House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con)
1. What recent assessment he has made of the incentives available for investment in renewable energy infrastructure.
Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)
3. What recent assessment he has made of the incentives available for investment in renewable energy infrastructure.
The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Chris Huhne)
The current financial mechanisms to incentivise renewable electricity are the renewables obligation and the feed-in tariff scheme. We are currently undertaking reviews of the RO banding and the FIT scheme, and the renewable heat incentive is due to go ahead this year. The Government have also set aside up to £60 million of direct support for the development of offshore wind manufacturing at port sites in English assisted areas.
Nicola Blackwood
There are some fantastic community-led renewable projects in my constituency, including Oncore—Oxford North Community Renewables—which is a project to build solar panels on Cherwell school in north Oxford. However, despite the fact that we all recognise that such projects are vital to our efforts to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, they often struggle to raise sustainable funds. Will the Secretary of State tell me how he expects projects such as the green investment bank to help support community renewables projects such as these?
Chris Huhne
Access to finance is clearly a major issue for projects such as those in my hon. Friend’s constituency, and the green investment bank will certainly play a role eventually. Our FIT scheme reforms have focused on ensuring that money goes to community schemes rather than City speculators. The banks are increasingly taking a favourable attitude to this matter and finance is increasingly available from the high street banks. I am pleased therefore to confirm that yesterday the Treasury opened a consultation on the provision of other finance and on ensuring that enterprise investment schemes and venture capital trusts investing in FIT schemes through community-interest companies, co-operative societies and community benefit societies continue to qualify for improved support, as will those generating electricity from micro-hydro schemes. I hope that this change will focus investment on schemes that benefit local communities.
Nicky Morgan
I have written previously to the Secretary of State on behalf of Evance, a manufacturer of small wind turbines in my constituency. One of the main issues it has raised has been the need for clear guidance for planners on how to deal with small wind systems. Will he tell me what discussions he and his ministerial colleagues have had with the Department for Communities and Local Government on this issue? In particular, would any guidance include specification of acceptable noise levels for these small—less than 50 kW—wind systems?
Chris Huhne
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this important issue. It is a matter for DCLG, as she implied, although I have discussed it with that Department, and I expect an announcement shortly that I hope will indicate that some progress has been made.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State tell us precisely what percentage of the respondents to the recent FIT consultation supported the Government’s view? What assessment has he made of the impact of the review on manufacturers such as Kingspan in Hollywell in my constituency and Sharp in Wrexham, which he visited and lauded but has now pulled the rug from under?
Chris Huhne
I respect the right hon. Gentleman for standing up for his constituency—I would expect nothing less—but the responses to the FIT consultation were not as binary as he suggests. People did not give yes or no answers. We had to take a decision on the FIT programme for a simple reason, which was that, unfortunately, the planning that went into the announcement assumed that there would be no large-scale solar projects for three years. If the right hon. Gentleman, who was a Minister in the previous Government—as I well remember—is prepared to take responsibility for those assumptions, I would be very pleased, but sadly I am not. We have had to amend those assumptions and ensure that we have an affordable scheme that can provide steady growth—
Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)
Underground heat pumps and solar panels will become a fact of life for us all in the not-so-distant future. What are the Government doing to help areas such as mine—former coalfield areas—to play a part in manufacturing these things so that once again we can power Britain and the world?
Chris Huhne
We have seen enormous growth in low-carbon goods and services. In fact, the sector now employs 910,000 people across the UK economy so it is no longer a cottage industry—it is serious stuff. In relation to the green deal, particularly some of the kit being manufactured for it, we are in discussions with manufacturers to try to ensure that they are thinking about the scale on which the green deal will operate, because obviously if the market is relatively small, there will not be the economies of scale that can get prices down and the opportunities up. I am determined—
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
My right hon. Friend mentioned the review of the renewables obligation certificates. He will be aware of the great opportunity presented by the wave hub project located off the north coast of my constituency. In respect of the review, however, what reassurances can he give me and the House that there will be an even playing field north and south of the Scottish border?
Chris Huhne
The devolved Administration—the Scottish Government—have the ability to vary ROC support somewhat, which they do in the case of advanced marine renewables. We are determined on both sides of the border to see progress on those technologies, because they have enormous potential in the years to come, and I am sure that there is enough to satisfy those both south and north of the border.
Jenny Willott (Cardiff Central) (LD)
2. What progress he has made on his objective to reduce central Government carbon emissions by 10%.
The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Chris Huhne)
The Prime Minister announced on 14 May 2010 that this would be the greenest Government ever and that central Government would lead by example, by reducing their emissions by 10% within 12 months. I am pleased to announce that the Government have achieved that target, reducing emissions by 13.8%— I think I am entitled to round that up to 14%—using weather-corrected data. Never before have central Government achieved such a reduction in such a short space of time.
Jenny Willott
As the Government have done so well and surpassed their 10% target, may I encourage the Secretary of State to be ambitious when setting central Government’s next carbon reduction goals? Will he work with business and the rest of the public sector to ensure that they achieve the same scale of reductions?
Chris Huhne
I am very pleased to confirm that the Prime Minister has announced a new five-year carbon reduction target of 25%, to ensure that we continue to drive down carbon and energy use in the Government. By focusing attention on the issue among decision makers, we can help to move the whole country along. We need to practise what we preach, and we will.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
Can the Secretary of State please tell the House what the exact level of carbon emissions from the parliamentary estate was previously, so that we can be absolutely clear what it is now, after the 13.8% reduction, or have the figures been estimated and banded?
Chris Huhne
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would be shocked if I attempted to take responsibility for the parliamentary estate, which is clearly up to the House of Commons. This issue is strictly about central Government, not the parliamentary estate, but I would urge Mr Speaker, using all his great influence, to ensure that the parliamentary estate is performing just as well as central Government.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
I warmly congratulate the Government on more than achieving their target, which stands in stark contrast with previous Governments. None the less, at a glance around the governmental estate—and the parliamentary estate, too—we see lights burning all night long, with no use of energy-efficient lighting. We also see the ambient temperature of Ministry of Defence buildings, such as the one in my constituency near Corsham, at 25°, which means that civil servants have to sit with their jackets off, because otherwise it would be too warm. Surely we should get our lights off at night and get the temperature down, so that people feel cold in the office and put sweaters on.
Chris Huhne
I hesitate to say this, but I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. We have set an ambitious target and there is more work to do. Whether that means getting people to put on woolly jumpers or getting them to turn the lights off, we will do it, and we shall continue our efforts.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
4. What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills on skills and employment in the energy sector.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
13. What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills on developing skills in the low-carbon sector.
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Charles Hendry)
My Department works closely with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to promote skills and employment in the energy sector. The Budget announced £180 million of funding for 50,000 additional adult apprenticeships, and we announced in March that at least 100,000 green deal apprentices could receive Government funding towards their training. There are many opportunities, with the new build nuclear programme alone expected to create 30,000 high-skilled new jobs nationally.
Charles Hendry
I was very pleased indeed to have the chance to meet the hon. Gentleman, his local authorities and other Members of Parliament from Humberside to talk about the immense potential in those areas for developing the supply chain for the offshore wind sector. That is why we have put in place a £60 million programme to attract manufacturing investment to those sites, and it is encouraging to see the number of manufacturers looking to the United Kingdom.
Catherine McKinnell
The Minister may be aware of my interest in apprenticeships. I welcome the increased number of apprenticeships, although I am concerned that it does not go far enough. What reassurances can he provide that there is a joined-up approach across Departments to ensure that apprenticeship places are created in low-carbon areas of our economy and regions such as the north-east which have real growth potential?
Charles Hendry
I hope the hon. Lady will be aware of the document “Skills for Sustainable Growth”, which was produced last year. It addresses these matters so as to ensure that we can address apprenticeships issues in a more flexible and responsive way, enabling us to react to demand as it evolves in the system. We very much want this to happen in areas such as the north-east, and the local enterprise partnerships and local authorities will have an important role to play in ensuring that we take a joined-up approach to this.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating a company in my constituency, Trade Skills 4U, which has taken on hundreds of apprentices? In particular, it has retrained former members of the armed forces to give them skills relating to solar energy and heating. Does he also share my perplexity at Labour voting in Committee against the fourth carbon budget?
Charles Hendry
My hon. Friend makes an important point. I absolutely welcome the work that is going on to retrain people who have one skill set that might be relevant to the low-carbon economy. We see the potential in the green deal for 100,000 jobs in that area by 2015, and perhaps 250,000 jobs in the longer term. The situation on the fourth carbon budget was even more extraordinary than my hon. Friend suggests, in that Labour Members voted three ways: some voted yes, some voted no, and others abstained.
Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)
Given that some 70% of the UK’s nuclear work force are due to retire by 2025, at the same time as we are planning to build some 16 GW of new nuclear capacity, what action is my hon. Friend taking to plug the nuclear skills gap?
Charles Hendry
We are working closely with other Government Departments, specifically the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, and the National Skills Academy for Nuclear has offered 1,200 apprenticeships in the nuclear sector in the past year, along with 22 foundation degrees and 2,500 short-term courses in the nuclear sector. This is an area in which industry is rising up to the challenge, and our universities and further education colleges are all working together very constructively.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
Further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell), we were absolutely delighted, during the Energy Bill’s Committee stage, when the Government did not reject Labour’s amendment to establish a green deal apprenticeship scheme as part of the green deal. That kind of scheme will aid employers in the energy and low-carbon sectors who have a shortage of skills in their work force, but most importantly, green deal apprenticeships will give young people a route into a long-term career. However, the Minister has since indicated that the Government might seek to change these proposals on Report. Will he now guarantee that he will keep Labour’s green deal apprenticeship scheme and not water it down or remove it from the Bill?
Charles Hendry
We always seek to bring absolute delight to the hon. Lady. We were delighted to find among the batch of amendments that she tabled one that we could endorse and support, although we are looking at the nature of that proposal to see whether it delivers exactly what we want and whether we could improve it still further.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
5. What representations he has received on his objectives for the reduction of carbon emissions by 2020; and if he will make a statement.
The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Chris Huhne)
The Government have committed to reduce UK emissions by 34% by 2020. The Committee on Climate Change confirmed on 30 June that we are on track to meeting this target. Internationally, the Government remain committed to moving to a 30% EU target. I have had numerous discussions with my EU colleagues and a wide variety of stakeholders in recent months on the importance of the EU low-carbon transition, including a move to 30%.
Miss McIntosh
Given the agreement, and the ambition of the targets, what reassurance can the Secretary of State give the House today that businesses will be able to meet those targets without incurring ever higher energy bills or having to pass on the costs to their consumers, who might not be able to afford them?
Chris Huhne
We are working hard with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills on a package to help energy-intensive industries to ensure that, for example, when we build much of the important energy infrastructure that we are going to be building over the next 10 years, the demand for steel and aluminium stays in the United Kingdom. That is a crucial part of what we are doing. My hon. Friend should not forget that we are also seeking an enormous increase in demand for British manufacturing as a result of the need to replace our energy infrastructure, and that investment levels will be running at double the normal level. That will give an enormous shot in the arm to manufacturing.
Fiona O’Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab)
The Government are facing both ways on this issue. Can the Secretary of State tell me whether the Tory MEPs who last week voted against an increase to 30% in the EU commitment to reducing emissions by 2020 are part of the “greenest Government ever”?
Chris Huhne
Perhaps it is now the policy of Labour Members to incorporate Members of the European Parliament into this Chamber, but until that happens—
Chris Huhne
I got in here separately on the basis of an election. Let me point out to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) that when I left the European Parliament to come here, I remember keeping a league table on the three main parties in this Chamber whose MEPs agreed with the policy at Westminster, and I am not at all sure that my Conservative colleagues would be the most embarrassed by it. On a number of occasions, then and now, Labour MEPs do not necessarily take the same line as Labour Members in Westminster.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
6. What estimate he has made of the number of jobs which could be created as a result of his plans for decarbonisation of energy supply.
The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Chris Huhne)
The Government have not estimated the impact of the decarbonisation of energy on employment levels, but we have substantial opportunities—for example, offshore wind has the potential to employ a further 70,000 workers by 2020, bringing benefits to the UK of £6 billion to £8 billion a year. About 16 GW of new build nuclear could create up to 30,000 new jobs and equates to investment of around £50 billion, with the construction of each reactor delivering investment equivalent to that for the 2012 Olympics. We should not forget either the impact of the green deal in the current Energy Bill, which is forecast to increase the number of jobs in the insulation sector from 27,000 to 100,000 by 2015. This is a jobs-rich, green-growth programme.
James Morris
While I welcome the potential for new jobs in the green economy, does the Secretary of State agree that we need to strike a balance between generating new jobs and protecting jobs in the existing manufacturing sector, especially in the black country, part of which I represent, which has manufacturing businesses with high-energy intensiveness—Somers Forge being one particular example? Does he agree that we need to strike a balance so that we do not undermine the competitiveness of our manufacturing industry?
Chris Huhne
I absolutely assure my hon. Friend on that. As I mentioned previously, we have a working group with BIS looking exactly at what help is necessary for the energy-intensive industries. It is also worth pointing out that, particularly when we are emerging from such a deep recession, it is jobs in new industries, rather than merely the recovery of the old industries, that tend to drive the overall recovery. That was the story of the 1930s: we did not regain our prosperity by reversing the declines that had happened in the old industries that had caused the recession; we built entirely new industries. The low-carbon goods and services industry offers us enormous potential in that respect.
Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)
To consolidate and maximise the benefits of the low-carbon economy, does the Secretary of State agree that rather than having a broad concept of enterprise zones, we actually need to create energy zones so that we can maximise the skills base in those areas and transfer the skills from existing downgraded industries into the energy sector?
Chris Huhne
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that industries that share a skills base and a knowledge base often tend to cluster. As I understand it, however, that is not the enterprise zone concept. It is certainly the case that, through the ports infrastructure improvement programme, for example, we are encouraging the clustering of some of the new technologies in offshore wind and elsewhere.
Chris White (Warwick and Leamington) (Con)
7. What steps he is taking to promote community energy projects in co-operation with public sector organisations.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
16. What recent steps he has taken to support community renewable energy projects.
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Gregory Barker)
The coalition agreement includes a strong commitment to encourage community ownership of renewable energy projects. We have taken a range of steps to deliver on this commitment. These include removing barriers to the development of community energy projects, setting up a website to provide practical support to communities and working directly with local government to promote best practice.
Chris White
In my constituency, Warwick hospital and Community Energy Warwickshire, a local social enterprise, have teamed up to put solar panels on the hospital’s buildings. Given the amount of property owned by the public sector, does my hon. Friend not agree that we should do everything we can to encourage this kind of partnership? Will he meet members of Community Energy Warwickshire and Warwick hospital to see how we can replicate this kind of project across the country?
Gregory Barker
I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend and his constituents. This is exactly the kind of project delivered through exactly the kind of partnership that we need to see more of. The coalition is working on a programme including a range of measures to ensure that we drive this forward. I look forward to explaining those in detail to my hon. Friend when I meet him and his constituents.
Paul Flynn
How can community energy projects be advanced if the Minister’s Department is collaborating with the nuclear industry to lie about the true effects of Fukushima, as described in leaked e-mails published by The Guardian? Is it true that an official in his Department wrote to EDF and the other companies saying, “We must get in, and we must make sure that the anti-nuclear chaps and chapesses do not fill the space with the truth”?
Gregory Barker
I simply do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s comments. I have absolute trust in my Department, and the suggestion that there has been some Fukushima cover-up is absurd nonsense.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
Far from being a champion of community energy projects, the Government seem to be intent on punishing them. In June the Minister cut feed-in tariff funding for schemes generating more than 50 kW. The Secretary of State said a moment ago that he wanted to make feed-in tariffs affordable, but cutting them for medium-scale school, hospital and community projects makes them unviable.
The Minister is aware that we disagree fundamentally with his decision, and our view is shared by the solar industry. Howard Johns, chairman of the Solar Trade Association, has said that the move would cripple the UK’s fledgling solar panel industry, adding:
“Crushing solar makes zero economic sense for UK plc because it will lose us major manufacturing opportunities, jobs and global competitiveness.”
This is yet another example of Government policy damaging our economy and cutting support for industry, rather than generating jobs and growth. Will the Minister admit that he got it wrong, and that he should think again?
Gregory Barker
The people who got it wrong were the people in the Labour party who were in government and created this programme. They know full well that the model was fundamentally not fit for purpose. The hon. Lady and her Front-Bench colleague, the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), decline to name a figure, but how much more money would they pump into a scheme that would be paid for from people’s bills?
If we had left the scheme unreformed, more than £3 billion would have been added to the cost in the form of high subsidies. We are committed to rolling out solar energy, which is a dynamic technology of the future, but we must do it responsibly. We cannot do it by providing the open-cheque subsidies that would be encouraged by the irresponsible attitude of Opposition Front-Benchers.
Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)
8. What recent assessment he has made of the potential contribution of demand-side measures to electricity market reform.
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Gregory Barker)
Demand-side measures have huge potential to help us to reduce emissions and cut costs. The coalition’s green deal will be the most ambitious demand-side programme since the second world war, but we must go even further. Our proposals for energy market reform will drive radical new ways of reducing demand on an industrial scale, and will allow demand reduction measures to compete on an equal footing with new generation for the first time.
Zac Goldsmith
I am hugely encouraged by the Minister’s answer. Will he bring forward detailed proposals on how energy efficiency will be supported by the EMR? Knowing, as he does, the importance of EMR and of public finance, emissions reductions and energy security, will he commit himself to pressing for the maximum possible ambition?
Gregory Barker
I can assure my hon. Friend, who is an expert on these matters, that there will be the maximum possible ambition in the EMR documents that we will publish next week, but there is much more work to be done. We will need to consult the industry. Demand reduction is not like alternative forms of energy generation. We are creating a new model, and different types of indices and accounting will be necessary. We will need a robust system of measurement as well as the market mechanism. I have absolutely no doubt that we can crack it, and I can assure my hon. Friend of our ambition and determination to do so.
Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)
Last week I received my gas bill, which showed that my consumption had been 25% lower than it had been during the same period last year. At the same time, however, the direct debit payments requested by the company were rising substantially. How confident is the Minister that demand-led measures will help hard-pressed consumers?
Gregory Barker
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his heroic efforts to reduce consumption. He is right: the best way of ensuring less exposure to rising gas prices, oil prices and fossil fuel prices generally is to reduce consumption. The green deal—the most ambitious roll-out of home energy efficiency since the second world war—will be a massive bonus for all our homes, and we hope to have applied it to 26 million homes by 2030.
Meg Munn (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab/Co-op)
9. What assessment he has made of the performance of the Energy Saving Trust; and if he will make a statement.
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Gregory Barker)
The Energy Saving Trust has helped to deliver substantial carbon savings and has assisted in Government energy efficiency objectives. However, the step change in ambition that will come with the roll-out of the green deal will include the Government ending dependence on just one monopoly provider and opening up the market for advice and best practice to dynamic competition.
Meg Munn
I agree that the Energy Saving Trust has done great work. It has been publicly funded and it has provided a lot of advice and resources for people, so why will the Minister not ensure that all that publicly funded advice and resource information published to date continues to be available to the public through an organisation that will become a social enterprise?
Gregory Barker
There will continue to be publicly funded information, particularly on the green deal. We believe that the public should get the very best information and that the way to achieve that is by opening up the provision of advice to competition, rather than by just continuing with one monopoly provider. The Energy Saving Trust has done good work in the past, and we certainly anticipate that it will be part of the tender for the new provision of advice under the green deal.
Gregg McClymont (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (Lab)
10. What recent discussions he has had on domestic energy bills with representatives of the six largest energy companies.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
20. What recent discussions he has had on domestic energy bills with representatives of the six largest energy companies.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
21. What recent discussions he has had on domestic energy bills with representatives of the six largest energy companies.
The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Chris Huhne)
Department of Energy and Climate Change Ministers and officials regularly meet energy suppliers to discuss market issues, and this afternoon I will be hosting an energy summit for small, non-big six suppliers, to discuss the barriers they face to competing in the market, with a view to making sure it is as easy as possible for them to enter it.
Gregg McClymont
Bringing the Secretary of State back to the issue of the big six energy companies, do they do enough to make vulnerable customers aware of their potential eligibility for a social tariff, and if they do not do enough, what will the Government do to make sure vulnerable customers are made aware of their potential eligibility?
Chris Huhne
The hon. Gentleman raises an important question, especially as we approach the winter months. As he may know, we have put the warm homes discount scheme on a legislative basis and it is absolutely crucial that our targeting efforts continue. We are doing a lot of work, not least with the Department for Work and Pensions, to try to ensure that we can identify the people who will be most in need, and of course the green deal, which will start next year, will prioritise those in fuel poverty so that we tackle the root causes of the problem and do not merely seek to apply a sticking plaster—
Mr Speaker
Order. We are grateful to the Secretary of State for his answer.
Bill Esterson
The Secretary of State did not answer the point about the big six, so I will give him another chance. We have some of the highest energy prices in Europe. What action is he taking with the big six to ensure that electricity and gas prices in this country are fair for those whose living standards are being squeezed by his Government?
Chris Huhne
The hon. Gentleman is incorrect about the comparison with other European countries’ electricity and gas prices. In fact, in both cases our prices are among the lowest. They could certainly be lower, and I am determined to try to make sure that we have the maximum competition in the market, because in my experience that is always the best guarantee that the consumer will get the best deal. That is why we want more companies to enter the market, and the electricity market reform will encourage more market entrants on the generator side. That is also why in the long term—
Mr Speaker
Order. I think we have got the thrust, and we are very grateful, but we must have shorter answers. Exchanges are taking too long.
Barbara Keeley
The charity Age UK predicts that rising energy bills will take 250,000 more pensioners into fuel poverty, and those pensioners are under-heating their homes by rationing their consumption of fuel and thereby increasing their exposure to potential ill health, misery and depression. What action will the Secretary of State take to ensure that gas and electricity prices are fairer, something that the Prime Minister promised those pensioners?
Chris Huhne
As I said in a previous answer, we are doing two very practical things. One is providing the warm homes discount and ensuring that it is made available to those most in need; the other is ensuring that we tackle the root causes of these problems. Another key issue for anyone facing high energy bills is the need to switch, as I have been trying to encourage them to do. As the hon. Lady may have noticed, customers of the big six who are already on dual fuel direct debit accounts could have saved between £160 and £200 in 2010 merely by getting on to the cheapest tariff available at the beginning of the year.
Sir Robert Smith (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
But for people to make the savings they need to understand what they are being charged. Does the Secretary of State think that there could be improvements to and reductions in bills and that the market could be opened up if there was more clarity on the tariffs available and less confusion about what things were going to cost?
Chris Huhne
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, and what he describes is one of Ofgem’s objectives in tackling this issue. It is also one of the objectives we are introducing in legislation: we want to ensure that people can see on their bill that there will be a clear alternative with the same supplier at the cheapest tariff.
Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)
The big six seem very quick to put prices up, but they act much more slowly to reduce their prices when wholesale prices fall. There are alternatives out there, such as the social enterprise Ebico, which supplies energy on a not-for-profit basis. What more can the Secretary of State do to make customers aware that they do not need to stick with the big six if they are being ripped off?
Chris Huhne
The key is to encourage people to act. At the moment 99% of people are with the big six, and they are very unlikely to look at alternatives and to switch. If we can get people to look more comprehensively on a regular basis at alternatives, substantial savings can be made, and we can drive greater competition, we can simplify bills, we can bring more new entrants into the market, we can make sure that Ofgem is keeping that market under review and we can give the best possible deal to British consumers.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
We have heard a lot of warm words from the Secretary of State today, and before the election the Prime Minister made promises about what he would do to tackle energy price increases if he got into power. We have seen these huge price increases, and customers are rightly confused and angry, so what is the Secretary of State going to do right now to tackle this problem? The electricity market reform is all very well, but we could deal with issues relating to doorstep selling and smart meters. There is action that he could take now, so I would like to hear what he is planning to do to help consumers today.
Chris Huhne
As the hon. Lady knows, much of what we can do takes time, but we have already, in just over a year in government, moved to legislate on the warm homes discount. That means that we will be providing a legal underpinning for the scheme which will help our poorest consumers and those most at risk in fuel poverty. We are also moving on energy saving and moving to increase competition in the market. We are trying to provide assurance and an increased ability to switch, and to simplify tariffs. That is quite an agenda, and none of it was being undertaken by the previous Government.
Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)
11. What steps he plans to take to increase energy efficiency in housing.
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Gregory Barker)
The green deal is our ambitious new programme to transform energy efficiency in housing and in small and medium-sized enterprises. From late 2012, home owners, landlords and tenants will be able to install energy efficiency at no up-front cost, with repayments coming from their energy bill savings. Alongside the green deal, the energy company obligation will offer targeted support to the fuel poor and hard-to-treat homes.
Hugh Bayley
On 30 June, the Committee on Climate Change published its third report to Parliament, saying the following about emissions from residential buildings:
“Implementation of measures slipped in 2010. There will be a need for a significant acceleration in the pace of emissions reduction if indicators and carbon budgets are to be achieved”.
Will the Secretary of State therefore table an amendment to the Energy Bill before the summer recess to produce a statutory strategy to ensure that these targets are met?
Gregory Barker
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: not only did we slip slightly last year in the final throes of the regime that we inherited from the previous Government, but if we had carried on at the rate of progress of the previous Labour Government it would have taken 80 years to retrofit homes to the standard that we hope to achieve in two decades. We will certainly be linking the green deal to our commitments in the climate change legislation, and that is an amendment that we introduced and is included in the Energy Bill.
Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
Despite my best endeavours when I was in the Minister’s job, Londoners received only 5% of the insulation jobs and of the carbon emissions reduction target, even though they make up 15% of the population of England. Will the Minister now introduce a regional obligation on energy companies so that Londoners get a green deal and not a raw deal?
Gregory Barker
The right hon. Lady is right. Unfortunately, the programmes we had under the previous Government were ineffective, particularly in London. We are transforming that with the green deal and the energy company obligation and we shall certainly ensure that the roll-out of energy efficiency measures under the coalition is much fairer and much more ambitious than we saw under the previous Government.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
Yesterday, a report by uSwitch showed that fuel poverty levels in the UK are spiralling, with 6.3 million households—almost a quarter of all UK homes—now classed as being fuel poor. That highlights the urgent need for energy-efficiency improvements coupled with support from Government. However, in the past year the Government have systematically scrapped support for fuel poor households. We have seen Labour’s Warm Front scheme cut, winter fuel payments reduced by up to £100 and the rejection of many Energy Bill amendments that would have provided extra support to—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am sorry, but we must have a one sentence question straight away.
Luciana Berger
Will the Minister tell us how he will get a grip on this out-of-control fuel poverty situation?
Gregory Barker
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. She will know that under the final five years of the Labour Government, the number of those in fuel poverty rose from 1.5 million to more than 4 million—an absolutely catastrophic record bequeathed to the coalition. We will turn that around with the most ambitious energy-efficiency programme since the second world war and a far more effective way of delivering help to the fuel poor.
Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)
12. What steps he plans to take in response to the recommendation to his Department from Hayes McKenzie on the adequacy of guidance to developers and local authorities on best practice in the assessment and rating of noise from wind turbines.
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Charles Hendry)
The Hayes McKenzie report was published in June and included a range of recommendations. The Institute of Acoustics has agreed to a request from me to set up a working group to take forward these recommendations and develop advice for communities, developers and planners on how best to assess the noise impacts of proposed wind farms in a consistent manner.
Chris Heaton-Harris
I thank the Minister for his reply. Footnote 34 of that report stated that the noise regulations were “inconsistently applied” and recommended better guidance on best practice for developers and planning authorities. Supposedly, the Government are working with the industry to draft that. Until the Government issue that guidance, developers across the UK are taking advantage of the confusion. When will we finally get these recommendations?
Charles Hendry
We have asked the Institute of Acoustics, because of its professionalism in this area, to consider things on a case-by-case basis rather than waiting until the entire report is complete so that we can have as much clarity and consistency as possible at the earliest possible stage.
Lindsay Roy (Glenrothes) (Lab)
15. When he expects to announce a timetable for the additional carbon capture and storage demonstration projects.
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Charles Hendry)
We expect to launch an accelerated process for the selection of further CCS demonstration projects by the end of the year, when we will set out a detailed timetable. I cannot wait to hear the hon. Gentleman’s supplementary question.
Lindsay Roy
I thank the Minister for his response and, indeed, for his reduced emissions.
The Government’s claim to be the greenest ever is quickly unravelling. Carbon capture and storage is vital in tackling climate change and to the security of future energy supply, so why are the Government dragging their feet on these vital developments?
Charles Hendry
I simply do not recognise that description. We have given more money than any Government anywhere in the world to a single carbon capture project—£1 billion—and we have the most ambitious programme: when countries such as Norway and Holland are letting theirs slip backwards, Britain’s is still on track. We aim to deliver four projects by 2020, and the hon. Gentleman should celebrate that success because of the jobs it will bring to his constituents, among others.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
17. If his Department will undertake an impact assessment of the effect of the carbon floor price mechanism on the competitiveness of energy-intensive industries.
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Gregory Barker)
An assessment of the impacts of the carbon price floor on energy intensive industries is given in HMRC’s tax information and impact note, published alongside the Budget. Electricity bills for an average energy-intensive business are estimated to increase by 2% and 6% in 2013 and 2016 respectively as a result of the carbon price floor. However, in the late 2020s electricity bills will be between 2% and 5% lower than would otherwise have been the case.
Jessica Morden
Will the Minister outline what specific issues the Government are considering to prevent energy-intensive industries, such as the steel industry in my constituency, from being disadvantaged in comparison with their global competitors by policies such as the carbon price floor?
Gregory Barker
As the hon. Lady knows, we are meeting not just the steel manufacturers, such as those in her constituency, but a range of energy-intensive industries. I will be meeting the chief executives of several before the House rises for the recess. We are considering a range of measures in conjunction with the Treasury and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, and in the autumn we will announce the result of that collaboration.
Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
18. If he will take steps to simplify energy tariffs for consumers.
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Charles Hendry)
Ofgem has just consulted on initial proposals to simplify tariffs and reduce consumer confusion. We welcome Ofgem’s proposals but we think consumers need better information to help them to take control of their consumption and costs, so we are taking forward proposals to require information on bills about a supplier’s cheapest tariff and how the consumer’s consumption compares with that of similar households.
Tony Baldry
Is that going to be this year or next year? When are we going to see simplified, clearer energy bills?
Charles Hendry
We are taking that power in the Energy Bill so that if that does not happen we will in any case have the power within the next few months to deliver on that commitment.
Dr Daniel Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
19. What assessment he has made of the potential long-term benefits to the economy of expenditure on biogas technology.
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Gregory Barker)
The coalition Government are committed to increasing substantially the generation of renewable electricity and heat from waste through anaerobic digestion as well as through advanced conversion technologies such as gasification. Energy from a range of waste products contributes to reducing emissions, enhancing energy security and creating green jobs.
Dr Poulter
Anaerobic digestion has a number of advantages over other renewable energy technologies. It is generated constantly and can be stored in the grid in the form of gas, but people are having specific problems getting through the planning process to support the development of anaerobic digestion plants. What can the Minister do to help with this?
Gregory Barker
Obviously, planning per se is a matter for the Department for Communities and Local Government, but we are keen that where any renewable energy installation occurs in a local community, the local community should share in the wider benefits and the financial benefits, helping them to retain some of the business rates in their community and potentially to take ownership of those assets through community share ownership. There is a whole range of community benefits, but we need to do a better job of explaining them to local residents.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
22. What steps he is taking to provide support for underground coal gasification.
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Charles Hendry)
The Government recognise the potential of underground coal gasification, but the technology is still in its early stages. Our view is that as a carbon capture option it is not a priority to pursue at present. The Coal Authority has lead responsibility, as the freehold owner of our national coal resource, and we continue to monitor developments in the sector.
Chi Onwurah
Newcastle university in my constituency has spun out a start-up, Five-Quarter, to pioneer coal gasification. As the Minister will know, 75% of Britain’s coal reserves are still deep underground, much under the North sea. There is potentially more energy there than in all the natural gas so far extracted from the North sea, so should not the Minister be doing more to help to support this pioneering work?
Charles Hendry
I would be very grateful if the hon. Lady would bring those people from the university to meet me to talk about the work they are doing and how that resource can be developed more effectively. In the past couple of years, 14 licences have been granted for areas close to the shoreline. This is a technology we are keen to watch, but I would be very grateful to learn from the university’s expertise.
Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Chris Huhne)
Since the last departmental Question Time, the Energy Bill has completed its Committee stage. Yesterday, we announced that Whitehall carbon emissions have been cut by nearly 14% in one year: the Department of Energy and Climate Change achieved an impressive reduction of 21.3% and was only just pipped at the post by the Department for Education. We have also revealed the simplification proposals for the carbon reduction commitment and climate change agreements. We have responded to the Committee on Climate Change’s third annual progress report to Parliament, as required under the Climate Change Act 2008, and the fourth carbon budget, covering the period from 2023 to 2027, is now law.
Margot James
There are many energy-intensive companies across the black country producing high-value items for export all over the world. Those companies, which I would not call old industry, are concerned about the carbon price floor and rising energy costs. Can my right hon. Friend advise whether the joint working group between the Treasury, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and his Department will meet representatives of the chemicals and aluminium industries to hear their concerns?
Chris Huhne
I can assure my hon. Friend that I met representatives of the aluminium industry very recently and that we have a regular programme of meeting companies from energy-intensive industries. Indeed, I have also had contact with trade union representatives from energy-intensive industries. We want to see a solution that will ensure those industries are able to thrive within the United Kingdom—she can have my absolute assurance on that. As my colleagues have pointed out, there are discussions under way between BIS, the Treasury and us on this.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
The green economy road map was promised in April. Where is it?
