and EROs to do this if they wish.We would be horrified if we simply permitted EROs inGreat Britain to do the annual canvass and said, “It’sup to you. Don’t if you don’t want to. If you find it abit difficult, don’t bother”. That would be ridiculous.

If we are really saying that the Government do nothave confidence in our decentralised system of individualEROs in each local authority area, we should be veryworried about the whole basis of electoral registrationon the mainland. After all, it is the difficult places thatare most important. If a school is difficult to makecontact with or to get into, the chances are that that isall the more reason not to give up. The very fact that itmay be difficult should not be any excuse for theGovernment to say that this should not be an obligationon EROs.

Can my noble friend the Minister give us someinsight into the Electoral Commission’s view on allthis? I have not seen any advice. As my noble friendwill know, I have served on the informal cross-partyadvisory group for the commission. My impressionwas that it was very keen to build on the experience inNorthern Ireland, where it was so successful. I do notunderstand, therefore, why the Government have takena different view. I hope that my noble friend will beable to give us chapter and verse of the commission’sadvice on this important issue. Is it really true that theGovernment think that EROs on the mainland havesuch a difficult task that they cannot be asked to dothis job effectively? If so, that raises major questionsabout the whole administration of electoral registrationand supervision of our democratic process. That is avery serious charge indeed.

In the mean time, we will have to see how thingsprogress with this order and the regime that theGovernment are putting in place. But I put down amarker now that I and my colleagues will want tomake sure that there is no suggestion that this implies

a vote of no confidence in the whole localised systemof electoral management in England and Wales.Meanwhile, in September of this year, we will ofcourse have a very interesting pilot project about theregistration of young people—in Scotland. I do notknow what the latest position is. I have seen someinformation about the registration of 16 and 17 year-olds,but I hope and trust that the Administration in Scotlandare now taking the opportunity to take the wholeelectoral registration process into schools and FEcolleges to ensure that there at least in the UnitedKingdom we are getting young people involved in thedemocratic process. Surely that is an absolutely criticalobligation on the United Kingdom Government aswell. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend will beable to reassure us that this apparent retreat from whatwas such a successful initiative in Northern Irelanddoes not imply a vote of no confidence is what goingto happen here on the mainland.

8.45 pm

Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD): My Lords, I sayamen to nearly everything that has been said heretoday. An opinion poll over the weekend asked votershow many of them knew the names of their MEPs,Members of Parliament or local councillors. It isamazing that fewer than half were able to name someof those people. That might even go for us in thisChamber. Democracy itself seems to be endangered atthe present time. When people feel remote, when theyfeel that their votes and voices do not count, that is avery dangerous situation. We are talking not onlyabout registering people to vote. We are talking aboutensuring that they know something about the democraticprocess and that they know something about the policies,needs and opportunities of the society in which welive. Their hands must be on that pencil not just to say,“Ah, another voter”, but as somebody who has thoughtthings through, because if we do not have this re-ignitingof democracy, then we are in very great danger inelections this year, next year and after that.

It is an immediate and urgent situation to try to getyoung people in particular to vote. My noble friendLord Tyler has mentioned how few—25% and thenhalf that 25%—feel that they count at all in oursociety and in our democracy. Therefore, we havesomehow to re-inspire people. What often gets youngpeople to vote is the inspiration of a teacher, a lectureror a friend—someone who tells them, “Look, yourvote could count. Your vote is necessary”. When I wasstarting with Bite the Ballot, of which I am delightedto be the honorary president—or the honorarygrandfather or great-grandfather by now—a smallteam of young people said, “We are going to dosomething to engage young people particularly in thedemocratic process” and they did. They had debates inParliament and they were crowded. Young people whopreviously knew nothing at all about certain policieswere inspired and became part of that movement.

The high spot we had recently was National VoterRegistration Day on 5 February this year. On that oneday a small team managed to register 52,000 people tovote. They were young people who were not interestedbefore, but in schools, youth clubs, colleges andsupermarkets there were 400 volunteers organising on

1739 1740[12 MAY 2014]Representation of the People Regs. 2014 Representation of the People Regs. 2014

[LORD ROBERTS OF LLANDUDNO]that day. Some of them were not even old enough tobe registered themselves; they were just so keen. Somehow,we have to see this re-igniting. Sometimes, the goings-onin Parliament as televised just turn people off. Theythink, “Is that what it is all about? Is that what itmeans? Why should we bother?”We have a responsibilityhere and in the other place to make people feel thatthey have confidence in the people they have electedand that they want to play a part in that process.

I must not speak for too long—I am a Methodistminister so I am allowed to do that sometimes—but Ishould like to refer to Northern Ireland which hasautomatic registration. It is dead simple. Somebodywill go into a school, and the names, addresses andbirthdays of the pupils will have already been collected.There is now a link between schools and the electoraloffices. Attainers and those who are already 18 yearsold can register automatically. There are in England—myfigures are as up-to-date as possible—3.2 million pupilsin state-funded secondary schools. There are at least216,000 in Wales and a further 290,000 in Scotland.That works out at some 800,000 new people eligible tobe on the electoral register every year. If only theycould be automatically registered. There could be anopt-out because some might have religious convictionsand say “We don’t want to vote”. There would be anopt-out if they wanted one but otherwise they wouldbe on the register. I hope that someone with a wee bitof inspiration and imagination would go to theirschools or colleges and explain the procedure to them.

Bite the Ballot went into so many hundreds ofschools and colleges. I did not think anybody could doall that but a small team managed to register 52,000people. How many more could be registered if therewas automatic registration? We have modern technology,digital channels, YouTube and ordinary television channelsthat could be used by the Government to share thisinspiration in what is really a desperate situation. Wewant young people and others to exercise their voteand say “We have influence”. If people feel that theyhave influence and that their votes and voices count,there could be a great revival of democratic accountabilityand feeling here in the United Kingdom.

Lord Lexden (Con): My Lords, I am not a Methodistminister and shall be very brief. I support very stronglythe comments made by noble Lords about the importanceof action in schools. Like them, I have been greatlyimpressed by the results of the initiative in NorthernIreland. Speaking as a strong unionist, particularlywhere Northern Ireland is concerned, I would regardit as an absolute tragedy if lessons that could beusefully drawn from that part of our country went bythe wayside and here in Great Britain we failed toprofit as we might. I hope that my noble friend willconsider very carefully that which Northern Irelandmight have to teach us in this matter. He is noted forhis open-mindedness and there is perhaps merit in alittle further consideration of what has happened inNorthern Ireland.

He will be unsurprised that I listened with greatinterest to the comments he made on the implicationsof these regulations for British subjects living overseaswho are eligible to vote here. I gained the strong

impression from what he said that the effect of thechanges will be to assist the efforts that some of us,including my noble friend Lord Tyler, are encouragingto seek greater registration among British citizensliving abroad who are currently eligible to vote. I knowmy noble friend supports those efforts, too.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I thank nobleLords for their various contributions. I will take all thethoughts back with me. Let me start by saying that weare all concerned about the problems of low registration.The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, really talked abouttwo different problems: we are mostly concerned hereabout problems in getting young people on to theregister. There is another problem, which is peoplewho actually do not want to be on it. We have all beenthrough some of the estates where a large number ofpeople are not on the register and quite strongly tellyou—as they put their bull terrier on to you—thatthey do not want to be on it. That is of course anotherpart of the problem.

Lord Kennedy of Southwark: I must say that thoughI may have had various dogs set on me for all sorts ofthings, it was never so that people would not go on theregister.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: We recognise that we havea number of problems. My noble friend Lord Tylerreferred to the recent audit of political engagement,which showed the level of political disengagement inthe United Kingdom. I happened to be having my haircut when Sky News ran its European poll on levels oftrust in political elites. I regret to say that the UnitedKingdom comes alongside France and only just behindBelgium in the high levels of distrust in all our politicalelites. We share a common interest in reversing thatand political parties have to work on it. The mediahave to make their own contribution and bear someresponsibility for the rising levels of mistrust we haveseen in recent years.

The majority of comments have been about how weget young people on to the register and, in the case ofLord Lexden, about overseas voters. I remind nobleLords that the Northern Ireland Schools Initiativedoes not automatically register pupils. The registrationrate for attainers in Northern Ireland currently standsat 66%, not 100%. Students must still remember tobring in their national insurance number on the daythe registration officers visit the school and then chooseto register by signing the form.

As electoral registration officers and others go roundsecondary schools in England, Wales and Scotland,they will encourage pupils to register online in theborough in which they live. The two schools closest toSaltaire, Titus Salt and Guiseley, have a mixture ofpupils from Leeds and Bradford. That is duplicatedacross West Yorkshire and, even more so, in London.This is part of the problem, but it will become easierwith online registration.

I stress to the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, that we arenot in the business of permitting electoral registrationofficers to go into schools. A lot of registration officershave already been going into schools for a long timeand we encourage them to do so. The Government area little more reluctant to make this compulsory. The


Rock Enrol! initiative was founded on the basis of theexperience of Northern Ireland. The business case forits development and ensuring that we were targetingattainers effectively came out of that as part of ourwork to maximise registration. EROs have beenencouraged to use the funding provided by governmentfor maximising registration to support the delivery ofRock Enrol! in their area.

We all understand that there is a great deal more todo to reverse the level of disengagement among youngpeople and older people. We have failed over manyyears to produce effective citizenship education in ourschools; that is another area to which we need toreturn. The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, asked whethervotes at 16 would help in this regard. Perhaps we needto have that debate. I feel that it would also help iflocal government were stronger and more local so thatpeople actually knew some of their elected representatives.

At the moment I do not have the recommendationsof the Electoral Commission on this; I will write to thenoble Lord as soon as I discover what they are. However,we are encouraging EROs to work on this and we areproviding funding. Two of the five organisations towhich we have provided specific funding—UK Youthand the Scottish Youth Parliament—specifically focuson this area. That will help us as we go forward.However, as the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, suggested,making sure that young people know something aboutthe political process is part of a wider problem onwhich successive Governments have not done enoughover the past 25 years.

I turn to the issue, raised by the noble Lord, LordLexden, of overseas voters and how to encouragethem. I have learnt, over the past few months, that thenumber of overseas voters follows a cyclical pattern. Itrises in the run-up to a general election and falls offagain immediately afterwards. This is completelyunderstandable. Perhaps we may hope that the fixeddate of next year’s general election will encourage alarger rise. It was more than 32,000 at the 2010 election.We are working on this by putting advertisements on anumber of websites to encourage those living abroadto think about registering. We have made it easier forthem to register by reducing the number of documentsthey have to provide, and we support the efforts thatothers are making in this respect.

The Government do not think that we can do thison our own. We are working with Bite the Ballot andother voluntary organisations. We are encouragingpolitical parties to do their bit. The other regulation Imentioned takes us further down the road. I assurenoble Lords that although we have not entirely duplicatedthe Northern Ireland Schools Initiative, the Rock Enrol!initiative draws on it. Electoral registration officers onthe mainland are already doing the work that thenoble Lord, Lord Kennedy, would like them to do.The Government will follow that, and we hope thatthe outcome will be registration at least as high as inNorthern Ireland. I repeat that there, sadly, it is onlytwo-thirds. We will do our best to hit that target.

Lord Kennedy of Southwark: My Lords, I thank thenoble Lords, Lord Tyler, Lord Roberts and LordLexden, who made excellent points. I agree almost

entirely with what they said. I found some of theMinister’s response a bit unconvincing, and I think wewill be returning to this many more times.

The point I found most unconvincing was about theone electoral registration officer in Northern Ireland,where, as the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, said, it worksfine. The idea that the more than 300 EROs in Englandand Wales and the Electoral Management Board inScotland will not know their local college and schooland so could not possibly do it right is just nonsense.We hear lots from the Government about localism andall sorts of things.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: That is not the point. Ofcourse, we all know our local college and school. Theproblem is that you cannot go into a school with a setof forms and encourage young people to fill them inbecause they do not all live in the same authority.Particularly in London boroughs, you are very oftendealing with pupils from a number of different authorities,so if one were to do it on paper, that would beextremely complicated. That is why I stressed that themove to online registration gives us a much easier wayof coping with this diversity of electoral authorities.

Lord Kennedy of Southwark: I am still not veryconvinced. Luckily the Electoral Commission nowproduces standard forms. I think the Minister mayneed to go back and reflect on that a bit more ingovernment. That is not a credible argument.

I am very tempted to test the opinion of the Houseon this, but at this time it is probably not worth medoing so. I assure the Minister that I will come backand test it on a future date. I hope he will come backwith a few more convincing arguments than thosetonight. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Amendment to the Motion withdrawn.

Motion agreed.

Representation of the People (Scotland)(Amendment) Regulations 2014

Motion to Approve

9.03 pm

Moved by Lord Wallace of Saltaire

That the draft regulations laid before the Houseon 24 March be approved.


Motion agreed.

High Speed Rail (London-West Midlands)Bill

Message from the Commons

A message was brought from the Commons that theyhave made the following orders:That, notwithstanding the practice of the House, thefollowing provisions shall apply to proceedings on theHigh Speed Rail (London–West Midlands) Bill:

1743 1744[12 MAY 2014]Representation of the People Regs. 2014 High Speed Rail Bill

Suspension at End of this Session1. Further proceedings on the High Speed Rail

(London–West Midlands) Bill shall be suspended fromthe day on which this Session of Parliament ends (“thecurrent Session”) until the next Session of Parliament(“Session 2014–15”).

2. If a Bill is presented in Session 2014–15 in thesame terms as those in which the Bill stood when proceedingson it were suspended in the current Session—

(a) the Bill so presented shall be ordered to beprinted and shall be deemed to have been read the firstand second time;

(b) the Bill shall stand committed to a Select Committeeof the same Members as the members of the Committeewhen proceedings on the Bill were suspended in thecurrent Session;

(c) any Instruction of the House to the Committee inthe current Session shall be an Instruction to the Committeeon the Bill in Session 2014–15;

(d) all Petitions presented in the current Sessionwhich stand referred to the Committee and which havenot been withdrawn, and any Petition presented betweenthe day on which the current Session ends and the day onwhich proceedings on the Bill are resumed in Session2014–15 in accordance with this Order, shall standreferred to the Committee in Session 2014–15;

(e) any Minutes of Evidence taken and any paperslaid before the Committee in the current Session shallstand referred to the Committee in Session 2014–15;

(f) only those Petitions mentioned in sub-paragraph(d), and any Petition which may be presented by beingdeposited in the Private Bill Office and in which thePetitioners complain of any proposed additional provisionor of any matter which has arisen during the progress ofthe Bill before the Committee in Session 2014–15, shallstand referred to the Committee;

(g) any Petitioner whose Petition stands referred tothe Committee in Session 2014–15 shall, subject to theRules and Orders of the House and to the Prayer of thatperson’s Petition, be entitled to be heard in person orthrough Counsel or Agents upon the Petition providedthat it is prepared and signed and in conformity with theRules and Orders of the House, and the Member incharge of the Bill shall be entitled to be heard throughCounsel or Agents in favour of the Bill against thatPetition;

(h) the Committee shall have power to sitnotwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjournfrom place to place, and to report from day to dayMinutes of Evidence taken before it;

(I) three shall be the Quorum of the Committee;(j) any person registered in the current Session as a

parliamentary agent entitled to practise as such in opposingBills only who, at the time when proceedings on the Billwere suspended in the current Session, was employed inopposing the Bill shall be deemed to have been registeredas such a parliamentary agent in Session 2014–15;

(k) the Standing Orders and practice of the Houseapplicable to the Bill, so far as complied with or dispensedwith in the current Session, shall be deemed to have beencomplied with or (as the case may be) dispensed with inSession 2014–15.

Suspension at End of this Parliament3. If proceedings on the Bill are resumed in accordance

with paragraph 2 but are not completed before the endof Session 2014–15, further proceedings on the Bill shallbe suspended from the day on which that Session endsuntil the first Session of the next Parliament (“Session2015–16”).

4. If a Bill is presented in Session 2015–16 in thesame terms as those in which the Bill stood when proceedingson it were suspended in Session 2014–15—

(a) the Bill so presented shall be ordered to beprinted and shall be deemed to have been read the firstand second time;

(b) the Standing Orders and practice of the Houseapplicable to the Bill, so far as complied with or dispensedwith in the current Session or in Session 2014–15, shallbe deemed to have been complied with or (as the casemay be) dispensed with in Session 2015–16; and

(c) the Bill shall be dealt with in accordance with—(I) paragraph 5, if proceedings in Select Committee

were not completed when proceedings on the Bill weresuspended,

(ii) paragraph 6, if proceedings in Public Bill Committeewere begun but not completed when proceedings on theBill were suspended,

(iii) paragraph 7, if the Bill was waiting to beconsidered when proceedings on it were suspended,

(iv) paragraph 8, if the Bill was waiting for thirdreading when proceedings on it were suspended, or

(v) paragraph 9, if the Bill has been read the thirdtime and sent to the House of Lords.

5. If this paragraph applies—(a) the Bill shall stand committed to a Select Committee

of such Members as were members of the Committeewhen proceedings on the Bill were suspended in Session2014–15;

(b) any Instruction of the House to the Committeein the current Session or in Session 2014–15 shall be anInstruction to the Committee on the Bill in Session2015–16;

(c) all Petitions presented in the current Session or inSession 2014–15 which stand referred to the Committeeand which have not been withdrawn, and any Petitionpresented between the day on which Session 2014–15ends and the day on which proceedings on the Bill areresumed in Session 2015–16 in accordance with thisOrder, shall stand referred to the Committee in Session2015–16;

(d) any Minutes of Evidence taken and any paperslaid before the Committee in the current Session or inSession 2014–15 shall stand referred to the Committeein Session 2015–16;

(e) only those Petitions mentioned in sub-paragraphC), and any Petition which may be presented by beingdeposited in the Private Bill Office and in which thePetitioners complain of any proposed additional provisionor of any matter which has arisen during the progress ofthe Bill before the Committee in Session 2015–16, shallstand referred to the Committee;

(f) any Petitioner whose Petition stands referred tothe Committee in the first Session of the new Parliamentshall, subject to the Rules and Orders of the House and

1745 1746[LORDS]High Speed Rail Bill High Speed Rail Bill

to the Prayer of his Petition, be entitled to be heard inperson or through Counsel or Agents upon the Petitionprovided that it is prepared and signed and in conformitywith the Rules and Orders of the House, and the Memberin charge of the Bill shall be entitled to be heard throughCounsel or Agents in favour of the Bill against thatPetition;

(g) the Committee shall have power to sitnotwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjournfrom place to place, and to report from day to dayMinutes of Evidence taken before it;

(h) three shall be the Quorum of the Committee;(I) any person registered (or deemed by paragraph

2(j) to be registered) in Session 2014–15 as a parliamentaryagent entitled to practise as such in opposing Bills onlywho, at the time when proceedings on the Bill weresuspended in Session 2014–15, was employed in opposingthe Bill shall be deemed to have been registered as such aparliamentary agent in Session 2015–16.

6. If this paragraph applies, the Bill shall be deemedto have been reported from the Select Committee and tohave been re-committed to a Public Bill Committee.

7. If this paragraph applies—(a) the Bill shall be deemed to have been reported

from the Select Committee and from the Public BillCommittee; and

(b) the Bill shall be set down as an order of the dayfor consideration.

8. If this paragraph applies—(a) the Bill shall be deemed to have been reported

from the Select Committee and from the Public BillCommittee and to have been considered; and

(b) the Bill shall be set down as an order of the dayfor third reading.

9. If this paragraph applies, the Bill shall be deemedto have passed through all its stages in this House.

Other10. The references in paragraphs 1 and 3 above to

further proceedings do not include proceedings underStanding Order 224A(8) (deposit of supplementaryenvironmental information).

11. That the above Orders be Standing Orders of theHouse.

PrivilegeMessage from the Commons

A message was brought from the Commons that theyhave come to the following resolution:

That, in the light of the recommendations contained inparagraphs 226 and 227 of the report of the JointCommittee on Parliamentary Privilege, HC 100, thisHouse resolves that legislation creating individual rightswhich could impinge on the activities of the Houseshould in future contain express provisions to this effect.

Care Bill [HL]Returned from the Commons

The Bill was returned from the Commons agreed to.

House adjourned at 9.04 pm.

1747 1748[12 MAY 2014]High Speed Rail Bill Care Bill [HL]

Grand CommitteeMonday, 12 May 2014.


3.30 pm

The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Colwyn)(Con): Good afternoon, my Lords. If there is a Divisionin the House while we are sitting, the Grand Committeewill adjourn for 10 minutes.

Communications Act 2003 (Disclosure ofInformation) Order 2014

Motion to Consider

3.30 pm

Moved by Lord Gardiner of Kimble

That the Grand Committee do consider theCommunications Act 2003 (Disclosure of Information)Order 2014.

Relevant documents: 26th Report from the JointCommittee on Statutory Instruments

Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con): My Lords, thisorder provides for the disclosure of information betweenthe telecommunications regulator Ofcom and fourother public bodies allowing those bodies to carry outtheir regulatory duties more effectively, providing greaterprotection for consumers. The four bodies in questionare the Information Commissioner, the InsolvencyService, the Financial Conduct Authority and thesubsidiary of the FCA, the new Payment SystemsRegulator.

At present, Ofcom is prohibited from disclosinginformation to these bodies without the consent of theregulated businesses concerned. Ofcom may discloseinformation to nominated bodies, including the formerOffice of Fair Trading, whose work is now covered bythe Competition and Markets Authority, and governmentMinisters in respect of certain functions which thosebodies perform.

As the Committee will be aware, nuisance calls are asource of great inconvenience for many. Direct marketingcertainly has a useful role to play and can, for example,enable us to take advantage of cheaper energy tariffsand lower mobile phone bills and to make donationsto charities. It is also right that should we choose notto receive unsolicited calls or text messages, our choiceshould be respected by the industry. There are regulationsin place that enable consumers to make such choicesand provide for enforcement action to be taken againstthose organisations that break the rules. However, it isclear that the laws are not working as effectively asthey could be and further action is needed.

Over the past 18 months the problem of nuisancecalls has emerged and become a high-profile issue withcomplaint numbers about unsolicited marketing callsbeing made to the Information Commissioner—whohas enforcement responsibility for unsolicited calls

and text messages—rising rapidly in recent years. Thatis unsurprising as Ofcom research in May last yearindicated that 82% of consumers received a nuisancecall on their landline telephone number. I shouldstress that although nuisance calls are a source ofinconvenience and annoyance for many, this is a particularconcern for the elderly and for those who are housebound,for whom such calls cause great anxiety and distress.Such consumers are also more vulnerable to the potentialfraud and scams which are an unfortunate by-productof the world of low-cost mass communication inwhich we now live.

It is therefore no surprise that the issue of nuisancecalls has been the subject of Private Member’s Bills inthe other place by Mike Crockart and Alun Cairns,and in this House by my noble friend Lord Selsdon. Ithas also been the subject of an inquiry by the All-PartyGroup on Nuisance Calls and by the Culture, Mediaand Sport Select Committee, as well as the topic ofseveral debates and numerous Parliamentary Questions.It has also been taken up as a campaign by theconsumer group Which? calling for government andindustry to do more to protect consumers. I would liketo take this opportunity to thank all who have raisedthis issue, particularly my noble friend Lord Selsdon.

In relation to the Information Commissioner, thisorder permits Ofcom to disclose information that itobtains during its regulatory activity. It will enableinformation to be disclosed that can be used to takemore robust enforcement action against thoseorganisations that are deliberately disregarding theexisting regulations by making calls and sending textsto consumers. The fact that the conduct of organisationsis being noted by Ofcom and details disclosed to theInformation Commissioner will, we believe, act as astronger deterrent.

Addressing the problem of nuisance calls is a priorityissue for the Government. Indeed, we committed tointroducing this measure in our strategy paperConnectivity, Content and Consumers: Britain’s DigitalPlatform for Growth, which was published on 30 Julylast year. We subsequently confirmed that we wouldbe introducing this measure in our Nuisance CallsAction Plan, which we published on 30 March. Wehave received widespread support for this reform.

The order also enables Ofcom to disclose informationto the Insolvency Service to help to tackle directorsbehind what are called “phoenix” companies, whichprovide communications services but do not alwayssupply services as promised. This often results in financialloss to consumers who have paid for a service that isnot delivered. Ofcom can issue a penalty of up to 10%of turnover but often the company will enter intoinsolvency to avoid paying, only to reappear under adifferent name. The company will also usually transferits customer base before winding up the original companyand then continue to harm the same customers. Thismeasure helps to enable the Insolvency Service toconsider taking action against company directors formisconduct as directors. That action may result in aban from acting as a director of a company for aperiod of time. Also, action by the Insolvency Serviceon the basis of information provided by Ofcom mayprovide a better deterrent for other directors planningto commit similar misconduct.

GC 419 GC 420[12 MAY 2014]Arrangement of Business Communications Act 2003 Order 2014

[LORD GARDINER OF KIMBLE]I also referred to disclosure to the Financial Conduct

Authority. The Government are taking action to ensurethat UK payment systems and services meet the currentand future needs of consumers, businesses, other usersand the wider economy. Payment systems enable fundsto be directly transferred between individuals andinstitutions. A prime example is LINK, which underpinsthe ATM network in the United Kingdom.

In December 2013, the Financial Services (BankingReform) Act gained Royal Assent. The Act providedfor the establishment of a new competition-focused,utility-style regulator for payment systems in the UK.In March this year, the Chancellor announced in hisBudget Statement that the concurrent competitionpowers of the new Payment Systems Regulator wouldbe brought forward to 1 April this year.

The Government recognise that the new regulatorfaces a significant challenge to build up its capacityand expertise in relation to the market place that it willregulate—in particular, with regard to communicationscompanies that are increasingly becoming importantin the electronic payments market. More people thanever are able to link their bank accounts to an applicationand to make payments via their telephone or tabletdevice. Online platforms such as Google and Appleoffer payment mechanisms via their app stores and aredeveloping new ways to access more traditional paymentsystems. The UK Payments Council has built a centraldatabase, enabling customers from eight large UKfinancial institutions to make payments to and froman account simply by using their mobile telephonenumber.

Many of these communication companies are regulatedby Ofcom and therefore, as communications networksand their relationship with payment systems evolve,Ofcom’s ability to provide knowledge and expertise ofthis to the Financial Conduct Authority and PaymentSystems Regulator will support effective collaborationwith these organisations and help ensure that consumersare not put at risk by any improper activity carriedout.

It is important to note that Her Majesty’s Treasurybrought into force separate legislation in April thatenables the information that the Financial ConductAuthority and the Payment Systems Regulator captureto be disclosed to Ofcom. The Treasury will also beconsulting in the second half of this year on whichpayment systems will be designated for regulationgoing forward.

This is an important measure for the bodies concernedas it will enable them to undertake their regulatoryduties more effectively in the future and further interestsof consumers. I assure noble Lords that we will continueto work closely with regulators, industry, parliamentariansand the consumer group Which? to promote effectiveregulation and, most importantly, to secure consumerprotection, particularly, as I said earlier, for the elderlyand the vulnerable, who need the most protection. Webelieve that this legislation is necessary and proportionate,and there will be no cost to business. I beg to move.

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab): My Lords, Ithank the Minister for his explanation of the intentbehind the order. I make it clear from the outset that

we support these changes. Although the authors ofthe 2003 Act were quite rightly cautious about encouragingthe exchange of too much personal information betweengovernment agencies, I am sure we nevertheless acceptthat in the field of communications the world hasmoved on significantly and that the current restrictionsare preventing our regulators from carrying out theirfunctions effectively. It therefore makes sense to extendthe definition of the Information Commissioner, theFinancial Conduct Authority and the Payment SystemsRegulator as relevant persons and relevant functionsunder the Act. It also makes sense that Ofcom candisclose information to the Insolvency Service in pursuitof the directors of phoenix companies who are deliberatelymanipulating the system to avoid being brought tobook when enforcement action is taken against them.

These changes provide small but helpful ammunitionin the fight against the much bigger problem of nuisanceand fraudulent calls. However, I doubt that many ofthe millions of people plagued by these calls wouldtake too much comfort from the proposals beforeus today, particularly since—as the Minister hasacknowledged—it is the elderly and vulnerable whoare most at risk of distress and exploitation fromthem. Will the Minister take this opportunity to updateyour Lordships on what further steps the Governmentare planning to take to tackle this menace? For example,I have had sight of the Government’s Nuisance CallsAction Plan, which was published earlier this year andacknowledges that there were more than 120,000complaints about these calls in a six-month periodalone. However, the action plan seems to lay greatemphasis on reducing the legal threshold and increasingfines for those companies, rather than providingmechanisms for preventing the calls in the first place. Itseems that consumers are being left to fight their ownbattles with these nuisance callers, rather than havinga right to be protected from the unwanted calls.

There are several devices on the market to helpconsumers filter or block these calls. Having lookedinto these devices on behalf of my elderly mother whosuffers from these calls—which I am sure a number ofnoble Lords will also have experienced—I know thatthey are very expensive. One of the market leaders,trueCall, costs upwards of £160 to install. Does theMinister accept that these devices would not be necessaryif the Telephone Preference Service, which alreadyexists, were working effectively? It should filter outthese calls but is not carrying out that function as itshould. Does he agree that one way of empoweringconsumers would be to provide caller identificationfree on all telephones so that people knew who wascalling them before they picked up the phone? Finally,does he accept that the regulation of this sector is stilltoo complex and that what is needed is a one-stopshop—a single phone line and website—for citizens toreport nuisance calls?

I am very aware that I have extended the scope ofthis debate slightly beyond the specifics of the orderbefore us. However, I hope the Minister will acknowledgethat these are real concerns and provide some furtherassurance that the Government are taking these mattersseriously and have deliverable plans to ensure thatthese unwanted calls will stop. I look forward to hisresponse.