Chris Huhne
The green economy road map is under way in the Green Economy Council. It is very important that we get that process of work right, and the hon. Lady will know that getting a cross-governmental road map right is not always the easiest process, but I can assure her that it is under way and that she will be put out of her misery shortly.
Meg Hillier
Whenever the right hon. Gentleman’s Department has to work with other Departments, progress on green issues stalls. We have now learned that the flagship Energy Bill, which the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry), has spoken about a great deal today, has been shelved. When will we see the Bill back in the House, and will it delay the start of the green deal?
Chris Huhne
Obviously the timing of the final stages of the Energy Bill is a matter for the business managers, but we are determined to hold to the October 2012 deadline for the launch of the green deal and are working to ensure that we meet it, despite the congestion we have faced in the House of Commons. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for encouraging us to come forward with further details of our policy and note that she is about to offer what has been billed as the first detailed insight into the Opposition’s thinking on low-carbon policy at a green business event, which I am sure we all look forward to.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
T2. As Ministers will know, Cornwall has ambitions to become the green peninsula in the UK through renewable energy and therefore warmly welcomes the Government’s proposed marine energy park. What progress has been made on that, what timetable has been set and will Ministers ensure that the park provides the vital stimulus so that the wave hub can get going off the north coast of my constituency?
Chris Huhne
My ministerial colleagues have had regular meetings on this with the green energy programme board and are making good progress. We will continue the workstream to try to accelerate our commitment to low-carbon goods and services in the UK economy. It is a high-growth opportunity, and obviously Cornwall will play an important future role in that.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
T5. Will the Minister confirm his support for the pioneering plans for underground coal gasification off the Northumberland coast, as described earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah), and agree to meet representatives from the Opposition, from Newcastle university and from Five-Quarter to seek support on the issue?
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Charles Hendry)
That is exactly the offer I made to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah). I am keen for that meeting to be as wide as possible, and indeed happy for it to include the entire parliamentary Labour party. This is an important technology and we are keen to understand the expertise that the university has.
Dr Daniel Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
T3. The Minister will be aware that farmers and parish councils across Suffolk are keen to contribute to reducing local carbon emissions and supporting renewable energy, but there is great concern about the divisiveness of onshore wind turbines in local communities. What other renewable energy measures is his Department keen to promote on a local level?
Chris Huhne
There is a whole range of technologies for renewable energy that are appropriate at local level, such as anaerobic digestion, which has already been discussed today. Furthermore, we have introduced £860 million to support a range of renewable heat technologies that will be significant for our future, including air source heat pumps and ground source heat pumps. However, I urge my hon. Friend not to take too jaundiced a view of onshore wind turbines. So far I am the only Member of the House who has been booed on “Any Questions” for pointing out that onshore wind turbines are beautiful, a view I hold to firmly and with which I hope other Members will agree.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
T7. Many people in Wales are excited about the possibility of shale gas transforming the welsh economy, but equally many of my constituents are worried that the chemicals that are pushed down into the ground will end up in the watercourse and that the fracking process, which has possibly already led to problems in Blackpool, might lead to real problems across the whole of the south Wales coalfield. What will the Minister do to reassure my constituents?
Charles Hendry
The hon. Gentleman raises a very important issue. There is potential for shale gas in the United Kingdom, but only one application is going forward, in the north-west, and that is on hold to see whether there is any link between the recent minor earth tremors there and the drilling process. We need to understand fully any issues with that. It is a legitimate technology, but the fluid is 99% water and the majority of the remainder is an inert soapy-type compound—
Charles Hendry
So we have very strong environmental controls on those issues.
Mr Speaker
Order. Ministers are rather testing the knee muscles of a number of right hon. and hon. Members who keep bouncing up and down.
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
T4. Leeds has a strong case to be considered for the green investment bank, and I look forward to discussing it next week with the Minister, but may I ask for some cross-departmental working? The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills announcement, which appeared to suggest that Leeds was no longer in the running, was not helpful, so can the Minister assure me that it is not a foregone conclusion that the bank will be in London ?
Chris Huhne
I can assure my hon. Friend that no decisions on the matter have been taken. He is absolutely right that BIS is the lead Department on it, but decisions are some way off and we have some work to do on scoping and on getting right the detail of the proposals before siting becomes salient.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
In relation to the Humber ports, the Minister talked earlier about the £60 million that is available for the development of green energy on the portside, but that was an announcement by the previous Labour Government of course. In terms of the job opportunities for my constituents, can he explain the targeted assistance that will be available to Hull?
Charles Hendry
The difference we have made is that that funding is linked specifically to manufacturing projects, rather than to speculative improvements in ports. In addition, £70 million has been brought forward in Scotland, and there will be perhaps more in Wales, so we are very keen to see specific projects. Siemens is looking at the opportunities on the north side of the Humber in Hull, where very good progress is being made, and there will be a fixed formula for establishing exactly how much Government support is going to be available for private sector investment.
Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)
T6. What is my right hon. Friend doing to encourage the Danish company Vestas to build a wind turbine factory in my constituency?
Chris Huhne
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I am very keen to see Vestas come back to the UK market as a manufacturer. I remember visiting its plant on the Isle of Wight some years ago, and it had a manufacturing facility in Woolston close to my constituency. The fact that it is looking at re-establishing itself in the UK is enormously encouraging, and we are in conversations with the company. Clearly, Sheerness as a site is not an assisted area and therefore would not benefit from the subsidies that have been found for assisted areas, but it has other advantages, of which I am sure Vestas is well aware from its discussions with my hon. Friend, and I very much hope that it takes that decision to go forward.
Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State, in one of his lengthy answers to his interviewer on the “Today” programme, waxed lyrical about the potential of wave and tidal energy. Will he therefore explain why the earmarked amount from the development fund has been reduced from £50 million to £20 million, which green energy specialists have described as a drop in the ocean and completely inadequate?
Chris Huhne
The hon. Gentleman should be aware that that is new money, which will be spent—unlike some allocations that were made under the previous Government. We are very committed to bringing forward such early-stage technologies, which are going to be part of our future, and I have been very keen to see for myself the progress that has been made, particularly on wave projects.
Mr Edward Timpson (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
T8. By 2012, Bentley Motors in Crewe in my constituency will have made 100% of its range compatible with renewable fuels, reducing its CO2 emissions by at least 15%. Will my hon. Friend visit the Bentley site to see how that and other investment is helping to reduce the impact on the environment, and to discuss what further support his Department may be able to offer?
Charles Hendry
I was very pleased to have the chance earlier this week to talk about those issues with Bentley, which is of course a world-class engineering company based in my hon. Friend’s constituency. I shall be in touch with his office later today to fix a visit in the coming weeks.
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State reflect further on the anaerobic digester plants that are close to and in built-up areas? Is he aware that the stuff being carried by lorries trundling through the village of Whitwell in my constituency is not the green deal but brown and stinks to high heaven? What does he have to say to the people there?
Chris Huhne
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. The more I do this job, the more I realise that there is not a single energy source, whether it is anaerobic digesters, wind turbines or nuclear power, or indeed fracking with shale gas, that does not involve concerns and worries. It is our job to make sure that those are minimised, and we want to ensure that his constituents suffer the minimum disruption to their lives in built-up areas.
Mr Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
T9. I thank the Minister for giving his time earlier this week to meet the GreenWin organisation from my constituency. He will have noticed that it stands well prepared for green deal roll-out in my part of the world. Will he keep at the forefront of his mind at all times the fact that it is not only these big society organisations that will make the green deal a success, but the small value-added services that can be offered to make energy efficiency possible for many of our constituents—services such as basic loft clearance, which he knows could be a deal breaker?
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Gregory Barker)
I was delighted to meet my hon. Friend and GreenWin, which is an excellent organisation whose expertise is now radiating beyond his constituency. He is absolutely right. Many of the barriers to the green deal and take-up of energy efficiency are not just financial but involve practical measures such as clearing the loft. A community response to overcoming those barriers is often the very best way. My officials will be working to see how we can spread the expertise of GreenWin right across the country.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
An observant constituent of mine noticed on a very sunny day that he was getting nothing back for the electricity he was generating from his solar panels. Luckily the problem—it was a grid problem—has now been resolved by Western Power. What is the Secretary of State doing to ensure that the infrastructure across the country is adequate to take on all the electricity, especially in areas where solar panels have become very popular, and to make absolutely sure that those people are able to get the feed-in tariff that they are generating?
Charles Hendry
Part of the solution to this is the rolling out of smart grids, which will measure two-way flows of electricity and therefore give an absolutely precise reading of what is being put into the grid. We are taking forward that programme, and we have already shaved a year off the time scale that we inherited from the previous Administration because of the many benefits that it will bring.
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend update the House on what recent actions he has taken to ensure that the problems encountered last winter by constituents of mine who heat their homes with fuel oil will not be repeated this year?
Charles Hendry
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that at this time of the year, because this is when we need to be planning for the winter. The Office of Fair Trading is investigating the matter. I have asked for its report to be completed by the early autumn so that we can decide exactly what measures need to be introduced to make sure that the problems of last winter are not repeated.
Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)
I am sure that a Minister as progressive and forward thinking as the Secretary of State is convinced by the arguments put forward by those who advocate double summer time. What efforts is he making to reduce carbon emissions by following this approach and speaking to his Cabinet colleagues about the issue?
Chris Huhne
I was quite intrigued by the whole issue of double summer time because I, perhaps like the hon. Gentleman, thought that it was a bit of a silver bullet and an easy solution. Unfortunately, it turns out that there are more complications, not only north of the border but certainly there, and that the extent of the carbon reductions is not as clear cut as it may appear. However, it is a matter not for my Department but for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.
Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)
Sir Michael Pitt from the Infrastructure Planning Commission, supported by the Department, requested a fair, independent and transparent report on the cost of undergrounding and any alternative to cables and pylons. Now that KEMA has been sacked, the Institution of Engineering and Technology cannot endorse a report because there is not one. National Grid is implicated for not providing the figures that are necessary for whole-life costs. The public are left with buried figures rather than buried cables. What can the Minister do to get information on costs available to people before the development consent applications have been received by the IPC?
Chris Huhne
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question. She is a particularly doughty campaigner on this issue, and I am aware of how significant it is in Somerset. All I can say is that we will try to be as open as possible about all the information. If we have in any way failed to be open, I ask her to get in touch and we will make sure that we are being so. My understanding is that the costs of undergrounding are roughly 10 times as high as the costs of pylons, and that pylons are going to be quite important.
Petition
Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)
This is my first time presenting a petition in this place, and I did not expect to be doing it at this particular hour. I was hoping to do it a tiny bit later, because waiting for me in the Pugin Room are four Daventry councillors who are enjoying their afternoon tea while mine goes cold. However, this is a very important petition.
In the beautiful village of East Haddon in my constituency, there is a wonderful pub called the Red Lion. The talk of the town in East Haddon is not windmills, although we have plenty of them around the place, and they are the talk of the town in other parts of my constituency; nor is it High Speed 2, although the people who live in the village of Byfield will most certainly be talking about that in the pub. The talk of the town in East Haddon is the Barnett formula. A number of my petitioners, perhaps over a nice cold dry white wine one evening, got very excited about the Barnett formula, and about the fact that English people are being hard done by in regard to a fair and equal per capita distribution of taxpayers’ money across my constituency. They are therefore petitioning the House of Commons. Dr Angus Walker has put this together, and I hope that I can do him justice here today.
The petition states:
The Petition of residents of Daventry,
Declares that the Petitioners believe that the use of the Barnett Formula in the distribution of Government funds should be replaced with an equal per capita distribution for all races in the United Kingdom; notes that the Petitioners believe it to be iniquitous that some parts of the United Kingdom are discriminated against because of race; and further notes that the Petitioners consider that it is wrong to permit such discrimination to be exempted in law.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to discontinue the use of the Barnett Formula in the distribution of Government funds and replace it with an equal per capita distribution for all races in the United Kingdom.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P000935]
Business of the House
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir George Young)
The business for the week commencing 11 July will include:
Monday 11 July—Consideration of Lords amendments to the European Union Bill, followed by motion to approve European documents relating to rights and protection of victims.
Tuesday 12 July—Motion relating to the retirement of the Clerk of the House, followed by Second Reading of the Public Bodies Bill [Lords], followed by if necessary consideration of Lords amendments.
Wednesday 13 July—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill, followed by Opposition day [20th allotted day] [Half day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
Thursday 14 July—Consideration of an allocation of time motion, followed by all stages of the Sovereign Grant Bill.
The provisional business for the week commencing 18 July will include:
Monday 18 July—Motions relating to national policy statements. Motion to approve the appointment of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and Health Service Commissioner for England.
Tuesday 19 July—General debate on matters to be raised before the forthcoming Adjournment, as nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
I applaud the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee for her award last night as The House magazine’s Back-Bencher of the year.
Hilary Benn
I am grateful to the Leader of the House for that reply. May I join him in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) on her award?
Today, we remember the 52 victims of the 7 July bombings and their bereaved families. The terrible pain that they must still feel will be shared across the House. That anyone could have tried to exploit their raw grief to sell newspapers shows exactly why yesterday’s debate was so important. The best way to uphold the kind of journalism that we respect is to root out the kind of journalism that none of us can stomach. I have, therefore, three questions to ask the Leader of the House.
The first is on the public inquiry, which must be judge-led. I welcome the Government’s swift change of mind since the Deputy Prime Minister rejected an inquiry on Tuesday. When will we have a statement setting out how the inquiry will be established, who will chair it and what its powers will be? Can we be assured that it will cover the culture and practices that led to what happened, the nature of regulation, and the relationship between the police and the media?
Can we have an urgent statement from the Home Secretary? The Prevention of Corruption Act 1906 makes it an offence for anyone to pay money to a police officer or for any officer to receive it. The House wants to be assured now that whatever the current investigation reveals, including on the allegation that the Prime Minister’s former director of communications sanctioned payments to police officers while he was at the News of the World, this practice is no longer happening anywhere. The Home Secretary has so far been conspicuous by her absence. It is time she came to the House to answer questions.
Can we have an urgent statement from the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport on the BSkyB bid? It was clear yesterday that the House will no longer accept the course of action that he has been intent upon. In the light of what has been revealed about the activities at News International, this matter must now be referred to the Competition Commission.
Last week, I asked for a statement by the Secretary of State for Transport on the award of the contract to build 1,200 Thameslink train carriages to Siemens. It turns out that at the same time as the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions was in Madrid telling British employers to give British jobs to British workers, his Cabinet colleagues were having to explain why they had given a contract for British trains to German workers. Instead of blaming the procurement process, the Ministers who took this decision need to explain what they propose to do, given that this week Bombardier announced that 1,429 skilled workers in Derby, long the proud home of train manufacturing in Britain, will lose their jobs. So much for all the Government’s empty words about British manufacturing.
In welcoming the £38 million in British aid announced this week to help the millions facing starvation in the horn of Africa, may I ask for a debate on the food crisis affecting our fellow human beings there? The world cannot make it rain, but we can and must lend a hand.
May we have a statement on housing benefit from the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government so that he can explain the letter that he authorised his private secretary to send to the Prime Minister’s office in January? It revealed that the Government’s housing benefit plans could make 40,000 people homeless, cut house building and end up not saving money but costing it. Yet while raising those “very serious practical issues” in private, the Communities Secretary was saying in public that he backed what the Government were doing.
The House also wants to know which Minister knew what and when about that information, which was clearly available back in January but was not revealed during the passage of the Welfare Reform Bill. Here is another policy that just has not been thought through. Only Conservative Ministers could come up with a housing policy that makes people homeless and costs taxpayers more.
Finally, may we have a debate on prime ministerial authority? Asked two weeks ago about the threat by his Tory MEPs to oppose tougher carbon emission targets, the Prime Minister promised the House that he would “work on” them. What happened? Such is his diminished influence that a majority of them simply ignored his pleas and voted against a binding 30% reduction this week.
I have a suggestion that might help. The next time Tory MEPs are rebelling on climate change, perhaps the Communities Secretary could offer to assist. Famous for his lecturing of local government about belt-tightening, it seems that he has recently replaced his £20,000 fuel-efficient ministerial Prius with a £70,000 Jaguar. Perhaps he could offer to drive over to Strasbourg and remind his Tory colleagues just how important it is to cut carbon emissions.
Sir George Young
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. The Deputy Leader of the House and myself travel almost everywhere by bicycle, so we are making our contribution to energy saving, and we have a very small carbon footprint between us.
May I begin with the serious issue that the right hon. Gentleman raised? Yesterday’s debate marked a sea change in the House’s perception of certain sections of the press, which I think reflects a much broader change in how the public now view the allegations. They have been made even worse by the allegations in the press today that the families of soldiers who have fallen had their phones tapped. It was a good debate, because the mover of the motion and many others who spoke from throughout the House understood and recognised that it was not a party political issue.
The Government are now looking at two inquiries. The first is on the specifics of the original police investigation and why it did not uncover some of the allegations that are now emerging, and the second is on the wider issue of media ethics, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. There is a relationship between those two inquiries, which means that we will have to give careful thought to their terms of reference and their relationship with the ongoing police investigation. We will consult widely on the terms of reference, including with the Joint Committee on privacy, party leaders and the Cabinet Secretary. We want to get this right, and we plan to make an announcement to the House before Parliament rises for the summer recess. I will pass the right hon. Gentleman’s questions on to the Home Secretary, who will be in the House today for Second Reading of the Police (Detention and Bail) Bill.
On BSkyB, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport is acting in a quasi-judicial way, and it is quite right that he carries out his role in that manner without any interference from anyone else in the Government. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, my right hon. Friend was on the Treasury Bench for the debate yesterday and will have heard what the House said. Yesterday’s debate was about newspapers not being above the law, and it is quite right that Ministers are not above the law either.
On Bombardier, the right hon. Gentleman sought to dismiss the way in which the procurement process was designed and initiated by the previous Government. As I have just said, newspapers are not above the law, but Ministers are not above the law either. We are bound by the criteria that the previous Government set out, and we must continue with the decision that has been made according to those criteria. Of course, any job losses are regrettable, but Bombardier had previously advised the Government that it expected to make 1,000 redundancies at this time, regardless of the outcome of the Thameslink procurement, as several of its existing orders had reached completion. Derby is a priority area for the European regional development fund under the east midlands programme. I understand that a large amount of the £6.6 million ERDF funding available for Derby to use for suitable projects is still available, and there are six bids from Derby for the regional growth fund.
Turning to the Department for International Development, the shadow Leader of the House will have seen the written ministerial statement by the Secretary of State for International Development on 6 July. He is holding a briefing on the horn of Africa at 5 pm this evening in room 15 and will update colleagues if they go along. The shadow Leader of the House will have seen in the ministerial statement that the Government have contributed help with food for 1.3 million Ethiopians for three months as well as helping to tackle the problem of hundreds of thousands of starving children.
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has replied to the shadow Secretary of State and placed the letter in the Library. The letter deals with all the questions raised by the shadow Leader of the House. I note in particular that Secretary of State says that
“since it was written, the Government has said it will be looking at transitional arrangements for particularly hard cases. We are putting in a series of policy measures to assist local authorities with that transition, and to provide considerable financial support to tackle homelessness.”
He goes on to say:
“I…hope Her Majesty’s Opposition can support”
the benefit cap,
“not least since it was in the Labour Party’s general election manifesto.”
The matter of Conservative MEPs and climate change was covered in the exchange that just took place in Department of Energy and Climate Change questions. Of course, we are disappointed about the European Parliament vote, but I am sorry that when it came to voting on the amended report as a whole, Conservative MEPs mostly voted in favour, and Labour MEPs largely voted against.
Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)
On 12 May, the House tasked the Members’ Allowances Committee to review the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009. I welcome the Leader of the House’s support in doing so, but there is a motion on today’s Order Paper that suggests, on the face of it, that the remit of the Committee should be restricted to looking at expenses. It looks that way, but I feel sure that that is not what the Leader of the House is seeking to do, and that he wants to ensure that a full review takes place. I just invite him, to save time this afternoon, to make it absolutely clear that the motion will not restrict the Committee from conducting a full review into all aspects of the 2009 Act.
Sir George Young
Following the debate that my hon. Friend initiated, we had informal discussions with him, and I tabled a motion earlier this week that, as I understood it, met all his concerns and provided the right remit. I was very sorry that the motion was blocked on two occasions, and of course, amendments to it have been tabled, which automatically blocks it. I cannot undertake to find time between now and the end of the Session to debate this particularly important issue. I very much hope that those who blocked the motion or tabled amendments to it will think again, and enable us to make progress and set up the Committee as it was originally envisaged.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
When can we have a debate, and indeed some action, on the shocking situation whereby Sinn Fein MPs, who refuse to recognise this Parliament or Her Majesty the Queen, still get their huge allowances and travel expenses? When will we accept that if they will not accept this Parliament’s rule, they cannot accept British money?
Sir George Young
The Government’s view is that all hon. Members who have been elected to the House should take their place in it. We see no reason why that should not happen. As I said in business questions last week, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is having discussions with the parties in Northern Ireland with a view to bringing that unsatisfactory situation to a satisfactory conclusion.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
The major development in my constituency—the South Humber gateway project—is delayed yet again by Government agencies, particularly Natural England, carrying out their duties within the planning process. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the role of those agencies in planning, because it is causing severe problems, and we need the jobs?
Sir George Young
I announced a debate on Monday week on national planning statements, and it may be that the hon. Gentleman can intervene in that. Failing that, the Adjournment debate on the last day may be an appropriate opportunity for him to raise the matter at greater length.
Mr Tom Harris (Glasgow South) (Lab)
The Leader of the House has been extremely supportive in my many and varied disputes with the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority and I am genuinely grateful to him for that. I copied him into my recent letter complaining that my constituency office rent for the last quarter of 2010, which was submitted in December, has still not been paid. Since then I have been asked by IPSA, on two occasions, to resubmit the same claim each with a different and fictional date attached so that the computer can cope with it. The situation is descending into a cross between a “Carry On” movie and a Kafka novel. If the Government are so keen to clean up the so-called mess left behind by the last Government, he could do an awful lot worse than clean up the mess that is the failed and failing organisation that is IPSA.
Sir George Young
I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has been diverted from his serious duties of representing his constituents in this House by the issues that he has just described. I will raise it with IPSA later today and see whether we can resolve it. I draw to his attention, and to the attention of the House, the National Audit Office report on IPSA, which was published today and, I hope, will provide the basis for a more satisfactory relationship between the House and IPSA. The report refers to the “adversarial relationship” that has developed between IPSA and many MPs, and I hope that some of the recommendations in the report will enable us to move on to a more harmonious basis.
Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will have noticed the rising tide of rivalry between the west and China. Does he agree that this presents a unique opportunity for the United Kingdom and her extraordinary, exceptional and unique network based in the Commonwealth to move into that space with the countries of the Arab spring and the African countries seeking prosperity and stability? Will he arrange time for a debate on this subject which touches on the future prosperity and success of this country?
Sir George Young
I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I will of course draw his remarks to the attention of the Foreign Secretary. Later this month, there is a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference, which may be an opportunity to raise the profile of the subject on a much broader plane. He is right that there is an opportunity to fill the vacuum, and I will draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) said, today is the sixth anniversary of the bombings on the London underground, and the victims and their families are in our thoughts. Can the Leader of the House tell us when the Government will bring forward their legislation to water down control orders and why his Government are so determined to introduce legislation that would give those who would aid and abet terrorism increased access to mobile phones and computers; put increased pressure on the security services by requiring them to increase surveillance; and place the public at greater risk?
Sir George Young
The right hon. Gentleman is right to remind the House of the bombings six years ago today, and our thoughts are with the families and friends of those who lost their lives. The issue that he raised is subject to legislation before the House in the form of the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill and I hope that he, or his colleagues in the other place, will have an opportunity to raise their concerns.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Has my hon. Friend seen early-day motion 2037 about the disgraceful decision by Diva magazine to rescind a work placement that they had originally offered to Harlow college student Simone Webb on the grounds that she was not rich enough to afford her bus fare and did not have independent means?
[That this House notes that Simone Webb is a 17 year old Harlow College student hoping to study at Oxford University; further notes that she was offered a one month unpaid internship at DIVA magazine, but was later refused on the grounds that she hoped to be reimbursed just £5 transport expenses a day, and was told that DIVA was ‘uncomfortable’ offering her an internship as she was ‘so young and without an independent budget of [her] own’; believes that barriers of this kind are a major threat to social mobility and that this is an outrageous example of internships being abused; and calls for DIVA magazine to pay reasonable transport expenses where it can, and to drop its discriminatory policy of refusing to employ people who lack ‘an independent budget’.]
May we have an urgent debate on social mobility to ensure that work experience and internships are available to the many, not the few?
Sir George Young
My hon. Friend is right: internships should be available according to not who you know, but what you know. The House has set an example with the internships that have recently been announced. We are committed to social mobility and we encourage businesses to offer internships openly and transparently and to provide financial support to ensure fair access.
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)
Could the Leader of the House tell us what contingency provisions he has made for the House to return and have a debate in the event of a Greek default during the summer recess?
Sir George Young
There are always questions about recalling the House during the summer recess, but they are normally slighter closer to the recess. The hon. Lady raises an important issue. The issue of recall is a matter for the Government, after contacting Mr Speaker. If the situation arises, the Government will take the necessary steps to recall the House.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I do not know if you tweet, Mr Speaker, but may I direct you to a person called “Mrs Jennie Bone” on Twitter, who is being followed by more than 100 people, including journalists and Members of Parliament? It is very interesting and amusing, but with one slight problem—it is completely bogus. This is a really important issue if people are taking other people’s names and purporting to be them. While that person is saying funny things at the moment, they could put up something racist or pornographic at any time. So may we have a statement about people taking over other people’s identity on the internet?
Sir George Young
You may not tweet, Mr Speaker, but I believe that you know somebody who does. My hon. Friend raises a serious issue about impersonation, and I wonder whether I might encourage him to take part in the debate that he has helped to organise on the last day before the recess, when there may be an opportunity to debate this at greater length and give advice to those who find themselves facing the same difficulty.
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I wonder whether the Leader of the House would agree to a debate in Government time on sector-specific support for the UK film and media sector. I raise that issue because I have a particular interest in promoting a scheme in my locality—the Centre of Creative Excellence in Seaham. The difficulty that we have is that the three pillars of support that were there previously—the regional development agency, Northern Film and Media and the UK Film Council—and grant aid through Durham county council have been withdrawn. We need to know how we can make progress on this and create 1,200 jobs and apprenticeships.
Sir George Young
I agree that we should do all we can to support the UK film and media industry, which is one of our success stories. There will be an opportunity a week today to raise this issue with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, in either an oral question or a topical question, but in the meantime, I will draw the hon. Gentleman’s concern to the attention of my right hon. Friends so that they know where he is coming from.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
May we have an urgent debate on media regulation, given that Ofcom declines to exercise the fit and proper person test in relation to News International despite certain News of the World reporters having been jailed for their actions in the course of their work and the testimony of its executives before Parliament having been seriously undermined by the revelations that we have witnessed this week?
Sir George Young
I understand what my hon. Friend says, and he may have seen the exchange that took place on 30 June, when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport answered an urgent question. He said:
“Before coming to such a view”—
on the application before him—
“I will of course seek once again the advice of the independent external regulators.”—[Official Report, 30 June 2011; Vol. 530, c. 1107.]
That includes Ofcom and, of course, the Office of Fair Trading.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
We need that urgent debate on the BSkyB/News Corp takeover because yesterday we had the ludicrous spectacle of the Culture Secretary communicating with the House of Commons by whispering in the ear of the Government’s lawyer, as if he were on trial at the Old Bailey. Should not the Culture Secretary man up and take the stand himself by making an urgent statement today at the Dispatch Box?
Sir George Young
I think the hon. Gentleman is somewhat unfair. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General was intervening in a debate and speaking about his own responsibilities. He generously took questions that related to another Minister’s responsibilities and, in answering them, he sensibly took advice. As the Prime Minister has said, Ministers in this Government talk to each other.
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)
One of the most difficult educational problems we face in Tamworth is that not enough young people aspire to go to university. May we have a debate on the pupil premium and how over time it can drive up aspiration among our most disadvantaged young people and encourage more of them to go to university?
Sir George Young
There will be Education questions on Monday, but my hon. Friend is right, and I hope that the pupil premium will enable more pupils from low-income families to aspire to university. The figures at the moment are deeply depressing, and I hope that as the pupil premium feeds through the education system, more children who would not otherwise have considered a university education will find it accessible to them.
Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)
This week I saw figures from my constituency showing that demand for debt advice over the past year has risen dramatically, yet opening hours of citizen advice bureaux are falling dramatically. May we have a debate on how we might support people who need help during this crisis in CABs?
Sir George Young
I applaud the work of the CABs, which are indeed under greater pressure. I attended a reception that other colleagues might have attended earlier this week on the Terrace at which my right hon. and learned Friend the Justice Secretary outlined the support that the Government were giving to CABs to help them cope. Hon. Members will have an opportunity next Thursday to ask Ministers in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills about CABs.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Amid the chaos of north Africa, last week the Kingdom of Morocco quietly, efficiently and peacefully conducted a referendum that will usher in far-reaching constitutional changes that I am sure we will all welcome. In the context of the Arab spring, may we have a debate on how this commendable model can be exported in a region which is too often reliant on violent disorder and bloody civil war to usher in change?
Sir George Young
I congratulate my hon. Friend on raising the profile of a good example of how orderly reform can take place. There will be an opportunity at Foreign and Commonwealth Office questions on 19 July to ask my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary about that matter and about how the example of Morocco might be spread more widely.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Leader of the House will realise that this is the 10th anniversary of the dreadful Bradford riots. May we have an early opportunity to debate the progress made since then? In that debate, may we discuss how the cutting of youth services and of courses for English as a second language and the inability to integrate so many schools in our major cities will come back to haunt us?
Sir George Young
I have every sympathy with the hon. Gentleman’s point, but he will recognise that if his party had won the last election it would have had to take some difficult decisions that might have had exactly the same impact on youth services.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
May we have a debate on the crisis in the horn of Africa, looking particularly at the work done by the Department for International Development? The UN estimates that about 10 million people face food shortages or starvation. The assistance being provided by DFID is precisely the sort of practical, targeted aid that makes a difference and which we should encourage.
Sir George Young
I repeat what I said a few moments ago and draw the House’s attention to the written ministerial statement from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development outlining the extensive support that the Government are giving to the horn of Africa and urging other countries to match our contribution. As I said, later today my right hon. Friend is giving a briefing to colleagues to which my hon. Friend is welcome to come.
Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
May we have a statement before the recess on two important human rights issues? The first is the continuing detention of hundreds of children at Heathrow despite a coalition promise last year that the practice would end. Secondly, it appears that the Government’s plans for an inquiry into the UK’s role in torture and rendition are in complete disarray after human rights groups labelled the inquiry a sham and lawyers and witnesses said that they were going to boycott it.
Sir George Young
On the first point, it is indeed our intention to phase out the detention of children, and I will draw the Home Secretary’s attention to the matter. I will also raise the second issue with the appropriate Minister—either the Home Secretary or the Foreign Secretary.
Stephen Williams (Bristol West) (LD)
I do not know whether the Leader of the House reads The Times over breakfast, but if he does, this morning he will have noticed that the share price of News Corp has fallen by 3.6% and that companies as diverse as Ford, the Co-op, Butlins and, I am pleased to say, the state-controlled Lloyds Banking Group have withdrawn their advertising from the News of the World. Will he ask a Cabinet Office colleague to make a statement to the House on the level of Government expenditure on advertising with News International titles? Where private business and investors have given a lead, could not the Government now follow?
Sir George Young
I read a digital version of The Times at 5.30 this morning, but I am not sure that all the advertisements appear in the digital version. However, my hon. Friend raises an important issue about whether the Government should continue to sponsor advertisements when the private sector has acted as he mentioned. I will raise the matter urgently with the Minister for the Cabinet Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr Maude), and see whether the House can be kept in the picture.
Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
There are increasing numbers of complaints from colleagues about being refused meetings with Ministers on constituency matters. I do not include the Leader of the House in this complaint—I never heard such a complaint made about him while he was a departmental Minister—but as he knows, the fundamental route for Members in pursuing constituency cases is through such meetings. May we therefore have a debate to air this issue, and will he lay down proper guidelines for his fellow Ministers?
Sir George Young
The right hon. Gentleman raises a serious issue. I would welcome more information, if he is prepared to let me have it, on the exact instances in which my right hon. and hon. Friends have refused to meet hon. Members. I think that there is a convention that, unless there are strong legal reasons not to do so, Ministers should meet MPs. If he could give me an appropriate list, I would be more than happy to take it up with my colleagues and facilitate every appropriate meeting.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
In November, the United Kingdom will take over the chairmanship of the Council of Europe. In view of the persistent attacks that this body, including the European Court of Human Rights, has inflicted on this country, will the Leader of the House give an assurance that we will have a debate in Government time before November so that Members can debate and influence how we can reform that out-of-touch institution?
Sir George Young
I know that this is a matter of concern to my hon. Friend and other of my hon. Friends. Work is under way to agree UK objectives and priorities for our chairmanship of the Council of Europe. That includes consultation, as appropriate, with interested parties, and I will certainly feed into that consultation the issue that my hon. Friend has just raised.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
I am sure that the Leader of the House is aware that The Daily Telegraph has said that we need a checklist of the Prime Minister’s social meetings with Rebekah Brooks. May we have a statement about those meetings and what was discussed?
Sir George Young
My right hon. Friend and all Ministers are obliged to publish regularly details of meetings that they have had with commercial organisations. I am sure that this Government, like the previous one, will continue to observe the relevant parts of the ministerial code.
Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)
In March a constituent of mine, Rebecca Coriam, disappeared while working for a British employment agency on a Bahamian-registered, American-based Disney cruise ship in international waters off the coast of Mexico. Despite an investigation by the Bahamas Maritime Authority, her family are still awaiting news of their daughter. May we have a debate on the safety and regulation of cruise ships that would enable me to highlight the difficulties faced by those trying to identify the facts and the responsibility behind events at sea?
Sir George Young
I understand my hon. Friend’s concern. I believe that the Minister with responsibility for shipping is aware of that case and understands my hon. Friend’s concerns, and is happy to meet him and the family to discuss how we might take the matter forward.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
There has been cross-party and international support for Sakineh Ashtiani, who remains alive but still under threat of execution while her male co-accused is free. May we have an urgent debate on cases such as hers and that of Aung San Suu Kyi—women who are victims of repressive regimes—so that their cases are not forgotten?
Sir George Young
I am grateful to the hon. Lady. It is monstrous that Ms Ashtiani remains in prison having not had fair representation at her trial and having gone through a terrible year, not knowing whether on any given day she would be executed. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary continues to make representations about her case to the Iranian authorities. It was highlighted in the press today how important it is that continuing pressure be kept on Iran to release this lady as soon as possible.
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
The Leader of the House might be aware that there is a plan in Parliament for a stained glass window to mark Her Majesty the Queen’s diamond jubilee. It is attracting support from both sides of the House and in both Houses of Parliament. Will my right hon. Friend elucidate on any plans for a Loyal or Humble Address from Parliament for Her Majesty’s visit next year during her diamond jubilee?
Sir George Young
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the initiative he has taken in raising funds for the stained glass window—I have sent an envelope with something in it to the appropriate authorities. You will have heard what my hon. Friend has said, Mr Speaker, and I am sure that when we come to celebrate the event, there will be an appropriate opportunity for an Address to Her Majesty.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
In the past 24 hours, Portuguese Government debt has been downgraded to junk status. At a time when the Government are increasing their contribution to the IMF from £10 billion to £20 billion this year, may we have an urgent debate to ensure that taxpayers in this country are protected from the contamination in the eurozone?
Sir George Young
It is worth remembering that it was exactly to avoid the problems that confront Portugal that this coalition Government had to take some difficult decisions last year to clear up the mess that the hon. Gentleman left behind. There will be an opportunity to ask questions to my hon. Friends at the Treasury, but what Moody’s has done to Portugal is a reminder that we need responsible housekeeping here in the UK.
Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)
Young people in Great Yarmouth are already starting to see the benefits of more apprenticeships and growth in the tourism and energy sectors, partly thanks to the Government’s strategy and work, so may we have a debate on youth employment, in order to highlight some of the opportunities and growth in that area?
Sir George Young
There will be an opportunity in a week’s time to raise the issue of apprenticeships with Ministers at BIS. It is good news that youth unemployment has now fallen below the level that we inherited. With initiatives such as apprenticeships, we hope to make further progress in reducing the level as the economy picks up.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
A report in The Independent today shows that research by the Medical Research Council at its laboratory in Cambridge has concluded that alcohol damages the DNA of unborn children beyond repair. Given that Britain has a serious problem with binge drinking among young women and one of the highest teenage pregnancy rates in the world, is it not likely that thousands of babies are being born damaged as a result of teenagers drinking while pregnant? May we have an urgent debate about what can be done to address this serious matter?
Sir George Young
The hon. Gentleman raises a serious issue. I hope that pregnant women will have heard what he said and will drink sensibly while carrying their child. There will be an opportunity at Health questions next Tuesday to raise the matter further with Health Ministers, but I will warn them in advance that the hon. Gentleman is pursuing the issue. I am sure that he has wide support in all parts of the House for encouraging a sensible approach to alcohol that will safeguard the health of the next generation.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
The important question of the way in which electronic devices such as iPads can and should be used in this Chamber and in Committee is delicately balanced between the split Procedure Committee report—which recommended their unfettered use for twittering and all the rest of it—and those of us who believe that their use ought to be much more constrained. Does the Leader of the House agree that this subject is worthy of a full, reasoned and careful debate, that it should not be rushed through in the short time between now and the recess, and that it should therefore be allowed—presumably—an hour and a half after the summer recess?
Sir George Young
My hon. Friend will know that we had planned to debate this issue, but the need for urgent legislation to deal with police bail meant that the debate in the time allocated to the Backbench Business Committee had to be postponed. I agree with him that it is important that we should make progress on the issue. I happen to take a different view from the one that he espouses: I am broadly in favour of hand-held devices. I agree that, as soon as we can find the time, the issue should be resolved, but I cannot promise a debate between now and the summer recess.
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
May we have a debate about extending the benefits of Northern Ireland’s McCallister Bill across the United Kingdom? In my constituency, Tingdene, a company that owns Hazelgrove caravan park, thoroughly intimidates and abuses its customers on that site, many of whom are pensioners in their latter years who have saved over their lives to retire in comfort.
Sir George Young
Many Members would like to amend the legislation on mobile homes, as I am sure that many with mobile home parks in their constituencies have similar cases to the one that the hon. Gentleman has just mentioned, which I will raise with Ministers at DCLG. There is no legislation imminent, but I think I am right in saying that they have the existing legislation under review.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
The Leader of the House will be aware that we are currently in co-operatives fortnight. May we have an urgent debate about the importance of developing co-operative and mutual models, particularly for the delivery of public sector services?
Sir George Young
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I would like to be as co-operative as I can. The coalition agreement sets out commitments to public service mutuals that are being taken forward by the Cabinet Office, and I hope that there might be an initiative in that direction before the House rises.
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)
With the Committee stage starting next week on the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill—a Bill that will have major consequences for not-for-profit advice agencies—can the Leader of the House tell us when the review of advice services is likely to be completed and when a statement will be made to this House?
Sir George Young
The short answer is that I do not have that information at my fingertips, but I will get an answer from the appropriate Minister and communicate it to the hon. Lady.
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
May we have a debate on the fairness of supermarkets apparently undercutting independent fuel service stations, which is sadly forcing many independent forecourts to close?
Sir George Young
My hon. Friend raises an issue that many Members will have confronted. Independent petrol stations are finding it tough at the moment, as the purchasing power of supermarkets is enabling them to undercut independents. This is a matter for the Office of Fair Trading, and I strongly encourage my hon. Friend to raise it with that body.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
I see that the Prime Minister has promised to restrict the use of business-class flights for Ministers and officials. I am anxious that this policy should be rather more successful than the promise to restrict the use of ministerial cars, so could we have a statement about how it will be implemented and reported to the House, so that we can measure progress on that promise?
Sir George Young
One of the first things that this Administration did was to bring to an end contracts for individual cars for individual Ministers. When the figures are published, I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that there has been a substantial saving in the cost of ministerial transport under the coalition Government.
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
May we have a debate on the role of local authorities in providing residential care for vulnerable older people, including those with dementia? Labour-run Leeds city council has caused uproar by announcing a raft of residential care home closures, including Spring Gardens in Otley, without offering any alternative provision to its 27 residents or any plan for where they might go.
Sir George Young
My hon. Friend raises an important issue that I hope the Dilnot report will begin to address. At some point we need a serious discussion about how we will fund residential and social care in future, in order to avoid the sort of decisions to which he has just referred.
Mr Dave Watts (St Helens North) (Lab)
May we have an urgent debate or statement from the Prime Minister on the phone hacking scandal, to give him the opportunity to say how he will remove himself from any inquiry, given his close relationship with the Murdoch corporation? Secondly, will the Leader of the House give an assurance that any investigation will be run by a judge and not by one of the Prime Minister’s cronies?
Sir George Young
On the second issue, as I said in response to the shadow Leader of the House, we are consulting Opposition party leaders and others about the precise terms of reference and composition of the inquiry. The hon. Gentleman asked for a statement by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister was at the Dispatch Box yesterday, and he indeed made such a statement.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Harrow PCT and Harrow council successfully bid for £2.6 million from the Department of Health for support for adult social care. Some £500,000 went to the PCT, which is applying the money correctly, but I understand that Labour-run Harrow council is using that £2.1 million to fund redundancies, to support its website and for other illicit purposes. May we have an urgent statement from the Department of Health on the millions of pounds of public money going into supporting adult social care, to ensure that it is spent on the purposes for which it is intended?
Sir George Young
My hon. Friend is right: we allocated money to PCTs with the specific objective of transferring it through to local authorities to be used to fund social care. That was the precise objective. We asked PCTs to work with local authorities to agree jointly on appropriate areas for social care investment. I will raise what my hon. Friend has said with a Health Minister.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
The Charity Commission has recently completed a strategic review to determine how Government spending cuts will affect staff in its organisation. Draft proposals show up to 42% of staff at the Liverpool office being made redundant, with a large amount of those staff on lower pay grades. In view of the urgency of the situation and the threat of job losses in Liverpool, may we please have an urgent debate on how Government cuts to the charitable sector are affecting the lowest paid?
Sir George Young
I hope that the hon. Lady will concede that we took a number of initiatives in the Budget to promote giving to the charitable sector. We also set up a transitional fund to help charities through what is a difficult time. There will be an opportunity on the final day before the recess for the hon. Lady to speak in one of the Adjournment debates that I announced at the beginning of business questions.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
May we have a debate on the administration and regulation of the Arch Cru investment fund? Some 20,000 people were left hanging when the fund was suspended two years ago. A compensation package has been offered by some of the stakeholders involved, but it is highly conditional and seems quite inadequate.
Sir George Young
I am sorry to hear about the investors who lost their funds in the Arch Cru debacle. On 21 June, the Financial Services Authority announced a £54 million package for the investors, to which my hon. Friend has just referred. This is a matter for the FSA. The package will be used to make payments to eligible investors in Arch Cru funds, and will assist the return of a substantial part of their investment to them. I suggest that my hon. Friend pursue the matter further with the FSA.
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
May I press the Leader of the House to update us on when the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs proposes to publish its water White Paper?
Sir George Young
Ministers have made a commitment to publish a water White Paper, and it will be published by December 2011. It will cover England only, but it will be developed in close conjunction with the Welsh Assembly Government.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Of course I welcome the Government’s change of mind on a public inquiry into phone hacking, but may I urge the Leader of the House to ensure that that inquiry is led by a judge, that it is a statutory inquiry with full powers to subpoena evidence and witnesses, that witnesses will be able to give evidence on oath, that it will look not only at the broad issues but specifically at what happened at the News of the World, and that it can start as soon as is possible and practicable to gather the evidence before it is destroyed at the News of the World?
Sir George Young
I commend the hon. Gentleman for his initiative in generating the debate on this matter, and indeed for what he said yesterday. The inquiries will be independent and they will be in public. I note what he has said about the specific format of the inquiries, and that will form part of the consultation process in which we are now engaged.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
Last week, the Deputy Prime Minister made the following announcement at a conference in Birmingham:
“We will localise…business rates. No ifs, no buts, no maybes.”
The localisation of business rates is a key policy change that could make the difference to the city of Salford of a loss of £36 million, while the City of London could gain £550 million. May we therefore have an urgent debate on the Government’s intentions for local government finance, so that Members can ask the questions that they should have been able to ask last week?
Sir George Young
If the hon. Lady looks at the coalition agreement, she will see a clear statement of our intention to make local government finance more independent of central Government. We will be consulting in due course on the specific issue of business rates.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I am saddened to tell the Leader of the House that the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Hull branch is due to close because of funding problems. May we have a debate on the big society and its practical implications for the vast parts of this country that are poorer and more deprived and do not have the same access to funding and resources as other parts?
Sir George Young
I was sorry to hear about the problems that are confronting the local branch of the RSPCA in the hon. Lady’s constituency. The RSPCA has one of the broadest bases of funding in the country. It is a very well supported and well respected organisation, and I was sorry to hear about that particular decision. As I said a few moments ago, we have made available transitional funding to help certain charities to get through a difficult time, but I am sorry that I cannot offer any immediate assistance to her local branch.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
In the recent past, there were far more opportunities to discuss Welsh issues on the Floor of the House in the presence of the Secretary of State for Wales, but we now have only Welsh questions. Would the Leader of the House be amenable to discussing with the Secretary of State more opportunities to talk about Welsh issues, especially in view of the disproportionate effect of the cuts on Wales?
Sir George Young
I understand the hon. Lady’s concern. She will know that, under the recommendations of the Wright Committee, responsibility for allocating days for debate other than on Government legislation now falls to the Backbench Business Committee, whose Chair will have heard her plea.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
The Fukushima disaster continues and intensifies, with three reactors still in melt-through and leaking radiation without any chance or hope of remedy. The investigation taking place in Britain excludes any consideration of cost, but cost is the main consequence for Britain in increased charges for guarding power stations against a nuclear attack or unexpected natural event, so should not we in the House be doing the job that Weightman is forbidden to do?
Sir George Young
Weightman is doing the task that he was asked to do. We have had the first stage of his report, and we will then address the second. On Monday week, we will be dealing with national planning policy statements, and the hon. Gentleman might have an opportunity to raise these issues again in that debate.
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
May we have an urgent statement from the Housing Minister on the crisis of rogue landlords in the private rented sector, following a series of television exposés, including “Dispatches” on Channel 4 on Monday night, which showed one landlord, who was operating as a charity, boasting that he could break the law and that he would sort his tenants out with a baseball bat? Tens of thousands of people are trapped with poor or rogue landlords in the private rented sector. Following the programme, the Housing Minister was bombarded on Twitter, to which he replied. May we have an urgent statement from the Minister about his comments?
Sir George Young
It is a serious offence, punishable by imprisonment, to threaten a tenant in the way that the hon. Gentleman has just described. I will draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Housing Minister and ask whether there is any action that he should be taking in the light of that television programme.
Mr Speaker
I thank the Leader of the House and other Members for their pithiness, which has enabled all 46 Back Benchers who wanted to contribute to do so.
Business without Debate
Business of the House (Police (Detention and Bail) Bill)
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert)
I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the proceedings on the Police (Detention and Bail) Bill:
Timetable
l.-(l) Proceedings on Second Reading, in Committee, on Consideration and on Third Reading shall be completed at today's sitting in accordance with the following provisions of this paragraph.
(2) Proceedings on Second Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 3.00 pm.
(3) Proceedings in Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm.
(4) Proceedings on Consideration and on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 6.00 pm.
Timing of proceedings and Questions to be put
2. When the Bill has been read a second time—
(a) it shall (notwithstanding Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of bills not subject to a programme order)) stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put;
(b) the Speaker shall leave the Chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.
3.-(l) On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee, the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.
(2) If the Bill is reported with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.
4. For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with
paragraph 1, the Speaker or Chairman shall forthwith put the following Questions (but
no others)—
(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
(c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.
5. On a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
6. If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph 4(c) on successive amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Chairman or Speaker shall instead put a single Question in relation to those amendments or Motions.
7. If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph 4(d) in relation to successive provisions of the Bill, the Chairman shall instead put a single Question in relation to those provisions.
Consideration of Lords Amendments
8.-(l) Any Lords Amendments to the Bill shall be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
(2) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.
9.-(l) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 8.
(2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question already proposed from the Chair and not yet decided.
(3) If that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment the Speaker shall then put forthwith—
(a) a single Question on any further Amendments to the Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown, and
(b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown that this House agrees or disagrees to the Lords Amendment or (as the case may be) to the Lords Amendment as amended.
(4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith—
(a) a single Question on any Amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment, and
(b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown that this House agrees or disagrees to the Lords Amendment or (as the case may be) to the Lords Amendment as amended.
(5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown that this House disagrees to a Lords Amendment.
(6) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question that this House agrees to all the remaining Lords Amendments.
(7) As soon as the House has—
(a) agreed or disagreed to a Lords Amendment; or
(b) disposed of an Amendment relevant to a Lords Amendment which has been disagreed to,
the Speaker shall put forthwith a single Question on any Amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown and relevant to the Lords Amendment.
Subsequent stages
10.-(l) Any further Message from the Lords on the Bill shall be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
(2) Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.
1.-(l) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 10.
(2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided.
(3) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair.
(4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on or relevant to any of the remaining items in the Lords Message.
(5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question that this House agrees with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.
Reasons Committee
12.-(1) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the appointment of its Chair.
(2) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.
(3) Proceedings in the Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion 30 minutes after their commencement.
(4) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with sub-paragraph (3), the Chair shall—
(a) first put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair but not yet decided, and
(b) then put forthwith successively Questions on motions which may be made by a Minister of the Crown for assigning a Reason for disagreeing with the Lords in any of their Amendments.
(5) The proceedings of the Committee shall be reported without any further Question being put.
Miscellaneous
13. Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply so far as necessary for the purposes of this Order.
14.-(1) The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.
(2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply to those proceedings.
15. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to any proceedings to which this Order applies.
16.-(1) No Motion shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown, to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken or to re-commit the Bill.
(2) The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
17.-(1) No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to proceedings to which this Order applies except by a Minister of the Crown.
(2) The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
18. The Speaker may not arrange for a debate to be held in accordance with Standing Order No. 24 (Emergency debates)—
(a) at today's sitting, or
(b) at any sitting at which Lords Amendments to the Bill are, or any further Message from the Lords is, to be considered, before the conclusion of any proceedings to which this Order applies.
19.-(1) Sub-paragraph (2) applies if the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the conclusion of any proceedings to which this Order applies.
(2) No notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.
20. Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
21.-(1) Any private business which has been set down for consideration at seven o'clock, four o'clock or three o'clock (as the case may be) on a day on which the Bill has been set down to be taken as an Order of the Day, shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day.
(2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before the moment of interruption, for a period equal to the time elapsing between seven o'clock, four o'clock or three o'clock (as the case may be) and the conclusion of those proceedings.
22. The Speaker shall not adjourn the House at the sitting on the day on which the Bill is sent back to the House from the Lords until—
(a) any Message from the Lords on the Bill has been received, and
(b) he has reported the Royal Assent to any Act agreed upon by both Houses.
The motion provides for some five hours of debate on the Police (Detention and Bail) Bill. If the House approves the motion, we will move directly on to Second Reading, which will take us to no later than 3 o’clock. The Committee of the whole House will then follow until no later than 5 o’clock, with a final hour for the remaining stages, to be completed by 6 o’clock. The motion also provides for programming of the later stages of the Bill in this House on consideration of Lords amendments, should there be any. I fully recognise that today’s timetable is a tight one. None the less, given the very specific issue that the House is being asked to consider, I am satisfied that the House, and in due course the other place, will have sufficient time to scrutinise this short Bill properly.
As I indicated in my oral statement in the House last week, it is imperative that we act speedily to put an end to the uncertainty created by the recent judgment of the High Court in the case of Hookway. As I then explained to the House, that judgment is having a direct and immediate impact on the police’s ability to investigate offences and protect the public. The view of the Association of Chief Police Officers, which we share, is that we cannot wait until the outcome of the Supreme Court’s hearing of the appeal on 25 July. We need to act now, not least because we can make no assumption about the outcome of the appeal to the Supreme Court.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
The Minister says, “We need to act now”, but why have not we acted earlier?
Nick Herbert
I am sure that these matters will be covered in the Second Reading debate. I set out in my statement last week why it had not been possible to act until the written judgment had been properly considered and until we had received formal advice from the Association of Chief Police Officers that it wished us to proceed in this way. In that regard, I should like to quote the chief constable of Essex, Jim Barker-McCardle. On this issue, he has said:
“It was only when ACPO received the written judgment on 17 June, and a number of senior people were able to spend some significant time considering the issue, that the seriousness of this became apparent. As the ACPO lead on this issue, I was not going to advise Ministers that the police service needed, in exceptional circumstances, fast track legislation until I had satisfied myself first that the legislation was necessary and that the police service could not operate effectively in light of this judgment, beyond the very short term.”
We acted: within two hours of receiving that written advice, I was here giving a statement to the House announcing that we would introduce emergency legislation. The suggestion that we did not act swiftly flies directly in the face of what ACPO is saying about how it wishes this matter to be considered. Opposition Members do not have the backing of senior police officers for their contention that we acted too slowly in this respect.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Policing Minister, who has accurately reflected the evidence given by the chief constable to the Select Committee on Tuesday. I have one point on the business motion. Is there any outstanding legal advice that the Home Office is seeking on this matter or is the issue of the legal advice now closed?
Nick Herbert
No, I am not aware of outstanding legal advice that we have taken. As I told the House last week, the Association of Chief Police Officers sought advice from two QCs before coming to us with a formal request for emergency legislation.
In conclusion, I welcome the continued support from the Opposition Front-Bench team for expediting this Bill. I hope that the whole House will understand the need for fast-tracking and will therefore support the motion.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
We support the motion, and we will address some of the main issues when we get to Second Reading and further stages. I simply point out to the Policing Minister that we would have supported this motion on Monday, we would have supported it last week and we would have supported it the week before. I do not think it is acceptable for the Home Office, which has responsibility for justice, to hide behind the Association of Chief Police Officers when it should also have made preparations and taken some decisions in this regard. The Home Office should have been trying to speed this up as rapidly as possible. We should get on with the main debate; we support the programme motion.
Lorraine Fullbrook (South Ribble) (Con)
I am grateful for being called to speak in this debate on emergency legislation for police bail. It is fitting on this occasion to extend our sincere sympathy and condolences to the victims of the 7/7 terrorist attacks in London. I am sure our thoughts are with them on this day.
This is a very short Bill, so I will make my comments brief. We are here to debate this emergency legislation today because—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. The hon. Member may be straying into the next debate. At the moment, we are debating just the programme motion.
Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)
I am no fan of emergency legislation, which I think is generally a bad thing for the House to get involved with. However, the circumstances we face are such that the Government have been right to act and to bring the procedure forward in this way. I have looked at the concerns of the House of Lords Committee, but it seems to me that the procedure advocated for today is necessary and appropriate, so long as in the subsequent debate, the House can be satisfied that what the Government are seeking to do is to put the law on the footing that we all thought it was on in the first place. They should not make changes to the law without much more detailed and careful consideration. We should support the programme motion and ensure that Ministers can satisfy us that what they are doing is putting the law back to what we thought it was. If changes to the law are advocated, that should be done through a legislative process that allows consideration at greater length.
Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)
I rise wholly to endorse the words of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) and to say to my right hon. Friend the Policing Minister that I applaud the way in which he has handled this matter and the speed with which he has responded to what was clearly a completely untenable situation. Does he agree—as I am sure he does—that the history of emergency legislation is not always a happy one, so that the right hon. Gentleman’s points carry even greater weight?
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I wholeheartedly agree that we need to move as swiftly as possible with this legislation, but we should always note whenever emergency legislation is going through in one day that it has to be an extraordinary process because, in the ordinary course of events, the House should have an opportunity after Second Reading to table amendments that could then be considered on Report on a different day. When everything is truncated into one day, it is impossible to do that. I recognise that the Government tabled a business motion—and we agreed it earlier this week—that allowed the tabling of amendments before today. In the end, that is not best practice, as I know Government Members would fully accept. With the proviso that we do not do this often—as the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) said, we can end up with legislation that is either bad or not as good as it might be—I support the motion.
Hazel Blears (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
I feel a slight sense of responsibility for the position we are in today as it is the district judge in Salford, Judge Feinstein, who made the original decision. I support the proceedings today, as I think we need to resolve the issue and get clarity. Judge Feinstein does a tremendous job in Salford in the local criminal justice system and has been particularly effective in dealing with antisocial behaviour. He construed the law as he saw it at that time. His judgment was upheld in the High Court; we await to see what the Supreme Court will do in relation to the appeal. Clearly, he was carrying out his duty in making the decision he did. That said, I entirely support the need to ensure that the police have the powers and the clarity they need to deal with defendants in these circumstances. I support the programme motion.
Question put and agreed to.
Police (Detention and Bail) Bill
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Since the Police and Criminal Evidence Act came into effect in January 1986, it has been widely recognised by the police and the courts that time spent on bail does not count towards the maximum permitted period of detention without charge. That is entirely right and proper. Being held in custody in a police cell is clearly not the same as being free on police bail, even with conditions attached.
For more than 25 years, the sensible interpretation of the law has enabled the police to investigate crimes and keep the public safe, but on 19 May, in a judicial review, Mr Justice McCombe gave an oral judgment that it was his view that a district judge—as we have just heard from the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears), Judge Feinstein—had been right to refuse a routine application for a warrant of further detention of Paul Hookway, a suspect in a murder investigation.
I should stress to the House that at the time of the oral judgment on 19 May, it was not at all clear what the implications of this case would be. Indeed, in his oral judgment, Mr Justice McCombe himself said that “the consequences” of this ruling
“are not as severe as might be feared in impeding police investigations in the vast majority of cases”.
At that time, it was not clear whether the ruling was restricted to the details of the Hookway case alone, whether it had a limited application or whether it was restricted to warrants of further detention beyond 36 hours. It was not until the complex written judgment was received on Friday 17 June—and considered in detail with the advice of counsel—that it began to become clear that this case had wider implications for police detention and bail.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
I thank the Government for their speedy action on this issue. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the reason why we are here today is that judicial interpretation in recent years, as so often, has been in favour of the criminal rather than the victim? Does not this legislation shift the balance in the right direction?
Mrs May
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention, but he tries to tempt me down a path of discussion which I think is probably inappropriate for today’s debate, although I have been on record in this House in commenting on previous judicial decisions. I know that there are those who do indeed feel the way my hon. Friend does, but we had better not get into that in today’s debate.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Home Secretary and thank her for giving evidence about this matter to the Select Committee on Tuesday. She mentioned the legal advice sought by the Association of Chief Police Officers. Has the Home Office sought its own independent legal advice? I see the Solicitor-General sitting beside the right hon. Lady. Presumably, the Home Office, independent of ACPO, is satisfied that everything is in order so far as the legal advice is concerned.
Mrs May
Given his experience, the right hon. Gentleman will know that Ministers never confirm or deny when asked what legal advice or opinion they have sought. However, I can tell him that the Home Office is satisfied that the legislation is necessary. If it were not, we would not be introducing it.
One hour and two minutes after the Home Office received ACPO’s professional, legal and operational advice on Thursday 30 June, the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice delivered an oral statement to the House in which he announced our intention to introduce emergency legislation. The police’s professional and operational judgment, backed up by the legal expertise of two leading QCs, has guided the Government’s decision. Only fast-track primary legislation can give the police the necessary certainty and immediacy in restoring the law as it was understood to operate. As was pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), what we seek to do is return things to how they have been for the last 25 years.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
What many Opposition Members find difficult to deal with is the time scale. The Home Secretary says that the Government acted as speedily as possible, but Ministers did not meet representatives of ACPO until 24 June. The right hon. Lady could have read what was said by Michael Zander on 18 June, when he made it absolutely clear that we would need an appeal or emergency legislation. If she is the person in charge, why did she know nothing about that, and why did she not meet ACPO representatives until 24 June?
Mrs May
The hon. Gentleman asked me the same question earlier this week when I appeared before the Home Affairs Committee. The issue has also been raised by a number of other Opposition Members, who are doing their best to suggest that there was a delay. There was no delay. It was necessary for all the parties concerned to examine in detail the judgment that had been made available on 17 June. Professor Michael Zander is well respected in this field, in which he has considerable expertise, but I think that if I had come to the House and proposed to the Opposition that the Government introduce emergency legislation on the basis of an article that had appeared in a journal, the Opposition would have rightly told the Government that they should take a rather more professional approach.
The Supreme Court’s decision on Tuesday not to grant a stay in the case has made the legislation all the more vital and all the more urgent. I welcome the support for it that has been promised by Opposition Front Benchers, as well as the support given by the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz).
Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
It is clear to me, at least, that the Government acted with alacrity, but perhaps the Home Secretary can help me by explaining earlier events involving Greater Manchester police. Why, despite the discussion following the judgment, did they not apply for a certificate for an appeal on 19 May, and why did it then take so long for that to happen? In particular, why was no reliable written note taken of the oral judgment?
Mrs May
The answer to the question about the written note is that we were waiting for the judge who had made the decision to produce his own written judgment, so that it would be absolutely clear to us what we would need to interpret. What Greater Manchester police were dealing with was the oral judgment that had been delivered on 19 May. As I have just said, Mr Justice McCombe himself indicated that he did not think that the consequences would be especially severe. Only after further consideration did Greater Manchester police conclude that it would be necessary to appeal against the judgment.
It is important to understand that it was not simply a question of looking at the legal judgment. It was for the police to consider, in operational terms, whether they were able to work within that judgment. When the written judgment was made available to them, the operational implications became clear. It is those operational implications that give cause for concern, and they are the reason for the Bill that we are introducing today.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
The Home Secretary has been dealing with issues relating to the emergency legislation. Will she tell us why the Attorney-General did not immediately join Greater Manchester police in applying for a stay of judgment as well as joining them in applying for an appeal?
Mrs May
The right hon. Lady has already raised a number of questions relating to this matter, including the question of the stay of judgment. She has claimed that there was a considerable delay before we came to the House, but, as I said earlier, one hour and two minutes after we received the formal and final judgment from ACPO on the basis of advice from the two QCs whom it had been consulting, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice made his statement here. As for her previous question about why the Home Office did not join the police in requesting a stay, the answer is simple: we had no locus standi. We were not part of the initial legal proceedings, and it was not open to us to be party to that request.
Let me add—just in case the right hon. Lady intends to ask about this—that she has implied in the past that if Greater Manchester police had applied for a stay earlier, a different decision would have been made and everything might have been okay. However, it is now clear, both from the decision that the Supreme Court issued earlier this week and from what has been said by leading legal commentators such as Joshua Rozenberg, that it is not even certain that the Supreme Court has the power to order a stay in relation to such an appeal.
Yvette Cooper
Did the Attorney-General consider joining the case for both the appeal and the stay as soon as he was made aware of the position? In the end the Supreme Court asked him to do so, but did he consider doing so as soon as he was told, and when was he told?
Mrs May
I thought I had made the position clear to the right hon. Lady. Those who were party to the initial legal proceedings were able to grant a stay, and Greater Manchester police were able to make a decision—which they did at a certain point in the timetable—on whether to apply for one.
If the right hon. Lady is trying to play party political games with the question of the application for a stay, she should consider the comments that have been made and the decision of the Supreme Court, which, as I have just said, suggests that there is considerable doubt not about the timetable for a stay, but whether the court even has the power to order one in this case. The right hon. Lady should think about that very carefully.
I think it important that the Home Affairs Committee has had an opportunity to scrutinise the Bill and also, fortuitously, an opportunity to ask me questions about it during the evidence session that I held with the Committee on Tuesday. I also note the support of leading legal figures such as Professor Michael Zander—who was mentioned earlier—and Liberty, which has said:
“Liberty supports the Government’s intention to amend the law as proposed. In our view the proposed reform is clarificatory and would do nothing more than return the law to the original intention of Parliament and the way in which it has been interpreted—by judges, prosecutors and defence lawyers—for the best part of 25 years.”
I could not agree more.
Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
I fully support the Bill, but may I take the Home Secretary back to the last session of Home Office questions and her surprisingly dismissive comments about the Joint Committee that had been considering her proposals for emergency legislation in relation to pre-charge detention? The Committee had described those proposals as unsatisfactory and unreliable.
In the light of the experience of the last few days, is the Home Secretary beginning to revisit her views on the role of emergency legislation in dealing with pressing and urgent issues? In particular, will she tell us what she would have done if all this had happened two or three weeks later, and the House had been in recess?
Mrs May
The premise of the right hon. Gentleman’s question is that I was dismissive of the Joint Committee’s views at Home Office questions, but I was not. Indeed, I have not been dismissive of its views because I have made it clear that we are accepting one of the points it raised on the emergency legislation, and I hardly think accepting one of its points can be described as being dismissive of its views.
The Bill seeks to restore the law on police detention to the position as it has been understood for the last 25 years. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 set out the rules governing detention and bail prior to charge.
Paul Goggins
I am sorry to exasperate the Home Secretary, but I was rather hoping she would address the point I made at the end of my intervention: what would have happened if all this were taking place when we were in recess?
Mrs May
The right hon. Gentleman is trying to tempt me to debate hypothetical situations. It is right that we are introducing this legislation today, precisely so that it can be debated on the record and, we hope, receive Royal Assent before the House goes into recess. The right hon. Gentleman knows full well about the debates we have had on the emergency legislation for pre-charge detention and what would be applicable and possible for Parliament to do during a recess, and I am sure we will continue to have such debates. As I have said, I have accepted one of the Joint Committee’s points on this issue, and that can hardly be described as dismissing its views.
As I was saying, PACE set out the rules governing detention and bail prior to charge. It provides that once a person is arrested and brought to a police station, that person must not be detained for longer than 96 hours in total without being charged with an offence. Within the overall maximum permitted 96-hour period, continued detention must be authorised by a police officer of at least the rank of superintendent after the initial 24 hours, and by a magistrate after the initial 36 hours, with fresh warrants required at 36-hour intervals.
There are numerous other safeguards. For example, ongoing detention must be subject to periodic review, and an individual can challenge their detention at any time by bringing an action for habeas corpus in the High Court. The idea some have put forward that this judgment means the police should in some way just “work quicker” to gather evidence ignores the reality of policing and the necessity of the police being able to, for example, take forensics tests, and identify, contact and interview witnesses. The judgment effectively takes away police time in which to do such things.