GC 421 GC 422[LORDS]Communications Act 2003 Order 2014 Communications Act 2003 Order 2014

3.45 pm

Lord Gardiner of Kimble: My Lords, the orderimpacts positively on Ofcom’s ability to discloseinformation to the four bodies that I outlined and Iam extremely grateful to the noble Baroness for thesupport that she has given to it. We are at one on thefact that we need to tackle this growing issue—that isprecisely why the Government have brought forwardtheir proposals—and I am grateful to have thisopportunity to outline some of the further steps thatwe will be looking at.

I can assure the noble Baroness that we would notbe undertaking this measure if we did not think thatthis is an extremely serious point and if we were notparticularly concerned about the elderly and vulnerable.They are the ones who we overwhelmingly seek toprotect, as well as protecting the general populationand the consumer as well.

Our action plan also noted our proposed consultationonwhether to lower the legal threshold for theInformationCommissioner to take an enforcement action, but inaddition to the legislative proposals, the action planseeks to improve information for consumers, industrybest practice and call-tracing efforts, which will beaidedbythemeetingsthataretakingplacewithrepresentativesof the telecommunications companies, consumer grouprepresentatives and interested parliamentarians.

The noble Baroness rightly raised the question ofthe effectiveness of the Telephone Preference Service.The service, which should provide protection to consumersfrom unsolicited marketing calls, may indeed not be aseffective as when it was introduced in 1999. That hasled to some consumers using call-blocking productsand services. I reassure her that Ofcom and theInformation Commissioner have undertaken researchto determine how effectively the TPS is working, andwe expect that those findings will be published nextmonth. We will of course consider and review theirfindings and take action should it be required.

It was also announced in the action plan that atask force led by Which? will look at the issue ofconsumer consent in more detail and come up withrecommendations for the Government later this year,which I very much look forward to reading. The nobleBaroness also referred to providing caller line identificationfor free so that consumers can know who is calling.The Nuisance Calls Action Plan covers the provisionof caller line identification, so that consumers knowwho is calling. We would prefer for the service to beprovided free of charge but, ultimately, this is a commercialdecision for service providers. However, TalkTalk, forexample, has provided its additional services free ofcharge, and we very much hope that other serviceproviders will follow that excellent example.

On the question of a one-stop shop, a single telephoneline and website on which to report calls, we haveensured that consumers can now access informationabout reporting nuisance calls in different ways. Ofcomand the Information Commissioner have worked closelytogether to help ensure that information on theirwebsites is both clear and consistent and providesquick links to further information and help. Also,Which? has developed a portal on its website, helping

to direct consumers arriving at their website to theright place to complain about the different types ofcalls and texts.

I particularly reassure the noble Baroness that wewill continue in our efforts to promote consistency inthe information provided to consumers across differentcommunication channels.

Efficient and effective regulation is undoubtedly inthe interests of consumers, industry, regulators andgovernment. We hope that this measure will help toachieve just that. It will simplify the process of disclosinginformation between public bodies, with a view toenhancing consumer protection. It has been activelysought by Ofcom in respect of nuisance calls, and thebodies affected also approved the measure, which, as Isaid, has been welcomed widely. I should add that itwill not in any way add burdens on business, as ittargets those who break the law; and, equally importantly,it will not encroach on the privacy of any consumersor businesses.

The primary driver for this reform was the need totake action on nuisance calls. This is an issue that theGovernment take extremely seriously. It is pertinent tonote that this measure was announced in our NuisanceCalls Action Plan, which took account of much of thedebate in your Lordships’ House and in the otherplace. Against a backdrop of a very high number ofcomplaints to the regulator and the need for greaterenforcement action, it is imperative that we act, andact quickly.

I again reassure the noble Baroness that we takethis matter extremely seriously. We all know of peoplewho have been affected by this. It is our duty to act. Itis for those reasons that I commend the order to yourLordships.

Motion agreed.

3.49 pm

Sitting suspended.


3.55 pmThe Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Colwyn)

(Con): My Lords, I have taken advice from the Table.In the absence of an Opposition, it is in order to goahead with the following order.

European Union (Definition of Treaties)(Convention on International Interests in

Mobile Equipment and Protocol thereto onmatters specific to Aircraft Equipment)

Order 2014Motion to Consider

3.55 pmMoved by Viscount Younger of Leckie

That the Grand Committee do consider theEuropean Union (Definition of Treaties) (Conventionon International Interests in Mobile Equipmentand Protocol thereto on matters specific to AircraftEquipment) Order 2014.

GC 423 GC 424[12 MAY 2014]Communications Act 2003 Order 2014 European Union Order 2014

[VISCOUNT YOUNGER OF LECKIE]Relevant documents: 26th Report from the Joint

Committee on Statutory Instruments

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Departmentfor Business, Innovation and Skills (Viscount Youngerof Leckie) (Con): My Lords, this is quite a technicalorder whose purpose is to specify the Convention onInternational Interests in Mobile Equipment and theProtocol theretoonmatters specific toAircraftEquipmentas a European treaty under Section 1(3) of the EuropeanCommunities Act 1972. For the ease of discussion, Ishall refer to the convention and the protocol as“the treaty”. Once the order has been made by thePrivy Council, it will enable the Government to makeregulations to implement the provisions of the treatyusingthepowers inSection2of theEuropeanCommunitiesAct.

I shall take a few moments to explain the backgroundto the treaty to which the order refers. The treaty aimsto make it easier to finance the purchase or lease ofhelicopters, airframes and aircraft engines over a certainsize and engine capacity. It excludes military, policeand customs equipment. Light aircraft are unlikely tomeet the treaty’s minimum size and engine capacityrequirements.

The treaty supports an important part of the UKeconomy—the aviation and aerospace sectors. Beforeoutlining the treaty itself, I shall take a step back andconsider these sectors, which make a significantcontribution to the UK economy. The air transportsector’s annual turnover is £26 billion. This refers tothe aviation sector, which provides around 120,000jobs in the UK and supports many more indirectly.

Aerospace was among the first of the joint industry/government industrial strategies—one of 11—to bepublished last year. The aerospace sector, which coversmanufacturing, has an annual turnover of £24 billionand supports 230,000 jobs across the UK. UK aerospacehas a 17% global market share, making it the numberone aerospace industry in Europe, second globallyonly to the US.

UK companies have key strengths in the mostcomplex parts of aircraft such as wings, engines andadvanced systems. The UK is also one of the fewcountries that can build and design advanced helicopters.The joint government and industry Aerospace GrowthPartnership is investing in research and developmentprojects through the Aerospace Technology Instituteto keep the UK aerospace sector at the forefront oftechnology developments.

The Government recently announced a series ofprojects to be funded through the ATI. This includes£60 million of investment in a new aerospace facilityat the manufacturing technology centre at Ansty, nearCoventry; £13 million to improve the research capacityof wind tunnel facilities at seven universities—Imperial,Southampton, Oxford, Cambridge, Cranfield, CityUniversity London and Glasgow; and £60 millioninvestment in seven new R&D projects spanning allfour pillars of the ATI—wings, engine, aerostructuresand advanced systems.

Having set the treaty in context, I return to thepurpose of the treaty itself and how it supports theaviation and aerospace industries. The aviation and

aerospace sectors are growing, and Airbus estimatesthat air traffic will increase globally by 4.7% over the20-year period 2013-32, requiring approximately 29,000new aircraft with a total value of approximately$4.4 trillion.

Purchasing or leasing the aircraft equipment is veryexpensive. Boeing estimates that global aircraft financingrequirements in 2014 will be $112 billion. Averageprices of aircraft can range from around $60 millionto $400 million, depending on factors such as aircraftsize, engine choice, performance capability and otherdesign requirements. When purchasing or leasing aircraftequipment, most airlines are likely to raise financethrough third parties, such as banks or capital markets,or, on occasion, manufacturers may provide financialsupport.

Airlines may also seek support in the form ofguarantees from Government or government-supportedexport credit agencies. ECA guarantees or insurancemay be used in cases where banks are reluctant to lendthe full amount due to the large risks associated withthe loan and the airlines. Many of these financingsources are on an asset-secured basis. Should an airlinedefault on its loan or enter insolvency, the financierwould usually step in and repossess the aircraft tomake recoveries against the debt.

4 pmFollowing the economic downturn, the availability

of commercial bank finance decreased as many bankssought to build up their capital reserves. The Organisationfor Economic Co-operation and Development’s newaviation sector understanding has increased the costof export credit support to airlines. The proportionof support provided by banks and export credit agenciesis expected to fall between 2013 and 2014, while theproportion of finance provided by the capital marketsis expected to increase. As a result, there is evidencethat airlines are looking to alternative sources of finance.

For the third party, providing aircraft finance isrisky: first, due to the high value of the assets; and,secondly, due to the international nature of thoseassets—a creditor cannot be certain in which countryan aircraft will be located should they need to repossessit. Since different countries have different laws regardingthe repossession of assets, a creditor cannot be certainhow easy or difficult it will be to repossess and exportaircraft equipment, if necessary.

As a result of those challenges, the InternationalCivil Aviation Organisation and the International Institutefor the Unification of Private Law tried to reducesome of those risks to creditors, and thereby reducethe cost of raising finance to purchase high-value,mobile international assets. The result was the Conventionon International Interests in Mobile Equipment,commonly called the Cape Town convention, which isan overarching international legal framework to providecreditors with greater certainty that they can recoveran asset from or take enforcement measures in anyjurisdiction that is a party to the convention. However,the convention is only effective if accompanied by aprotocol addressing the particular difficulties faced infinancing a specific class of asset. Three protocols

GC 425 GC 426[LORDS]European Union Order 2014 European Union Order 2014

have so far been concluded, on aircraft equipment,railway rolling stock and space assets. The Governmentintend to ratify the protocol relating to aircraft equipment.

The treaty created an International Registry, whichacts as a registration and prioritisation system forinterests over aircraft equipment—such as mortgagesand leases—and a framework to resolve disputes, suchas the ability of creditors to recover an asset should anairline fail to keep up with repayments. It will not bemandatory to register with the International Registry,and businesses will be able to choose how best toprotect their interests.

The treaty offers a number of other benefits. First,it allows interests against engines to be registeredseparately. Currently, interests against an aircraft enginecannot be registered on the UK’s national register ofaircraft mortgages: they have to be included as part ofan aircraft mortgage. Since aircraft engines are high-valueassets in their own right, and are routinely movedbetween aircraft for maintenance reasons, the abilityto register a mortgage or lease against an individualaircraft engine would reduce the level of risk forfinanciers, which is expected to reduce the cost ofraising finance for aircraft engines. Secondly, theInternational Registry is open 24 hours a day, sevendays a week, and is an electronic filing system. Thatmay make it more convenient for creditors to registertheir interests, since aircraft finance transactions tendto involve multiple parties located across differentjurisdictions and time zones.

As I have mentioned, the aim of the treaty is toreduce the cost of raising finance for airlines. Thatbenefit is difficult to quantify, as each airline willchoose to raise finance in different ways, and creditorswill consider a number of other factors, such as thecredit rating of the individual airline, the financestructure and the type of asset. However, the benefitsto UK businesses are expected to outweigh any smallfamiliarisation costs involved. The majority of respondentsto a call for evidence on whether the UK shouldratify the treaty were strongly supportive, believingUK airlines would benefit from a reduced cost ofraising finance.

The treaty is a shared-competence treaty, which theEU has already ratified. It contains a number ofoptional provisions which are under the competenceof the UK. They include, first, the courts that havejurisdiction over claims under the treaty; secondly,remedies available to creditors without leave of thecourt; thirdly, remedies on insolvency; and, fourthly,allowing the expeditious deregistration and export ofan aircraft object. The Government will consult onhow the UK should implement the treaty in order tobring the greatest benefits to UK businesses.

In conclusion, this draft order will specify the treatyas a European treaty under the European CommunitiesAct 1972. This will enable the Government to implementthe provisions of the treaty using the powers in Section2(2) of that Act. It will also allow UK businesses tobenefit from the provisions of the treaty, which I haveoutlined to the Committee: the potential reduction inthe cost of raising aircraft finance; the ability toregister interests against engines separately; and the

ability to register interests on the International Registry24 hours a day, seven days a week. I commend theorder to the Committee and beg to move.

Motion agreed.

Renewable Heat Incentive Scheme(Amendment) Regulations 2014

Motion to Consider

4.07 pm

Moved by Baroness Verma

That the Grand Committee do consider theRenewable Heat Incentive Scheme (Amendment)Regulations 2014.

Relevant documents: 26th Report from the JointCommittee on Statutory Instruments

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Departmentof Energy and Climate Change (Baroness Verma) (Con):My Lords, I am pleased to open the debate on theRenewable Heat Incentive Scheme (Amendment)Regulations 2014.

Heat makes up 45% of the UK’s overall energy useand therefore represents a key part of our energyindustry. Renewable heat will help businesses andcommunity groups to manage their energy bills andwill also continue to play a key role in delivering onour renewable energy targets and long-term carbonplan in an increasingly affordable way. The renewableheat incentive, the world’s first scheme of its kind, isthe Government’s primary mechanism for deliveringour ambition of a step change in how we produce ourheat through the deployment of renewable heatingtechnologies.

Recently—in March—we debated the regulationsintroducing the domestic RHI for households, and Iam pleased to update the Committee that on 9 Aprilthis year the domestic RHI scheme was launched,delivering on our promise to support householderswith the switch to renewable heating systems.

Initial feedback from both industry and consumerson the launch of the domestic RHI has beenoverwhelmingly positive. We have already seen thefirst owners of renewable heating technologies enterthe domestic scheme, with 480 up to 4 May. Thedomestic scheme, unlike its non-domestic counterpart,is coupled with the Green Deal. We have now seen thefirst customers who have taken advantage of bothschemes claiming the domestic RHI.

Today, the Government are introducing a series ofimprovements to the non-domestic RHI for businesses,delivering tailored, appropriate support to a greaterrange of renewable technologies in the scheme. Theseimprovements go a long way to achieving the ambitiouslevels of deployment that we want and need in therenewable heating sector.

These regulations bring in changes to the non-domesticRHI in three broad areas: they improve and expandupon the range of technologies available in the scheme;they introduce improvements to the budget management

GC 427 GC 428[12 MAY 2014]European Union Order 2014 Renewable Heat Incentive Scheme

[BARONESS VERMA]mechanism, delivering greater value for money; andthey bring refinements to the rules of eligibility andoperation of the scheme.

We have come a long way since the RHI was firstannounced in 2011. With the launch of the domesticscheme and, now, the expansion and improvement ofthe non-domestic scheme, this is undoubtedly an excitingtime for the renewable heating sector, reaffirming thisGovernment’s commitment to renewables and to helpingbusinesses and community groups to manage theirbills.

Before I move on to the detail, it may be useful if Iprovide some brief background to what these amendmentswill achieve. The RHI is designed both to deliver theambitious levels of renewable heat to meet our 2020renewable energy targets and to set the foundations forthe mass deployment of renewables in the 2020s and2030s. Since the RHI’s launch in November 2011, wehave seen good progress in the deployment of renewableheating technologies. We have received more than5,000 applications, more than 4,000 have been accreditedand over a terawatt-hour of heat has been generatedand paid for.

However, we want to do more. We want to see moretechnologies supported, to provide more tailored supportand to deliver more with the available budget. Thenon-domestic scheme in particular is intended to offera range of renewable heating options. There are varyingrequirements across the non-domestic sector and wewant to create viable renewable heating options acrossthe breadth of the commercial, industrial, public andnot-for-profit sectors. These amendments will widenthe options available and offer more appropriate andbespoke tariffs for the full range of technologies.

I will talk further about the specific expansions andupdates to the tariffs that we are introducing to thescheme following consultation on those expansionsback in September 2012 and the confirmation of thepolicy in December of last year. The first technologythat I will focus on is air-to-water heat pumps. Heatpumps have an important role to play in our long-termcarbon budgets and in helping to manage energy bills.Support is needed now not only to incentivise renewableheating over fossil fuel alternatives in the short termbut also to stimulate innovation and performanceimprovements in the longer term. We are proposing tointroduce a tariff of 2.5p per kilowatt hour for air-to-waterheat pumps.

I turn to the second of our new technologies:large-scale biogas combustion. Biogas and anaerobicdigestion, in addition to being a source of renewableenergy, is a sustainable solution to waste managementand a key plank of our waste strategy. These regulationsintroduce new support for plants with capacity of200 kilowatts and above. Support will be introducedthrough two new tariff bands: 5.9p per kilowatt hourfor medium-sized installations and 2.2p per kilowatthour for large installations—that is, those over 600kilowatts.

In addition to new support, the regulations alsointroduce bespoke, improved support in the form ofnew tariffs for some technologies. The first of these isbiomass combined heat and power. A key plank of the

Government’s bioenergy strategy is that combinedheat and power generation offers more efficient use ofthe biomass resources and should be promoted wherepossible. Biomass CHP systems are already eligible forthe RHI under the tariffs available for biomass heat-onlyinstallations. CHP projects, however, have their ownparticular risks and costs associated with them, so abespoke tariff is needed to bring forward the significantinvestment required for this important technology.The regulations introduce a tariff, based on detailedcost and performance data, of 4.1p per kilowatt hour.In order to ensure that only good-quality CHP receivesthe higher tariff, support will be contingent on obtainingcertification under the combined heat and power qualityassurance scheme.

We are also proposing improved support for deepgeothermal heat, which is extracted from depths ofbelow 500 metres underground. Deep geothermal hasthe potential to provide cost-effective, affordable, renewablelow-carbon and non-intermittent heat to the UK. Itssmall service footprint and its ability to supply continuousheat on demand makes it an ideal fit for urbanenvironments and it has been identified as a key technologyfor heat networks. These regulations introduce a newbespoke tariff for deep geothermal of 5p per kilowatthour.

4.15 pmI move on to energy from waste, the final extension

technology included in these regulations. Energy-from-waste technologies have the advantage of using biomassat the end of its useful life. They produce renewableenergy from the biodegradable portion of waste and,in turn, prevent methane emissions from the decay ofthat material in landfill. The Government’s review ofwaste policy in England in 2011 reflected our commitmentto increasing renewable energy from all waste. Thesedraft regulations extend support to plants generatingheat from all renewable waste streams, with renewablewaste defined as waste with a minimum of 10% biomasscontent.

Having covered the series of expansions and newsupport from the September 2012 consultation, I turnto the updates to pre-existing tariffs that follow areview of the evidence base used to set those tariffs.The first tariff review technology I will cover is large-scalebiomass combustion. This technology is used in industrialprocess heating and commercial space heating, whichwere both identified in the UK bioenergy strategy aspriority energy deployment pathways for biomass. TheRHI already offers support for this size and type oftechnology, offering a tariff of 1p per kilowatt hourfor biomass plants with a capacity of 1 megawatt orabove. We have, however, not seen the level of uptakeanticipated for this technology. Following the reviewof costs and evidence and representation from industry,we have established that a higher tariff is required toincentivise this technology. These regulations thereforeincrease the tariff for new large biomass installationsto 2p per kilowatt hour.

As I mentioned earlier, ground source heat pumpshave a key role to play in our long-term carbon plan,as well as making a material contribution to our 2020renewable energy targets. Ground source heat pumpsin particular can contribute to our aim of increasing

GC 429 GC 430[LORDS]Renewable Heat Incentive Scheme Renewable Heat Incentive Scheme

energy efficiency but their deployment to date underthe RHI has been disappointing. The May 2013 tariffreview and consultation identified that a substantialincrease was needed to incentivise the uptake of thistechnology. The tariff review concluded that thecurrent tariff is too low and these regulations increasesupport to an aggregated tariff of 7.2p per kilowatthour. The regulations also make it easier for groundsource heat pumps to make use of their unique abilityto store for future use heat which would otherwisehave been wasted.

Solar thermal is the last technology on which I willprovide an update today. Solar thermal technologiescollect heat from the sun to provide hot water. Theyare comparatively well known and understood, andpresent relatively few installation challenges. Updatedevidence from the tariff review suggests that a highertariff is required. These regulations therefore increasethe solar thermal tariff to the latest value-for-moneycap of 10p per kilowatt hour.

These regulations also deliver amendments to thefinancial control mechanism for the scheme, whichhas been in operation since last year. The changesbeing made are twofold. First, the relevant degressiontriggers are updated in the schedules. These are nowbased on the current state of the market and allow forsustainable growth in renewable heat. We are able todo this now that the scheme has been running formore than two and a half years. Secondly, through ourexperience of operating the scheme to date, we areable to improve how we make those estimates. Inshort, for very large installations we would rely on thegreater use of evidence supplied in respect of eachindividual plant rather than applying averages, whichcan distort outcomes.

We have also moved to a position where we includeinstallations in our estimates only from the date whenthey are most likely to make demands on the budget.Both changes would substantially improve our estimatesof spend and ensure that we reduce tariffs only whereit is right to do so.

These regulations introduce refinements to rules oneligibility and the operation of the scheme. For producersof biomethane injected into the gas grid, they bring ingreater clarity for the participants on what is requiredto qualify for RHI support. The regulations also bringin simplifications to the approach taken for additionalcapacity added to existing plants on the scheme.

Finally, the regulations introduce a mechanism forgrant recipients who are unable to repay their grantsto access the RHI via reduced tariff payments. Adoptinga more flexible approach to the interaction betweenpublic grants and the RHI can encourage more renewableheating installations to come forward.

The regulations will bring in significant improvementsto our world-first non-domestic renewable heat incentivescheme. Having gained further evidence on the costsand performance of various technologies, we are ableto introduce support to a wider range of technologiesand introduce better, more tailored support.

Through learning the lessons of operating the scheme,we are able to refine the rules to give better clarity toparticipants and iron out any lumps and bumps, helpingto ensure the smooth operation of the scheme. With

these changes, the non-domestic RHI will be wellplaced to deliver our ambitious targets for renewableheat in the UK. With the domestic RHI showing earlysigns of success, we can hope to bring about a radicalchange in how we produce our heat in all aspects ofour lives, developing an exciting market supportingthousands of jobs. I commend the regulations to theCommittee.

Baroness Worthington (Lab): My Lords, I am verygrateful to the Minister for her introduction to theregulations to be considered today. As we have spokenon the subject in the past, I reiterate our strong supportfor mechanisms to incentivise the uptake of renewableheat. Indeed, my Question in the House last weektouched on that. We said that we would have a debateand here we are, so I am very grateful for this opportunity.

I have made these points in the past, so I will notspend too much time on them. We are very interestedin the rates of deployment under the scheme andwould like to see as much emphasis as possible fromthe Government on progress to date, an analysis ofwhat could be done differently and how things can beimproved to increase the rate of uptake. The timebetween now and 2020, when we face our renewablesenergy targets under the European renewables directive,will elapse quickly so it is important that we makegood progress. As the noble Baroness pointed out,heat emissions account for 45% of our total energysystem, so it is a hugely important area.

These regulations are welcome. There are manyaspects of them which show that the Government arelistening, having taken proper and due account ofwhat stakeholders are feeding back, and have madeappropriate changes. That is very welcome. Havingsaid that, I still have a fundamental worry about thescheme being complex. Many elements are quiteprescriptive. The schedules setting out all the budgetelements per fuel type or per scale are complex. Thesesums of money are now being put into ever smallerparts, with digressions and various rules which arecomplex to understand. My fear is that if you are asmall business or a company out there trying to builda business on the back of the regulations, they lookvery complex. My gut instinct is that markets thriveon simplicity, with the Government dictating outcomesand allowing the market to find the best solution. Irecognise that in the renewable heat industry, we aredealing with a nascent market and it might need thiskind of administratively controlled system to start itoff, but I hope that we will hear from the Ministerabout the future support for renewable heat. Can weget to a slightly less administrated, inflexible system ofbudget management than we have and towards abroader, more market-based system, which it wouldbenefit from? That is my first point.

The second general point is that in terms of valuefor money for the consumer, renewable heat providessome of the best and least costly options we have fordecarbonising and diversifying our fuel mix. You cansee that by looking at some of the pence per kilowatthour tariff levels that have been set. Some of thosetechnologies are very cost competitive with some ofthe renewables technologies that we are funding in theelectricity sector.

GC 431 GC 432[12 MAY 2014]Renewable Heat Incentive Scheme Renewable Heat Incentive Scheme

[BARONESS WORTHINGTON]In particular, that is true if we look at biomass. Not

only do you find relatively cost-competitive rates atwhich you can deploy biomass—mainly commercially;I think that the domestic sector is slightly separate—youalso save on fuel imports, because for every tonne ofbiomass that goes into an energy system, a largeproportion of it can be converted into heat, whereasonly roughly one-third of it can be converted intoelectricity. For biomass in particular, where there aresome associated sustainability issues, it makes an awfullot of sense to ensure that your biomass goes into theheat network ahead and above of it going into theelectricity network.

To what extent does DECC monitor the incentivesthat are in place and compare them against eachother? What does the RHI biomass subsidy tell uscompared to the subsidies being paid under the RO,the FITs and the CFDs that apply to electricity? Canwe discuss whether those incentives are pointing in theright direction and whether we have the right incentivesto deploy biomass in the most efficient way in bothcarbon and cost terms?

My other question is on the solar thermal element.The Minister mentioned that the cap of 10p per kilowatthour has been maxed out for that technology but it isstill less than the industry says it needs. I wonder aboutthe rationale for setting the cap at 10p per kilowatthour; it is probably somewhere in the literature and Iapologise if I have not absorbed it. I would be interestedto know whether some of the CFDs or feed-in tariffsthat we are offering in electricity go beyond that 10pcap. If so, why are we capping heat but not electricityin the same way? I am curious about that.

I have one question about the changes to the waythat projects will be accredited. The tariffs for CHPstate that the rules will be relaxed to allow CHP unitsthat have both fossil and biomass to be eligible. Howdo we then police that? We know that all our HIpayments are on a deemed basis. If people have oneunit that can fire on either fossil or biomass yet theyget a deemed payment, what is the evaluation, monitoringand verification process and how will we police it toensure that we do not create some kind of weirdincentives there?

I have raised in the past my keen interest in bio-oilsbeing used to replace heating oil. I think I am going tomeet officials informally to talk that through; I mentionit again because it is still a low-hanging fruit that weshould explore having.

Those are my main points. I say again that theregulations are welcome. My questions are probing innature and from a desire better to understand theregulations. I look forward to hearing the noble Baroness’sreply, and if she would care to meet on this topicsubsequently, that would be great.

Baroness Verma: I am extremely grateful for thegeneral support that the noble Baroness has given tothe regulations. As she and I are both aware, given thatthe scheme is the first of its type in the world, therewill be lessons to be learnt as we go in looking at howtechnologies respond and react to the work we aredoing. As she rightly points out, renewable heat is

really key to being able to manage some of the stressesthat will be put on the power sector in the longer term.

To respond to one or two of the noble Baroness’sdirect questions, she asked about the solar thermalelement and the difference between the incentives there.The key, of course, is that to achieve our 2020 renewablestarget we have to be able to set tariffs to consider alltechnologies. The width of the question is about ensuringthat all technologies are able to partake in there withoutdistorting the market for any technology that wants tocome in but cannot find space to be supported. Ofcourse we have to work to value for money as well.

4.30 pmThe noble Baroness also asked about the complexity

of degression, which may put investors off. We haveseen an increasing number of applications but I takeher point: it is an incredibly complex area to workthrough. However, we work very closely with industryto ensure that small and medium-sized businesses inparticular are able to take advantage of this. As wehave shown through consultation and our meetings,we have responded to ensure that small and medium-sizedbusinesses are not left out of being able to take advantageof the measures that we are taking. On our progress todate, we have more than 4,000 accredited installations,781 megawatts of capacity and 1.175 terawatt hours ofeligible heat, while £56 million has been paid out.

The noble Baroness asked a number of detailedquestions. I always feel that it is much better if eitherwe put the answers in a letter to her and place a copyin the Library or, as she has suggested, we have ameeting with officials where she can get the answers inmuch more detail. The overall agreement between theGovernment and Opposition Front Benches is that weare heading in the right direction, and of course wewill look to improve the measures as we work themthrough. It is right to ensure that, where technologyhas become much more mature and is able to cost thetaxpayer less, we always put a focus on trying to divertour attention to some of the newer technologies whichwill need support. That is the only way that we will beable to get innovation built in.

The noble Baroness asked about bioliquids. Aswith previous answers, my notes say that the case forheating with bioliquids is currently being developed. Ithink I said that to her last time as well but, once weget to a much more illustrative place, obviously we willhave that debate. I am grateful for the noble Baroness’sconstructive remarks, and I look forward to theseregulations being passed.

Motion agreed.

Law CommissionQuestion for Short Debate

4.33 pm

Asked by Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plansthey have to prioritise and clear the backlog of LawCommission bills awaiting parliamentary consideration.

GC 433 GC 434[LORDS]Renewable Heat Incentive Scheme Law Commission

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con): My Lords,my noble friend on the Front Bench is well aware thatI am no lawyer. He and indeed other Members of theCommittee may therefore wonder why I have trespassedinto this rather specialist area of the legal world—therole of the Law Commission. The answer is that a fewyears ago, when the new procedure devised to enableyour Lordships’ House to consider Law CommissionBills not only faster but more effectively was introduced,I had the privilege of serving on the first Bill so dealtwith, the Perpetuities and Accumulations Bill, whichgave me first-hand knowledge of the valuable workdone by the Law Commission.

When I talked to staff at the Law Commission, in arather charmingly self-effacing, self-deprecating waythey described their work as being “care andmaintenance”. That gravely underestimates the valueof what they do. For example, their work on theConsumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations)Act—another Bill Committee on which I served—madesignificant improvements to the position of the man inthe street seeking to obtain insurance. It restricted theability of insurers to ask open-ended questions ofthe “Are there any other questions and facts that theinsurer ought to be aware of”variety. The Bill Committeereceived evidence of cases where this had been muchabused. An individual was refused treatment for hiscancer on his private health insurance because he hadfailed to reveal to the insurer that he had visited hisdoctor—about flu, not cancer—a few weeks before hiscancer was diagnosed.