The Bill seeks to reverse the effect of the High Court’s ruling, but it only seeks to reverse that. It amends PACE to make it explicit that in calculating any period—whether a time limit or a period of pre-charge detention—any periods spent on bail shall be disregarded. The Bill also amends PACE to make it clear that periods of police detention before and after a period of bail are to be treated as if they form a single continuous period. This is an important safeguard that the High Court judgment had overturned, and, again, it restores the position to what it has been understood to be for the past 25 years.
Hazel Blears (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
The Home Secretary clearly regards police bail as an important tool for bringing people to justice. It often applies to people accused of serious crimes, and they can be required to live at locations well away from their home address so that they do not mix with any associates who might be involved in crime. Will the Home Secretary therefore explain why in the terrorism Bill that has just left Committee she is proposing that the restrictions for those suspected of being involved in terrorism should be weaker than the restrictions in this Bill for people suspected of being involved in serious crime who are on police bail?
Mrs May
The right hon. Lady is asking me to talk about a Bill that is entirely separate from the one we are addressing today. As I think she knows, in replacing control orders with the terrorism prevention and investigation measures—TPIMs—we have put together a package that includes both the measure itself and increased funds available to the Security Service and the police for surveillance. That is the basis on which we are going forward with that measure and that Bill.
The Bill before us today provides that the amendments to PACE should have retrospective effect. That means that they are deemed always to have had effect, despite the High Court’s judgment in the Hookway case.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
I support the Bill, but the purist in me is slightly anxious about the concept of retrospective legislation. Will the Home Secretary say a little more about how normal that is and whether this step might be opening a door for rather more concerning retrospective legislation?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend sneaked in with his intervention as I was nearing the conclusion of my speech. Perhaps I use the term “retrospective” a little loosely. This is not retrospective legislation in that it merely corrects the decision that has recently been made and puts the situation back to what it had been understood to be. That is supported by Liberty, which has said:
“We do not believe that the proposals are retrospective in their nature as they do not seek retrospectively to create a criminal offence, sanction or other burden. They would, in our view, not fall foul of Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights or the common law rule against retrospective penalties.”
Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
Does the Home Office, any other part of Government or the Association of Chief Police Officers have any figures to show how many people have been on police bail for, let us say, more than six months and then are not charged?
Mrs May
I am not aware of such figures, but the right hon. Gentleman’s question gives me an opportunity to comment on remarks that some lawyers and others have made as to whether the original judgment is in some way a response to a problem that had been getting worse. I am not aware of such a problem. The rules that we are restoring are those that the police have been operating under for the past 25 years. I say to those who have suddenly raised this issue that if they did feel there was a problem they should have raised it sooner. I also say that this Bill is merely restoring the situation to what has been understood to be for the last 25 years, and that I do not think it is an appropriate vehicle for doing any more than that. We have a task to perform today. The Bill achieves that task, and it is right that it is restricted to that.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
I am not necessarily opposed to restoring the position to what it was before the court judgment, but I am always anxious about our rushing through all the stages of a Bill, as we are doing today. The Home Secretary has been very dismissive of critics, but my view is that if there was more time, those critics, who may or may not have a very reasonable case, would be able to put their case to Members and there would be further deliberations before we rushed into making law. I have many hesitations in my mind because, as the Home Secretary herself has admitted, when we have previously rushed through legislation, it has not always proved to be useful.
Mrs May
I understand the point that there have in the past been occasions when emergency legislation has been felt to have had consequences other than what was intended. This is a different kind of emergency legislation however, in that it simply reinstates the situation to what it was understood to be for the past 25 years in terms of the operation of PACE and detention and bail. I say to the hon. Gentleman that the Government have done what we can to ensure that there has been an opportunity for the Bill to be considered. I made the draft Bill available to Members and others on Monday, and it was formally introduced on Tuesday. We therefore made it available early so that people would have an opportunity to look at it. It is a very short Bill, and it does not need to be more than a short Bill because, I repeat, it is simply reinstating the situation to what it has been for the past 25 years.
The judgment in the Hookway case significantly impairs the police’s ability to investigate offences and protect the public. I am not prepared to stand by and ask the police to fight crime with one arm tied behind their back. The Bill will restore vital powers to the police that they have operated under, without complaint from the courts, for the past 25 years. I commend this Bill to the House.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
We should take the opportunity to pay tribute to the victims of the 7/7 bombings and to their families, as the anniversary is today.
The Labour party supports this legislation, as it is needed to overturn the judgment made on 19 May in the case of Greater Manchester police and Paul Hookway. The Home Secretary has set out the judgment’s implications for policing practice and the difficulties of suddenly treating time spent on bail in the same way as time spent in custody, which was clearly not Parliament’s intention when the legislation was drawn up and is clearly not the intention of this House today. The judgment does cause serious problems for policing operations, for ongoing investigations and, potentially, for the delivery of justice and, most seriously of all, for the protection of victims and witnesses. We should pay tribute to the chief constables, the custody sergeants, the other officers and police staff who are having to deal with this situation as the professionals that they are.
The situation does mean that the police are not able to recall people from police bail if they have been bailed for more than four days, unless they have new evidence that allows them to re-arrest. It also means that the police are constrained in enforcing bail conditions if the period of up to four days from the initial arrest has elapsed—that has serious implications, especially as 80,000 people are on police bail right now.
Currently, the police will routinely bail people in ongoing investigations but may need them to return to the police station for further interviews, even where there is no new evidence since the original arrest. They might need them to return for an identity parade or for clarification of a victim’s statement, pending advice from the Crown Prosecution Service. There are many such cases where, in practice, there is no new evidence since the time of the original arrest.
The situation also raises serious issues in terms of the application of bail conditions, particularly in domestic violence cases, as these conditions can include important protection for the victim. Such conditions could include someone being prohibited from going to their ex-wife’s workplace, to the family home or to their children’s school. Bail conditions are an extremely important part of protecting the safety of victims and witnesses, and if they cannot be enforced, protection is put at risk.
Hazel Blears
My right hon. Friend will have heard the response that I received from the Home Secretary. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if conditions are appropriate to be applied to those suspected of involvement in serious crime, it is illogical and inconsistent if those same conditions are not at least to be considered and to be available to be applied to those suspected—to those “reasonably believed”, under the new test in legislation—to be involved in terrorism-related activity?
Yvette Cooper
My right hon. Friend makes an extremely important point, as we are rightly discussing this measure because of the seriousness of the situation and the need to protect people. In police bail cases, that need often applies in respect of particular individuals—victims and witnesses. In the kinds of terrorism cases that she is talking about, the risk may be much wider and may involve a much wider group of people, so we would expect that additional and even greater protection might be needed. It raises concerns if the security services and police do not have the ability and the powers to provide that protection. She is right in what she says and I know that she is continuing to raise that issue as part of the debate on the other legislation.
Dr Huppert
Does the right hon. Lady agree that the logical consequence of what the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) was just saying is that we should be trying to use police bail conditions to deal with terrorist cases, as far as is possible and given sufficient safeguards?
Yvette Cooper
There are cases where police bail can, of course, be used and there ought to be cases where we should explore that. Our view remains that there are also cases where that is not possible, which is why we need control orders, the son of control orders or whatever we are calling these things now—we need some other kind of safeguard. Clearly, where more traditional aspects of the criminal justice system can be used instead, they should of course be used. Control orders are always a last resort and should be used only in those circumstances.
We have seen some worrying cases across the country, and this goes to the heart of why emergency legislation is needed now. Hon. Members are right to say that we should bring in emergency legislation only on the basis of very serious consideration; we should never do this lightly and there are always risks involved. However, Parliament also needs to balance the risks, and there are risks to the public and to the course of justice if we do not legislate now.
The National Association of Probation Officers has warned of a case where a suspect who is already on a 12-month suspended sentence for assault and who has five previous convictions for offences against the same partner was arrested again for assault. He was bailed while drugs found upon his person were sent off for analysis, but that may take a week and the 96 hours have expired. His victims are deemed at physical risk and it is hugely important, in those circumstances, that bail conditions should be able to apply. Another case involves the harassment of a former girlfriend by a suspect who has been arrested and released on bail. His phone and computer were taken for analysis, which takes time—far more time than 96 hours. He is not due back on bail until later this month, but his conditions are not enforceable if the current legal state of affairs persists. I have been told of other cases by police officers, including that of someone arrested as he was accused of sexual assault on women he was supposed to help in the course of his work. Further investigations are under way, but his bail conditions included a requirement that he should have no unsupervised contact with women in his professional capacity and, again, those conditions cannot now be enforced.
In many cases, bail conditions were used to give people a time and date for returning to the police station for further interview once further evidence was expected to be in place. Now, even though that further evidence might subsequently have been gathered, the police will still have to go out to look for the suspect and take that extra time to bring them in. So, in addition to the risks to justice and to the victims, this situation is placing considerable extra burdens on police time and resources, causing additional pressures for them, too.
Mr Winnick
My right hon. Friend is making a powerful case for the situation that existed prior to the court judgment, and I do not dispute what she is saying in any way, as public safety is absolutely essential and nobody in this House is going to challenge that view. We are dealing with the substance of the matter, so does she not have a concern about the amount of time that a person can be endlessly bailed for as they return to the police station and that happens again? Would it not be far better, as far as is possible, for charges to be brought as quickly as possible where there is sufficient evidence to do so?
Yvette Cooper
We are talking about wider issues here and, if I may, I will deal with those later. If my hon. Friend wishes to intervene then, I will be happy to take a further intervention from him. I wish to finish the point that I am making and then deal with his point.
The case for rapid action to resolve the situation is extremely clear. Nevertheless, it is important that we set it out in the House to make it clear to the courts what our view and judgment are. The costs and administrative burdens for the police in trying to manage this interim situation should also not be underestimated. There is also a significant risk that clever defendants or defence lawyers might use that interim period as a way to get off on a technicality, which would mean that justice would not be done, the House and Parliament not having clarified the situation for the police and the courts.
It would be irresponsible for Parliament to wait longer to deal with the situation. It is not possible for Parliament to take the risk of waiting for the Supreme Court hearing on 25 July, as thousands of domestic violence victims alone need the protection of enforceable bail conditions right now, not in several weeks’ time. So we do support the legislation, as I explained in Parliament on a point of order within hours of learning about the issue eight days ago.
However, we should reflect on some genuine concerns. We have not proposed any amendments, even probing ones, because we think that the most important thing today is to get the legislation on to the statute book and to restore the position for the police and crime victims as soon as possible. However, the House should also have concerns about the possibility of the use of endless police bail. There are cases, and there have been cases, where people have been left on police bail, including with conditions, long after another suspect has confessed to the offence. There are other cases where investigations have run dry but action was not taken to end the bail arrangements. Long bail can sometimes mean that delays are allowed to develop, and they eventually become counter-productive in securing justice.
Therefore, we should, in due course, have a wider debate about the appropriateness and proportionality of different lengths of police bail and what safeguards are needed. If Parliament, the Government and the police do not have those debates about what we think is appropriate, we risk the courts making those decisions for us. It is important that the police have the powers and the flexibilities to pursue those investigations, but we need to give them support in doing that, and make sure that that is properly reflected in the arrangements that we have. There are issues to do with the fact that the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 has been amended many times and clarity might be needed on wider matters, too. It would be helpful if the Home Office and ACPO considered more closely when, how and for how long police bail is used and whether the current framework is appropriate or needs amending.
In the meantime, the most important thing is to restore to the police the ability to operate in the way in which they have operated, and with the framework with which they have operated, for several decades.
Steve McCabe
I accept my right hon. Friend’s point about not tabling any amendments, but given what she has said about the application of bail conditions, is there not a persuasive argument for having a sunset clause in this emergency legislation so that we deal with the immediate problem but have proper time to debate the issues she mentions?
Yvette Cooper
That would have been one way to do it. When the issue came to light last week, we suggested that one option might be to introduce emergency legislation with a sunset clause before considering the subject more widely. The most important thing, given the time we have available, is that the Government have proposed a way to restore the system, and the whole House should support it. I hope that the Government will have further discussions with ACPO about whether any other developments are needed.
As several hon. Members have said, we should never legislate lightly when it takes retrospective effect. Changing the law retrospectively is, in general, undesirable and creates great uncertainty. It threatens natural justice if people end up breaking a law when they did not know of its existence, when it did not exist at the time the act was committed and when they could not have been expected to know that it would exist.
I have thought very carefully about the question and I know that members of the Government have, too. I am clear that a retrospective clause is justified in this case. Indeed, I urged the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice to include a retrospective clause when I discussed the issues with him last Thursday. In this case, we are simply restoring the law to what we in Parliament thought it was, to what we intended it to be and to that which the police, the CPS and others have been following in good faith for many years. We have made clear our intention and so in this period of uncertainty the police, suspects and others should know what Parliament intends. If we had not made our intentions clear, we would have opened the police and victims up to considerable uncertainty about the prospects for individual cases, especially those under investigation at the moment. It would be deeply wrong for a victim to be denied justice and for the offender to escape on a technicality simply because the crime was committed in the limbo period between 19 May and Royal Assent and the police interviews did not comply with the temporary legal position owing to any confusion.
An even more troubling possibility is that historic cases, in which the standard practice was followed in good faith by the police and CPS, could end up being overturned or dragged back through the courts because of the Hookway judgment. In such circumstances, we should legislate retrospectively but we should be clear that we are doing so because we have considered the seriousness of the issue and that we have made the judgment after serious consideration rather than lightly.
I have some concerns about the process and about why we are doing this now, in such a way. I am concerned about the initial judgment. My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) mentioned the judgment of the judge in Salford, which was confirmed by the High Court judge. Judges, not Parliament, interpret the law and it was the role of the High Court judge to come to a view on what the legislation meant. The fact that the judge came to a new view on the interpretation of the law or a different view from experts, such as Professor Zander QC, is still part of the judicial process. It is possible for us to disagree with the judge’s decision while respecting his constitutional role in making such decisions.
My greatest concern is about the final paragraph of the High Court judge’s judgment, which the Home Secretary quoted. He does not simply interpret the law but makes a practical assessment of the impact of his judgment:
“It seems to me however...the consequences are not as severe as might be feared in impeding police investigations in the vast majority of cases. This is simply because in the usual case a suspect returning on bail will either be released because the evidence is not sufficient to warrant a charge or he will be re-arrested under statutory powers because new evidence has come to light.”
I strongly disagree with that practical assessment and the evidence of cases that the police have to handle at the moment disproves it.
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
That does not tally well with the right hon. Lady’s earlier suggestion that the Home Secretary and others have acted in a dilatory fashion, because the judge himself said in his oral judgment that he did not think that the judgment would have those consequences. Was it not right, therefore, to wait for the written judgment and find out what the consequences would be?
Yvette Cooper
No, I disagree. I think that the judge was wrong in that aspect of his judgment. There are serious questions about the fact that there is no sign that he considered any extensive evidence on the practical application of his judgment and about why he did not consider making clear that the judgment should be stayed pending appeal and consideration of the wider evidence. However, that does not go to the heart of the role of the Home Office and the Home Secretary. The Home Office could have done considerable things between the oral statement and the written judgment, rather than simply hoping for the best, which is what it appears officials have done.
Let me turn to the Government’s response. The oral judgment was given on 19 May and Home Office officials were informed soon after that—certainly before the end of May. The Home Secretary and the hon. Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis) have claimed that they had to wait for the written judgment, and of course the written judgment brings the decision into effect and can provide further clarity, but that does not mean that everybody had to suspend action and judgment until the written judgment was available. Given what Home Office officials should have known from the oral judgment, they should immediately have notified the CPS and the Attorney-General. The Home Secretary did not explain when she discussed the decision with the Attorney-General or at what point the Attorney-General was made aware of the seriousness of the case.
Michael Ellis
Does the right hon. Lady not appreciate that, at the time of the oral judgment, it could have related only to the instant case before the judge in question? It was only clear later that it would have a wider-reaching effect.
Yvette Cooper
The point is that the Home Office should have prepared. Immediately after the oral judgment was issued, it was possible that there would be concerns and Professor Zander knew enough about the judgment to write a considered view in Criminal Law and Justice Weekly on 17 June. He was clearly extremely worried and on that basis he was already offering advice. Home Office officials should have sought information and should have been concerned even on the basis of the oral judgment.
Mrs May
On a point of clarity, will the right hon. Lady confirm the time line? She just referred to Professor Michael Zander in a way that might give Members the impression that his article was written off the back of the oral judgment. Will she confirm that it was made available after the written judgment?
Yvette Cooper
The article was published on 18 June, following the written judgment becoming available on 17 June. He will have needed time to write it, however, and to seek more information and details about the case; Home Office officials, however, chose not to do that—[Interruption.] Hon. Members on the Government Benches might think that this is amusing or a case for dismissing the argument, but they ought to consider the serious consequences for domestic violence victims and police operations across the country. Faced with such circumstances, Home Office officials are obliged to consider that risks are involved. They might not have known the final details until the written judgment arrived, but they should have been preparing, asking for further information from the judge and starting to work out options in case Home Office Ministers needed to act fast when the full information became available.
Keith Vaz
Evidence was given to the Select Committee on Home Affairs on Tuesday that a note was written by counsel for Greater Manchester police, which could have alerted officials to a possible issue, but my right hon. Friend would need to have the opportunity to read that note.
The point I wanted to make was that there is the Treasury Solicitor’s Department, which is headed by the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General, so there are resources that could have allowed this issue to be looked at when ACPO was taking advice from Clare Montgomery and Steven Kovats. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is relevant for the future and that, if alarm bells start ringing again, there is machinery in Government to allow the Home Secretary to have the kind of advice we are talking about?
Yvette Cooper
My right hon. Friend is right. He makes his points diplomatically, but the complacency of Home Office Ministers is worrying. They seem to think that they have done everything right in this case, that there have been no delays and that everything has moved as rapidly as possible, but that clearly is not the case. I hope that they will learn lessons for the future from this incident because there clearly has not been rapid movement every step along the way. Whether that applies to what Home Office officials should have done when they received the note on this case, what work they should have done, or what further information they should have sought either from the judge in question or through legal advice at that point, it is their responsibility to prepare options for Ministers, so that Ministers can take rapid judgments, know what their options are and move very fast. That is especially true given the significant risks from this case to the operation of police work and to justice.
My right hon. Friend’s point about the role of the Treasury Solicitor’s Department is important. The point of having the Attorney-General and those solicitors is to be able to seek additional legal advice from them. The Home Secretary said that it is not normal practice for the Government to confirm whether and when they have sought legal advice, but in fact it is very common for Ministers to say that they have had legal advice from the Attorney-General or others. They might not reveal the detailed content of that advice but in this case the Home Secretary is not even confirming whether she has had or sought separate legal advice or whether the Attorney-General provided any such advice to set out options, so that the Government could move fast and deal with this matter considerably faster than has been the case.
Mark Reckless
Will the shadow Home Secretary accept that the Government and the Home Office were not parties in the proceedings? We can see from the judgment that counsel for Greater Manchester police were asked at the end of the oral judgment whether they would like to apply for a certificate in relation to an appeal. To the extent that questions have to be asked, surely they should be addressed to Greater Manchester police about why they did not apply to the judge for a stay or for a certificate despite having been specifically asked about doing so. We should be addressing those questions to Greater Manchester police, who are party to the case, rather than trying to twist this in relation to the Home Office.
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Gentleman is right that there are issues for Greater Manchester police in terms of how fast they respond and react and whether they apply for appeals and stays, but the issue for the Home Office is that, in the end, it matters to the Home Office if policing practice and the protection of victims right across the country are jeopardised. His point goes to the heart of my concerns about the way in which the Home Office and Home Office Ministers have responded. There seems to be an attitude that “We’ll let Greater Manchester police and ACPO do their bit; we’ll just sit back and wait until it all comes to us.” Ministers finally acted only when ACPO said that emergency legislation was needed, rather than Ministers and the Attorney-General recognising that they would have to take responsibility for the consequences. Even if Greater Manchester police did not take the first steps, there was still a responsibility on the Home Office and the Attorney-General to go and talk to Greater Manchester police about whether they had applied for a stay of judgment or appeal. That is where there have been delays and, frankly, incompetence in the way the Home Office has responded.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I have sat and listened very carefully to the debate. I am no lawyer but it strikes me that the Government have tried to act as fast as they can. We are having this emergency debate at speed because we have to make sure that when a judge makes a wrong decision we put the law right—first, to protect the public and, secondly, to allow the police to proceed properly. Does the right hon. Lady not agree?
Yvette Cooper
We do have that responsibility, but my reason for continuing to press this point is that these things will come up again because that is the nature of home affairs and Home Office work. There will inevitably be judgments and other issues that cause problems and suddenly raise difficulties in the criminal justice system. We have dealt with them previously, sometimes through emergency legislation and sometimes through other responses. These things happen and the question is whether, when they happen, the response is fast enough or active enough. My concern is that, if the Home Office continues to be complacent about how it has responded, there will be further difficulties in future.
It is worth considering the time line. We are now seven weeks from the original judgment, three weeks since the written judgment was put in place and two weeks since Ministers were informed. That gap alone between Home Office officials’ being informed of the written judgment, the written judgment’s being published and Ministers’ being told puts Ministers in a deeply difficult position. I have considerable sympathy with the position they were put in when the written judgment came out and was commented on almost the same day by Professor Michael Zander, who said:
“This is a very unfortunate decision if it is not quickly overturned on appeal it will need to be speedily reversed by legislation.”
That criminal expert came out with that statement, the written judgment was published and it was still a week until Home Office Ministers were even told there was a problem. I think that is of concern and that the Home Office should recognise it is of concern.
Mr Winnick
Given that my right hon. Friend is giving her full support to the Government, is she at all surprised by how sensitive Conservative Members are to any form of criticism whatever?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. Given the number of Back Benchers who have leapt up to mention, as part of their intervention, “the speedy action from Ministers” and “the fast response from Ministers”, one might think that a Whip’s note has gone around saying that that might be the phrase to put into every intervention, whatever the point might be.
Our first concern is about the initial delay before the Home Office got the written judgment. I am very clear that more work should have been done between the oral judgment and the written judgment. Then, once the written judgment arrived, there should have been very fast advice to the Home Secretary and the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice about the risks in this case. Instead, the Home Office seems to have sat on this for a week before Ministers were informed. Once they were informed, it was then important for them to accelerate action because the Home Office clearly had not been acting fast enough before then.
What did happen once Ministers were informed? We still do not know when the Home Secretary discussed the matter with the Attorney-General and we still do not know why it has taken so long for there to be support via the Attorney-General, working with Greater Manchester police and the Supreme Court, to get an expedited hearing for a stay of judgment. I recognise the point that the Home Secretary made about the stay of judgment. Clearly, a series of different issues are relevant, some of which the Supreme Court has raised in relation to its powers. The Court also raised the issue of timeliness because by the time it was considering a stay of judgment, that judgment had been in place for many weeks. Timeliness is always a factor when the Supreme Court takes decisions and those delays might well have made it harder for the Court to bring in that stay of judgment.
Yvette Cooper
I shall give way to the hon. Lady, who I am sure will say something about how speedily the Home Office has acted.
Mrs Laing
No, indeed—I have no Whip’s note or other briefing on this matter whatever. The right hon. Lady was statesmanlike in her opening remarks in supporting what the Government and Parliament are now doing out of necessity and—I am not going to say speedily—as soon as it could be done in Parliament, and the whole House agrees that the Bill must be passed today. Might I point out, however, that whereas the right hon. Lady was statesmanlike in her tackling of the issue, she is now grovelling around looking for party political points to make, which can sometimes be unseemly?
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Lady might think that the speed with which the Home Office has responded is okay, but I think it demonstrates a worrying level of complacency that might cause problems in future. The reason for making that important point about the delays we have seen is that such delays cause risks for victims and the judicial process. At the heart of the matter is the question of whether the Home Office is prepared to take responsibility for justice in this way, or whether it will just sit back and leave it to the police and ACPO.
The Policing Minister has told us that the Home Office waited for ACPO to conclude that emergency legislation was needed. When he responds, will he state at what point Ministers asked for draft legislation to be prepared, even if only on a contingency basis, because that is important? Ministers should have commissioned emergency legislation on a draft basis as soon as they were informed of the problem and saw the clear advice from Professor Zander that emergency legislation might be needed. Instead, they appear to have waited for ACPO to commission legal advice twice, but it is not just a matter for ACPO. Inevitably, ACPO will always try to make existing legislation work—they are the police and that is their job—but the job of the Home Secretary’s officials was to contingency plan and get emergency legislation on stand-by, yet there is no sign that they did that. Also, they appear to have made no effort to start discussions with the Opposition through the usual channels on how we could get the legislation in as fast as possible. After the Home Secretary was made aware of the situation, it took her a week to raise it with the Opposition and ask whether we would support emergency legislation if needed. The usual channels could have started making contingency plans a week before and we could have had this debate earlier. In the end, the reason for making this point is that in these cases every day matters, because the risks to people who rely on bail protection are considerable and persistent. Therefore, every day matters in how fast we can get this legislation in place.
We support this legislation, will give it a fair wind through the House today and hope that it gets through the House of Lords as rapidly as possible, but I must say to the Home Secretary that it is important when things go wrong and she has to respond that lessons are learnt so that the same mistakes are not made again. There have been a catalogue of delays at every stage of the process, things could have been done faster and we could have moved to resolve this earlier. Unless the Government recognise those delays, I worry that we will see further problems and risks. The Home Secretary cannot always pretend that everything in her Department is perfect; it will not be, and we all know that. A little more recognition when failings take place and learning from them would help us to have a more effective Home Office and a better criminal justice system for the future.
Lorraine Fullbrook (South Ribble) (Con)
I am delighted to have caught your eye for a second time in the past hour, Mr Deputy Speaker.
We are debating this emergency legislation today because accepted police practice of more than a quarter of a century has been challenged. The legislation is not only vital, but urgent for maintaining the ability of our police forces across the country to do their job of catching criminals and protecting the public they serve. The ruling by High Court judge Mr Justice McCombe on 17 June—that time spent on police bail over any period should count towards the maximum 96-hour limit for pre-charge detention—has destabilised our police and the very heart of our criminal justice system. In the words of the chief constable of West Yorkshire police, this has left officers
“running around like headless chickens...wondering what this means to the nature of justice.”
As a Member of the Home Affairs Committee, I was fortunate to hear from some of the most senior police officers in the country about the negative effects that this ruling has on the police and the criminal justice system. A staggering 80,000 people in pre-charge bail cases would be affected by the ruling. In Lancashire, where my constituency is, 2,227 suspects would be affected on pre-charge bail. This Tuesday the Committee heard from Steve Bloomfield, a Metropolitan police commander and the lead in the fallout of this case, and Jim Barker-McCardle, the chief constable of Essex police and the ACPO lead in this area. These professionals, who are truly eminent in their field, outlined the detrimental effects of suspects who would normally be released on bail being detained for longer. They were asked whether the police would have sufficient cell capacity as a consequence of the judgment. Chief Constable Barker-McCardle said that they would have the capacity in the short term—for the next few weeks—but that over a period of months they would cope but with some difficulty.
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
On that point, does my hon. Friend also accept that in the case of mass demonstrations and the arrests that accompany them, it is often physically impossible to detain everyone necessary?
Lorraine Fullbrook
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the fallout from the judgment would be exacerbated by mass arrests resulting from public order incidents. Without this urgent and necessary legislation, we will need more cells than we currently have. Otherwise, suspected criminals will be set free until they commit a further crime. As my hon. Friend has said, the fallout from mass arrests as a result of public order incidents would increase.
This judgment also puts victims of crime and the general public at greater risk. Chief Constable Barker-McCardle was asked by the Home Affairs Committee whether this was an issue of public safety, to which he responded that it undoubtedly was. He said, “unhesitatingly, unqualified –yes”.
I was astounded to hear that under the judgment a situation could arise in which a perpetrator of domestic violence would be perfectly able to revisit the home of the initial crime, breaching a bail order, and the police would not be allowed to detain such a person for the breach unless a new offence was committed. Under these circumstances, the perpetrator cannot be detained until a further violent incident occurs. We have a responsibility to victims of domestic violence to ensure that this madness is not allowed to continue and that we allow the police to do their job and protect the public from crime.
I am glad that the Bill is retrospective, which will prevent people taking action in the courts. The judgment prevents the police from doing their job and puts victims at greater risk. I am delighted that the Government have introduced the Bill so speedily and with such urgency. I am sure that it will be supported by Members on both sides of the House.
The judgment by Mr Justice McCombe has upset the balance in our criminal justice system. For 25 years the police have been relied upon to catch criminals and we entrust the courts to ensure that justice is served. This emergency legislation redresses that balance by giving the police the assurance that they can continue to operate in the way they have for many years—protecting the public. I am sure that the House will give the police that assurance today by passing the bill, which is essential to put things right.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
I, too, will support the emergency legislation, but two questions seem to have been raised: first, what happened; and secondly, what are the implications of the legislation itself? On the question of what happened, there seem to be two different versions of events. The Government version suggests that they acted within one hour and two minutes, and we have heard a lot of support for that view, with Members telling us about the speed of events. Another version suggests that the clock started ticking on this issue on 5 April, when the judgment was made in the Salford court, and that it has been going on for three months. There has been a crucial judgment, albeit after a 25-year gap, about the interpretation of a piece of parliamentary legislation that identifies a drafting error that no one appears to have spotted in 25 years, which I find slightly strange.
Steve McCabe
I will in just a second.
I understand that the Government need to deal with the immediate situation, but I find it slightly strange that we are going to do so by simply sweeping the matter under the carpet, because it is worth holding a debate in the future about how the situation could have occurred.
Steve McCabe
They are queuing up for me, but I will go first to the hon. Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis).
Michael Ellis
Does the hon. Gentleman not realise that the alleged drafting error in the 25-year-old Bail Act has been referred to before in learned texts, and that other judges have used common sense in applying the law as they thought Parliament intended? That is where there has been a departure by the judge in the instant case.
Steve McCabe
All judgments depend on what the judge thinks Parliament intended; that is the point. We have someone who was able to draw a different conclusion, however, and as we have reached this position I am happy to deal with the legislation today, but it would be useful if the Government gave us a further opportunity to debate the implications of the situation.
Mr Buckland
I was going to try to help the hon. Gentleman by saying that the matter had never been ruled upon—it had never been a matter of controversy. Practitioners and everybody involved in the system had assumed that the clock would stop on release from custody, but, for the first time in 25 years, that particular decision was taken and it confounded everybody who has experience of the criminal justice system.
Steve McCabe
That is largely the same point as the hon. Member for Northampton North made. Does the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) still wish to intervene?
Bob Stewart
I was going to make just one point—about whether the public have been put at more risk because it has taken some time to bring in this legislation, and about whether the police have been able to manage the situation. It seems that no one has really suffered apart from the police, who have had to manage the situation, and that now we require to put the matter right. If the public have not been put at risk, that is great, and if the police have been able to manage, that is good, too, so let us get the legislation through as fast as we can.
Steve McCabe
We agree on getting the emergency legislation through; that is why we are here. But it is a little premature to say that no one has been harmed by what has happened, because that remains to be seen.
It can be argued that what happened on 5 April led to people thinking that they were dealing with a little local difficulty, because that is a perfectly reasonable conclusion to draw, but it is reasonable also to say that, when the judgment was made on 19 May, people should have started to think that it had wider implications and alarm bells should have started to ring. It appears, however, that at that point no alarm bells whatever rang in the Home Office.
On 24 June, by which time the written judgment was available, no one thought it sufficiently important to be dealt with on the Friday afternoon. The Home Office received it on 24 June and waited until the Monday—the whole weekend—before starting to consider its implications.
The Home Secretary was dismissive of my comments on Michael Zander’s article, but here was a respected legal expert giving a clear warning on his concerns about the judgment. I do not know whether the Home Secretary knows, and I am quite happy to table a parliamentary question, but I should be really interested to find out whether the Home Office takes that journal, Criminal Law and Justice Weekly. I imagine that it does, and I therefore presume that somebody whom the Home Secretary employs reads it, so we should not be quite as dismissive of Michael Zander’s piece as she suggests.
Mel Stride
Does the hon. Gentleman not accept, however, that the article was published after the written judgment? That is the critical point.
Steve McCabe
Presumably, one reason why that guy is one of the country’s leading legal experts is that he, rather remarkably, anticipated such a judgment and was able to give some advice and guidance on what might be necessary if it were so. I am not therefore too concerned with that point.
Are we seriously being asked to believe that Ministers and officials sit in the Home Office and wait to see whether the police have any concerns, and that if the police do have concerns, they e-mail, phone or send a carrier pigeon to the Home Office at which point Ministers suddenly start to take their responsibilities seriously? If that is what we are being asked to believe, I have a suggestion for the Home Secretary: why does she not make some cuts by sacking some of her useless officials, rather than police officers? It sounds as if they are not serving her particularly well.
The hon. Member for Beckenham, who has left his place, asked whether it was true that no one had been harmed as a result of the judgment. We do know, as the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice said, that 80,000 criminal suspects were affected by the decision, and the implications of it are one obvious reason why we are here today.
I am not entirely sure that I agree with the hon. Member for South Ribble (Lorraine Fullbrook), who said that there were no problems with detention, because earlier this week I read a report stating that, certainly in the west midlands, the police are decommissioning detention cells as a result of the budgetary savings that they are required to make, so in some parts of the country there may be pressure on police cells as a result of the situation.
Lorraine Fullbrook
I was citing evidence that was given to the Home Affairs Committee, and the hon. Gentleman, as a fellow member of the Committee, was at the relevant session on Tuesday.
Steve McCabe
The hon. Lady may remember that during the same evidence session the police officer concerned referred to 5,000 as opposed to 80,000, but under further examination we discovered that he was talking about the Met police area rather than the whole country.