I argue that the Law Commission does valuablework in improving equality of arms, in clarifyingaspects of historical legislation that modern developmentshave made obscure, and generally—in that rather overusedmodern phrase—in helping to make the law fit forpurpose. Of course, there are limitations to the workof the Law Commission. It must not and cannottrespass into party-political issues. Notwithstandingthat, it provides a light-touch, swift way of keepingour law up to date. I was therefore distressed to learnthat a number of Law Commission Bills that are, so tospeak, on the runway do not appear to be beingcleared for take-off. I want to focus on three of thosenow.

The first is a report on easements and covenants,published in June 2011—nearly three years ago. Interalia, restrictions on landowners creating easementsand covenants with variable impacts restrict theirability to obtain mortgage finance and so impact thedevelopment of large estates. The Bill would easethose challenges.

The second is an insurance contract law Bill, whichis essentially a commercial follow-up to the consumerinsurance Act that I referred to earlier. The Bill isparticularly important for small businesses, such as ashop or a small family metal fabricating business,where the owners’ personal assets are co-mingled withthose of the commercial operation. There is a practicalreason for urgency on that Bill, in that Mr DavidHertzell—the Law Commissioner responsible for allthe work done on that Bill to date—retires in Decemberthis year. It would surely be an unnecessary own goalto lose his experience and expertise.

The third is a third parties (rights against insurers)Bill. A version of it received Royal Assent in 2010 but,for reasons that I have not been able to ascertain, it hasnever been implemented. It now needs to be updatedby a short supplemental Bill. The Act’s purpose is toprotect the insured where the insurer has gone out ofbusiness. It therefore has particular relevance for “longtail” claims, such as those relating to asbestosis.

The Government could, if they chose, quickly takeforward that group of Bills. Are those Bills going tohave the regulars of the saloon bar of the Dog andDuck dancing on the tables? No, they are not, but theyare individually going to make a significant differencein their specialist areas. In particular, I venture thethought that your Lordships’ House is not going to beoverburdened with legislation in the next Session.Therefore, what better way to use the House’s timeand expertise than in considering these important butnon-contentious pieces of legislation? I look forwardto hearing, at least in outline, how my noble friendsees progress being made on these and indeed otherLaw Commission Bills.

A repetition of what happened to the LawCommission’s Bill on termination of tenancies fortenant default would surely be unacceptable. It wasoriginally published by the Law Commission on31 October 2006—seven and a half years ago. To date,no response to it has been forthcoming, from this orthe previous Government. Governments are of courseentitled to decline to take forward particular pieces oflegislation but it is surely unacceptable not to respondto the Law Commission’s work. The Bill would domuch to help businesses to stay in business by removingthe perverse incentive that currently exists for landlordsto change the locks on properties as early as possible.Sadly, the commission has concluded that since, as Iexplained, more than seven and a half years have nowelapsed since the first consultation, the Bill is out oftime. Consultation will have to begin again and all thepublic funds so far expended have been wasted.

For the remainder of my remarks, I will look forwardat two Law Commission Bills currently in consultation.The first is the regulation of health and social careBill. I have a shrewd suspicion that my noble friendLord Kirkwood and the noble Lord, Lord Patel, willwish to pursue this in more detail. Health and socialcare professional regulation is currently provided underthe provisions of the Medical Act 1983 and a series ofparallel Acts for other health professions. In the wordsof the General Medical Council, the Medical Act is,“outdated, complex, highly prescriptive and difficult to change.This makes it difficult to innovate and respond quickly andefficiently to society’s expectations in a rapidly changing healthcareenvironment”.

This Law Commission Bill is different from most ofthose that have gone before in that it is long andcomplex. Most Law Commission Bills are quite slimbut this Bill is telephone directory-thick, and of courseit has the capacity to become party political. The Billis in danger of falling between various stools. Nevertheless,for the reasons that I have already outlined, it is abadly needed Bill in order to keep our regulatoryframework up to date and so improve the protectionof patients. So where is this Bill now? Is it still a LawCommission Bill or will it become a Department of

GC 435 GC 436[12 MAY 2014]Law Commission Law Commission

[LORD HODGSON OF ASTLEY ABBOTTS]Health Bill? If so far it is neither, when will thedecision be made as to which legislative process is tobe adopted?

I now turn to an area in which I have long taken aninterest—the world of charities. Charities and voluntarygroups do wonderful work across our civil society—inparticular, tackling those hard-to-reach groups thatpresent particularly intractable and challenging socialproblems. To their great credit, the Government recognisethe role of the sector, but the charity sector is muchimpeded by an outdated legal structure, notably thefact that the current law makes no distinction betweenthe duties of a trustee of an ordinary trust as opposedto a charitable one. This, linked to the complicationsand complexities of what is known as permanentendowment, has significantly impeded the developmentof social investment and the consequent growth ofcharities that could benefit from the availability offinance so provided. A Law Commission consultationpaper on these issues has recently been published andthe consultation period closes on 18 June. I hope thatmy noble friend will be able to tell me that the Governmentpropose to move forward swiftly to the implementationphase thereafter.

Before I conclude, I have one further point. TheLord Chancellor produces an annual report on thework of the Law Commission. A little bird told methat the report for last year was to be published lastThursday, 8 May. I have searched on the parliamentarywebsite for it without success. Fearing that this onlyrevealed my technological incompetence, I sought thehelp of the Printed Paper Office, also to no avail. Ishould be grateful if my noble friend could confirm itswhereabouts.

Lord Beecham (Lab): I have read it.

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: The noble Lord,Lord Beecham, is clearly more expert than I am atthis. Half an hour ago, the Printed Paper Office toldme that it did not have a copy. I now know its whereabouts.I thought that it might be published with a view totrying to spike my guns, but there we are. I lookforward to the pleasure of reading it in due course.

I have argued that the Law Commission does valuablework that is far too valuable to be left to moulder on aWhitehall shelf. Proposals are awaiting implementationand the Government should use time in the nextSession to bring these forward. I recognise that I haveasked my noble friend a number of detailed questions,although I hope that I gave his office at least anoutline of the lines that I proposed to follow. I wouldbe perfectly happy if he were minded to write to meand Members of the Committee in reply.

What I am looking for is a general sense of urgencyand commitment. Someone once described a Minister’sjob as being a mixture of bomb disposal and Dyno-Rod.I want to be reassured this afternoon that my noblefriend is the man from Dyno-Rod.

4.44 pm

Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope (LD): My Lords, it is agreat pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Hodgsonof Astley Abbotts, and this is an important debate. I

start by declaring an interest: I am currently chair ofthe trustees of the General Medical Council’ssuperannuation scheme. That might give a clue as towhat I shall be talking about in the course of my briefremarks.

My noble friend Lord Hodgson has done the GrandCommittee a great favour by tabling this Question forShort Debate. It is an important subject for the reasonsthat he described, but the timing of acquiring it isparticularly valuable. It makes me think that we talkabout the need to find ways to get adequate scrutinyfor medical and other regulators, but actually theMinistry of Justice should have regular accountabilitysessions to Parliament. A Question for Short Debatesuch as the one is afternoon is an excellent example ofthat. It is something we should do annually because itis an important part of Parliament’s work carefully toscrutinise the invaluable work that the Law Commissionscollectively, throughout the legislatures in the UnitedKingdom, do. They are of valuable assistance not justto Parliament but to us as individual legislators. Mynoble friend Lord Hodgson gets high marks for bringingthis forward, and we should think about doing it moreregularly in future.

I cheated; I spoke to the Law Commission andasked it where its annual report was, and it very kindlysent me a link, so I have had a chance, which my noblefriend has not yet had, to look at that report. Youwould have to acknowledge that a fair amount ofprogress has been made. There is the influence that theLaw Commission had on the Care Bill, to name butone, which is a massive piece of legislation and hastaken up a lot of parliamentary time. That is anexample of how the process should and can be used.

The Ministry of Justice deserves some credit forwhat has been achieved but I agree with my noblefriend: there is emerging concern about the three piecesof legislation outlined in the annual report. If we canlearn more about what is in the ministerial mind of theMinistry of Justice for those three pieces of legislation,that will be extremely valuable.

I want to make a point about time in Parliament.Although the value of the Law Commission is special,it is obviously no use whatever unless it can haveadequate parliamentary time. My noble friend is rightto say that there are two avenues into Parliament: thespecialist procedure and the generality of proposalsadopted by government departments are both available.He mentioned this in passing: I think that people willbe puzzled by the excuse from time immemorial frombusiness managers in Parliament—I used to be a memberof the usual channels in the other place at an earlierstage of my parliamentary career, and business managerson the government side are always saying this—thatthey are strapped for time, and they would love to beable to help but they cannot because they do not havethe appropriate slots. Ordinary people would be puzzledby that right now because parliamentary Recesses,particularly this year, are more frequent and for alonger duration than in my experience they have beenin the recent past.

My first question is, if the Ministry of Justice andthe Law Commission are working closely together,why the Ministry of Justice is not knocking on the

GC 437 GC 438[LORDS]Law Commission Law Commission

door of the business managers more regularly, saying,“If we’ve got a little bit more latitude in the business infront of the House, surely we can find a slot for someof this work”. I am sure that that must create a hugeamount of frustration. The value of the Law Commissionsthroughout the jurisdictions in the United Kingdom isimmense in the expertise that they make available toParliament. Although my noble friend is right toguard against getting the Law Commissions involvedin parliamentary or political controversy, that thework that they do, the consultations that they carryout and the standing that they have with their interlocutorsproduce a quality of consultation that White Papersand Green Papers perhaps do not because they arenecessarily promoted by government departments. TheLaw Commissioners must be very frustrated that theyspend time on these measures and then find, as mynoble friend reported, that some Bills are left languishingfor seven and a half years. We have to work harder tofind ways of getting parliamentary time for this importantwork.

In passing, I point out what we all know: theQueen’s Speech that we are looking forward to afterthe forthcoming Prorogation will contain—becausethey always do—a provision for other measures beinglaid before Parliament. That provision always givessome scope for Law Commission proposals and I donot think that we have been as assiduous and robust aswe should have been in taking advantage of it. Indeed,we should be saying to the Law Commissions throughoutthe United Kingdom that over a five-year Parliamentwe will certainly guarantee them some time. Thereshould be some understanding that there will be a bitof time for the special procedure and for governmentBills. If the Law Commission sees fit to spend timegiving careful consideration to some of these proposalsfor public care and maintenance and other revisions ofour body of law, then the least we can do politically isto give it a better idea of what time will be available forthat.

As my noble friend anticipated, I want to talkbriefly about the case for early inclusion of the regulationof healthcare professionals in the upcoming Queen’sSpeech. I want to put a single question to my noblefriend on the Front Bench to which I do not know theanswer. I do not know to what extent the Ministry ofJustice has leverage with the usual channels—in myexperience, not many people have leverage with theusual channels except the usual channels themselves.However, there must be some way for the Ministry ofJustice to say, whether formally or informally, that itsupports a piece of legislation. This is a substantialpiece of legislation. It has 250-plus clauses, so fitting itinto one parliamentary Session would be a tight fit,particularly in the next Session. We know when theelection is going to be but I think that it will be anusual, and perhaps an unusually unpredictable, spaceas far as parliamentary time is concerned.

I think that into the merits of the proposal wouldbe technically out of order, but the need for it is great.I served for four years as a GMC member until lastyear, and enjoyed the experience. I even read distinguishedreports written by some of our colleagues. In particular,the report by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, on theregulation of medical education was a very important

piece of work, which I enjoyed. However, the onething that I learnt, if I learnt anything, was that theMedical Act 1983 is no longer fit for purpose; it isfragmented, it is not suitable and it does not begin todeal adequately with nine different regulatory medicalbodies, 32 professions and 1.44 million professionals.It is all about patient safety.

There is a point that I would make to my noblefriend in seeking his assistance in getting some leveragefor this measure to be included in the Queen’s Speechas either a draft or a full-blown Bill. My spies tell methat the worry in the Government is that health will betoo tricky an issue in an election year. However, Ithink that patient protection is very important and,although contentious, if it were adopted by a department,it would be a departmental Bill and could become partof the political give and take. I think that such a Billwould be well received. It would certainly be treatedvery seriously here in the House of Lords, and there isthe expertise in this House to do the measure justice.With that, I ask my noble friend to think very carefully.If he does have any influence with the usual channels,then if this is not in the Queen’s Speech there should atleast be something that indicates what it is going tohappen to it. The alternative is that this massivelyvaluable work will be lost. The Queen’s Speech afterthe upcoming one will be in a very difficult set ofpolitical circumstances so we have to grasp the momentnow, and we need his help to do so. I hope that he canhelp the Grand Committee by giving us that assurancetoday.

4.55 pm

Lord Patel (CB): My Lords, I am delighted to takepart in this debate, initiated by the noble Lord, LordHodgson of Astley Abbotts. Although much of what Iwas going to say has already been said by the nobleLord, Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope, I will re-emphasiseit because it just goes to show why the medical professionfeels that this particular part of the Law Commission’sreport is so important. As the noble Lord said, it is notabout health but about the protection of patients andthe public, for better healthcare.

It is on that basis that I wish to speak about theLaw Commission’s Regulation of Health and CareProfessions Bill, which sets out the framework thatwill cover all nine health and social care regulators—notjust the medical regulator but the medical councils. Ideclare no current interest regarding the General MedicalCouncil, although of course I am a doctor and havebeen a member of the GMC and, as the noble Lordsaid, I produced a report on medical education inrecent times.

In 2011, the Department of Health published aCommand paper called Enabling Excellence, which setout the Government’s position on the regulation ofhealthcare professionals, so there is no doubt that aslong as three years ago they intended to do somethingabout healthcare regulation. The Command Paperannounced that the Law Commissions of the UKwould review the legislation underpinning each of theprofessional regulators. They wanted the commissionsto address four key areas: first, the independence ofthe regulators, with emphasis on addressing the currentdependence on government for legislation; secondly,


[LORD PATEL]the simplification of the legislative framework, givingregulators greater autonomy to decide how to meettheir regulatory duties; thirdly, reducing the cost ofregulation, with emphasis on the scope for mergers,the consolidation of functions, the reduction of registrationand fitness-to-practice costs and co-operation on qualityassurance of education; and, fourthly, accountability—thegreater independence granted to the regulators wouldbe matched by a commensurate strengthening of theirpublic and parliamentary accountability for theirperformance, including widening the role of theProfessional Standards Authority.

As recently as April 2014, following the conclusionof the review, the Law Commissions of the UK publishedthe draft Regulation of Health and Social Care ProfessionsBill, to which noble Lords have already referred. It isnow the Government who need to take the next step,and it may well be for the Department of Health inEngland—with the assistance, I hope, of the Ministryof Justice—to decide how it wishes to take the LawCommission’s Bill forward. I hope, as do other nobleLords, that it will be in the Queen’s Speech on 4 June.

For its part, the GMC strongly supports theintroduction of the Bill, which provides a once-in-a-generation opportunity to provide a long-term legislativeframework that would enable the GMC and otherregulators to innovate and respond quickly and efficientlyas society’s expectations change in the years to come,as the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, referred to. TheBill would allow the implementation of a range oflong-awaited reforms that are not possible under ourcurrent legislation, and would enable greater opportunitiesfor collaboration between the different regulators.

Let me give some background. The Medical Act1983, which provides the GMC with its statutorypowers, was designed for a different era. Like thelegislation underpinning other professional regulators,it is outdated, complex, highly prescriptive and difficultto change. The regulation of healthcare professionalsBill, on the other hand, would ensure that the GMCand other professional regulators were much less relianton government lawyers and archaic procedures tomodernise professional regulation. Currently, rules andregulations made by the General Medical Council arein the form of statutory instruments and require theinvolvement of the Department of Health in England,the Privy Council and Parliament. The process isinterminably slow. This Bill proposes wide-rangingpowers with its own rules, subject to a duty to consult,which would allow for more efficient and modernpractices by the regulators.

There are a number of reforms that the GeneralMedical Council and other health professionals wouldlook to implement as quickly as possible if the Billwere taken forward. I will give examples. There are arange of reforms that the council and other regulatorswould implement to improve their fitness-to-practiceprocedures for the benefit of patients and employers.Currently, they are cumbersome and lengthy. Many ofthese reforms have been consulted on already andreceived widespread support but cannot be implementedwithout new legislation. There is a need to speed upfitness-to-practice processes and to be able to appeal

panel decisions when the General Medical Councilfeels that they do not protect the public—and the keyrole for the GMC is to protect the public. It also needsto be able to strike off automatically any doctor whohas committed a serious crime such as rape withoutthe need to refer to a panel, whereas now there is aneed to do so.

The GMC would also be in a better position inhaving management with legal chairs and requiringdoctors who have restrictions on their practice toundergo checks on their performance before a fullreturn to work. The legislation does not now allow forthat. The draft Bill goes some way to implementing anumber of these reforms. Clearly, despite its manyclauses, it will require a great deal of scrutiny andimprovement, but I am sure that we are up to it.

The regulation of healthcare professionals Bill willprovide the flexibility to approve education and trainingobtained in a range of programmes. Let me brieflyrefer to why this is essential. It will enable the GeneralMedical Council and other regulators to address thecurrent problem of having to recognise or derecognisean entire institution because one part of the programmeoffered by that institution fails to meet standards, eventhough other programmes may be acceptable. Becauseof that difficulty, we often find that the GMC isreluctant to take that action. These changes will enablethe GMC better to support the efforts of UK universitiesand other educational institutions to deliver UK educationand training overseas, which would be of enormousbenefit to the United Kingdom and its reputationworldwide as a centre for education in healthcare.

In addition, the Bill will provide a way to introducethe more nuanced suite of regulatory sanctionsrecommended by the recent review of quality assurancein medical education—even though I might have hadsome say in that. The Bill could also enable greaterefficiency among regulators, with more opportunitiesfor co-operation. The regulators would have a newduty to co-operate with each other, which they currentlydo not, as well as being able to delegate any of theirfunctions to another regulatory authority.

In conclusion, simplified legislation would allowthe professional regulators to be much more flexibleand innovative in using regulation to support andpromote safe, compassionate patient care for patients.All eight of the professional regulators agree that:

“This will be a once in a generation opportunity to bring longawaited reform to ensure that the health professionals who treatus are properly trained, competent and up to date”.

The Minister may not feel that it is for the justicedepartment to bring such a Bill forward, but I am surethat he and the department are in a highly respectedposition to influence other departments in addressingthis issue, and at least to indicate that they will bringthis Bill to Parliament in the next Queen’s Speech.

5.04 pm

Lord Beecham: My Lords, I commend and supportthe noble Lords, Lord Kirkwood and Lord Patel, fortheir urging of the Government to proceed with theimportant legislation that they have described to theCommittee in this debate. I will speak more generallyabout the work of the Law Commission. I plead guilty


to technological ineptitude of a high order, but I wasnevertheless able to download the report that waspublished, as the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, said,last Thursday and able to obtain a hard copy thismorning, so I have a slight advantage over the nobleLord in the ineptitude stakes when it comes to thisdebate.

It was interesting to read the Report on theImplementation of Law Commission Proposals. It is anannual report published by the Ministry of Justice,and it finds the Lord Chancellor in splendid Candidemode. He reports in his foreword that new procedureswere introduced in 2009 and have,“reduced the time and resources required for a non controversialLaw Commission Bill to pass through Parliament”.

He refers to the Government’s “improved record onimplementation” during the year and claims that therehas been,“significant progress on implementing the Commission’s proposals”.

He holds,“the excellent work of the Law Commission in very high regard”,

and says that,

“the progress we have made during this past year demonstratesthe continued relevance and resilience of the Commission’swork”.

Well, no doubt it does, but it would be more persuasiveof the Secretary of State and the Lord Chancellor if infact some of the long-outstanding proposals made bythe commission had been activated during that time,or indeed an even longer period of time. After all, aswe have heard, a number of proposed Bills have lainaround for some considerable time. There has been theelectronic communications code Bill, referred to inparagraph 45 of the report, which was published inFebruary 2013 and to which apparently a response isindicated by the end of 2014. That means it will benearly two years before someone in Government getsaround to responding. Then there is the public servicesombudsman Bill, referred to on page 49, which waspublished in 2011 and to which a response is apparentlyto be made available this summer. If a local authoritytook three years to respond to something, the LocalGovernment Ombudsman would be rather critical ofwhat little progress had been made.

The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, referred to the Billabout easements. That is not a matter likely to inflamepublic opinion or, I suspect, cause a great deal ofdivision among Members of either House. Yet, as hepointed out, it was published in 2011 and a response isapparently due—I do not know whether the Ministeror his advisers can tell us exactly when, but it is sometime this year. Certainly, that is another three-yearperiod. It is even worse for the High Court criminalprocedures Bill, which was put forward in 2010. Atpage 55 we learn that a response will be made in thesummer of 2014. That is a four-year gap.

As the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, rightly pointedout, there is the important termination of tenanciesfor tenant default Bill, which has been around for, ashe said, seven and a half years. It is fair to say that theprevious Government talked about doing somethingand did not get around to doing it, but it is four years

on even since those days. It is interesting that in the2013 implementation report, the Government statedthat they had “discussed the proposals” and were,“continuing discussions with the Commission”,

in relation to commercial tenancies. Those were referredto especially by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood. Itwill be interesting to learn if the Minister is able toupdate us today or subsequently on just how far thosediscussions have gone.

I have a closer interest in another aspect, which isprivate tenancies. A year ago, the Government weresaying that they were also considering whetherimprovements could be made to the evictions procedurein the residential sector. Before Mr Grant Shapps—orMichael Green, as he is otherwise known—begins toaccuse the Government of Venezuelan tendencies inrespect of private rented property, perhaps the Ministerwill indicate whether the Government are seriouslylooking at this issue. They have been rather dismissiveof proposals made by the Labour Party about elementsof security of tenure, yet at least a year ago they weretalking about looking seriously at precisely those issues.

In addition to those matters, there are still a numberof outstanding matters in which the Government haveapparently abandoned any prospect of taking Billsforward. With regard to the participating in crime Billin May 2007, the cohabitation Bill in July 2007 and theconspiracy and attempts Bill in December 2009, theGovernment have indicated that they have no intentionof taking up those recommendations for reform duringthe current Parliament. So that is one completeParliament—one and a half, in two cases—gone withoutany action being taken, with no good explanation whythe Government have come to that conclusion.

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I had conversationswith the Law Commission about where we were onthese various issues. In two of the cases that the nobleLord has mentioned, the commission was concernedthat they would get it into the arena of party-politicalwarfare and concluded that it was not suitable toproceed further. That was the commission’s conclusion,not the Government’s. It is not a fair accusation thatthe Government have not acted; the Law Commissionitself felt that these were not the right areas for it to beinvolved in.

Lord Beecham: The noble Lord may be right inrespect of bringing stuff forward at the last minute ina five-year Parliament, but years have gone by. Itcannot be said that political considerations wouldhave been particularly relevant two or three years agoon matters that by that time had already been outstandingfor four or five years. If these matters had been political,they would not have been included in the LawCommission’s programme in the first place or indeedagreed by the Government, because the Governmentagree these things. On the timing of an eventual Bill, Itake the noble Lord’s point—it would perhaps beinappropriate to do that in the run-up to an election—butwe have no indication at all of why the Governmentdecided not to proceed with these Bills.

There are a couple of other Bills where apparentlysome sort of conclusion may be expected. There is aremedies against public authorities Bill, which celebrates


[LORD BEECHAM]its fourth birthday in 10 or 12 days’ time, on which theministry committed to providing by Easter 2014 acomplete analysis of the results of a pilot scheme. Arethe Government ready to pronounce upon those resultsand, therefore, their intentions regarding that Bill?The other Bill to which there was a commitment toprovide a response during the summer is a High Courtjurisdiction in criminal cases Bill, which is now nearlythree years old. Will we in fact get a response thissummer, and is it possible for what I suspect will besuch highly technical matters to be brought forwardduring the dog days of this Parliament—although,frankly, it does not look as though there will be muchelse to do? Then, as I said, there is the public servicesombudsman Bill, to which a response was expectedfrom the Cabinet Office, not the Ministry of Justice,by Easter. I am not aware that any such response hasbeen in the public domain; again, perhaps, if nottoday then subsequently, we might find out.

All this raises questions not about how thecommission works—it is doing its work—but abouthow that work is received and dealt with at thegovernment end. It was interesting to read thetriennial review of the Law Commission on thissubject. Paragraph 43 asserts:

“The Law Commission faces many difficult challenges at themoment. It is currently developing its 12th Programme of LawReform in an uncertain climate. The Protocol governing theCommission’s work provides that before approving the inclusionof a project in the overall programme the Lord Chancellor willexpect the relevant Minister to give an undertaking that there is aserious intention to take forward law reform in this area”.

Touching on the point made by the noble Lord, LordHodgson, it then asserts:

“With the timescale for the 12th Programme spanning thenext General Election, the Commission and Ministers will bemaking decisions in a context where there is a great deal ofuncertainty about whether the incoming Government will supportany project”.

That raises two points. First, in respect of matters thatcannot be concluded in this Parliament, will theGovernment facilitate discussions between the Oppositionand the commission about what a future Governmentmight do? I ask that particularly in the light of recentdecisions by the Prime Minister not to facilitate discussionsbetween the Civil Service and the Opposition untilmuch later this year—much closer to a general electionthan has been indicated in the past. As noble Lordswill understand, I have very strong objections to thatof a political kind. However, with Law CommissionBills we are not talking about highly controversialpolitical matters anyway. I cannot see that discussionswould be at all embarrassing to the Government; theseare not government policies that will be under review. Icannot see any difficulty in facilitating a discussionbetween the Opposition and the commission aboutthe commission’s own agenda. It would be helpful toan incoming Government, which I hope to see—andwhich noble Lords opposite hope not to see—or forany future Opposition to have that kind of relationshipwith the commission, so that the whole process can beaccelerated and the Law Commission does not have tostart from scratch.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (LordFaulks) (Con): I thank the noble Lord for giving way.Did the party opposite avail the Conservative Party ofsuch an opportunity when they were in power?

Lord Beecham: I have no idea, but I am not boundby every decision, right or wrong, made by the previousGovernment. I hope that they did. I might equally ask,did the noble Lord’s party ask for such a facility? Iassume he does not know that either. Let us start froma clean sheet, and suggest that it is an innovation thatwould be worth pursuing, whatever the Governmentof the day. It is not a political issue: there is nothingbetween us politically in this agenda.

The second thing sits rather oddly with the followingparagraph of the triennial review report:

“The continuing pressures on public finances will add to thesechallenges”.

I wonder why that should be the case, unless thecommission’s manpower has been reduced, or thecapacity within Government departments to deal withit has been reduced. For the most part, these are notexpenditure-related Bills. The report goes on:

“This has brought to the fore the need to clarify the Commission’sfunding model so that clear principles are established. To livewithin its means the Commission will need to be flexible and agileand will have to make difficult choices about the projects it takeson”.

Yes, but I repeat: is the financing a real issue? I havespoken for 13 minutes; I shall be very quick now.

My last point is that the Lord Chancellor currentlyproduces a report on behalf of the Government as awhole. There does not seem to be a proper connectionbetween the relevant departments and the Ministry ofJustice in the course of the consideration of implementingthese programmes. It seems to me to be necessary forthere to be a single body, and it may well be the MoJ,to oversee the whole process from the governmentside. That is where the delays seem to occur. Theremay or may not be good reasons for them but no oneon the government side seems to be taking responsibilityfor the overall programme. If they did that, we mightnot have the disappointment that has been voiced byother noble Lords today, and we might have a betterrealisation of the commission’s objectives, which theGovernment certainly share, in principle.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville (Con): If theLord Chairman will allow me, may I ask a questionbefore the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, sits down? Itlooks as though he would be prepared to answer one. Ivolunteered in the Chamber when the new arrangementscame in—I think the noble Lord was by then in yourLordships’ House. When my brother was chairman ofthe Law Commission, he made considerable progressby the conversations he had with the shadow LawOfficers in what was then the Labour Government. Iam not in any way seeking inside information, but Iwould be interested to know whether that route wasbeing pursued today in the same way that it successfullywas in those days.

Lord Beecham: That is really the point that I wasmaking about the commission. I confess that I cannotsay what approaches my colleagues in the other place


have made as shadow Law Officers, and I do not thinkthat the Minister would know either. I will certainlylook at that from my party’s perspective.

5.20 pm

Lord Faulks: My Lords, I am aware of the limitedtime I have been given. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham,has somewhat exceeded his time. He properly askedme a number of questions, as have other noble Lords.I will do my best in the limited time to answer as manyof them as possible, but I am sure that noble Lordswill appreciate that time does not allow me to give asmuch detail as I would otherwise have liked.

I begin by thanking my noble friend Lord Hodgson,who describes himself as no lawyer, but he is quiteright to bring this matter to the attention of yourLordships’ House and he has performed a valuableservice in so doing.

The Law Commission is the statutory independentbody created by the Law Commissions Act 1965 tokeep the law under review and to recommend reformwhere it is needed. The aim of the commission is toensure that the law is fair, modern, simple and ascost-effective as possible. I speak from my own experiencethat, in decades gone by, the Law Commission wouldproduce valuable reports but, sadly, often little wasdone with them because there was not sufficient politicalwill, time, or whatever to bring some of its sensiblesuggestions into force.