I plan to support the legislation, because we are where we are and I do not want to make the job of the police any more difficult. The Government’s police cuts, in what looks like a concerted attack on Britain’s policing institutions, are making their job hard enough, and I have no desire to make it any worse, but I do not accept the Government’s version of the events that brought us here.
I have a question about how the emergency legislation has been framed. Earlier, the Home Secretary cited Liberty as an organisation that supported it, and I think I am right that Justice is one of the others, but Liberty makes an interesting case about the lack of safeguards in the legislation and a persuasive case for a sunset clause, whereby we deal with the immediate problem but then, at a more leisurely pace, look at the wider issues. Given that the problem went undetected for 25 years, that may be a worthwhile route to pursue.
On the retrospective nature of the legislation, I agree that it is necessary in order to deal with those 80,000 cases—and probably even more so in order to deal with what happens between now and 12 July, when it comes into effect. However, our law—I think this is the point that the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) was alluding to—relies on citizens being able to predict in advance when the act of a public authority will be lawful. Introducing a retrospective clause, albeit for understandable reasons, creates a situation whereby something that someone was doing yesterday, reasonably assuming it to be lawful, could be unlawful tomorrow, so that retrospectively they could suffer the consequences. That has major implications for the way in which citizens should view their relationship with the state. I do not object to the retrospective aspect, but it leads to an argument for a sunset clause so that we could have an opportunity, at some point in the future, to consider the implications of having to make such judgments.
Members have mentioned the problem of the length of time for which people may be held on police bail, particularly where it has conditions attached. The shadow Home Secretary used the example of bail restrictions designed to protect the victim from the alleged offender in domestic violence cases. I can understand that. However, I can think of a case in my constituency where a constituent had a bail order applied to him for over 12 months, and one of its restrictions was that he could not use his bank account because the case involved a fairly complex fraud. As a result, he had immense difficulty in meeting his daily living expenses. In the end, all the charges were dropped and he was never brought to court for anything at all. There is already a provision in PACE whereby, when the police apply for an extension, they have to give assurances that they will not take undue time in dealing with the matter and having excessive periods of bail.
These provisions raise once more the issue of bail conditions. We are putting through legislation to deal with a very particular crisis, but in the course of examining it we are opening up wider questions that would merit a much broader debate at some point in the future. Even at this stage, the Government could consider a sunset clause. They are getting absolute co-operation today in dealing with the immediate problem that we face: whether that is partly their own fault or entirely the fault of the courts is a matter of debate. In return for that, the emergency legislation should be used only very sparingly. It is not unreasonable for Parliament to say that the issues that are raised while emergency legislation is being passed should be subject to much greater debate and scrutiny in future.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Let me start, Mr Deputy Speaker, by apologising to you and to other Members for my brief absence from the Chamber. I had to attend the Programming Sub-Committee on the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill. I must say that the process that took place therein would not have been out of place in a “Carry On” film.
As Members will know, we are having this debate because the High Court has ruled that suspects cannot be bailed for longer than four consecutive days, or 96 hours. That decision comes after a ruling from Salford magistrates court that the police could not detain suspect Paul Hookway again because his “detention clock” had been running while he was on bail—a ruling that has immediate effect. It is clear that the damage that this would have done to police investigations had we not taken the action that we are taking would have been very substantial in stopping the police being able to keep track of a suspect while they continued their investigations, collected new evidence, and so on. Given that that would have affected more than 85,000 people across England and Wales, it was clearly necessary for us to debate emergency legislation and implement it as soon as possible.
However, I would like to take this opportunity to raise some concerns. Liberty’s briefing, which I support, includes the perhaps understated comment that it is
“somewhat surprising that this appears to be the first time that the issue has arisen in the 25 years that the PACE Act has been in force.”
Indeed, other Members have made that point. It is concerned about having a requirement to stick to a consecutive 96-hour period, stating:
“Unduly limiting the period for which a suspect may be bailed by police could have the effect of encouraging premature or inappropriate charging with all the injustices that would flow. It could also have the effect of encouraging police to detain for the maximum (96 hour) period in circumstances where a suspect could be released earlier thereby supporting prolonged detention rather than release on bail.”
Those are genuine concerns which have been supported in other representations that I have received. Although the action we are taking is necessary, there is no possibility today of our debating and perhaps amending these clauses to reflect some of the concerns about the use of police bail. Liberty goes on to say:
“While 96 hours may well be too short a limit to allow effective further investigation in more complicated cases, it should not be the case that police bail can go on forever.”
It also notes that
“police bail can have attached to it a number of highly onerous conditions.”
I should like to refer to a couple of anonymised cases that highlight some of the issues of police bail and, in some cases, its very extended use. A barrister contacted me to say that he was aware of a serious fraud case where certain suspects were on bail for a period of two years and 10 months, and released from it only recently when a trial of some of the other suspects in the same investigation ended with acquittals or a hung jury. He referred to another case in which he was instructed where the period was 18 months—from December 2007 to the point of charge in June 2009. He accepts that investigations will sometimes take a long time to progress, particularly in cases involving high-value frauds, as in the two that he cited, which I have now put on the record. He goes on to highlight the pernicious impact of police bail, particularly regarding the obtaining of restraint orders for the assets of the accused. He says that although there will be occasions where such restraint orders are justified, perhaps to ensure that criminal assets are not dissipated, their impact is substantial and can sometimes affect the ability of the accused to pay their mortgage, for instance—and of course such people often remain unconvicted.
It is legitimate, in the limited time available to us, to raise those points and to flag up the fact that while emergency legislation is necessary, we need to be careful about the implications of police bail and its uses and to ensure that it is not abused. Liberty says in its briefing that we might at some point—it suggests in the Protection of Freedoms Bill—want to consider a statutory time limit on the use of police bail. It suggests that the statutory limit for pre-charge bail should be set at six months. I am not sure whether I support that contention—I suspect that in fraud cases, in particular, it would be rather hard to deliver and perhaps insufficient—but it might be appropriate for us to debate the subject at a later date.
Mr Buckland
A potential solution to that issue would be the imposition of a time limit in most cases, unless there was a particular element, for example fraud, which would bring the applicants back to court to apply for an extension. That could be a way around the problem that my hon. Friend is so eloquently adumbrating.
Tom Brake
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his helpful intervention. He is knowledgeable in these matters, and I am sure that what he suggests would be an appropriate solution.
The Law Society has also made representations to Members. As well as supporting a length of time for which pre-charge police bail applies, it is keen that the police should admit people to pre-charge bail only when it is necessary. If people voluntarily accept that they must attend, it may not be necessary to put pre-charge bail conditions in place.
It is clear that there is an urgent need to implement this emergency legislation. I am pleased that the Government are taking urgent action on this matter, and I wish the Bill a speedy passage through the House today.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Seven Members wish to speak and I will call the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice at 10 minutes to 3, because the debate is time-limited. Members should therefore be considerate of other Members who wish to speak.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake). I congratulate him on the recent announcement of his elevation to the Privy Council.
The Home Secretary is in the enviable position of coming to the Dispatch Box with the support of Opposition Front Benchers—who seem to have disappeared temporarily; they are hiding behind the Chair—and that of the Liberal Democrat spokesman, ACPO, Liberty and every police officer in the country. The only person missing is His Holiness the Pope. Everybody seems to accept that it is vital that the Government get the legislation through as speedily as possible, within the time frame that was set out by the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice. I thought he was very generous in saying that we would have until 3 o’clock to complete our debate, because everyone who has spoken so far has said that they agree absolutely with everything that the Government are doing, as do I. I shall learn from my own lesson by speaking as briefly as I can.
I thank the Home Secretary for showing great courtesy to the Home Affairs Committee. She promised us a copy of the draft Bill by 6 o’clock on Monday and we received it. She then appeared before the Select Committee on Tuesday. This may seem like déjà vu because there are so many members of the Select Committee here. In fact, we could adjourn the House and straight away be quorate. This is a model not just for emergency legislation, but for the way in which the Government should deal with Select Committees. If she carries on like this, our next report might have to recommend her for canonisation. [Interruption.] Steady on. I said only that we might have to recommend her for canonisation.
Mr Winnick
There would be a vote against, I can assure my right hon. Friend.
Keith Vaz
I am sure that there would be a vote against it, probably led by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick).
It is important that Parliament is kept informed. The fact that this legislation had to be scrutinised in this way meant that the Home Secretary’s presence this week was very helpful.
Government Members need to be mindful of the fact that Opposition Front Benchers are supporting the Government on this matter. Government Members were a little unfair to the shadow Home Secretary. It is right that she is able to raise issues concerning the time line. Select Committee members from both sides of the House necessarily raised that issue with the Home Secretary on Tuesday, and indeed with the chief constable of Essex and the commander in the Met who deals with these matters. I commend the hon. Member for South Ribble (Lorraine Fullbrook) and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) for their speeches. Although they disagreed on issues concerning the time line, there was absolute agreement with what the Government propose, just as there is unanimous support for it in the Select Committee.
I want to raise two issues with the Home Secretary. The first relates to the position of the Attorney-General and the importance of Law Officers being involved in this process. As the Home Secretary said and as I know from being a Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General and a junior Minister in the Lord Chancellor’s Department in the last Government, advice given by the Attorney-General or Solicitor-General is by its nature confidential to the Government. However, when this case was first decided on in Salford, I think it was incumbent on Greater Manchester police, who had conduct of this matter, to inform Home Office officials about it, and I am sure that they did. I have not checked the time line, but I am sure that is what they said they did. The Home Office officials should then have consulted the Law Officers. After all, the Attorney-General and Solicitor-General have superintendence over the Director of Public Prosecutions, whose role is extremely important in these matters.
I am sure that if the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) catches your eye, Mr Deputy Speaker, he will talk about the role of ACPO in this matter. Of course we are interested in the role of ACPO, because under the new landscape of policing, ACPO will be reformed. In making this legislation, we are putting a lot of faith in the advice given to ACPO by two Queen’s counsel, and in the advice that it gave Ministers. The chief constable of Essex clarified after the evidence session that he finally told the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice last Thursday that it was time to go back to the House to pass legislation, which is what the Minister told the House last Thursday. The chief constable had originally told the Committee in open session that it was the day after when he finally made up his mind.
I do not think that these issues ought to be left to ACPO. They are serious issues that ought to occupy the time of Home Office officials. I hope that Home Office officials in this case did alert the Law Officers. I am not asking for a time line from the Minister when he replies, but it would be nice to know whether that happened. I believe that the Law Officers and the Treasury Solicitor’s Department have a role in this, because at the end of the day, it is they who have to go to the courts to represent the Government. I accept what the Home Secretary says and that she has no locus standi in these matters, but this needs to be kept under review. If we look to the future rather than the past, and accept that what the Government have to do, as outlined by the Home Secretary, is the right approach, we should be aware that these things may well happen in the future. I know about the points made by Professor Michael Zander. I have not put down a parliamentary question to ask whether Criminal Law and Justice Weekly, where he wrote his article, is standard reading in the Home Office or the Law Officers’ Department.
Mrs May
The right hon. Gentleman is setting out his concerns in relation to the time line, and much has been made by his right hon. and hon. Friends on this matter. Every reference is being made to the legal advice. I am sure that with his immense experience at the Home Affairs Committee, he will accept the role that ACPO had, not only in seeking its own legal advice, but in looking at the operational implications. Understanding whether the police could operationally work within the judgment was a crucial part of the decision making in this matter.
Keith Vaz
The Home Secretary is absolutely right; the operational decisions have to be taken by ACPO. I just say to her that in her new landscape, ACPO’s role will change. She may therefore want to consider whether this area should be led by whatever ACPO becomes or whether it should be another part of the new landscape. This issue might happen again. I want to make it absolutely clear that none of this is the fault of Ministers. We raise the time line only—at least I raise the time line only—because should this happen again, we may need to look at the way in which things develop.
On that note, I will terminate my speech, Mr Deputy Speaker, so that I can earn some brownie points for the future.
Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz). As always, I agree with much of what he says, if not quite all.
I rise, of course, to speak in support of the Bill. It has yet to be made entirely clear to me exactly how it could have been thought appropriate to put public safety at risk for the sake of a literalist interpretation of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 that flies in the face not only of the intentions of Parliament in passing the Act in the first place but of a full quarter-century of practice and interpretation of it by police, defence lawyers and judges up and down the country. Surely if Hansard could not have acted as a guide, case law might have served that purpose. I accept that sections 41 to 44 of the Act may leave the point unclear on the face of it, but given that parliamentary debates show the clear original intention that a suspect should be detained and questioned for 96 hours in total, rather than for only 96 hours following arrest, not to mention the precedent of 25 years of criminal law, one would have hoped for a little common sense, especially considering the stakes at hand.
As has been stated, Mr Justice McCombe was of the opinion that the consequences of his judgment were
“not as severe as might be feared”.
I am afraid that, as has also been pointed out, that was not the view of the chief constable of Essex, who is the ACPO lead on police bail, or of Commander Steve Bloomfield of the Met, who gave evidence to the Home Affairs Committee on the subject on Tuesday. They are of the opinion that not only does the ruling throw into disarray the investigation and case management of the more than 80,000 suspects in this country who are currently on police bail, but it renders any conditions attached to that bail all but unenforceable.
That has deeply worrying public protection implications for victims and witnesses of violent crimes, and particularly for victims of domestic abuse. Suspects who have been arrested for domestic violence-related offences and released on bail are likely to have conditions attached to that bail, designed to protect their victim. In the absence of those conditions, the police have lost not only part of the time needed to investigate and build solid cases against violent offenders, but a tool used to protect victims and witnesses while they do it.
I know that ACPO has issued guidance to police forces on how to protect victims and witnesses in the short time that remains until the Bill is passed, but will the Minister give the House an assurance that the Home Office is doing everything it can to offer additional support to ensure that victim and witness protection is in no way compromised by this irresponsible judgment?
It is entirely appropriate, in this case, that the Bill is retrospective. In almost every other instance retrospective legislation would be controversial, but in this case I believe the Bill is intended merely to create continuity, not to create new taxes or offences. As I understand it, the retrospective nature of the Bill is necessary to ensure that no criminal cases or convictions that have proceeded in the gap between the initial judgment and the passing of the Bill are rendered unsafe. I wonder whether, in his winding-up speech, the Minister might be able to confirm that.
From looking into this issue, the only area of the bail system that seems to me to need further consideration that will be impossible within the context of the Bill is the issue of time limits and overly onerous conditions. At the moment there are no statutory time limits on bail, and there are uncertain guidelines for magistrates as to appropriate conditions to be placed on bail. As a result, a suspect could theoretically be left on bail indefinitely. Although I am aware that the Crown Prosecution Service must charge someone suspected of a summary offence within six months, it seems to me that the current system of indefinite bail should be considered in the context of wider policing and justice reforms in future.
I will close now, so that we can make progress. Needless to say, I think it is entirely appropriate that this emergency legislation has been brought forward today, to make it absolutely clear that the detention clock may be stopped by bail. It is not just a matter of convenience for the police; it is a matter of justice and public protection.
Bailing suspects while police continue investigations ensures that police are not pressured into premature or inappropriate charging that could result in all manner of miscarriages of justice. It means that police are not tempted to try to detain people for the maximum 96 hours needlessly, when release on bail would be more proportionate to the offence and would not pose any risk to the public. Most importantly, bailing suspects with conditions means that victims, witnesses and potential victims of violent offences can be better protected by the police while the case against an offender is investigated and a conviction secured. The Bill will help the police do their job better and keep the public safer, and as such it has my full support.
Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
It is the anniversary of the bomb outrages of 7 July, and the bulk of the people who were killed and maimed in those outrages were in my constituency. That is one reason why I would not want anything to happen that made life and work more difficult for our police service. Like the ambulance service and the fire service, the police are different from the rest of us. When something disastrous occurs, the rest of us prudently run away. The police, like the firefighters and ambulance crews, rush in the opposite direction to offer aid and assistance. Nothing that I say should be interpreted as being against the police.
I welcome the Bill and accept the need to clarify the law so that it is what everyone thought it was when it was passed by the House 25 years ago. If there was any ambiguity in it, I think I am the only guilty party present in the House today. I was a Member at that time, and I do not think anyone else here was.
Clearly, being on bail is better than being in jail, but being on bail is being not quite free. A considerable number of people are released on police bail and eventually turn out not to be guilty of anything. We need to remember that bail is applied to our fellow citizens, and we need to try to protect them from what is unreasonable. I have had cases drawn to my attention in the past few years of people on greatly protracted periods of bail. I do not believe that that is acceptable.
It seems to me that there has been a gradual build-up of protracted periods of bail. My understanding is that neither the Home Office nor the police have the faintest idea whether that is true, because they do not have any figures. I urge the Minister to accept that it would be a sound idea for the Home Office to start collecting such figures, so that we have a measure of the problem. Clearly, given the need to clarify the law urgently, we do not have the opportunity now to consider properly what constraints might be put in place to protect people against unjustifiably protracted periods of bail, but we need to consider introducing such constraints.
There might be objections to making the extension of bail subject to a judicial process, because in at least some cases the police might not wish to disclose publicly at that point what evidence was available to them. However, we do need some constraints, and I wonder whether the Minister will accept that if he takes advice from ACPO, he might also give it some advice so that the chief police officers take more seriously the problem of protracted bail. We could say, for instance, that if bail goes beyond a year, it has to be renewed with the specific personal consent of the chief constable of the area concerned. That might turn out to be a useful management tool, because it would draw to the attention of the chief constable how many cases were particularly protracted.
I hope that we can at least agree in principle that in future, we need some measurement and logging of protracted periods of bail, and some constraint on them. We owe that to our fellow citizens. It is always worth remembering that all the people who are on bail are innocent until charged and found guilty. They are our fellow citizens, and we need to remember that.
I strongly support the Bill, but I hope that we will consider the problem much more seriously and at greater length, and perhaps with a little more sympathy for people who are out on bail, in the near future. It is not something that we can knock forward for another 25 years.
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson). I am sure that he would agree that the reason for this debate is a surprising decision by the High Court that clearly needs to be overturned. The decision highlights the problems that can occur when courts use the literal rule when interpreting Acts of Parliament, and do not look closely enough at Parliament’s intention. It is regrettable that in this case, Parliament’s intention did not prevail over the literal interpretation of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
The Hookway case effectively prevents the police from bailing someone for more than 96 hours. Clearly, that situation cannot be allowed to prevail. I spent many years working in the criminal justice system, and I have dealt with a number of warrants for further detention. In my experience, they are not rubber-stamped by the magistrates courts, but very carefully considered. They are also fairly rare, and even rarer when the suspect has previously been on bail. However, the decision in Hookway has clear implications far beyond that case, hence what was previously a necessary intention to change the judgment because of a narrow interpretation of the case very rapidly became an urgent necessity, because of the wider implications that we now know exist in Hookway.
One area where that judgment will have the greatest impact is, I believe, identity parades. Suspects are often released on bail so that they can return for ID procedures to be carried out. They are booked into custody for that to happen, at which stage the detention clock recommences. The Hookway case actually prevents that from happening —it has stopped a perfectly logical ID parade procedure taking place in future—and undermines all the work that has taken place to provide effective ID parades.
The case also affects procedures when suspects are bailed more generally, because they are usually placed temporarily and technically back into custody when charging takes place. That cannot now occur without adequate revision of the Hookway case, which the Bill seeks to implement.
During the debate, it has been said a number of times that the police can detain initially for a 24-hour period after the custody sergeant has given his authorisation. That is correct, but it is also the case that it is subject to a review by an inspector after a six-hour period, and then twice more after successive nine-hour periods have elapsed. The checks and balances that we want to see in place exist while a suspect is in police custody, and indeed thereafter.
I therefore support the Bill. The only danger is that it could be misinterpreted—the police might believe that there is no longer a requirement for them to act in an expeditious manner. I sincerely hope that the police will not see the Bill as some sort of green light to keep suspects on bail for an inordinate period before any charging decision is made. That was the point that my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) tried to make—he came up with some suggestions on how we can ensure that there is adequate provision to prevent that from happening, and to ensure that there is a greater degree of certainty than is currently in place. Liberty is suggesting that a period of six months should be the maximum. Like my hon. Friend, I am cautious about having a prescribed period, but there needs to be clear justification when suspects are kept on bail for lengthy periods. We would all agree that that situation helps neither the suspect nor the victim of the crime.
I have dealt with numerous situations in which people have been bailed for the inordinate periods that my hon. Friend mentioned. There is little recourse for those people, other than making a lengthy and costly judicial review application to the High Court. They simply have to suffer that inordinate delay and return again and again to the police station, waiting, and sometimes hoping and pleading, for a decision to made in their case.
One positive aspect of this situation is the opportunity it has given to us to look at the issue of the length of police bail and the issues that surround it. I hope that we can look for some improvements in future.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
I shall try to be brief, so that we can conclude the debate. I support the Bill, for the reasons that have been set out admirably by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. I am concerned about any form of exceptional legislation—it is something that we should always be extremely guarded about, whatever the reason for it is—but this is exceptional legislation, and I understand absolutely why we need it. There is no issue with that, but I have a number of concerns about police bail in its wider sense, as has been discussed. I shall therefore not focus on the legal niceties of the Hookway case—that has been discussed already—but I want to say a few things about police bail in the wider sense.
First, the Bill is clearly a necessary clarification of the law—there is no doubt about that. Looking at previous legislation, it is clear that the Hookway case is a matter of interpretation. The best thing to do is to make its interpretation easier for judges and lawyers in future. I am tempted to talk about how legislation is drafted in this country—we do not always seek to avoid such problems—but I will restrain myself from doing so in any great detail.
My one concern is the retrospective nature of the Bill and saying that the amendments are
“deemed always to have had effect”.
I should like to place on record my gratitude to the Home Secretary for clarifying that in her earlier remarks, but I want to flag up now that we should be very cautious and careful in examining anything that purports to be retrospective. We should not allow it to sail past, but carefully ask questions about the rationale for such measures.
One question that I did not put to the Home Secretary, but to which the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice will perhaps respond, is on a topic in which I am not normally interested: the royal diary. Are we clear exactly when we will get Royal Assent to the Bill?
There is urgent need for wider reform in this area, and I hope the Government return to it, and that they do not end with this Bill.
My second point is that it was absolutely right for a number of leading lawyers, including a former Solicitor-General, to today raise concerns about some of the abuses of police bail. I do not agree with their comments on the Bill—they called for it not to go through, but I believe that it is absolutely necessary—but the Home Secretary needs to introduce greater safeguards to prevent abuse of such wider powers.
The Bill returns us to a position in which there is no statutory time limit, as we have already discussed, and the police can impose a number of conditions. That means that police bail can be very oppressive. I am particularly concerned about that in the context of peaceful protest. In the past couple of years, we have seen a number of cases of the use of pre-emptive arrest before planned, legal and peaceful protests. In 2009, 114 environmental protesters were arrested at the Iona independent school in Sneinton, Nottingham. They were arrested shortly before a planned protest at an E.ON power station. They were then released without charge on police bail, which prevented them from getting involved with the protest. Potentially, restrictive police bail conditions give police the cumulative power to extinguish the right of peaceful protest—especially for time-sensitive demonstrations—which we should all wish to see supported. There was a similar case of police bail during the occupation of Fortnum & Mason on 26 March this year, which I have discussed in the Home Affairs Committee.
I agree with Liberty and other hon. Members who say that we should consider a time limit. That time limit should be proportionate both to the complexity and the severity of the case. This is not the Bill to do that, as obviously we could not use it to do the issue justice, but I hope that we could consider it in the plethora of other Home Office Bills before Parliament. It would be simple to do it via the Protection of Freedoms Bill or the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill. One could also look at the issue of bail for immigration in that context, because there are some questions about that that need to be looked at.
There is a slightly bizarre lacuna, introduced by the last Government, in the police bail powers, which is that pre-charge police bail is not allowed in terrorism-related cases. It is important to mention that today, the sixth anniversary of the London bombings, because we have made a mess of how we deal with terrorism cases. We have warehoused people under a system outside the normal legal framework. I have argued that we should use the police bail system, which offers similar restrictions and controls to what is proposed in control orders and the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill. It differs in detail, of course, but it does fit within the normal legal framework. I was delighted by the comments of the shadow Home Secretary—in stark contrast to the shadow Minister on the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill—when she agreed that police bail should be explored where it can be used for terrorism offences. That is a great step forward. It may not be appropriate in every single case, but we should have a system—with appropriate safeguards, via the Home Secretary’s applications, as I outlined in the Bill Committee—so that police bail could be used when possible for terrorism cases. That would help to move us towards a normal legal process.
I well understand the urgency behind the Bill and I do not wish to detain the House any longer. I urge the Home Secretary to consider all the issues that have been raised and the importance of getting police bail right, when the rush is over. We need to ensure that we safeguard peaceful protest, improve our national security and restore our liberty. It would be great to do all that at once. If we controlled police bail better, we could use it in terrorist cases to give us due legal process, security and liberty, as well as more of the normal rule of law.
Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
The liberty of the individual should be a matter for this place first and foremost, so the fact that this is emergency legislation should not be a cause of embarrassment or shame—it should be welcomed. Judges have an important role in interpreting the law. Their role is primarily to interpret rather than to enact. That is why I am entirely content that it is this place that will make the important decision about the ambit of police bail. It is not a matter for shame, but nor is it quite a matter for celebration, bearing in mind the fact this House is a busy place and we have a lot of work to do.
It should perhaps be a matter for quiet reflection that it is the primacy of the legislature that matters when it comes to fundamental issues of liberty—that is what we are dealing with today—and the constant balance that we have to maintain between liberty and the public interest in being protected from crime and its consequences, however minor or serious. I was glad to be reminded by the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) about the sad anniversary that we have reached today.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson), in his excellent contribution drawn from years of experience as a criminal practitioner, made some important practical points about the problems that would quickly come about if the House did not take swift action. The examples that he gave—including the identification procedure problem—were well made and do not need repeating by me. However, on a more fundamental level, one aspect that perhaps we have not emphasised today is the interests of the victims and witnesses of crime. In many cases, they give the police statements and then have to wait an inordinate length of time before they know the outcome of the case or are called to court to give evidence. That is one of the main problems encountered day in, day out by courts across the land when dealing with some of the delays caused by readmission to police bail by suspects, sometimes for an inordinate length of time.
The debate comes at an opportune moment because it gives us a chance to look at the whole ambit or spectrum of police bail, not only from the point of view of the suspect or the defence lawyer, but from the point of view of the victim of crime, the complainant or witness, waiting anxiously. In many cases, I have seen the frustration of judges when they hear that decisions about charge have been put off time and again, causing witnesses to lose heart or to lose interest. Sometimes cases fail at that final stage in court, and that is unforgiveable from a variety of perspectives, but most of all from the public interest perspective. That is why the points made today about limits on police bail were well made and deserve serious consideration as we proceed.
The challenge facing the court in Salford was one that the learned judge himself described in paragraphs 18 and 19 of his judgment as being of “limited application”. That was the view of the learned High Court judge, and it was a view that, on examination by Professor Zander, was challenged. A debate then began. Professor Zander is an eminent academic and has enjoyed a peon of praise today from hon. Members on both sides of the House—I am sure that he is enjoying every minute of it. It is thoroughly deserved, but I think that he would agree that to elevate his article to advice status would overplay it. In my view, he opened a welcome debate on the effects of the judgment. It is a debate that Mr Justice McCombe put himself on the other side of by dint of his remarks in paragraph 18 and 19. With respect to the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), it is a little trite to suggest that the consequences of the decision were set in stone some weeks ago. The position only became clear when that debate was initiated, and I think that the Government are to be congratulated on taking effective action.
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 was seminal legislation. It was not drafted on the hoof, but put together after many months of careful work and input from all sections of those interested in the criminal justice system. It was a game-changer in so many important ways. It was progressive legislation that, at a stroke, made clear and transparent certain procedures that had often seemed in the police station obscure and frankly worrying not only to suspects but to police officers themselves. It was a Conservative Government—the noble Lord Brittan was Home Secretary and his Minister of State was the noble Lord Hurd—who steered that excellent legislation through the House. It has stood the test of time admirably.
As with all legislation scrutinised by the House, however, the 1984 Act might be found to be only human. I am reminded of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood). She was right to say that the Act was silent on the effect of section 44. We all have to concede that. After Royal Assent, however, practitioners and everybody concerned with the process came to the assumption—the right assumption, I think—that the clock would stop and start as long as the suspect was in police detention, and that the concept of time was not absolute but relative to the time spent in detention. That was well understood by everybody in the system. For 25 years that assumption will have been made by practitioners from the humblest junior solicitor to the highest of High Court judges. They need make no apology for having done so.
Nicola Blackwood
To be clear, is it not the case that that assumption arose not out of thin air or a desire for convenience, but out of the fact that that was the intention made clear in parliamentary debates at the time?
Mr Buckland
That is indeed the case, as was helpfully set out in Professor Zander’s article, where he took the trouble to remind himself of the case of Pepper v. Hart, which allows judges to look at Hansard if there is any ambiguity about the intention of the legislature. Unlike the judge in the decision in question, he examined Hansard and found buried in the debates in what were then called Standing Committees—the predecessor title, as it were, of Public Bill Committees—a clear understanding on the part of all parties. It was the former Member for Birmingham, Ladywood, Miss Short, who tabled an amendment designed to ensure that the suspect would be detained for no more than 96 hours, and the then Minister of State, now the noble Lord Hurd, who responded. It was quite clear from that debate that there was an understanding that time would stop and start according to when the suspect was in detention.
With respect to the learned High Court judge, that debate would have assisted him in his deliberations and given him great comfort and support in coming to what we would all have regarded as a purposive decision—that is, a decision that would have given purpose to the intention of the legislators and reinforced a quarter of a century of practice. Sadly, we know that that was not the case, although we should hesitate before rushing to criticism of our judges. They have a tough job to do. They have to make decisions day in, day out. They are presented with a range of different scenarios and cases. I do not think that anyone should rush to criticise the judiciary in that respect because of one difficult case. However, I return to the point that I made at the beginning of my speech. I am glad that it is this place—this House—that is reinforcing and reiterating the law as we have all understood it to be, and which will now, in my submission, be put beyond any doubt whatever.
I know that voices outside this place have urged caution on us in rushing this legislation through, although a lot of their concerns have been addressed in the remarks made by other Members today, which I will not repeat. I have made some suggestions about the potential limitations on police bail—for example, in cases that do not involve a large amount of documentation or serious fraud—but I want to return to straightforward examples of cases involving violence or assault, where far too often, over-cautious lawyers have waited before charge for all the evidence to be gathered, including medical evidence. Frankly, my suggestion to them is to remember how we used to do it. We would charge and then gather the evidence as quickly as possible, to ensure that we did not lose the interest, enthusiasm and participation of prosecution witnesses along the way.
The coalition Government quite rightly restored the decision-making power for certain offences to the police. That was a wise decision, which I believe will allow minds to be focused in the police station when dealing with a range of less serious offences. That will leave more serious offences to be dealt with by the Crown Prosecution Service as part of the advice-before-charge procedure. At that stage, everybody needs to remember what we have said today in this House and elsewhere about the need for expedition and the need for good judgment to be exercised, even though all the evidence might not have been gathered.
I will draw my remarks to a close. I support giving the Bill its Second Reading, and I think that we as a House should be glad that such decisions are falling to us.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
It is important that we should have this debate. There has been a lot of discussion about why this has been rushed through in the way that it has. We are here to amend the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The sole purpose is to clarify the distinction between periods of detention and periods of police bail. I want to add my concern about rushed legislation and fast-tracking Bills. It was before my time, but I can certainly remember the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 going through—as well as legislation to deal with handguns—at a time when Governments wanted to be seen to be doing something, rather than amend the law in a correct and measured way. It is important when we debate legislation to ensure that there is time to digest the impact, make amendments and allow the public and other interested groups to comment on what is going on.
This, however, is a simple and straightforward Bill. In fact, I have never seen such a short Bill. It consists of one page containing two clauses, the second of which simply deals with the geographical reach of the measure and confirms the Bill’s full name. Indeed, the explanatory notes are longer than the Bill. It is none the less an important Bill. It looks at periods of detention in England and Wales, wherein a suspect can be detained initially for up to 24 hours, and for a further 12 hours if approved by a senior officer such as a superintendent. Detention for a further 36 hours can be applied for through a magistrates court, which can then be added on, giving a total cap of 96 hours, at which point the detention clock, as it has been labelled, stops.
At that point, the police have the option either to charge the suspect or to release them, or to place them on bail. We previously assumed that the detention clock paused when that bail was imposed, and restarted after the bail period was complete. However, we now face a new interpretation of the 1984 Act. Following the murder case involving Paul Hookway, Salford magistrates court has thrown a different light on the provisions. That has led to the police detention period and the bail period being capped at a total of 96 hours. That decision has been upheld in the High Court and, as a consequence, we are now having to rush this legislation through today.
The Opposition have called for temporary legislation or a sunset clause to deal with this, but I think that that is unnecessary on two counts. First, we are a legislative body, and if we eventually find that this legislation is inappropriate, we can come back and amend it through primary legislation at any time. Secondly, this is not new law. It will simply take us back to the status quo.
There has clearly been some confusion since the new interpretation of the law was confirmed, and I have a number of questions for the Minister. During the period of confusion before the Bill gains Royal Assent, what will be the impact on the 80,000 or so people who are on bail at the moment? Given that bail conditions are designed for the protection of victims, will there be any consequences for victims who need to be protected during this period following the reinterpretation of the law? I also want to ask—not flippantly; it is a serious point—whether the Home Office has scoured the remaining sections of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, or indeed the Bail Act 1976, to ensure that no other loopholes are likely be discovered by an eagle-eyed magistrate, resulting in our having to do something similar to this in future.