However, in the past few years, the Law Commission,in collaboration with the Ministry of Justice, hasengaged in a major exercise to enhance its profilewithin Whitehall and to increase the level ofimplementation of its work. Elements of that includethe introduction of the new procedure, to which wehave had reference, in your Lordships’ House for theconsideration of non-controversial Law CommissionBills; a statutory duty on the Lord Chancellor toreport to Parliament on implementation of LawCommission work—that is perhaps a partial answer toa point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood; anda statutory protocol on the relationship between theLaw Commission and government departments. Thoseactions have resulted in a more efficient and streamlinedway of working for the commission. As much wasrecognised in the recent triennial review undertaken inrespect of the Law Commission, which was reportedto this House. The review identified a number of areasof particularly good practice by the Law Commissionand its sponsor team at the Ministry of Justice. Itcommended the open and transparent approach tolaw reform and policy-making as an exemplar of openpolicy-making.

When the commission examines a particular areaof law, it first establishes the scope of its work inconjunction with the relevant government department.It then consults on existing law and on proposals forchange. It makes a report to the Lord Chancellor orthe relevant Minister with recommendations and reasons.The report may—and often does—include a draft Billgiving effect to the commission’s recommendations.The Bills are referred to as Law Commission Bills.

Since the new procedure was put in place in 2010,six Bills have been through the Law Commission Billprocedure. As your Lordships will appreciate, thereare practical reasons for a limit to the number of Billsthat can go through the procedure in a Session, but asand when opportunities have arisen, Bills have beentaken forward using that special procedure.

It is perhaps important also to stress that we usewhat might be described as the normal procedurewherever possible to take forward the commission’srecommendations. For example, most of therecommendations in the Contempt of Court—JurorMisconduct and Internet Publications report wereincluded in the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill introducedin Parliament in February 2014, and which is part of acarryover Bill, which will be considered by your Lordships’House during the summer or perhaps in the autumn.

The special procedure has helped to clear the previousbacklog and significantly reduce delays. Bills that havebenefited from this new procedure include the Trusts(Capital and Income) Act 2013—the noble Lord, LordBeecham, will be familiar with that—the ConsumerInsurance (Disclosure and Representations) Act 2012,with which my noble friend Lord Hodgson will befamiliar, the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers)Act 2010, the Perpetuities and Accumulations Act2009, referred to by my noble friend, the Inheritanceand Trustees Powers Bill; and the Partnerships(Prosecution) (Scotland) Act. With the exception ofthe Inheritance and Trustees’ Powers Bill, which isawaiting Royal Assent, all are now Acts and havemade important changes to the effectiveness, efficiencyand quality of the law.

In March 2010, the Lord Chancellor and thecommission agreed a statutory protocol governinghow government departments and the Law Commissionshould work together on law reform projects. We seethis as a key document for ensuring a more productiverelationship with the Law Commission and improvedrates of implementation of Law Commission reports.

The protocol covers the various stages of a project:before the commission takes the project on; at theoutset of the project; during the currency of theproject; and after the project. It applies both to projectsset out in one of the commission’s regular programmesof law reform and to projects which arise out ofindividual referrals made to the commission. The protocolapplies only to projects which the commission takeson after the date on which the protocol was agreed,although government departments and the commissionhave agreed to take it into account, as far as practicable,in relation to projects which were in progress at thatdate. This protocol does not apply to commissionproposals for consolidation or statute law revision. Icommend the protocol as a thorough and efficientprocess.

During the debate, reference was made to whatmight or might not need to be included in the Queen’sSpeech. The Committee will of course appreciate thatI am not in a position to comment on the contents ofthe Queen’s Speech. I take account of what the nobleLord, Lord Kirkwood, said about the other measuresthat it provisionally contains and I undertake to bring


[LORD FAULKS]the contents of this debate to the attention of theMinistry of Justice—and further, if necessary. I cannotgive any further assurance beyond that. However I cansay, counter to the observations made by the nobleLord, Lord Beecham, that there is a good level ofcommunication between the Ministry of Justice andthe Law Commission, particularly in relation to theforthcoming programme. The consultation for thecommission’s 12th programme closed on 31 Octoberand the commission is currently reviewing the suggestionsthat have been made. It has submitted proposals, andthe main part of its law reform will then be set for thefollowing three years.

The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, referred to thereport of the Law Commission’s proposals and criticisedcertain delays in some areas and the failure not toimplement certain proposals. Although the LawCommission provides invaluable assistance to anyGovernment of whatever colour on law reform, thereis no obligation on the part of a Government to bringforward proposals: it is a question of using a valuableresource. For example, the noble Lord referred toremedies against public authorities. I was one of theconsultees on that particular exercise. I can say thatthere was far from agreement among the consulteesabout the correct way forward. The fact that the LawCommission examines a subject and comes up withproposals does not necessarily mean that it has providedthe perfect answer, although very often it providesvaluable assistance.

I should make some observations about the LordChancellor’s Report on the Implementation of LawCommission Proposals and the duty introduced by theLaw Commission Act 2009 for an annual report. Thenoble Lord, Lord Beecham, has already read it, andthe noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, will be able to read itreport shortly. It was published on 8 May, so this is atimely debate. On easements and covenants, I refer thenoble Lord to paragraph 52, on the insurance contractBill, paragraph 8 on third parties’ rights against insurers,paragraph 32 and termination of tenancies paragraph61, which may assist his reading thereafter.

The report shows that a number of Law Commissionproposals have taken effect:

“The Trusts (Capital and Income) Act 2013 has come intoforce, as have the amendments to the Companies Act 2006 whichstreamline the system for registering charges and securities interestsgranted by companies. In furtherance of the Commission’s functionto repeal laws that no longer serve any useful purpose”—

another important part of its work—the largest everStatute Law (Repeals) Act, removing more than 800 Actsfrom the statute book, received royal assent on 31 January,2013 and came into force immediately.

Perhaps I may deal with one area which I knowseveral noble Lords were concerned about, which wasthe regulation of healthcare professionals. Rightly,there was reference to the considerable amount ofwork that was done in that respect and I think thatthere will be a lot of sympathy for the observationsmade by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, about the need toconsolidate and improve the regulation of healthcareprofessionals.

The Law Commission began its work in response tothe Department of Health’s White Paper in 2011. Itcarried out research into the then current regulatorysystem for healthcare professional regulation inpreparation for its public consultation, which openedon 1 March 2012. It ran for a total of 13 weeks, andthe Department of Health submitted a response.Following analysis of the responses to the consultationexercise and engagement with the Department of Healthand other key stakeholders working to develop itspolicy, the Law Commission published its report andrecommendations alongside a draft Bill on 2 April2014. On behalf of my colleagues at the department, Iwould like to say thank you to the Law Commissionfor the significant amount of time and effort that hasbeen putting to developing such a detailed and thoroughanalysis. I can tell the Committee that the Departmentof Health is considering the Law Commission’s proposalwith great interest and will produce a formal responsein due course.

Of course, there has also been the report by RobertFrancis QC, containing a total of 290 recommendations,a number of which related to the regulation of healthcareprofessionals, which will also bear considerableconsideration. I know that officials at the Departmentof Health’s Nursing and Midwifery Council are currentlyworking on the possibility of secondary legislationand associated amendments to the NMC rules whichwill give the NMC power to carry out its fitness topractice and registration functions more efficiently.The GMC and the NMC are also working togetherwith other healthcare regulators to agree a consistentapproach to being open and honest. As the nobleLord, Lord Patel, will know only too well, the explicitprofessional duty of candour, much debated in yourLordships’ House over the years and which is now afirm recommendation, is likely to find its way into lawin due course.

I fear that I am unable to commit further than that,but I hope that noble Lords will find some encouragementfrom that.

Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope: Before the Ministersits down, the question I asked was whether the Ministryof Justice could add its considerable weight to what Iknow is the view in the Department of Health that it isimportant to make some progress with that legislationin some way in the next parliamentary Session. Is theMoJ willing to support that view to the people puttingtogether the proposals for the parliamentary programmefor the next year?

Lord Faulks: The MoJ has a role by statute to liaisewith the Law Commission. That is about as far as Ican take it. I personally have sympathy with the concernsexpressed. So far as that assists, I hope that I can bringthem to the attention of my masters, as it were, in theMinistry of Justice. I fear that I cannot go any furtherthan that. I think that the noble Lord will understandthat.

I think that that has dealt with most of the mainissues. As I said, the particular concerns of my noblefriend Lord Hodgson are, I think, largely met in thereport. That is not to say that they are not of considerable


importance—they are. However, I respectfully rejectthe suggestion that the Government are sitting ontheir hands in respect of the unimplemented proposals.I hope that I have explained that there has been a greatdeal of progress. Of course, some have not been progressedat the pace that some would like, but there have to bepriorities. To give one example, on one aspect ofpotential reform that has been mentioned, the terminationof tenancies project, which relates to the Law Commissionreport published in 2006, we accept that that is a verylong period between publication and decision, but wehope to reach a final decision this year.

The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, was critical of theGovernment’s criticism of his party’s suggestions inrelation to private landlords and security of tenure. Ithink that the debate so far has focused on whether ornot rate freezes of three years were necessarily a goodidea. The noble Lord eschewed party politics and thenproceeded to indulge in it. I respond by saying simplythat the case for rental control is far from clear.

Lord Beecham: I did not raise the issue of rentcontrol; I was talking specifically about security oftenure.

Lord Faulks: There is a complete answer to theconcerns which the noble Lord was raising; perhaps Iwill not indulge myself by going into it now. Suffice itto say that the whole question is extremely difficult. Ihope that he will accept that we operate continuouslyin a challenging economic environment. We have madesignificant progress in implementing the commission’sproposals. This Government, as, I am sure, does theparty opposite, hold the Law Commission in very highregard. We continue to work with constructively withit. We have made great progress and can demonstrateby what has happened and what continues to happenthe continued relevance and resilience of the commission’swork.

Committee adjourned at 5.36 pm.


Written StatementsMonday 12 May 2014

Correction to Commons Written AnswerStatement

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Departmentof Energy and Climate Change (Baroness Verma) (Con):My right honourable friend the Minister for Energyand Climate Change (Gregory Barker MP) has madethe following Written Ministerial Statement.

The Procedure Committee has requested that theresponse to UIN 193072 be revised in order to give amore complete response to the Hon Member forSunderland Central.

The Question asked:-To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate

Change, how much onshore wind capacity (a) receivedplanning approval and (b) was rejected in each monthin (a) 2009, (b) 2010, (c) 2011, (d) 2012 and (e) 2013;and how many planning applications for onshore windfarms were (i) approved and (ii) rejected in each ofthose months. (193072)

•The original answer (Official Report 25 March2014, Col reference 161W) was given as:-This information is available in the Renewable Energy

Planning Database (REPD), which tracks the progressof all renewable energy projects 0.01MW and overfrom submission of a planning application through todetermination and generation:

https://restats.decc.gov.uk/app/reporting/decc/monthlyextract

•The full answer, including the relevant data, is:-The Renewable Energy Planning Database (REPD)

tracks the progress of all projects over 0.01MW fromsubmission of a planning application through todetermination and generation:

https://restats.decc.gov.uk/app/reporting/decc/monthlyextract

Historical data for planning approvals and refusalschange from one month to the next owing to timetaken for planning information to be published andthe difficulty in locating each individual piece of planningdata.

As at the end of March 2014, the REPD shows (foronshore wind installations):

The number and installed capacity of onshore windfarms that have been through the planning system andeither accepted or rejected on a month by month basissince January 2009 are:-

Month#

ApprovedCapacity

(MW)#

RefusedCapacity

(MW)

Jan-09 12 142.96 4 56.75Feb-09 6 56.2012 3 81.2Mar-09 12 111.275 3 20.006Apr-09 3 3.6 3 11.2May-09 8 164.1 4 88Jun-09 5 12.715 3 30.7

Month#

ApprovedCapacity

(MW)#

RefusedCapacity

(MW)

Jul-09 11 51.756 2 32.4Aug-09 10 202.622 1 14Sep-09 7 34.2 3 29.9015Oct-09 11 83.322 3 69.6Nov-09 6 46.856 3 64.2Dec-09 14 272.061 6 59.8Total - 09 105 1181.6682 38 557.7575Jan-10 11 277.2 0 0Feb-10 5 23.6 3 31.124Mar-10 5 51.281 3 99.9Apr-10 13 99.627 5 19.63May-10 7 69.55 1 8Jun-10 9 27.625 6 96.811Jul-10 12 48.052 1 27.6Aug-10 4 1.077 3 67.1Sep-10 10 68.972 3 46Oct-10 13 122.8 4 34.8Nov-10 12 232.875 7 120.1Dec-10 18 225.926 4 92.6Total - 10 119 1248.585 40 643.665Jan-11 9 77.36 4 44.9Feb-11 7 46.032 4 69.411Mar-11 15 251.236 6 75.81Apr-11 15 63.56 4 58.4May-11 12 123.525 0 0Jun-11 9 56.805 3 5.145Jul-11 12 58.96 3 23.1Aug-11 9 19.902 6 12.855Sep-11 10 33.235 4 73.9Oct-11 8 41.75 8 57.88Nov-11 15 119.235 7 22.63Dec-11 15 74.8 8 38.56Total - 11 136 966.4 57 482.591Jan-12 11 294.485 10 67.14Feb-12 22 101.41 8 48.76Mar-12 18 61.046 12 77.425Apr-12 10 501.295 7 19.74May-12 17 272.52 5 60.565Jun-12 17 159.816 6 84.99Jul-12 24 136.318 6 21.605Aug-12 17 94.156 9 89.36Sep-12 20 199.68 10 53.165Oct-12 38 187.061 14 68.455Nov-12 50 230.72 8 52.161Dec-12 30 14.376 18 145.385Total - 12 274 2252.883 113 788.751Jan-13 31 77.732 14 103.361

Feb-13 33 492.831 16 137

Mar-13 35 220.463 18 58.152

Apr-13 43 380.48 21 80.235

May-13 31 32.867 26 103.805

Jun-13 38 50.66 20 336.13

Jul-13 41 44.97 31 150.776

Aug-13 27 33.21 34 135.61

Sep-13 29 65.711 28 243.455

Oct-13 26 104.25 30 124.125

Nov-13 45 31.255 36 123.775

Dec-13 57 132.746 36 90.9

Total - 13 436 1667.175 310 1687.324

Total09-13

1704 12966.2474 806 6632.853

WS 195 WS 196[12 MAY 2014]Written Statements Written Statements

Defence Scientific Advisory Council:Triennial Review

Statement

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministryof Defence (Lord Astor of Hever) (Con): My honFriend the Minister for Defence Equipment, Supportand Technology (Mr Philip Dunne) has made thefollowing Written Ministerial Statement.

I am today announcing the publication by theMinistry of Defence of the findings of the triennialreviewof theDefenceScientificAdvisoryCouncil (DSAC).Triennial reviews of Non-Departmental Public Bodies(NDPBs) are part of the Government’s commitmentto ensuring, and improving, the accountability andeffectiveness of public bodies.

The DSAC is an advisory NDPB that provides theSecretary of State for Defence with independent expertadvice on matters relating to non-nuclear science,technology, engineering, analysis and mathematics.