I very much welcome the Bill, despite the expeditious nature of its passage through the House. It does nothing but change the law on paper, and it will allow the courts to continue to interpret the law in the spirit that the 1984 Act originally intended.
Nick Herbert
The right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) began his speech by reminding the House of the impact of 7/7, on this, the anniversary of that atrocity. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary also paid her tribute to the victims of that crime this morning. It is a sobering reminder of the continuing importance of public protection, which is what we are debating today. I am grateful that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have supported the need for this emergency legislation. Certain issues have been raised, and I shall try to deal with them briefly now. It is important to note, however, that there was no dissent over the principle behind the legislation. It is widely accepted that there needs to be a correction to the rather extraordinary judgment of the High Court, which overturned 25 years of practice and legal understanding.
The Government are grateful to all parties for the support expressed, particularly the official Opposition for their support in enabling this emergency legislation to go forward, and I am also grateful for the support of Liberal Democrat Members. There is unanimity on the need to deal with this situation as swiftly as possible.
I begin by clearing up one or two of the more technical issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) asked a specific question about when the Bill could be expected to receive Royal Assent. Subject to the Bill being approved by both Houses, we aim to secure Royal Assent before the other place rises on Tuesday 12 July. The legal change will then come into effect immediately. I hope that that answers the point.
For the record, I would like to clear up issues raised by the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), and by the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), about the role of the Law Officers in this matter. Although the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford said—I hope I quote her accurately—that it is common for Ministers to say whether they have had advice from Law Officers, page 447 of “Erskine May” states:
“By longstanding convention observed by successive Governments, the fact of, and substance of advice from, the law officers of the Crown is not disclosed outside Government”.
I hope that that helps to clarify the matter.
It is nevertheless important to reassure the House that the Crown Prosecution Service was involved in discussions with ACPO and officials soon after the written judgment was received. I hope that the Chairman of the Select Committee—he is not in his place at the moment—will be reassured when he reads what I had to say. The CPS has certainly been involved in trying to assess the legal implications at the same time as ACPO was trying to assess the practical implications.
Yvette Cooper
The issue of the involvement of the Attorney-General is important. It is not simply about whether the Government might be prejudicing their case in a trial, which has been the traditional reason why the content of legal advice is not disclosed; it is about whether the Government did the right thing in response to a very pressing situation. The Minister really needs to confirm whether the Attorney-General intervened in the case in the hearing before the Supreme Court, which the Supreme Court gave him the opportunity to do. Did he do that earlier this week or not? Given that, according to Lord Goldsmith in his evidence to the Constitutional Affairs Committee, the Attorney-General has the power to bring or intervene in other legal proceedings in the public interest, did the Attorney-General consider whether he could intervene in the public interest by a request for a stay of judgment?
Nick Herbert
The right hon. Lady continues to seek to make what appears to me to be political hay out of this situation when the Government are doing everything they can to redress it. I noted yesterday that she made the absurd suggestion that somehow there had been a delay regarding the Supreme Court’s refusal to grant a stay of execution, which might have explained why it refused the stay. On her own analysis, the Supreme Court would have granted a stay of execution—or might have done so—when the implications of this judgment were not clear, yet for some reason it decided not to grant the stay of execution when the implications were made clear. The right hon. Lady takes a whole set of completely inconsistent positions simply because she wants to make political points that are inappropriate when we are seeking to address a serious political matter.
Let me return to the impact on the police and to specific questions—
Nick Herbert
I want to make some progress, if the right hon. Lady will forgive me, as I have only five minutes left.
Specific questions were raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) and for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood). The police have assured us that they are doing all they can to ensure that public safety is not compromised, and are taking interim steps to manage the situation in its current form given the current state of the law as expressed by the High Court. However, they are anxious for the law to be restated in the future.
My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon rightly raised the issue of the protection of victims and witnesses, which is at the centre of our approach. The police service shares our concern about the issue. The chief constable of Essex, Jim Barker-McCardle, has written to all chief police officers repeating his assurance that the service remains completely focused on doing all it can to protect the public, who, of course, include victims and witnesses.
Three substantive issues were raised by Members in all parts of the House. First, it was asked whether we should take the opportunity provided by the Bill to engage in what the shadow Home Secretary called a wider debate about, for instance, whether time limits on the use of police bail would be necessary. The right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras raised the issue of protracted bail periods, and my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) said that we should not give the green light to the keeping of suspects on bail, by which I assume he meant inappropriately.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary responded on that issue, but let me add that I do not think it appropriate to amend emergency legislation that seeks simply to restore the status quo ante by introducing limits on the use of police bail that have not applied for 25 years without proper consideration. As I said last Thursday, as far as I am aware no representations have been made to the Government about the inadequacy of police bail. Although in recent days some have suggested that it has been a cause of growing concern, I believe that they should set out that concern in a proper manner and on the basis of evidence. We need to have a proper debate about the issue, and were the Government to conclude that changes were needed, there would have to be proper consultation. Such provisions cannot be introduced in the emergency legislation.
It appears to me that opportunities are being taken to make statements that are not necessarily correct. For example, I noticed that the press release that accompanied this morning’s call by members of the legal profession for a delay in the legislation included the following statement by a spokesman from Mary Monson Solicitors, a firm that was involved in the original case:
“The legislation is being rushed through now without proper debate to widen police powers”.
It does not “widen police powers”; it restores to the police powers that they have had for 25 years. That is a serious misrepresentation of what the Bill seeks to do.
Frank Dobson
Does the Minister not accept that if we are to have a rational, evidence-based debate about the possible increase in protracted bail periods, it will be necessary for the Home Office actually to collect some data? Otherwise we shall all be just talking.
Nick Herbert
I am all in favour of evidence-based policy, but I think that rather than its merely being asserted that there is a problem, such a problem, if it exists, must be properly presented and, of course, backed up with data.
Secondly, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) suggested that the Bill should include a sunset clause. The Government disagree. A sunset clause would create further uncertainty, which is exactly what the police do not want. We do not want it either. This is a straightforward piece of legislation that restores the previous position. We also believe that the retrospective action that is being taken is necessary, because if it were not taken, hundreds of thousands of people would potentially have a claim for false imprisonment at any time over the past six years, which is the limitation period. Liberty has said:
“We do not believe that the proposals are retrospective in their nature as they do not seek retrospectively to create a criminal offence, sanction or other burden.”
This is a sensible piece of legislation which was designed to correct an unusual judgment and restore 25 years of legal practice, and I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Committee of the whole House (Order, this day).
Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. As Members will be aware, News Corporation’s proposed acquisition of BSkyB is now a matter of great public importance and interest. Rumours are circulating, and briefings are coming from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport that the Secretary of State intends to delay his decision for a minimum of three months. On an issue of such importance, and on the day when we hear that the phones of the families of brave men and women who died fighting for this country in Iraq and Afghanistan were hacked, the least the Secretary of State should do is come to the House as a matter of urgency this afternoon and make a statement.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
As you know, Mr Lewis, it is not up to the Chair to demand that Ministers come to the House to make statements. It is very much up to Ministers to make that decision for themselves. Mr Speaker allowed an emergency debate yesterday on the phone hacking issue. I agree that it is a fast-moving and significant issue, but I have not been notified that any Minister intends to come to the House to make a statement today. If that changes however, the House will be told immediately in the usual way.
Police (Detention and Bail) Bill
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)
I call Mr Coaker.
Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)
Perhaps I should explain to Members who were wondering why I was not standing up to speak that I was trying to give others a chance to make a contribution. Some of what I say may appear to repeat aspects of the debate we have already had, and although I do not mind being subjected to barracking, I hope I will not be subjected to barracking over and above what one might normally expect.
As we have now moved into Committee, let me go into a little more detail. To be fair to the Minister, a few moments ago he could have done with a little more time to address some of the measures he is trying to rush through. Clause 1 is essentially the Bill, so it is almost as if we are repeating Second Reading, but let me say again from the outset that we support the provisions in clause 1. We absolutely agree that we need to fast-track the Bill, and the reasons for that are well set out in the explanatory memorandum.
Earlier, the shadow Home Secretary was trying to elicit from the Government answers to two key questions on fast-tracking and the legal advice and preparation—or lack of it—that the Home Office made in introducing the Bill. First, our understanding is that the Attorney-General was asked by the Supreme Court to intervene in the public interest in the application for a stay of judgment. Did the Attorney-General intervene and support the Government? Was he involved in seeking that stay of judgment in the Supreme Court? As I say, we support the fast-tracking of the Bill, but secondly, will the Minister tell us when the Home Office commissioned officials to draw up draft legislation? It would be of interest to us all to know when that advice was commissioned, so that we could have greater clarity about the Bill and the speed with which the Home Office acted. Our view is that it did not act as quickly as it might or should have done.
We do not, in any way, underestimate the importance of and need for speed in this matter, as 80,000 individuals are currently on police bail. If hon. Members have not had the opportunity to look at the submission from The Trade Union and Professional Association for Family Court and Probation Staff—NAPO—I urge them to examine it. That body has put together some case studies that illustrate some of the difficulties that have arisen as a result of the judgments. I shall just discuss one of its examples, which relates to a 24-year-old man arrested on suspicion of an alcohol-fuelled assault and affray. He was held in cells overnight to sober up, and it is believed that that counts towards the 96 hours. His interview was then delayed for a further two hours to wait for the duty solicitor. He was then bailed on condition that he avoided the victim and the pub, and the police are now collecting witness statements and forensic analysis from the site. Five days have already passed since the incident, and so the bail conditions will fall. NAPO’s submission contains other examples, which are set out for the Committee. Those case studies are extremely important and they show why the Government have introduced this fast-track Bill.
In the previous debate the Minister started to respond to some of the questions posed by hon. Members from both sides of the House. If we examine what Liberty, Justice and many hon. Members have said about the Bill, we find that everyone accepts the need for it to be fast-tracked. However, we need to consider what my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) was saying, as it goes to the heart of the matter. As he set out, the Bill contains no sunset clause and, irrespective of whether or not that is the right way to proceed, that does not mean that the Government should not consider some of the issues that people have raised. The fact that everyone accepts the need for it to be fast-tracked does not mean that we should not address the issues relating to time limits for how long somebody can and should be able to remain on police bail, and those concerning some of the conditions that are attached to bail.
I believe that the Minister said earlier that the system had been operating for 25 years without anybody raising such issues and so there was not previously a problem. I do not mean to misquote him, and apologise if I am doing so, but the fact—or not—that these issues have not been raised before does not mean that the Government should not consider examining those that have arisen as a consequence of the judgment. There needs to be a debate. Given that the Bill contains no sunset clause, will the Minister say whether he feels that there is a need for a debate about time limits and the application of conditions in police bail, just to see whether any change to the guidance should be made? There may well be no need as a result of that debate to make such a change, but all this throws up an opportunity for us to discuss with the police and others whether any change is needed.
Steve McCabe
I do not think that I have heard either on Second Reading or during this debate whether someone who decides to leave this country, which at the moment they are perfectly entitled to do, will be subject as of 12 July to the retrospective conditions. Presumably it would cost quite a lot of money and time to try to bring that person back. Is that the kind of problem about which my hon. Friend is concerned? There is a category of people who would be perfectly at liberty to leave the country now because no controls apply to them, but whom we would want to contact and bring back because they are engaged in potentially quite serious offences.
Vernon Coaker
That might well be one example of concern to us all. Whether we use that example or others—the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) cited examples of police bail having gone on and on—we need to consider any constraints or restraints or whether the system works so well that we do not need to worry about it. I would be interested to hear whether the Minister thinks that it is time to discuss that and to see what the evidence tells us, or that we should just carry on.
The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington—it might have been the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert)—mentioned the use of police bail. Do we need to consider that? Is it totally appropriate? Are we sure that it works in the way that we would want in all circumstances?
One of the things about a fast-tracked Bill is that the information that comes to us is fast-tracked, too. Some Members were sent just this morning, when it was published, the report on police detention and bail by the House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution. I do not know whether all Members have managed to see it. Although the Committee does not oppose what the Government are doing, it has raised one or two questions. It wonders whether, because the Bill is being fast-tracked with limited opportunity for amendment, the Government will need to return to consider some of the matters that might otherwise have been debated. It is important to consider the detail now we are in Committee, and the Constitution Committee raises the constitutional issue of the fact that Parliament is legislating before the Supreme Court has made a judgment. The Constitution Committee does not necessarily say that there is anything wrong with that, but states:
“We are concerned that asking Parliament to legislate in these highly unusual circumstances raises difficult issues of constitutional principle as regards both the separation of powers and the rule of law. We have noted the constitutionally important distinction between legislative and adjudicative functions before. We are concerned that, in the understandable”—
note the word “understandable”—
“rush to rectify a problem which the police have identified as being serious and urgent, insufficient time has been allowed for Parliament fully to consider the constitutional implications of what it is being asked to do.”
The Committee says that it will return to the matter later in the year to consider what
“the effect of Parliament legislating in advance of the Supreme Court hearing may be on the Court when it hears the case on 25 July.”
Can the Minister tell the Committee the Government’s view? I appreciate that the Government might have seen the report only relatively recently and I am unsure whether the Minister will have had time fully to consider it. If the Minister has not had time to do that, he might need to ensure that there is a full discussion and debate in the other place.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
One of my concerns is that the decision might mean that the rule was ineffective going back 25 years and that a collection of people who believe that they were wrongly treated during that period might bring claims for compensation. There is some detail about that in the explanatory note and my reading of the clause is that the retrospective effect rules out any such potential issue. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with that and welcome it?
Vernon Coaker
I think so, but we are in Committee and I would need the detail in order to understand what legal advice the Government have had about retrospective effect before I could properly answer the hon. Gentleman. I thought that either the Minister or the Home Secretary had said that all this will apply only as far back as 19 May, when the initial judgment was made. I seek to clarify whether it is possible to apply such provision to cases from the past 25 years. There will be a legal opinion on that and I suppose it will be either one thing or the other.
I have only a few brief points to make, because of course we all agree with the Bill. Clearly, we all want the Bill to become law as soon as possible and certainly before Parliament goes into recess. In answer to the very important question about Royal Assent, the Minister said that the Government aim for the Bill to become law on completion of its passage through the House of Lords, which is on Tuesday. Will he confirm that what he actually means is that Royal Assent will be given at the end of that day? Are the Government aiming for that, or will it definitely be given then? We all want absolute and firm assurance on that, because every Member of the House supports the Bill and will want to know, 100%, that Royal Assent will definitely be in place before the House rises for the summer recess. Of course, that is assuming that the Bill is passed by both Houses.
With those few brief comments and detailed points I will sit down and wait for the Minister’s response or to hear what other Members have to say.
Nigel Mills
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. I should like simply to expand a little further on the point I made in my intervention on the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) about the potential for retrospective effect. We have seen, in relation to other issues earlier this year, how concerned the public are about any possibility of compensation being paid to people who are guilty of offences and are, perhaps, now being denied their right to vote. I expect the public would be incredibly concerned if people who have been through what was thought to be due legal process now had some chance of compensation, no matter how little, because that process, despite having been believed by everyone to be right, might have been ruled technically out of order by one judge in a verdict with which no one seems to agree. I accept the fact that, as is made clear in the explanatory notes, making the Bill’s provisions retrospective, right back to 1984, is an attempt to address that.
My concern is that to some extent we are in this mess because Parliament was not clear enough about its intentions when it passed the 1984 Act. It would be helpful if Parliament was entirely clear about what we mean when we give retrospective effect and if the Minister made explicit the intention, as set out in the explanatory notes, that these powers will be restored to what we all understood them to be for 25 years so that the courts will not allow any compensation claims. The explanatory notes are clear that that is what the Bill is attempting to do.
To try to clarify the point that the hon. Member for Gedling made, if he looks at page 9 of the explanatory notes, he will see that paragraph 36(c) states:
“Unless the Bill is given retrospective effect, it is possible that a very large number of people could bring claims for damages for detention occurring before the judgment, even though that detention was in accordance with what was honestly thought to be a long-understood legal position.”
There could be a huge number of claims and a large amount of money at stake, and it would be very generous to think that some claims-handling firms would not go around trying to find people to make those claims and test the process.
I want to ask the Minister two questions. First, will he make it absolutely clear that the Government’s view, and Parliament’s intention, is that no compensation would be due? Secondly, will he address the point about whether it would be wise to add a separate subsection to the Bill that makes that absolutely explicit so that if and when such claims are brought there is no doubt that our intention is that no compensation should be due?
Nick Herbert
The hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) and my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) have raised a number of concerns that I will try to answer, but first I wish to return to the Opposition’s general allegation about delay. It is simply not the view of senior police officers that there has been inappropriate delay in the matter. The Opposition are claiming something that does not have the support of those most affected by the judgment’s implications.
I attended the ACPO conference in Harrogate this week, which the hon. Gentleman joined for the last day, and talked with the chief constable of Greater Manchester police, the force originally affected. He said that at the time of the oral judgment his force could not believe that a single judgment in Salford could affect all the cases across the country and overturn something that had been operating since 1986. The police force affected did not appreciate at that stage the potential wider implications of the court’s decision. The High Court judge, Mr Justice McCombe, said that the consequences would not be
“as severe as might be feared”,
a view with which the shadow Home Secretary disagrees. As I noted earlier, the ACPO lead on the issue, the chief constable of Essex police, Jim Barker-McCardle, has said:
“It was only when ACPO received the written judgment on 17 June…that the seriousness of the issue became apparent.”
The chief constable of the force concerned did not appreciate the wider implications, the High Court judge said that the consequences were not severe and the ACPO lead said that their seriousness was not appreciated until 17 June, and yet the Opposition appear to know differently and apparently, with astonishing clairvoyance, saw the need for action in May. Neither the police, nor the High Court judge saw the need for action, but the Opposition apparently did. This simply is not a credible position for the Opposition to take. I repeat that the Government acted as fast as we could. In particular, once we received formal advice from ACPO that it believed that emergency legislation was necessary, we acted very fast indeed.
I say to the hon. Member for Gedling—this is an important point—that the Opposition could take a different approach. He may remember that, in 2008, when the Supreme Court ruled on witness anonymity and against the common law understanding of the issue, the then Government decided to introduce emergency legislation and we supported them. I know that we did so because I led for the then Opposition. I did not claim that the Government of the day had in any way delayed, yet that emergency legislation was introduced to almost exactly the same timetable as this legislation after the written judgment had been received. We also hope that this legislation will be on the statute books sooner than that one was, so there is no need to strike such a partisan stance on the matter, given the cross-party agreement that it is necessary to do something. I am sorry that, when we need to consider the substance of the issue, the Opposition have continued to make political points, but I hope that deals with the issue of delay.
The hon. Gentleman also asked whether the Government felt there should be a debate about time limits. My point on Second Reading was that, if there are believed to be problems with the operation of police bail, and if the suggestion is that bail is being extended for too long a period or over-used, those who believe that to be the case should assemble their evidence and present a serious case, at which point I am sure that hon. Members on both sides will debate and consider it carefully.
Such points were made, it seems to the Government, at a very late stage and only when the High Court judgment came in, so we do not think it appropriate to amend the emergency legislation. That does not preclude sensible debate about the matter in future, but I gently point out to the hon. Gentleman that the Opposition did not raise them before that point, either. The House did not appear to be aware of a concern—if, indeed, there is widespread concern, and I do not presume that there is—about the operation of police bail.
The Government certainly do not have a closed mind to the issue, and of course we should pay the closest attention to a proper case, should one be made to us, but we will not arbitrarily and in a rushed manner set limits on the operation of police bail without proper evidence, proper understanding of the problem, proper consultation and proper consideration of the impact of such limits. That is a responsible position to take.
The hon. Gentleman asked also about the Government’s response to the Lords Constitution Committee report, which he correctly said we received just this morning, and in particular our response to its conclusion that there is an issue of constitutional principle regarding the separation of powers and the rule of law, because Parliament is introducing emergency legislation when an appeal is pending to the Supreme Court.
The Government do not see that the decision to legislate in advance of an outcome to that appeal raises any constitutional issues. The sovereignty of Parliament means that it is entirely open to Parliament to legislate at any time in response to a court judgment, and that is what we are doing.
The hon. Gentleman also raised the important issue of retrospection, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) was also concerned in relation to compensation claims. The hon. Member for Gedling wanted in particular to know whether the retrospective nature of the Bill meant it went back only to the original judgment on 19 May. That is not the case, because the High Court judgment itself applied to all cases going back to 1986. The Court, owing to its different understanding of the Bail Act, stated that any cases prior to 1986 may have involved unlawful detention, so this legislation must go all the way back as well. That is why if hon. Members read clause 1(3) they will see the following wording:
“The amendments made by subsections (1) and (2) are deemed always to have had effect.”
That is particularly important because we need to create legal certainty. As I said on Second Reading, it is important that we do not permit what might otherwise be the bringing of a rash of legal cases.
Vernon Coaker
The Minister is providing helpful clarity in responding to what the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) and I said. Without having the legal support that the Minister does, it was not immediately obvious to me that that was the case, and I was worried about it. His reply will give a sense of relief to all sane people throughout the country.
Nick Herbert
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s support, although I did it almost all on my own without the legal support that he claims. Nevertheless, that is the effect of the Bill, and that is important because it means that there is no doubt about the matter. Any claim based on what the High Court has said since the May judgment would not succeed because Parliament is stating clearly that the original understanding of the legislation should apply. I am happy to put on record that the Government’s, and I believe Parliament’s, intention is not to allow compensation claims that may have arisen as a consequence of this judgment. It is expressly our desire to prevent such claims, which would be improper and unwarranted in the circumstances.
The hon. Member for Gedling asked me a specific question about the Home Office’s preparedness for legislation—that is, did we prepare on a contingency basis before ACPO came to us with its formal request on the necessity for emergency legislation? ACPO presented its case to me on the morning of Thursday 30 June, and I made my oral statement less than two hours later. The Home Office had already studied the judgment, considered possible legislative vehicles, and prepared instructions to parliamentary counsel that were sent on the same day in time for a first draft of the legislation to be received later that day. We acted explicitly and swiftly. Of course, the drafting was not complicated because this is a straightforward Bill that simply restores the status quo ante.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether it was merely our aim that the Bill should receive Royal Assent next Tuesday or whether it would receive Royal Assent next Tuesday. Of course, that is a matter for the other place, but it is very much our hope and expectation that we will have Royal Assent on 19 May once the other place has considered the Bill. [Interruption.] I am sorry—I should have said 19 July. There is always a danger in reading things without my glasses. As I have said, the Bill will take effect once Royal Assent is received. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman’s specific questions.
Vernon Coaker
This is a hugely important issue not only for the police but for the confidence of the public in ensuring that we are doing as much as we can, as swiftly as we can, to protect them from the people they need protecting from. Notwithstanding our difference about the delay, it was helpful for the Minister to clarify some of those specific points, and I thank him for that.
Nick Herbert
For the record, may I correct what I said about when the Bill will receive Royal Assent? I should have said 12 July, not 19 July. That was written in larger writing, but I could not see it.
Vernon Coaker
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is the Minister absolutely certain that he has got it right this time?
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dawn Primarolo)
I believe that the Minister is absolutely certain. I am going to put on my glasses to ensure that I get things right.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.
Bill reported, without amendment.
Third reading
Nick Herbert
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I do not need to detain the House, because there is broad agreement about the importance of this legislation and the substance of it. I hope that I have answered the questions that have been raised during the Bill’s passage. There will, of course, be a further opportunity to consider any issues when the other place debates the Bill on Tuesday. I hope that the fact that questions have been raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House indicates that there has been proper scrutiny of the Bill. It is a short Bill, but important questions were nevertheless raised about it. The Government are grateful for the support of the official Opposition and hon. Members on both sides of the House for this important legislation, which will simply restore 25 years of previously understood legal and police practice, and enable the police to do their job. I commend the Bill to the House.
Vernon Coaker
The official Opposition are pleased that the Bill has progressed swiftly through the House. It is a very small Bill, but it is none the less very important. Important points have been raised, and the Minister sought to address them. No doubt that will inform the debate in the other place. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the judicial system, the vast majority of people in this country will have had an “I can’t believe it!” moment in relation to this matter. When the House has passed the legislation, it will help to give the police the clarity that they need with respect to the law, so that they can deal with some difficult cases and individuals in the proper and professional way in which they carry out their business. I hope that this unsatisfactory situation will be resolved as swiftly as possible.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Business without Debate
Committee on Members’ Allowances
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
With the agreement of the House, we will take motions 9 and 10 together.
I must tell the House that Mr Speaker has selected amendments (c) and (d) to motion 9 and amendment (b) to motion 10. The debate will therefore be on the two motions and the three selected amendments. If amendment (c) to motion 9 is not agreed to, I will allow amendment (b) to motion 10 to be moved in a slightly amended form, to reflect the decision of the House on the name of the Committee. I will, of course, ensure that the House is fully aware of which amendment we are voting on as we progress. In due course I will call Mr Afriyie to move the first of his amendments, but we begin with the Minister.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)
I beg to move,
That Standing Order No. 152G (Committee on Members’ Allowances) shall be amended as follows—
(1) in line 2, leave out ‘Allowances’ and insert ‘Expenses’; and
(2) leave out lines 3 to 17 and insert ‘to consider such matters relating to Members’ expenses as may be referred to it by the House;’.
Madam Deputy Speaker
With this we shall discuss the following motion, on the review of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009:
That, further to the instruction to the Committee on Members’ Allowances of 12 May, it be an instruction to the Committee on Members’ Expenses to report to the House on the review of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 by 31 December 2011.
Mr Heath
The motions would amend the terms of reference of the Committee on Members’ Allowances, in advance of its review of the operation of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009. Earlier, Madam Deputy Speaker, you may have heard my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House say in business questions that he would find it very difficult to find additional time to debate the matter before the recess, but by happenstance we now have adequate time to do the job today. I am extremely pleased that that is the case.
On 12 May, the House gave an instruction to the Committee on Members’ Allowances to review the 2009 Act,
“giving due consideration to ensuring:
(a) value for money for taxpayers;
(b) accountability;
(c) public confidence in Parliament;
(d) the ability of Members to fulfil their duties effectively;
(e) fairness for less well-off Members and those with families; and
(f) that Members are not deterred from submitting legitimate claims.”
The debate was initiated through the Backbench Business Committee by the hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie), who I am pleased to see in his place. Following a good debate, the House agreed to the instruction without a Division.
Since May, the Government have been in discussion with colleagues in the House on changes to the terms of reference of the Committee on Members’ Allowances, given its change in remit. I express my gratitude to my long-suffering right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Mr Randall) for his efforts in seeking consensus on a sensible approach.
One of the Government’s proposals following consultation was that the Chair be removed from the list of Select Committee Chairs receiving an additional salary, which was approved by the House on Tuesday 5 July. There are two outstanding motions that have previously been objected to and remain to be approved. Motion 9 would amend the Standing Order relating to the Committee by changing its name to the Committee on Members’ Expenses. That terminology reflects the fact that the current scheme, operated by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, is an expenses-based system, not an allowances-based one.
Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)
I echo the Deputy Leader of the House’s thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Mr Randall) for his help in ensuring that we bring this matter to a swift resolution.
The instruction issued to the Committee on 12 May was that it review the 2009 Act, which does not relate directly to expenses. My concern is that calling it an expenses Committee and limiting its remit would in some way prevent it from doing its work of reviewing the 2009 Act. If the Deputy Leader of the House can confirm that the change will in no way narrow the Committee’s ability to do its work of reviewing the Act and producing recommendations, there will be very little to detain us.
Mr Heath
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Let me make it absolutely clear to the House that the change in wording in no way restricts the ability of the Committee to consider the issue of allowances as it relates to the review of the operation of the Act. The Committee will be free to consider the issue of allowances and to make recommendations as it sees fit. The Government have no intention of seeking to restrict the Committee’s remit in the way that is feared.
Mr Leigh
I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has said. Of course, I have no idea what the Committee will decide, but for instance—for the sake of argument—if it were to recommend that the current expense-based system on living away should be replaced by a flat-rate allowance, would that be perfectly in order?
Mr Heath
Indeed, it can make any recommendations based on the considerations into which it has entered. It would be a very odd restriction on a Committee if it were to be told that it cannot make recommendations when it has considered a matter. Of course, such recommendations would be the end result if the Committee so chooses.
Motion 9 also brings the Committee’s terms of reference up to date. The Committee has a number of specific functions, set out in Standing Order No. 152G(1)(a) to (d), in relation to the old allowances regime that was administered by the House until the election last year. They include, for example, approving practice notes for the now-defunct fees office. Clearly, those specific powers are no longer relevant—they are, in effect, spent—and the motion provides the House with an opportunity to replace them with a more general power to consider any matter related to Members’ expenses that the House might choose to refer to it.
I sense from the interventions from the hon. Members for Windsor and for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) that they have received some reassurance from what I have said.
Mr Bacon
I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House can reassure me. He said that the motion brings the Standing Order up to date because the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority is operating an expenses-based scheme, not an allowances scheme. I have looked at the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009. It mentions the word “allowance” or “allowances” 37 times. Therefore, the authority under which IPSA operates—the Act—provides for allowances. It does not provide any authority to operate an expenses scheme. Can he clarify that for me?
Mr Heath
I can simply make it clear that IPSA does what it believes to be in line with the Act. The Committee will be free to consider those matters and to bring forward recommendations as it sees fit. I do not think that I can be more open than simply saying that no restriction is applied by the terms of the motions.
Mr Bacon
I am grateful to the Deputy Leader of the House for being as open as he thinks he can be, but I am still not quite clear. The 2009 Act could not be clearer. The words “expense” or “expenses” are not mentioned anywhere—I just searched a PDF copy of the Act and found that those words are mentioned nowhere in it—but the words “allowance” or “allowances” are mentioned 37 times. How can it be that IPSA operates a scheme that it thinks is in line with the Act if it ignores the terms of the Act? That is what I simply do not understand.
Mr Heath
It is probably not helpful for me to rehearse the subject matter of considerations that will clearly take place in the Committee. I do not speak for IPSA, but it has made it very clear that the current system is one of expenses, whereby Members are reimbursed for costs that they can prove they have incurred. The previous, discredited scheme was one of allowances, whereby Members were allowed to claim, in many cases, with no proof of actual expenditure. I repeat that changing the title of the Committee would not prevent it from proposing that IPSA should introduce a new system that includes an element of allowances, but it would be better if the Committee’s title actually reflected the scheme that is in operation rather than one that is not in operation.
Adam Afriyie
From the reassurance the Deputy Leader of the House has given, I am satisfied that the remit of the Committee and the review will not be restricted, and we can look at everything and come to a calm, considered conclusion. My final question is on the timing of the formation of the Committee, given that we have had a 49-hour stutter in the proceedings.
Mr Heath
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what I take to be an indication that he will not press his amendment. That is good, because it means that everyone has the same understanding of what we are doing. In terms of timing, I know that the Leader of the House is champing at the bit to take the necessary steps to allow the Committee of Selection to establish the Committee. Indeed, I think it would probably have already been done had it not been for the delays—albeit quite proper delays—occasioned by the objections and amendments that have been tabled. If we can dispose of this business today, I have every confidence that the Committee will be up and running at a very early date. We will then be in business, which is what the hon. Gentleman wants.
Adam Afriyie
I appreciate that one can never predict the future, but can the Deputy Leader of the House say whether he expects that the Committee will be formed this side of the recess?
Adam Afriyie
Then I can say on my own behalf, and possibly on behalf of others, that I will not press my amendments. I thank the Deputy Leader of the House for his assurance and I thank the Leader of the House for the calm and considered way in which he has approached the issue.
Mr Heath
I am extremely grateful and I hope that, subject of course to the will of the House in approving the recommendation by the Committee of Selection in due course, we will be able to make quick progress.
Motion 10 asks the Committee to report back to the House on the issue tasked to it by 31 December 2011. That date allows the views of the Committee to be considered to a time scale that fits in with the next annual review of the expenses scheme by IPSA, which is expected early next year. A delay in reporting risks the ability of IPSA to consider, consult on and implement in an orderly way any changes that may be proposed. I gather that we may not now have a Division on the amendment, which I am very pleased about. Otherwise, we might have a delay that would obstruct the work of the Committee.
The House agreed on 12 May that a review of the operation of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 should take place. The Government are keen that the Committee is set up without any more unnecessary delay and gets on with the important work that the House has tasked it with, and I commend the motions to the House.
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
The Opposition welcome the fact that these motions are being debated today, and welcome even more that the House appears to be moving towards some consensus. It is of course a matter for Back Benchers to decide, but it is important that we get this Committee set up and running as soon as possible, because the scheme clearly needs amendment.
I see the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) in his place. Like me, he sits on the liaison committee with IPSA and we spend a lot of time trying to iron out problems in the scheme. It is imperative therefore that we reach a sensible position that both maintains public confidence in the scheme and does not use up too much of the time of hon. Members, who are fast becoming the highest paid data input clerks in the country.
Anyone who has read the National Audit Office report published today—I have had the time to read only some of it—will be clear that much work needs to be done on the scheme. The NAO quantifies the amount of time it is taking for Members and their staff, and actually puts a monetary value on that. It also comments on the repetitive nature of much of the information that is required. We clearly need to have a transparent expenses system. I do not think that anyone in the House would suggest anything else. However, we need to have one that facilitates the work of hon. Members and does not get in the way of our much more important work of representing our constituents. I am grateful to hon. Members involved for their work in setting up the Committee, which I hope can play a major role in ensuring that the scheme we have works properly and in the best interests of our constituents and the House. I look forward to the Committee being set up and being able to get on with its work as soon as possible.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker, for not having been here at the outset, but I was chairing Westminster Hall and it was not possible to get a substitute as quickly as I had hoped.
I hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) that much progress has been made during this short debate. I am certainly pleased to hear that. There is a lesson here: if the Government table motions on the Order Paper that are inconsistent with a resolution of the House agreed to as a result of a Back-Bench debate and do not discuss their reasons for tabling the motion, it creates a climate of suspicion. That climate of suspicion was confirmed yesterday, when the Committee of Selection was set up to confirm the membership of the Committee on Members’ Allowances but at the last minute did not deal with the business at hand. I understand that it has been confirmed during this debate that there will be a special meeting today of the Committee of Selection to set up the Committee so that the latter can organise itself to meet next week. I do not know whether that interpretation is correct, but I understand that that is what has been agreed.
Why did we have to go through all this? It is regrettable that this adversarial attitude has been created over an issue that everybody on both sides of the House takes very seriously—IPSA’s administration of our allowances system. Yesterday, I went on to the IPSA website to make a claim for the past month—it was my first claim for a month—and I found that four previous items that I claimed for had been sent back. I will not go into the details except to say that after more than an hour on the telephone all those matters were resolved. However, it should never have taken so long. It was a matter of process dominating common sense and reality. The person from IPSA wasted more than an hour on the telephone. I had to waste more than an hour on the telephone. There were lots of delays and as a result one member of my staff was not paid as quickly as they should have been. That is why it is important that this Committee is set up with the terms of reference that we are debating this afternoon.
Mr Leigh
My hon. Friend can be reassured because we have had a categorical reassurance from the Deputy Leader of the House that there will be absolutely no restriction on what the Committee can decide or recommend. I have the greatest faith in our Front-Bench team—as far as I am concerned, their word is their bond.
Mr Chope
I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. I hope that when the Committee of Selection meets, he will be selected as a member of the Committee, with my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor as its Chairman. With those two on the Committee, I have little doubt that it can do some effective work. However, I still do not understand why it has taken so long to set it up. It was resolved on 12 May that it should be set up, but it is now almost 12 July.
I see that quite a few members of the Treasury Bench are in their places. I hope that they will learn a lesson from this—that we should be much more open with each other about these issues instead of creating or facilitating a climate of suspicion. It is possibly only because today’s business collapsed more than two hours early that we have had the chance to have this open and frank discussion on the Floor of the House on this important issue. When the report—or reports—come back from the Committee, I hope that the Government will again be open and frank, and allow us to ensure that the recommendations are debated and carried into action. That way, there will be no need to spend even more parliamentary time trying to get the Government to do what was agreed by the Prime Minister as long ago as before last December, as I recall, when he made it clear that if something did not happen by April, he would ensure that pressure would be put on IPSA to get its act together.
All’s well that ends well—I hope. In that respect, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor for briefing me on what transpired earlier in the debate. I hope that it will be confirmed in the response to this debate that the members of the Committee will be appointed by the Committee of Selection today, so that they can get down to their work first thing next week.
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
I shall be very brief. I am delighted by the Government’s reassurances, although I share the disappointment that it has taken since the resolution was passed in May to get to the point of setting up the Committee. If something had been decided that our constituents expected would happen, but then six or seven weeks later it had still not happened, we as Members would be advocating hard on their behalf. I am therefore glad that the decision has finally been made.
I want to make one point about the National Audit Office report that was published this morning, to which the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) referred. I have had a look at it, and I think that it looks fairly reasonable. I know that one or two Members who have looked at it are slightly disappointed that it does not appear to tear IPSA limb from limb. However, given what had taken place—the MPs’ expenses crisis and the response that came forth with the new legislation—IPSA has done its best. We know that there is still further to go, and my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House drew attention to the terms of reference—the need for improved public confidence, better accountability and better value for money, and not deterring legitimate claims. We all know that legitimate claims have been deterred, that we need to get value for money and that there is still some work to do, so I am delighted that the Committee can now proceed with its work.
Mr Heath
I am most grateful to colleagues who have participated in this brief debate. I do not think that any of us seek to minimise the difficulties that have on occasion arisen over the last year in the operation of IPSA. As we all know, there are numerous bodies trying to iron out the problems and produce a more user-friendly, but at the same time rigorous approach to the whole subject. The Committee that we are setting up—that the House has asked to be set up—will go a long way towards dealing with the more fundamental review of the legislation, to ensure that it is fit for purpose, and coming up with recommendations.
I have to say to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) that if he had doubts about the wording of the Government motions, we would all have been delighted to discuss his concerns with him and allay any fears. As I mentioned earlier, the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Mr Randall) has spent quite some time discussing with interested Members the implications of the Government amendments, and to a large extent was able to reassure those who had a fundamental interest in the establishment of the Committee that their fears were groundless and that this was a real attempt to facilitate its setting up.
Mr Chope
Does the Minister accept that, if those fears had been allayed, my hon. Friends the Members for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) and for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) would not have had to table the amendments that are being debated today? How is what he has just said consistent with the Government’s action yesterday in withdrawing from the business of the Committee of Selection the appointment of the members of this Committee? Finally, may I ask my hon. Friend why the opportunity for a short, five-minute debate was not taken—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. The hon. Gentleman has made his speech. I must also tell him that we are discussing motions 9 and 10 together, and that no amendments have been moved.
Mr Heath
I am most grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
It would clearly have been entirely inappropriate for the Committee of Selection to pre-empt the decision of the House, and the House was prevented from taking a decision by the fact that amendments had been tabled that would have been treated as an objection to the order unless we could find time to debate it. Happily, we have had time to do so today, and I hope that I have been helpful to colleagues. I know that the Committee of Selection will be eager to meet at the earliest opportunity in order to make recommendations, which will then have to go before the House, to enable the Committee to be set up. We can now proceed without any further obstruction, should the House agree to the two motions that we have now debated. I hope that we can now do so with expedition.
Question put and agreed to.
Review of parliamentary Standards act 2009
Ordered,
That, further to the instruction to the Committee on Members’ Allowances of 12 May, it be an instruction to the Committee on Members’ Expenses to report to the House on the review of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 by 31 December 2011.— (Bill Wiggin.)
Barnett Formula
Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)
This is my first time presenting a petition in this place, and I did not expect to be doing it at this particular hour. I was hoping to do it a tiny bit later, because waiting for me in the Pugin Room are four Daventry councillors who are enjoying their afternoon tea while mine goes cold. However, this is a very important petition.
In the beautiful village of East Haddon in my constituency, there is a wonderful pub called the Red Lion. The talk of the town in East Haddon is not windmills, although we have plenty of them around the place, and they are the talk of the town in other parts of my constituency; nor is it High Speed 2, although the people who live in the village of Byfield will most certainly be talking about that in the pub. The talk of the town in East Haddon is the Barnett formula. A number of my petitioners, perhaps over a nice cold dry white wine one evening, got very excited about the Barnett formula, and about the fact that English people are being hard done by in regard to a fair and equal per capita distribution of taxpayers’ money across my constituency. They are therefore petitioning the House of Commons. Dr Angus Walker has put this together, and I hope that I can do him justice here today.
The petition states:
The Petition of residents of Daventry,
Declares that the Petitioners believe that the use of the Barnett Formula in the distribution of Government funds should be replaced with an equal per capita distribution for all races in the United Kingdom; notes that the Petitioners believe it to be iniquitous that some parts of the United Kingdom are discriminated against because of race; and further notes that the Petitioners consider that it is wrong to permit such discrimination to be exempted in law.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to discontinue the use of the Barnett Formula in the distribution of Government funds and replace it with an equal per capita distribution for all races in the United Kingdom.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P000935]
Ian Puddick (Internet Crime)
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
I do not know whether it is something in the water, but Enfield has recently produced constituents whose cases are of high national importance, which are challenging legislation, international treaties and guidance. I refer, of course, to my constituent Gary McKinnon, to Andrew Symeou in the neighbouring constituency, and to Ian Puddick, the subject of this Adjournment debate.
I do not wish to entertain the House with the salacious details of this case, which are at times complex and at other times bizarre and, frankly, quite frightening. I wish to explore the principles and practice involved in the case, about which the whole House will no doubt be concerned, as they are fundamental. My primary concern, which again the whole House doubtless shares, is with the principle of equality before the law—the principle that money and wealth should not be used to warp the course of natural justice and that equality should not be eroded in the age of the internet and super-injunctions, which we have seen in recent times.
It is only right for me to start by explaining some of the details of my constituent’s case. In June 2009, Mr Puddick became aware that his wife was having an affair with her employer, who is a board member of a large reinsurance firm. He found on her phone explicit text messages from this man, which then led to his wife’s confession that the affair had been ongoing for some 10 years. In his emotional state, my constituent began calling clients of this large firm, informing them that their manager had used company expenses to fund an affair with another employee. When the manager concerned became aware of this, he hired a private security firm, linked to his organisation, to discredit my constituent and to build a case of harassment against him. Mr Puddick received a phone call from the chief executive of the security firm, who reportedly said, “Our pockets are deep…we will bury you.” How was he buried?
In August the same year, my constituent’s home, office and his company accountants were raided by 16 officers from the City of London police counter- terrorism and major crimes directorate. They removed his personal computers, his mobile phones, laptops, digital cameras and even his personal sat-nav and sent all this equipment to a high-technology crime laboratory for testing.
My constituent was subsequently arrested and decided not to have a lawyer. He then gave a full and frank confession that he made those phone calls to clients and he apologised for it. He was then charged and stringent police bail conditions were attached. On the first occasion he attended court, the bail conditions were relaxed as it became immediately apparent that my constituent was a man of good character and not likely to commit any act of violence or to make any threats. The court realised that the case needed to be dealt with proportionately.
I understand from my constituent that, to the surprise of the magistrates, when the officers were asked about the evidence that provided the basis for this case of harassment, it became clear that my constituent’s wife had not even provided a statement. Despite all the extreme, disproportionate and expensive investigations that had gone on, which seemed to suggest a major crime, the one witness statement that one would have expected to have been brought forward did not materialise. Any right-minded person listening to the debate—and certainly those listening at the back of the court at which Mr Puddick first came into the public gaze—would have questioned why this was happening.
A trial was set for April the following year. Before that date the man who had had an affair with Mr Puddick’s wife resigned from his position, and the case was dropped. One might have thought that that would be the end of it, and that there would simply have been complaints to the Independent Police Complaints Commission—as, indeed, there were—which would have been processed in the usual way.
If the case had ended in that way we would not have ended up discussing it here at 4.15 on a Thursday afternoon, but Mr Puddick was rightly appalled by what had happened, and particularly concerned about the disproportionate actions that he felt had been taken by the police. For reasons of his own, which one may understand and with which one may feel a great deal of sympathy, he set up a blog—www.ianpuddick.com—to which he uploaded a love letter that had been sent to his wife, as well as a video describing the disproportionate response of the police and questioning the actions of the private security firm. Entries to the website www.policeexpenses.com and other similar addresses were redirected to the original blog.
What then happened, in May 2010, seemed to my constituent to have come out of nowhere. He was arrested again, this time not by local detectives but by the City of London police murder squad. He was told by investigating officers that he could not put that information on the internet. He replied, “I am just putting out information that is true.” The response from the police, which might be considered chilling by anyone concerned about freedom of speech, was, apparently, “Even if it is completely true, you have committed a criminal offence.”
Mr Puddick was subsequently charged, again, with harassment, but on this occasion on the specific grounds that he had created and distributed three websites which were designed to discredit an individual both professionally and personally. He denied all the allegations, and the case went to the magistrates court in June this year. It was put to the magistrates that Mr Puddick was guilty of harassment through Facebook, Twitter and his websites, and it was partly because of those extra allegations that the case made national headlines. However, it was proved in court through cross-examination at an early stage that there had been no use of Facebook or Twitter.
I understand that an officer from City of London police offered the explanation that the counter-terrorism and murder squads had been called because of the level of distress that she believed my constituent was causing through his websites. One can only speculate, looking at other websites, on whether such distress constitutes grounds for using the precious and important resources of the counter-terrorism and murder squads. I am glad that the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) is present to note my concern in that regard. My constituent was finally found not guilty of the charge of harassment on 17 June this year.
Having listened to that extraordinary tale, some may believe that it involves a purely operational issue which really belongs on the pages of the tabloids—where it did indeed appear in this instance—rather than in the Chamber. However, as I said at the outset, there is a key point of principle: the principle of equality before the law. As my constituent has stated on numerous occasions, if this could happen to him, it could happen to anyone.
I want to raise two key points with the Minister. The first is the apparent influence of wealth and authority on the implementation of the law. It seems clear that had it not been for the well-connected private security company and the high profile of the business involved, my constituent would not have experienced such a disproportionate use of force and response. If there is another reason, no one is aware of it. Indeed, it is interesting that the man who had the affair with Mr Puddick’s wife was even advised by police in Sussex—the county where he lives—that this was a civil, not a criminal, matter, and anyone looking at this case would say that that seems to be a very reasonable judgment to make. Despite that, City of London police were approached and the raid in May 2009 followed. My constituent argues that the second raid almost a year later, following the publication of the blog and website, was also based on information that came from the private security firm and outside interests.
We can go back into history—indeed, all the way back to AD 43, when there was the first recorded mention of equality before the law, by Pericles, and we can then eventually go on to the Magna Carta and other important integral documents in our constitutional law that establish that equality before the law is an important principle. Pericles stated:
“If we look to the laws, they afford equal justice to all in their private differences…class considerations not being allowed to interfere with merit”.
Those words and our fundamental principles based on the Magna Carta and established through international law and treaty obligations would seem to be all but forgotten when the 16 counter-terrorism officers from City of London police raided a residential property because, from the point of view of my constituent, who is a mere plumber, that seemed to be in the interests of more powerful and wealthy business interests, which were concerned about the effects on reputation and sought to challenge the concepts of free speech and the truth.
One could take a view about the appropriateness of how my constituent went about this matter. One could criticise that and say that it was not right, but questions have to be raised about the fact that those actions were criminalised to the extent that they were, and that the police decided to act in the way they did and used the resources they used, which is why the matter has come to this Chamber. This is a fundamental issue in the wider context of our legal system. As a practising lawyer, I have concerns, but this should be of great concern to all Members.
I do not need to remind the House of the recent super-injunction controversy and the complexity added to that by Twitter and the open-platform social media that provide a forum. The key issue in that debate was not merely the affairs and the scandals, but the fact that our legal system sought to support, or some would say protect, those individuals of some privilege who were able, through wealth and influence, to seek to protect their reputations and their future incomes, regardless in some respects of the consequences and the human collateral damage.
It appears that my constituent’s experience is not an isolated one, since having secured this debate I was contacted by Dr Howard Fredrics, who is similarly charged with harassment because of a website exposing misconduct by officials at Kingston university. Even though, as I am also informed, Kingston police found no evidence of harassment, the Crown Prosecution Service went ahead with a case against Dr Fredrics, just as the CPS decided not to take account of Sussex police advice and a case was mounted against Mr Puddick. In both cases the common factor seems to be people and institutions of influence, and one would have to say that the concept of the rule of law has been challenged. Those are two examples, but there may be more, which might have gone unnoticed because of the under-reporting of magistrates court cases. The reason for this debate is that they should not go unnoticed by this House or the Government.
The disproportionate response to my constituent’s case raises fundamental questions, and we cannot cast them aside as an operational blip. The reaction casts a shadow over the way in which we respond to issues, not least issues of free speech. These issues are becoming much more complex, but they are so important. That applies to matters on the internet and online, and matters outside and offline.
The issues raised by my constituent’s case, which relate to free speech and the way in which the prosecuting authorities deal with enforcement, particularly in respect of the internet, are important and of wider significance. When dealing with cases of cyber-stalking or online harassment, it is important to consider how enforcement is applied and how the guidance really does affect these issues.
We need to recognise that there is no suggestion that Mr Puddick’s comments on his website were untrue. The prosecution because of his comments relied on the argument that the repetition and spreading of the factual points amounted to harassment. It is important for me to make it clear that I entirely agree with the Government’s policy and approach to this issue. The case law and policy make it clear that harassment is illegal online as much as it is illegal offline. We learn of some awful cases of cyber-stalking, and they should properly be prosecuted and punishable with the full force of the criminal law. If an individual persistently contacts or attempts to contact a victim and the court concludes that that conduct constitutes harassment, the police need to follow through proportionately to where the evidence leads them and a prosecution needs to follow, where appropriate. That should happen regardless of whether such behaviour occurs in person or through online social media.
I recognise that sound guidance is in place on dealing with cyber-stalking and harassment. I invite the Minister to consider, after this debate, whether that guidance is fit for purpose and whether it is appropriate, particularly given how it seems to have been wholly misapplied in the case of Ian Puddick. The Government are rightly examining areas of vulnerability in respect of young people and those with disabilities, who need particular protection when it comes to dealing with the internet. We need to recognise that we have a particularly strong duty to those people, and it is right that the Government, in applying the guidance, are examining those areas. We also need to ensure that the fundamental principle of the equality of the law is applied across the board.
As is clear from the account that I have given, it is clear that the proper guidance and way to apply that guidance is far removed from what happened in Mr Puddick’s case. He was told that he was not allowed to put up his website because it, in effect, damaged the reputation of another individual and that that damage amounted to illegal harassment. Since this case has reached the public gaze, several commentators have remarked that if Mr Puddick had been found guilty, the floodgates would have been opened for a number of other such claims.
I am sure that other hon. Members, perhaps in an unguarded moment, would be tempted by the possibility of prosecuting the odd blogger who wrote an article about them with which they disagreed. I have had an attack website constructed against me. It is dedicated to opposing me and, some would say, to damaging my reputation, and colleagues would doubtless be able to give examples of different actions that have taken place. However, many of us would also recognise that there is a role and place for the law, including the civil law—there is no doubt that the law on libel and defamation has a role to play. I welcome the Government’s review into super-injunctions, which is examining how we can properly ensure that our approach to these whole areas of privacy, and libel and defamation are made fit for the modern-day purpose. I would also welcome a proper look at the current Crown Prosecution Service guidelines and how they apply in all the different circumstances.
I am calling for a level playing field—the level playing field that has been established over many years and that this country, rightly, is proud to promote and apply. I hope that my constituent’s case will set a precedent or at least be a marker to suggest that such websites and blogs should be properly considered in the context of an appropriate and proportionate application of guidance in both criminal and civil law. It is important that, as online technology develops rapidly, we ensure that the Government also allow for proper clarity in their guidance so that we do not face situations such as that which sadly caused detriment to Mr Puddick.
We also need to be particularly watchful when criminal law is involved. Cases such as Mr Puddick’s might be rare—we do not have the exact numbers—but we need to recognise that when there is enforcement by the police, liberty is lost and other consequences arise, we must be ever watchful and mindful of the serious repercussions and how they can chip away at, or even take a chunk out, of the fundamental principles that we all hold dear.
In conclusion, the issue in this case is not the affair that some people might have been interested in reporting on, and it is not about my constituent and his phone calls to clients. This is not about the man or the affair. The issue is whether Ian Puddick has made the case that large companies and private security firms have an influence that has led to a taxpayer-funded police force following what some might suggest was a taxpayer-funded crusade. Indeed, it was called Operation Bohan—I am not sure why it was named after Bohan, the son of Rueben—and the whole operation was dedicated to this case, seemingly to silence his accusations because they might harm financial interests.
One could argue that if the complaint had been made to the City of London police by an ordinary member of the public—say, a plumber like my constituent—the estimated £1 million would not have been spent investigating and prosecuting the case. It would, I imagine, have been dealt with as a civil matter, worthy, if the police had been involved, of a quiet word from them. I say that the £1 million is an estimated figure, and Mr Puddick has been asking questions to find out the true costs. If possible, I would be interested in hearing at some point—I know the answer will not be available today—how much the police operation and prosecution cost.
Without any further information, it would seem that Operation Bohan flew in the face of the key principle of equality before the law by seemingly putting the interests of wealthy organisations above the free speech and basic rights of the everyday citizen. I do not say those words lightly. I have been a criminal solicitor for 14 or so years and have great respect for the rule of law, for our system of justice and for how it is properly applied day in, day out, by police officers and prosecuting authorities. When we see cases that seem exceptional and that are exceptional in their application of power, we must stand up for our constituents. It is worse for everyone, not just my constituent, that the operation was funded by the taxpayer. My tax-paying constituents—all of them—played their part in paying for the anti-terrorist officers, the high-technology laboratory and the extensive surveillance. Indeed, they also played a part in the Crown Prosecution Service’s seemingly doomed attempt to prosecute Mr Puddick.
My constituent is concerned about what he would call an apparent perversion of natural justice that must be identified, addressed and appropriately challenged by Ministers. The Government and the Minister are rightly big on accountability and I fully support that, but we also need to recognise that there must be accountability for the actions of the police and the prosecuting authorities. They must be brought to account in cases such as Mr Puddick’s so that we can ensure that another innocent member of the public is not awoken by an armed counter-terrorism unit acting, perhaps, on the whims of wealth and power.
The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert)
First, let me congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) on securing the debate, which it is a pleasure for me to respond to on behalf of the Government. I know of his long-standing interest in these issues, particularly on ensuring that freedom of expression is protected and I fully understand why he seeks to raise his concerns about the case of his constituent, Mr Ian Puddick. I appreciate that my hon. Friend seeks to put the case for his constituent very forcefully, which he has certainly done.
I know that my hon. Friend understands that Ministers do not have a role in commenting on or interfering in specific cases, but it is important to restate that point. In this country we have a principle of operational independence for the police and it is very important that Ministers do not seek to direct police investigations or to comment on them improperly. However, it is also very important that we have a proper system of accountability for the police and their actions in relation to the law and more widely. I will return to that point. I am afraid that I cannot therefore comment on the legal aspects of this individual case, but I understand that the City of London police took the allegation of harassment against Mr Puddick very seriously and that it was investigated in line with national procedures.
I also understand that the City of London police received a complaint last September relating to the conduct of officers involved in Mr Puddick’s arrest on suspicion of harassment in August 2009. Following a thorough internal investigation the force’s professional standards directorate found no misconduct. Mr Puddick was informed of that decision last December and had the right to appeal to the Independent Police Complaints Commission. I do not know whether he has pursued that course, but my hon. Friend might wish to contact him and help him in that regard. We have a formal complaints procedure whereby the conduct of police forces can be properly investigated precisely to deal with situations in which people feel they have been improperly treated by the police. Having the IPCC means that such complaints and police forces can be independently investigated quite separately from Government, as is proper, but there might be reasons why Mr Puddick has not taken that course.
Mr Burrowes
I am grateful for the Minister’s response and I will certainly follow up the details of my constituent’s complaint. My presumption is that the progress of his complaint was subject to the fact that proceedings were ongoing, but they have recently been concluded and he will now be able to pursue many avenues. The problem he has probably encountered is that his complaint is not like usual complaints about how people have been treated in detention or on arrest, but is more of a systemic issue about an operational decision that was taken, and so he might find it harder to get to the truth. I therefore invite the Minister to make inquiries into why, given the facts of the case, the decision about Operation Bohan was taken.
Nick Herbert
My hon. Friend is seeking to draw me into precisely the sort of comment about individual investigations that I am prohibited from making. Nevertheless, I will say that it strikes me that this case would merit an appeal to the IPCC. I might be wrong about that and will ensure that I follow up the debate by sending him formal advice on whether that remains an option for Mr Puddick.
My hon. Friend referred to the involvement of counter-terrorist officers in the case, which the media also reported on. I can confirm that the investigation was run by the force’s major investigation team, which, although it was set up primarily to deal with major crime, occasionally deals with cases outside its remit to relieve pressure on other departments within the force. The team sits within the force’s serious crime and counter-terrorist directorate, which might explain the confusion and the suggestion that counter-terrorist officers were involved in the investigation.
I know that my hon. Friend will agree that, when the police receive an allegation of a crime, they should consider it properly. Indeed, they are required within the rules set out to record it. The offence of harassment can cause the victim great distress, and the police are committed to responding in a timely manner when they receive such reports. My comments in this respect are not to be taken as an endorsement of the police action in this case, but I think that we would all agree with the general principle that it is proper for the police to respond to and investigate such claims.
The internet has hugely enriched our lives and every Member of the House is fully aware of its potency, but it can also be a useful tool for those seeking to abuse and intimidate their victims, and it is a source of particular concern to the Government that a new opportunity for crime has been created through cyber-bullying, cyber-stalking and such harassment of victims. The abuse can continue for long periods, with no refuge for the person on the receiving end of the harassment, and can involve a much bigger audience, with more people becoming accessories to the harassment by forwarding offensive messages and images, making it difficult to identify the perpetrator. For all those reasons, the Government are very concerned about the growth of this form of criminality and are seeking to deal with it.
Let me be clear that we have no plans to block legal internet content or websites. Our view on published material is that it is important to strike a balance between freedom of expression and protection of the public and that it should be proportional to the potential harm that might be caused. In other words, it is important that the action we take, and indeed the action of those who enforce the law, is proportionate, which is precisely the word my hon. Friend used. We are making progress in this area and there will be a ministerial seminar next week on personal harm on the internet, which will focus on the two key themes of cyber-stalking and hate crime. It is important that we continue to make progress in this area. Nevertheless, I strongly agree with the principle of equality before the law, as my hon. Friend set out. It is important that police forces in this country are impartial and act without fear or favour, and he is right to restate that principle.
My hon. Friend is correct to say that I am big on accountability, and so are the Government. We seek to ensure that police forces are accountable—of course—to the law for their actions, and they are in the case before us. I mentioned recourse to the IPCC, and should Mr Puddick believe that the police behaved unlawfully in his case he also has recourse to legal action. I make no comment on whether that is the case, but the police are not above the law.
The police should also be accountable for their actions, and we seek to strengthen the democratic oversight of policing, but that does not extend to interference in operational independence, because that principle must remain. We are, however, going to give directly elected police and crime commissioners an important role in the oversight of police complaints—not to receive complaints directly, because that will still be a matter for the IPCC, but to ensure that forces generally deal with complaints properly.
I regret that that measure will not be applicable to the City of London police, because it is the one force to which we will not be introducing directly elected police and crime commissioners, but I am sure that the force itself and the authority that holds it to account will watch carefully the developments in our legislation.
On the cost of the investigation, my hon. Friend cited the sum of £1 million. I am not sure whether he thought that that was the cost of the police investigation and the Crown Prosecution Service investigation, but the City of London police state that the £1.5 million cost that was ascribed to the investigation was very wide of the mark. I am not able to respond to his suggested cost for the combined operation of the police and the CPS, but I am happy to ask that the City of London police and the CPS provide that information to my hon. Friend. Importantly, the CPS would of course have had to agree to the charges that were brought before the courts and, in doing so, have taken the view that a prosecution was in the public interest, so the actions that were taken were a matter not just for the police, but for the CPS.
Without trespassing further on the detail of the case, I fully understand my hon. Friend’s concern about the matter and, indeed, respect the fact that he has brought it to the attention of the House. I hope he understands that I cannot interfere, but I hope also that I have provided some useful information.
Mr Burrowes
I am grateful for the Minister’s response. He will be aware, because I have raised the matter with him before, and agree that what is needed among other things in our justice system is information. Indeed, in the words of the victims commissioner, relentless information is a real driver of change and of accountability, and one aspect of that is the reporting of magistrates court cases, which often go unnoticed. I have raised two examples, but in that area as in others the benefits of more information will raise the stakes on accountability and ensure that Ministers are as aware as others of whether there is a prevalence of such cases and of the actions that could lead to criticism and to operational changes.
I therefore ask the Minister to have an eye for that, as well as just to—
Mr Burrowes
I will just raise one other matter concerning internet crime, which is the subject of the debate. I welcome ministerial involvement in the seminars on hate crime, which is a real concern. There is a particular prevalence of anti-Semitism on the internet, and I know that Ministers are taking on work from the previous Government in that area.
Nick Herbert
I strongly agree about the importance of transparency. The criminal justice system is relatively opaque, but this week the Government have announced further moves to increase transparency. One area in which we wish to do that is the criminal justice system, and I am working on such proposals because I believe that justice must be seen to be done. I hope that my hon. Friend will take a continuing interest in that and will encourage us in our efforts.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for supporting our action on hate crime, and I know that he understands the importance of dealing with it. In respect of this case and the issues that my hon. Friend raises, it is very important that we and the law strike the appropriate balance. Free speech is an important freedom that must be protected to the greatest extent possible, but it cannot be permitted if harm is done to others. The law exists in order sometimes to curtail the operation of free speech where such harm may be done. That is why we have a harassment law. It is right that our law enforcement agencies focus on areas where people may be bullied, harassed or subject to intimidation and threats, and that includes through the new medium of the internet. It is appropriate that our law enforcement agencies take action according to the laws that have been set out by Parliament. It equally behoves those agencies to behave in a proper and proportionate manner.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Correction
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Home Department
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kate Hoey
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment she has made of the safety of Syria as a place for visa applicants in Iraq to collect their visas.
[Official Report, 21 June 2011, Vol. 530, c. 211W.]
Letter of correction from Damian Green:
An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) on 21 June 2011.
The full answer given was as follows:
Damian Green
We are closely monitoring the security situation in Syria. Our visa application centre remains open for business and applicants are able to make their applications in the normal way. Applicants who live in Iraq can choose to visit Syria, Lebanon or Jordan to make their applications.
The correct answer should have been:
Damian Green
We are closely monitoring the security situation in Syria. Our visa application centre remains open for business and applicants are able to make their applications in the normal way. Applicants who live in Iraq, however, are now directed to our visa application centres in Lebanon, Jordan or Turkey in order to lodge their applications.
Petition
Pleck Library (Walsall)
Westminster Hall
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Backbench business
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Intellectual Property (Hargreaves Report)
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I welcome you to the Chair, Mr Chope, and hope that you find our little chit-chat about intellectual property intellectually stimulating. The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning is not a regular at our get-togethers about the creative industries and intellectual property, but we welcome him to the debate. I saw him in action yesterday. He was particularly robust in his response then, and I am sure that we will get a comprehensive response to the many issues that will come across his desk in the next few hours.
This debate gives me a sense of déjà vu and Groundhog day. I remember standing here, probably on this same spot, some five years ago responding to a Government-commissioned report and review into intellectual property, which was described as groundbreaking and eagerly anticipated, and as the panacea for all the difficulties and problems that we have with the intellectual property laws. That was the Treasury-commissioned Gowers review, and around the Chamber I can see other veterans who carry the scars of that review. Five years down the line, fewer than half of Gowers’ recommendations have been implemented.
Gowers, and now Hargreaves, follow a long, honourable and noble tradition of Government reviews and reports on intellectual property. Since Gowers, and before Hargreaves, there was the “Digital Britain” report and the Digital Economy Act 2010. In fact, 25 pieces of work on intellectual property or copyright laws have been commissioned from either Brussels or Whitehall, including Green Papers, White Papers, formal consultations, informal consultations and the inevitable round-table discussions. The Government have proven very efficient and effective in initiating such reports, reviews and commissions, but a little less so in implementing the many recommendations that have come across their desk. We wait to see whether Ian Hargreaves will be more successful with his recommendations, but I have a sense and a suspicion that once again, in a few years’ time, we will all be sitting around this table looking at another Government-sponsored review on intellectual property, which once again will have been eagerly anticipated and presented as some sort of panacea for the problems with our intellectual property laws.
My little bit of advice to the Government is that they expend a bit more energy on doing something with the creative industries and less on indulging in this continual and consistent review-itis. We need action from them to support our creative industries, to ensure that they continue to develop and grow. Perhaps the Government could consider some of the financial matters. Finance and funding are a critical factor, and small and medium-sized enterprises in particular are looking just now to the Government for assistance with that, so that they can develop. The Government should also help creative industries to deal with their online market, as that will help with the new digitalisation that is a massive challenge to so many of the industries, and the Government should do something about the corrosive online piracy that eats away at our creative industries, depriving them of profit, investment and growth. The Government can do more than continually and consistently have reviews, so let us get together and do something.
Of course, it is good to see that the Government take an interest in their intellectual property and copyright laws. So they should. Intellectual property and copyright are fundamental to the well-being of the UK economy, accounting for about 8% of our total gross domestic product. Some £65 billion was invested in intellectual property in the UK in 2010, and the creative industries alone account for 2.7 million jobs here. My particular interest is in music, and music—particularly exports—has been a massive success over the past few years. In the United States, in 2010 alone, 9.8% of all album sales were from UK artists. It looks like 2011 will be an equally bumper year, with one artist, Adele, practically owning the US charts just now, such is her phenomenal success. That has helped to maintain the UK’s position as the No. 2 exporter of music worldwide.
It is not just music; we excel in all creative exports, and do well in all sectors. Being creative is just something we do well, and over the years the UK has produced the most innovative and diverse range of creative talent imaginable. We have been successful because we have ensured that artists, creators and those who invest in our talent have been properly rewarded for the work they produce. What we must carry on doing, by way of our intellectual property laws, is ensure that that continues, and resist the ever-constant desire and temptation to tinker with legislation. As we consider the Hargreaves report and wait for the Government’s response, it is worth while reminding ourselves that our intellectual property and copyright laws have not done not too badly in the face of some serious challenges over the past decade, most notably from the online market and the technology that develops almost daily.
So, what does the Hargreaves report bring to the table? What innovations does it have to offer? In considering the report, it is almost impossible to set aside how it was conceived and initiated. This time around, it was the Prime Minister himself, after, I think, a very good lunch with his friends at Google, who posed the question: do our intellectual property and copyright laws get in the way of the emergence and development of a Google in the UK? He then got Ian Hargreaves and his team dispatched to find the answer. The review was perhaps unfairly christened the “Google review”, and those of us who care passionately about our creative industries observed all this with varying degrees of horror.