The review concluded that DSAC provides a valuablesource of independent advice across Defence and thefunctions performed are still required. The reviewrecommended that DSAC should be retained as anadvisory NDPB and noted that it continues to meetthe high standards of governance required.

The review was carried out with the participation ofa wide range of internal and external stakeholders andI am grateful to all those who contributed to thistriennial review.

The Defence Scientific Advisory Council, TriennialReview Report has been placed in the Library of theHouse. Copies are available to hon. Members from theVote Office and to noble Lords from the Printed PaperOffice. It is also available at the following link: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/defence-scientific-advisory-council

Nigeria: Chibok AbductionsStatement

TheSeniorMinisterof State,DepartmentforCommunitiesand Local Government & Foreign and CommonwealthOffice (Baroness Warsi) (Con): My right HonourableFriend, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (WilliamHague), has made the following written Ministerialstatement:

I wish to update the House on the UK’s response tothe abduction of over 200 schoolgirls in northernNigeria on 14 April, for which the terrorist groupBoko Haram has claimed responsibility.

Officials from our High Commission in Abuja havebeen in regular contact with the Nigerian governmentsince the attack, with whom the primary responsibilityfor responding to the abductions rests. I spoke to theNigerian Foreign Minister on 18 April to offer theUK’s assistance.

Finding the girls and returning them safely will bechallenging in the face of the determined and ruthlessgroup which holds them in such difficult terrain.

The Nigerian authorities assess that the girls havebeen taken to the Sambisa forest, an area of challengingterrain about forty times the size of London. The girlsmay have been dispersed and some may have beentaken into Cameroon or Chad. A further 11 girls werereported to have been taken in two incidents on 4 and7 May.

My right honourable Friend the Prime Ministerspoke to President Jonathan on 7 May. He reiteratedUK support and offered to send an expert team drawnfrom across the British Government. President Jonathanaccepted the Prime Minister’s offer.

A UK team arrived in Abuja on 9 May to offeradvice to the Nigerian authorities on this incident,and on developing longer-term counter-terrorism solutionsto prevent such attacks in the future. This builds onour existing extensive security engagement with theNigerian authorities. We are co-ordinating closely withFrance, Canada and the US, who have also dispatchedteams to Nigeria.

Since their arrival, the team, and the British HighCommissioner in Abuja, have met President GoodluckJonathan, the Nigerian National Security Advisor andsenior members of the Nigerian Armed Forces. Theteam have also met the Nigerian police and representativesof the Chibok community in order discuss the UKapproach to family and victim care, and potentialavenues of support. Further meetings are taking placethis week.

The UK team are also looking at social and economicfactors behind the instability in northern Nigeria andneighbouring areas, with a view to advising on longerterm assistance, including in the area where the girlswere abducted.

This appalling incident is a tragic reminder of theneed for the international community to work togetherto eradicate sexual violence in conflict. The UK isleading the international community in addressingthese crimes that have gone unchallenged for too long.I am delighted that on 25 April Nigeria endorsed theDeclaration of Commitment to End Sexual Violencein Conflict, which I launched at the UN GeneralAssembly last year. Next month we will hold theGlobal Summit to End Sexual Violence in Conflictfrom 10-13 June 2014, which I am co-hosting with theSpecial Envoy of the UN High Commissioner forRefugees, Angelina Jolie, at which we will seek practicalaction to shatter the culture of impunity for thesecrimes.

These events are also a reminder of the heavy pricethe people of Nigeria continue to pay from terrorism,including from the two recent bomb attacks in Abujaand an upsurge of attacks in North East Nigeria, suchas a Boko Haram attack on Gamboru Ngala in Bornostate on 5 May which may have killed over 200 people.We will continue to work with the government ofNigeria as it addresses these painful issues.

I will keep the House informed of further developmentsin Nigeria.

WS 197 WS 198[LORDS]Written Statements Written Statements

Written AnswersMonday 12 May 2014

BenefitsQuestion

Asked by The Lord Bishop of St Albans

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessmentthey have made of the financial impact on peopleon low incomes of uprating most cash benefits andtax credits by one per cent from April 2013 ratherthan in line with inflation. [HL6828]

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Departmentfor Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) (Con): For 2013/14,themainratesof working-agebenefits, statutorypaymentsand tax credits were up-rated by one per cent in theSocialSecurityBenefitsUp-ratingOrder2013.TheWelfareBenefits Up-rating Act 2013 provided for the one percent increase to apply for 2014/15 and 2015/16. Both ofthese were accompanied by Impact Assessments.

As part of his ongoing public sector equality dutyunder the Equality Act 2010 to monitor impacts on“protected groups”, the Secretary of State continuesto monitor the impacts of the Welfare Benefits Up-ratingAct 2013 in light of any changes to the underlying rateof inflation. The underlying rate of inflation for increasesin 2014/15 is similar to that forecast by the Office forBudget Responsibility and used in the Impact Assessment.It is therefore likely that the impacts on affected householdswill be broadly similar to those detailed in the ImpactAssessment.

British LibraryQuestion

Asked by Lord Quirk

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plansthey have to mitigate any reduction in staffingprovision, acquisitions, and essential services in theBritish Library resulting from reductions in fundingsince 2010. [HL6963]

Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con): The Departmentfor Culture, Media and Sport has an arm’s lengthrelationship with its sponsored bodies such as theBritish Library, and operational and managementdecisions are therefore a matter for the Board andExecutive. In the Spending Review of 2010, fundingfor the British Library was protected by limiting resourcecuts to 15% in real terms over four years, and at theSpending Round of 2013, the 5% reduction in capitaland resource budgets was below average. The Chancellorsignalled in his 2014 Budget announcement that therewould not be any further reductions to departmentalspending at this time, so that sponsored bodies willmaintain current levels of planned spending in 2014/15and 2015/16.

Energy: ElectricityQuestion

Asked by The Lord Bishop of St AlbansTo ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they

will act to reduce the unit price paid by thoseconsumers who are able to purchase electricity onlyfrom a supplier because they are not on mains gassupply and so cannot benefit from a dual fuel tariff.

[HL6827]

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Departmentof Energy and Climate Change (Baroness Verma) (Con):The decision to offer a dual fuel discount to customerswho take a gas and electricity supply from one supplieris a commercial matter for the companies concerned.The discount reflects savings made by the company bycombining administrative costs of providing the twoseparate supplies. Dual fuel discounts typically rangefrom £10 to £25 per year. It would not be appropriatefor Government to intervene by requiring suppliers toreduce electricity prices for just one specific segment ofcustomers.

Government Departments: ManagementInformation Reports

QuestionsAsked by Lord Mendelsohn

To ask Her Majesty’s Government which official,with what job title, is responsible and accountablefor departmental management information in theDepartment for Communities and Local Government.

[HL6892]

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Departmentfor Communities and Local Government (Baroness Stowellof Beeston)(Con):WithintheDepartmentforCommunitiesandLocalGovernmenttheofficialwhoholdsresponsibilityfor departmental management information is AndrewCampbell, Director General for Finance and CorporateServices.

Asked by Lord MendelsohnTo ask Her Majesty’s Government which official,

with what job title, is responsible and accountablefor departmental management information in theDepartment for Culture, Media and Sport.[HL6893]

Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con): Helen Carrier (Headof Strategy, Resourcing and Governance), is responsibleand accountable for departmental managementinformation in the Department for Culture, Mediaand Sport.

HousingQuestion

Asked by The Lord Bishop of St AlbansTo ask Her Majesty’s Government whether data

on the provision of discretionary housing paymentsby local authorities are collected centrally. [HL6829]

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,DepartmentforWorkandPensions(LordFreud)(Con):TheDepartmentasks local authorities to provide data on their use of

WA 461 WA 462[12 MAY 2014]Written Answers Written Answers

Discretionary Housing Payments on a twice yearlybasis. Information regarding April to September 2013can be found at the following link:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/268411/use-of-discretionary-housing-payments-dec13.pdf

The Department is currently gathering and qualityassuring information regarding end of year spendfrom local authorities for 2013/14.

Internet: BroadbandQuestion

Asked by Lord Condon

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is theirassessment of the progress of the roll-out of highspeed broadband, and in particular of the impacton small and medium-sized enterprises in ruralareas. [HL6945]

Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con): The Government’sprogramme is making good progress and has nowmade available superfast broadband to over 0.5 millionpremises in the UK. The pace of deployment hasincreased from 10,000 premises a week gaining availabilityof superfast broadband in early 2014 to 20,000 a weeknow and this will increase to 40,000 per week by theSummer of 2014.

With respect to impact on SME’s, the BroadbandImpact Study—Impact Report, an expert report byanalysts SQW (with Cambridge Econometrics), revealedthe Government’s investment in superfast broadbandwill deliver a major boost to the UK economy; forevery £1 the government is investing in broadband, theUK economy will benefit by £20 by 2024. It alsodemonstrated that the benefits will be shared acrossthe UK, helping the rebalancing of our economy;approximately 89 per cent of the benefits will be inareas outside London and the South East of Englandwith rural areas set to benefit most.

The report focused on impacts of mass marketbroadband services—i.e. “affordable broadband” forSMEs and households—and estimated that by 2024,net annual GVA impacts attributable to interventioninclude:

• £0.8 billion from safeguarding local enterpriseemployment,• £5 billion from productivity growth for broadband-using firms,• £0.3 billion from improved teleworker productivity,and• £0.2 billion from increased labour force participation.The majority of these benefits will be to SMEs, and

over half to rural areas.

NHS: ContractsQuestion

Asked by Lord Owen

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how manycontracts for National Health Service services wereawarded between (1) October 2012 and March 2013,(2) April 2013 and September 2013, and (3) October

2013 and March 2014, to (a) National Health Servicebodies, (b) third sector organisations, and (c) anyother organisations; what was the value of each ofthose contracts; and what they estimate will be thenumber and value of such contracts in the samesix-month periods in 2020. [HL6887]

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Departmentof Health (Earl Howe) (Con): The information requestedon contract awards is not held centrally.

Individual commissioners (clinical commissioninggroups and NHS England) are responsible for takingfair and transparent decisions on the award of contractsto the providers most capable of meeting the needs oftheir populations and providing value for money.

It is therefore not possible to provide an estimatecentrally on the number and value of contracts thatwill be awarded to different types of provider in 2020.

PlanningQuestion

Asked by Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether, inthe light of the Forest of Dean’s protection fromdisposal by the Forestry Act 1967, they will (1) reviewplans by the Homes and Communities Agency tosubmit a planning application for a major developmentof the Cinderford Northern Quarter, and (2) ensureit is subject to a public access agreement until2032. [HL6863]

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Departmentfor Communities and Local Government (Baroness Stowellof Beeston) (Con): The application is currently beingconsidered by Forest of Dean District Council and isstill out to public consultation, which ends on 19 May2014. It is not the policy of the Government to considerintervening in planning applications at such an earlystage.

The Secretary of State is very selective about interveningin applications and will only call in an application if itraises issues of more than local importance as a “callin” takes the planning decision away from the electedlocal council.

Railways: High Speed 2Question

Asked by Lord Berkeley

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether thelack of planned rail connection between HS1 andHS2 would mean that HS2 could not be designatedas part of the TEN-T network. [HL6842]

The Minister of State, Department for Transport(Baroness Kramer) (LD): Removal of the HS1 linkproposal should not affect the designation of HS2.Commission Regulation EU No 1315/2013 includesthe maps which define the TEN-T network. Phase 1 ofHS2 is on the TEN-T Core Network as it is expectedto be completed before 2030, the target date in theTEN-T Regulation for the Core Network. Phase 2, the‘Y’ section, is on the Comprehensive Network as itwill not be completed until after this date.

WA 463 WA 464[LORDS]Written Answers Written Answers

Monday 12 May 2014

ALPHABETICAL INDEX TOWRITTEN STATEMENTS

Col. No.Correction to Commons Written Answer ........................ 195

Defence Scientific Advisory Council: Triennial Review.... 197

Col.No.

Nigeria: Chibok Abductions............................................ 197

Monday 12 May 2014

ALPHABETICAL INDEX TO WRITTEN ANSWERSCol. No.

Benefits ............................................................................ 461

British Library ................................................................. 461

Energy: Electricity ........................................................... 462

Government Departments: Management InformationReports ........................................................................ 462

Col. No.Housing ........................................................................... 462

Internet: Broadband ........................................................ 463

NHS: Contracts ............................................................... 463

Planning .......................................................................... 464

Railways: High Speed 2.................................................... 464

NUMERICAL INDEX TO WRITTEN ANSWERSCol. No.

[HL6827] ......................................................................... 462

[HL6828] ......................................................................... 461

[HL6829] ......................................................................... 462

[HL6842] ......................................................................... 464

[HL6863] ......................................................................... 464

Col. No.[HL6887] ......................................................................... 464

[HL6892] ......................................................................... 462

[HL6893] ......................................................................... 462

[HL6945] ......................................................................... 463

[HL6963] ......................................................................... 461

Volume 753 MondayNo. 148 12 May 2014

CONTENTS

Monday 12 May 2014

QuestionsImmigration ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1643Independent Living Fund................................................................................................................................................... 1645National Health Service: Nursing Staff............................................................................................................................. 1648Ratification of the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict.............................. 1650

Transport for London Bill [HL]Motion to Agree ............................................................................................................................................................... 1652

Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedule 5) Order 2014Motion to Approve............................................................................................................................................................ 1653

Merchant Shipping (Convention Relating to the Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea) Order 2014Motion to Approve............................................................................................................................................................ 1653

Immigration BillCommmons Reasons and Amendments.............................................................................................................................. 1653

Education: Free School FundingStatement......................................................................................................................................................................... 1697

Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2014Motion to Approve ........................................................................................................................................................... 1701

Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 (Amendment) Order 2014Motion to Approve............................................................................................................................................................ 1717

Licensing Act 2003 (FIFA World Cup Licensing Hours) Order 2014Motion to Approve............................................................................................................................................................ 1718

Licensing Act 2003 (Mandatory Conditions) Order 2014Motion to Approve............................................................................................................................................................ 1727

Representation of the People (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2014Motion to Approve............................................................................................................................................................ 1731

Representation of the People (Scotland) (Amendment) Regulations 2014Motion to Approve............................................................................................................................................................ 1744

Grand Committee

Communications Act 2003 (Disclosure of Information) Order 2014Motion to Consider ...................................................................................................................................................... GC 419

European Union (Definition of Treaties) (Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment and Protocol theretoon matters specific to Aircraft Equipment) Order 2014Motion to Consider ...................................................................................................................................................... GC 424

Renewable Heat Incentive Scheme (Amendment) Regulations 2014Motion to Consider ..................................................................................................................................................... GC 428

Law CommissionQuestion for Short Debate ........................................................................................................................................... GC 434

Written Statements .......................................................................................................................................................... WS 195

Written Answers............................................................................................................................................................... WA 461

Date post:	15-Mar-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

publications.parliament.uk...Vol. 753 No. 148 Monday 12 May 2014 PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD)...

Documents