The question behind the review was: what can be done to help search engines and social networking sites such as Google develop in the UK? Not one shred of evidence, however, has ever been produced to support the initial prime ministerial contention. We must remember that the UK has some fantastic search engines and social networking sites, not least Friends Reunited, which could even be credited with starting the whole social networking revolution. Compared with where Google comes from—silicon valley in mid-California—the UK is an altogether different cultural and economic environment. The set of conditions that exist in silicon valley are unique—they do not even exist on the east coast of the United States, let alone in the UK, or anywhere else in Europe or the rest of the world. Nevertheless, Ian Hargreaves was discharged to bring mid-California to a business park off the M25 in Shoreditch.
A number of us were concerned about all the talk of Google, because Google has not been a great friend of intellectual property over the years, and I think it would be fair to say that it has been a bit cavalier in its approach to IP rights. Mr Chope, if you were to put one of your favourite artists into the Google search engine you would be directed to a number of sites that totally disregard and ignore the intellectual property rights of the artist. Having Google as an inspiration for such a review did not so much set alarm bells ringing as put whole fire departments on stand-by.
To be fair, however, Ian Hargreaves did his job diligently. All talk of good will was quickly abolished, and we had a report that considered economic growth and its inhibitors. The professor approached his task professionally and was not too consumed by the almost baffling inception of the review that he was tasked to pursue. At first, it was all about, “Will he or won’t he recommend a system of fair use, as championed in the US?”. We were able to find out what the good professor was thinking, because he produced a blog that we could follow while he did the review. Looking at all the air miles that were being clocked up in the States, a number of us feared that he was considering adopting fair use as a central recommendation in his report, but he decided that fair use was not for us because, as the report said, it was
“unlikely to be legally feasible”.
What we do not know, Mr Chope, is whether if it was legally feasible you would be looking at fair use coming soon to a creative industry near you. Fair use would have been an absolute disaster for our creative industries, and I think a collective sigh of relief was exhaled when that proposal was dropped.
So what does the Hargreaves report recommend? There are 10 recommendations, and Professor Hargreaves makes the bold assertion that if all 10 were adopted in full, UK GDP would increase from 0.3% to 0.6%. We in politics say that that is a courageous statement, but it was the claim that Hargreaves made. I will not list all the recommendations. Some of them are uncontroversial and are generally supported, some are hangovers from previous reports, and some come directly from the Gowers review. Some are new, some are interesting and some have excited all sorts of concerns and anxieties.
The major underlying recommendation—the one that tops the chart at No. 1—is that all future regulation should be based on evidence. The importance of economic evidence is inarguable—I do not think that anybody could disagree that economic evidence is required for any future regulation on IP laws and copyright—but it is one thing to say that evidence is required and another to act on it, rather than dismissing it if one does not happen to like it. For example, the report does not fully acknowledge the economic case for the current copyright framework, and has little to say about the huge amounts of investment in, and profitability already being derived from, innovative digital products and services. Given the success of creative UK plc, that omission is baffling. The report casually dismisses crucial research and evidence, because it comes from industry, as though it were mere lobbying, even though the Government charge industry time and again with providing evidence and doing research to help shape future policy.
Other recommendations that have received attention include proposals to set up a digital copyright exchange, permit the licensing of orphan works and create further exceptions to copyright. If anything in the report counts as a big idea, it is the creation of a digital copyright exchange. The report describes it as the digital opportunity: the means of unlocking the UK creative industry’s economic potential and solving the problems of rights clearances that Hargreaves maintains give copyright law such a bad press.
The report says of the DCE:
“The prize is to build on the UK’s current competitive advantage in creative content to become a leader in licensing services for global content markets; in short to make the UK the best place in the world to do business in digital content.”
Who could argue with that? But what exactly is the DCE and what is envisaged for it? Is it to be a virtual content megastore in UK cyberspace for rights owners, traders and users, or is it more of a brand name to describe a collection of rights registries and rights databases across the internet? More fundamentally, what will it look like, who will pay for it and how, and who will run it?
In many respects, a DCE already exists, based on a variety of technical standards developed by the music, film and publishing industries and other sectors of the creative industries, which have rapidly developed comprehensive databases with ownership data and online functionality. In such a critical matter, Government must be careful not to duplicate or replicate work already being done within the sector and to work hand in glove with the industry if they are minded to accept the recommendation on a digital copyright exchange.
The DCE must be voluntary and recognise that different industries license content in different ways and for different purposes. Hargreaves hints that non-participation in the exchange might lead to penalties for rights holders, such as being exempted from some of the measures in the Digital Economy Act 2010. That is definitely not welcome. It could create a two-tier approach to rights holding, run counter to international copyright treaties, and discriminate against smaller rights holders.
The report recommends a Government-led approach involving the appointment of some public figure as a digital champion, almost a digital tsar. There are hints that the Government’s delay in responding to the Hargreaves report is due to difficulty finding that digital champion. We wait to see who it will be. I think that all of us would like to see the job description.
Mr Don Foster (Bath) (LD)
Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the issue of the digital copyright exchange, will he comment on the use of the word “exchange”? An exchange implies a place where one goes to do business. How does he feel about that?
Pete Wishart
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for bringing that up. There are many models for exchanges. An exchange for the creative industry will be difficult to conceive and create. There will be issues categorising work. The report recommends a digital champion. We must know who it will be and how he will be found.
Another issue is orphan works. The idea is that if an owner cannot be identified, a standard statutory licence would be obtained and the payment would go into a fund to pay the owner if they are ever identified, or towards general social use. Hargreaves suggests that if a work cannot be found on the DCE, it should be declared orphaned and become available for licence. I hope that before the Government consider and conclude on that recommendation, they will re-examine the legal situation and take time to consider the British Copyright Council’s proposals on the issue.
Other recommendations, such as those dealing with format shifting and parody, are also hangovers from the Gowers review. On format shifting, Hargreaves wants to proceed without compensation to creators. That is likely to run contrary to the copyright directive and would put the UK out of line with the vast majority of European states. I hope that when the Government consider that recommendation, they will put the interests of British musicians, creators and artists before anything else. The proposed exception for parody is more mystifying. There are countless examples online, for example on YouTube, of parody being enjoyed as part of UK entertainment. If the Government are minded to accept such an exception, they must give us evidence that parody is a problem. Examples have been highlighted, but we need evidence.
The report’s acknowledgement of the importance of an effective rights regime is welcome and puts the report in the context of the Digital Economy Act 2010. The Act is the other weighty piece of work sitting in the Government’s in tray, and it is time that they got down to work and started to implement all the measures agreed in it. We appreciate that there have been difficulties with the DEA, including the judicial review and ongoing work by Ofcom, and we know that tensions remain in the coalition, but it is time to implement what has been agreed.
The Government have it in their hands to help our creative industries significantly and substantially. The DEA was established to reconnect the public with legitimate means of purchasing online materials, and it is time to get on with it. One big theme in the Hargreaves report is economic growth and removing the barriers to development. Illegally taking creative works for nothing is the biggest barrier to growth confronting our creative industries, and that more than anything threatens jobs and investment. The DEA contains real, available and tangible measures to deal with the biggest inhibitor of growth in our creative sector.
Mr Foster
I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman a second time during his excellent speech. He says that the Government should get on with the DEA. Is he aware—I know he is—of the problems discovered involving site blocking? Not least because of outstanding court cases, the Government are unable to implement the Act in its current form.
Pete Wishart
I have seen the early-day motion to which I think the right hon. Gentleman is referring; it was kicking around just now. I have certainly received correspondence on the issue. That seems to be one of the great misconceptions about the DEA. People are always referring to disconnection, but nowhere in the DEA is there any mention of disconnection. If any technical measure were to be enforced, as he knows, numerous measures would have to be agreed by Government and Ofcom before anything like that could be considered. What would happen is that people would receive a polite letter asking them to stop taking music for nothing and directing them towards legal sites. I am glad that he mentioned the subject.
Jim Dowd (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
Before the hon. Gentleman moves away from the point about illegal downloading, has he seen today’s BBC report showing that the problem not only persists but continues to grow year on year? Does he agree that regardless of all the sophisticated arguments that can be advanced, it is nothing short of theft?
Pete Wishart
I did see the BBC piece. It was done for “Newsbeat”, and it showed the effect of illegal downloading on the film industry. It is not just film studios but people who work in the film industry—carpenters, caterers and all the other ancillary staff—who are taking a direct hit to their ability to earn a living working in the creative industry. The piece was a great example of the impact on the creative industries of the scourge of illegal downloading, and it shows why the Government must get their finger out and start dealing with the problem, using the measures agreed in the DEA.
When will the Government’s response be published? We were promised a response before the recess, which is now only 10 short days away. I presume that we will not get a response to the Hargreaves report before the recess, so when will it be published? What is it likely to include? Will the Government ensure that a thorough cost-benefit analysis is undertaken by whomever they appoint to study the issue? Will they ensure that existing activity is properly assessed? How will the Government ensure that IP laws remain protected in the light of changes to consumer law and the proposed organisational change to consumer protection?
If we want a successful and vibrant creative sector, IP has to be respected and valued, and not seen as something that people have the right to access for free just because technology enables them to do so. We cannot continue to give away our great recorded works for nothing, threaten our film industry, compromise our publishing houses, and leave our artists and creators without reward and protection, just so that some people can illegally take their work for nothing. Our creative industry is one of the most dynamic parts of the economy and the provider of hundreds of thousands of jobs. We have not done too badly so far with our IP and copyright laws, and nothing must be done to compromise our success and creativity. The Government have it in their power to ensure that the UK can become the world hub for creative industries. It is now time to stop the reviews and get on with the work.
Mr Don Foster (Bath) (LD)
I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), who made an excellent speech. I agree with nearly everything that he has said. He rightly began by talking about the importance of the creative industries. Many of us believe that, given the right support and the right environment, they could become as important in this country as financial services are at present. It is critical that we give them the right support and the right environment. That is the climate in which the Prime Minister made remarks that led, in due course, to the Hargreaves report. I share some of the hon. Gentleman’s concern about the language used by the Prime Minister at the time and about the thought that we may end up going down the American fair-use route, which he has described. I want to clearly state on the record that I am very pleased that the Hargreaves report did not conclude that we should take the American fair-use approach.
I also join the hon. Gentleman in agreeing with one critical thing that appears at the beginning of the Hargreaves report, namely the importance of making decisions on the basis of clear evidence. Although I am the first to admit that the evidence is mixed on some of the issues, such as the impact of piracy on the creative industries, I nevertheless believe that the report goes too far when it dismisses some of the information, data and research—it calls them “lobbynomics”—from the industry. The one thing that I think we can learn from that is that getting this information right is really important. I am therefore delighted that discussions are now taking place between the UK Intellectual Property Office and the creative industry sector about the basis of research methodology and the presentation of data. That will help us all in making judgments about how we progress.
Notwithstanding the Hargreaves report’s perhaps overly critical view of the degree of concern about issues such as piracy, I am pleased that it recognises that there is a problem and that we have to address it. I am delighted that the three things it says that we need to do are enforcement, education and the development of new business models, and I accept that those are the three key things that we need to do. On enforcement, it is important that hon. Members acknowledge that, unless we are prepared to recognise the importance of the intellectual property rights of creators, we can never be said to be supportive of the creative industries. It is therefore vital that we find ways of ensuring that we provide much-needed protection in those areas.
During his excellent contribution, the hon. Gentleman said that the Government need to get on with the measures in the Digital Economy Act 2010. I do not fundamentally disagree with him, but it is important that we are aware that a number of problems must be addressed, particularly in relation to the use of illegal websites. During the passage of the 2010 Act through Parliament, I made clear—the hon. Gentleman was present in the House at the time—my concern that sections 17 and 18, which deal with those issues, are unworkable. Although we have not yet seen the report, I understand that Ofcom has looked at the matter and reached a similar conclusion. Therefore, if we are to move ahead, we will have to find other ways to address illegal activity on the internet. I know that productive discussions are taking place between the industry and internet service providers to find a way forward. I welcome those discussions and hope that they will be fruitful. We will also have a look at a number of other measures coming out of Europe, which might also inform our decision.
The hon. Gentleman has rightly referred to peer-to-peer file sharing. It is crucial that every hon. Member is clear that the 2010 Act gives ample opportunity for further discussion, research and debate before any of the actions about which some people are concerned—the so-called technical measures—take place. The legislation already enables us to do that, so I hope that we will be able to implement and progress with those measures as quickly as possible.
I said earlier that Hargreaves said that we also need to address education, which is critical. Far too many people in this country simply do not understand the damage that they are doing to the creative industries by obtaining the intellectual property of other people without making any contribution towards it. If we cannot have a situation in which people are creating material and being rewarded for it, the creative industry simply cannot grow, which is the key thing that the Hargreaves report is concerned about. It is critical that we recognise that and educate people so that they understand that they could be damaging the very creators of whom they are supportive and whose works they enjoy.
The third issue is the development of new business models. I agree entirely with the Hargreaves report that that is important, but it ought to be placed on the record that the picture is nowhere near as gloomy as the report perhaps suggests. For instance, while I acknowledge that it made a very slow start, the music industry has got its act together, and the UK now has 72 different business models for people to easily and cheaply access the music that they are keen to hear. It is already further ahead of the game than the rest of the country in that respect. Other parts of the industry—the film industry, computer games and others—have to try to improve what they are doing. I broadly support what the Hargreaves report says about enforcement, education and the development of new business models. I also broadly support the hon. Gentleman in saying that we need to get on and address those issues as quickly as possible.
One of the kernel ideas in the Hargreaves report is, as the hon. Gentleman has said, the digital exchange. I accept the hon. Gentleman’s argument that it is an exciting idea and that it offers the opportunity to improve the growth of the creative industries. He was right to say, however, that many problems still need to be addressed. First, I am concerned about the use of the word “exchange,” which is why I intervened on him. I do not believe that we are anywhere near developing all the things that we need even to think about having a single port of call where business is transacted. We ought to be looking much more at helping each sector of the creative industry—video games, film, books, magazine publishing, the music industry and so on—to ensure that they are developing their systems, but in such a way that they can work together to develop interoperability.
The music industry is advanced in its thinking on this. Not only is it well advanced in the UK, but it is working with colleagues throughout the rest of Europe. Collectively, they are pulling together the sort of database that Hargreaves talks about. I hope that the industry will be willing to share its data sets with other sectors of the industry, so that we can find some commonality. Commonality is absolutely vital, even simply on the number labelling of an item. Let us imagine a bit of film for which there is some music and a script, and where stills and bits of other people’s films have been used. All those things need different access, but they all need to be coded in the same way, so that we know where they all come from. We need to work at interoperability.
If we acknowledge that different parts of the sector are developing their own databases and their own licensing systems—in some cases, they have had such systems for a long time—it seems somewhat perverse to suggest that we might get rid of all that. As a first step at least, I would prefer the exchange—or whatever it might be called—to be a front page or a signpost to ways of finding this material and establishing how people can get a licence for the use of it for commercial purposes.
We must then address the issue of the digital champion. I apologise to the author if I have got this wrong, but the report seems to be saying, on the one hand, that finding a digital champion should be industry led and, on the other hand, that the Government should appoint someone to do it. That does not mesh together very well. Initially, someone should do a scoping exercise of what is needed. We should consider using somebody who is, for example, a project manager and who gets the support of all sectors of the industry. We could do that very quickly, which would deal with the issue raised by the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire about getting on with things. I urge the Minister to consider whether that could be a way forward.
Mr Foster
That is why there are so many problems. The hon. Gentleman is right to raise his concern about the matter. We need to find a way of making progress. I am suggesting that if we can downgrade the issue of what we are looking for and be clear about the job spec, it might be easier for the industry to come together and find a way of doing it.
Finally, on the digital copyright exchange, I agree with the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire about its being voluntary. It seems totally wrong to suggest that if I am the creator of something—a piece of music, a film, a book or whatever it might be—I should be automatically forced to place my work on that particular platform. That is not the sort of liberal society in which I want to live. It would also be totally wrong to have a situation whereby if I do not put my piece of work on to the exchange, I will somehow be exempted from access to the law that applies to everybody else. After all, if somebody nicks my work, they should be punished for it and the full force of the law should apply, whether or not I have chosen to put my work on a particular exchange.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the important matter of orphan works. Sadly, clause 43 of the Digital Economy Act 2010, which covered those issues, was ditched at the last minute during the wash-up at the end of the previous Parliament. I am concerned about what the Hargreaves report suggests is a possible way forward. In effect, the report says that we should allow an orphan work, of which the creator is unknown, to be licensed and used by somebody in a commercial or possibly a non-commercial venture for a nominal fee. The problem with that is twofold. First, someone has to do some level of due diligence to get that licence and demonstrate that they have tried to find the author. However, I am sure that they will not go any further than they need to if all they have to do is pay a nominal fee. A nominal fee does not provide any additional money to do more diligent searches to try to identify the author or creator of the work.
The second problem is that if by chance a particular piece of work of which the creator is unknown suddenly becomes a worldwide best seller and generates vast sums of money for the person or organisation that obtained the licence, surely we must have a system in place whereby the creator, if identified, has the opportunity to benefit from that worldwide success. The report does not cover real issues that we must address adequately.
I know that other hon. Members want to contribute, so I will briefly make one final point about exceptions. Again, there are real issues surrounding the sort of exceptions proposed in the Hargreaves review. I shall talk about the exception in relation to parody as an example. We all enjoy a parody of something. However, the truth is that if someone takes something, parodies it and achieves an enormous commercial success, that parody is based on somebody’s creation. I am absolutely convinced that the person whose creation has led to the commercially successful parody must be able to benefit from it. The creator must also be able to say that they are unhappy with their work being used in that particular way. We must consider the issue of exceptions more closely and in more detail. That applies to the use of material and so on. There will no doubt be an opportunity for consultation once the Government come forward with their response to the Hargreaves report.
The Hargreaves report mentions many other issues, which I am sure other hon. Members will cover. I may have seemed critical of the report, so I will end by saying that it was important to have such a report to kick-start the debate. What matters is how that debate develops and the action that the Government take. I hope such action will support the creators, who are so critical to our creative industries.
Jim Dowd (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
I believe that this is the first time I have served under your sagacious direction, Mr Chope, and I am delighted to do so. I was also delighted to support the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) in his application for the debate, and I am pleased that Mr Speaker saw fit to grant it. The hon. Gentleman has been a true champion of creators, authors and performers for many years. He brings not just enthusiasm to the issue, but a detailed personal knowledge.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman strongly. We have seen a number of such reports over time, and this is the latest in a long line of them. The most recent was the Gowers report in November 2006. He said that he hoped that the Government would adopt the entirety of the report in some form or that they would at least respond to it. I will be surprised if they do, because my experience is that that is not what happens. My experience has shown that things move ahead incrementally by a percentage each time and that, the next time a report is written, we are still dealing with many of the older issues while trying to address the newer ones.
I welcome this report, however, because the issue is critical for the country and for the industry. It was published just before the end of May. At almost the same time, the EU directive on orphan works was introduced, to which the Government will clearly have to respond. I imagine that the one will inform the other in the fullness of time. Like other hon. Members who have spoken, I am interested to know when the Government intend to produce their proposals, but I accept that it is better to get the matter right than to deal with it quickly. The issue is so important that we should be prepared to take such an approach.
Like the right hon. Member for Bath (Mr Foster), I shall outline a few items without going through the whole report. I broadly welcome the report’s thrust because it addresses a number of significant issues. In November 2006, the foreword to the Gowers report stated:
“For many citizens, Intellectual Property…is an obscure and distant domain—its laws shrouded in jargon and technical mystery, its applications relevant only to a specialist audience. And yet IP is everywhere. Even a simple coffee jar relies on a range of IP rights—from patents to copyright, designs to trade marks.”
Hargreaves has addressed that issue, and he recognises its significance not only for UK plc, but for many of our citizens who are involved in the creative industries.
I welcome the thrust of the report and its concentration on not only copyright, but patents, designs and other, broader issues with a relevance to IP rights. As the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire said, adopting all the elements of the report could be worth about £750 million to our GDP. I strongly doubt that they will all be adopted, but even the adoption of a significant number of them will have a significant benefit if they have the effect envisaged.
Both the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire and the right hon. Member for Bath mentioned the digital copyright exchange, which deserves to be applauded for one reason above all others: it is at least an attempt to look at a new way of doing things and to look forward. Far too many reports and too much Government legislation fight the last war, not the next one, but the report is an attempt, albeit a faltering one, to move matters forward. However, some groups in the creative industries have told me that the digital copyright exchange was not necessary and that current market mechanisms adequately deal with some of the problems that the report describes. Their fear is that the net effect would simply be to add a not inconsiderable amount to current transaction costs without an appropriate benefit.
The exchange proposal is a response to complaints made during the report’s compilation that the complexity of navigating rights clearance processes is a barrier to innovation and growth, notably for new-tech and start-up organisations. There is a problem in that respect, but the digital exchange proposals are perhaps somewhat heavy-handed and bureaucratic, and I would need some convincing that they could be effective.
The report says that the long-term aim is to create
“the best…licensing system in the world”,
and who on earth would disagree with that? I doubt whether anybody here today would say that we should have only the second-best or third-best system. The objective must be to have the best regulatory regime, which balances the rights and responsibilities of those who are involved. I doubt whether the digital copyright exchange is the mechanism to do that, but it at least addresses the future, without necessarily being future-proof.
On digital libraries, there is a proposal to use the system that is broadly in existence and to adopt the extended collective licensing model that exists, with varying success, in other parts of Europe. In effect, that would extend the licence granted by a licensing body for certain works to include copyright owners of the same class of works who are not members of that body, provided that the body represented the majority of copyright owners for that sector, and subject to the right of non-members to withdraw from the scheme. An assurance on that last point would be most welcome. That is a reasonable way to make progress.
Clearly, any modification of current copyright principles that creates new rules for a particular designation of work needs to be examined most carefully. One of the key elements of a workable system, particularly for orphan works, is a robust system of diligent search, rather as the right hon. Member for Bath said, to avoid any prejudice to authors or rights owners. We must better understand what that due diligence is, how it is to be implemented and what it looks like to ensure that orphan works can be dealt with fairly and without the risk of losing the opportunity that they provide.
I broadly welcome a number of the other recommendations on copyright exceptions. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire and the right hon. Member for Bath were critical of the US fair-use law, and the great fear that we all had as Hargreaves was unfolding was that that is what we would wind up with. The report correctly identified two broad problems with the operation of the current copyright exceptions regime: first, the failure to remove barriers to innovation and, secondly, a discrepancy between the law and most people’s reasonable expectations and behaviour in the light of the rapidly expanding development of new digital services. I am glad, however, that the report rejected the fair-use approach adopted in the US, because there are, as it notes, legal and political impediments to imposing such a regime in the UK. Instead, it outlines a series of new exceptions to achieve specific goals, and that is the right way to approach personal use, parody, data mining and what are termed “Gowers exceptions”.
I welcome the recommendation to promote greater uniformity in the operation of collective management organisations. The report proposes that such organisations adopt codes of practice, which should be approved by the IPO, and I very much welcome that. The other issues that were addressed include enforcement, the awareness of rights, piracy, an IPO review and the next steps in the progress of the report.
I therefore welcome much of the report, although I have reservations about parts of it. It builds on the steps that were partly adopted in the wake of Gowers. The foreword to Gowers stated:
“In the modern world, knowledge capital, more than physical capital, drives the UK economy. Against the backdrop of the increasing importance of ideas, IP rights, which protect their value, are more vital than ever.”
As we move from a manufacturing-based economy to what some people call a knowledge-based economy, the protection of IP rights becomes more important than ever if we are to ensure that rights holders receive adequate reward for their activities and that we have an environment conducive to originality and innovation.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Chope, and to have heard the contributions of the previous speakers, who have a great deal of knowledge and expertise in this subject, particularly as a result of the work done in previous Parliaments and in passing the Digital Economy Act 2010.
I come to the debate not only as a member of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, but as someone whose work and business background was largely in the creative economy, given that I worked in the advertising industry. As I can see from my constituency, the creative economy plays an important role in the regeneration of our economy. I entirely agree with the right hon. Member for Bath (Mr Foster) that it has fantastic scope and potential as one of this country’s great industries. In many sectors, we truly lead the world, and they can be part of the growth of our economy as it recovers.
However, we are talking not just about an economy of large businesses or about multinational companies seeking to purchase, use and benefit from the rights to creative content, but about a complex web of different businesses, large and small, which are interdependent and which rely on one another. In the creative quarter in the old part of Folkestone, which is very much part of the town’s regeneration, 200 to 300 people are employed in the creative economy as artists, web designers, website creators and games makers. Many of their businesses are simple partnerships of two or three people or small stand-alone businesses. Their ability to make things, sell them in a fair and open financial market place and benefit from them is incredibly important to their survival.
It is a particular pleasure that the debate is taking place in the Grand Committee Room. About six months ago, I organised an event for about 70 art students from colleges right across the country, from the south-west to London, Lincolnshire and Leeds. The group was organised by Graham Fink, the creative director of M&C Saatchi, who runs a free service for art students. He brought them into this room to run a creative workshop, hoping that they would be inspired by being in the Palace of Westminster and in this great forum for debate and ideas. It was fantastic to see the work and enthusiasm of those young people seeking to break into the industry, although it would be remiss of me to say whether they generated more original thinking and ideas in an hour than we will manage in the next hour. It was certainly a great pleasure to see their work and their enormous enthusiasm. Everyone with a knowledge of and passion for the creative industries understands its scope as a business and knows that young people want to work in it; they want to bring their ideas and be part of it. They have a right to expect a fair recompense for their ideas and work, and for the effort they put in.
Technology has changed the marketplace dramatically, but it can also be the great hope of the creative industries. I am thinking of the internet’s ability to supply what is referred to as the long-tail supply chain, in which the owners of niche works that would otherwise struggle to get listed can sell them in an open marketplace. The ability to search for and find work through search engines and the internet is a great advantage, but there must be rules of engagement. The direction in the finding of materials should be fair. Websites and search engines should direct people to places where works can be legitimately purchased. Many people have concerns that instead of directing people to legitimate places where they can buy works, predictive search, in particular, directs them to places where they can be obtained by piracy.
Mr Brian Binley (Northampton South) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making an interesting and important speech, but I am concerned about the direction by search engines to sites where the creators of material can be recompensed. Does he agree that search engines should be more able to act in that way? Should the Government think more about a little nudging and forcing in that direction?
Damian Collins
My hon. Friend makes a compelling point, which will have been heard by Ministers and search engine owners. I attended a briefing with the BPI, which represents the music industry, to talk about that very issue and was given a live demonstration, in which typing “download music” into Google meant that the predictive search came up with “download music for free”.
If we believe that technical measures should be used to restrict people from downloading content illegally, we should consult those who run search engines about the priority and ranking that they give to sites that direct people to sources where they can do that. That is a legitimate part of the debate, and search engine representatives should welcome it and be open to consultation with Government about it.
Mike Weatherley (Hove) (Con)
Is my hon. Friend aware of the traffic light proposals by the BPI and others that may go some way towards what he suggests?
Damian Collins
Yes, I am. It sounds like a sensible way forward. Those things are always best achieved in dialogue with the industry, through Ministers. That is often a much better approach than regulation and direct legislation, which, as we know from other remarks that have been made, can often be difficult to accomplish successfully. That dialogue is important. The companies concerned will have heard the remarks of my hon. Friends the Members for Hove (Mike Weatherley) and for Northampton South (Mr Binley).
Going back to my time in the advertising industry and to a case brought to me by a constituent, I can think of issues on both sides. A gentleman who runs a television business in Cheriton, Folkestone thought that a good way to sell the latest high-definition televisions would be to run an old-fashioned television next to a high-definition one, to show how that set revealed the improvement in the quality of the broadcast. Someone told him that he might need an entertainment licence to do that and that, for that simple demonstration in his shop, he would be charged several thousand pounds. He suggested that he would not do that, and a frank exchange of words was had—after which the problem seemed to go away. Nevertheless, he was potentially running foul of copyright laws.
Many people, if not in this room then elsewhere, will have put together a presentation for their work with images found on Google or elsewhere, and they will not have had a copyright licence to use them. I am sure that people of my generation can think of times when a friend lent them a tape-to-tape copy of some new musical work for their enjoyment, and they, too, would have been in breach of copyright regulations. Those issues have always existed. In some ways the digital economy brings them to a head. In the days when people made cassette copies for each other, peer to peer, the quality of reproduction was relatively poor. However, when the reproduction quality is almost perfect and a reproduction can be transmitted at any time at virtually zero—or actually zero—cost to people, with no effort, the market is changed dramatically. The ability of an owner to own, control and sell the perfect rendition of the work is changed. The rules of the game change, and we should consider what that means for the law.
I was interested in the Hargreaves recommendations on private use. I suppose that copyright and licensing have always respected the idea that the value of a work is based not on the time and effort taken to produce it, but in many cases on the value to the user. In the advertising industry, if music or a photograph or other image is used for a campaign that will run around the world, the cost will be much greater than for the insertion of a stand-alone image in one newspaper, or a radio advert on one local station. There is a recognition of the benefit to the user as well. That is important. If some relaxation of the rules on private usage, where there is very limited commercial value, if any, to the creator, would simplify people’s ability to use work for their own entertainment and for their and their family’s pleasure, I think that it would be reasonable and sensible to consider it. As the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics Media and Sport has said, we do not necessarily want a system in which someone can be sued for using a piece of Beatles music on a video of their cat on YouTube. That does not mean an open licence system without any attempt at regulation and control.
I am sure that many people would hope that a simplified version of rights clearance and the purchase of rights will mean that older materials—old pieces of film and programming—might be more readily available on services such as BBC iPlayer and elsewhere online. That might bring into play the rich archive of material that broadcasters such as the BBC own, which it is currently difficult to licence and use.
I agree almost entirely with the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bath about the digital exchange. The idea put forward by Hargreaves is interesting and compelling. There are already clearance houses for rights—PPL and PRS for music in particular—so I wonder what that new exchange would mean for them. I support the view that it would be wrong to compel people to register their works at the digital exchange with the back-door threat that otherwise they might not be covered by any of the legal protections in the Digital Economy Act 2010. Such compulsion would be cause for concern.
When I was a candidate for Parliament, like many other candidates at the time, and many hon. Members of the previous Parliament who were part of the debate on the 2010 Act, I met photographers who were concerned about the proposed legislation on orphan works. Not only should a way be found to pay a nominal licensing fee for orphan works such as images that people want to use, but if that use brings substantial financial gain—particularly if a found image is used in an advertising campaign, which brings great commercial benefit to the company using it—there should be a way to assess what the real value would have been if a proper licensing agreement had been in place. Clearer guidance is also needed on the commercial value of orphan works, in cases where the person in question comes forward after the image’s use.
The issues present a great overall challenge. Our responsibility is to protect the industry and the rights of the content creators, so that they know that they are in an industry where their endeavour and work receive a fair price and are fairly used, and they have incentives to carry on producing their work. One of the challenges that we face, in addition to an uncertain regulatory playing field, is the public’s attitude towards the illegal use of content, particularly in the music industry. Research demonstrates that, on the whole, the problem is not that people do not think they will be caught downloading material illegally, but that they do not think that there is anything wrong in it. The problem is that people do not necessarily understand the impact of piracy and the illegal use of works and the knock-on consequences for the creative industries. That is a communications and attitude-change challenge for the industry.
Part of the solution should be effective resolution using ideas in the Hargreaves report, a better framework for licensing works and understanding how those things work; but there is also a challenge for the industry to make the legitimate means of getting access to music and purchasing content so attractive, simple and easy to use that people would on the whole be deterred from using illegal sources, as the quality of the product and the method of delivering it would be so inferior and the potential consequences not worth the risk.
I welcome the report and hope that we shall not be back here in two years discussing yet another Government report on the issue, but that we shall instead be celebrating some progress on the matter.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) on securing, with support from others, the debate.
I hate to be a bit cheesy, but I think that the Abba song sums it up very well:
“Thank you for the music, the songs I’m singing,
Thanks for all the joy they’re bringing.
Who can live without it, I ask in all honesty?
What would life be?
Without a song or a dance what are we?
So I say thank you for the music, for giving it to me.”
Sadly, it is the last bit of the chorus that I disagree with, because I do not think that the intention of the writers of that song is to say that they want simply to give away their copyright.
Everybody here is aware of how wonderful the creative industries are, both in our country and worldwide. What has changed dramatically is that people believe that just because something is on the internet, it is theirs for free by right; they may not understand the industry that they are harming. If somebody goes to the cinema, they do not expect to take a digital camera and film the entire film so that they do not have to buy the DVD when it comes out. There are other examples of where, simply because the experience is different in the physical world and the online world, we need better education. Other hon. Members have called for that already.
One thing that we can do is make it easy. I would like to echo what the right hon. Member for Bath (Mr Foster) said about the expansion of the number of business models in the past two or three years as the industry has reacted to the criticism that it was not easy to access digital versions to keep and own, or rent as a one-off, or use for a limited time, or similar. The industry has responded well to that. People can see films for free with ad-funded services. There is no need to buy them if the consumer is prepared to put up with a bit of advertising. That is true of music and some other access models, such as subscription, where there is not just pay-per-go; it is a case of “cram in as much as you like in a month”, or for the duration of the subscription. It is important to recognise that that is now so easy for people to do that we should not necessarily look benevolently on those who persistently refuse to be prepared to pay a price.
Whom does it hurt when people do not pay? It hurts new talent. The amount of new talent coming into the industry has declined, especially in music, in the past few years. Frankly, out of the top 10, nine people broke into platinum status, and half of them probably came from some of our well-known talent shows on television. People then point to the Radiohead example. That is a dangerous precedent. I do not believe that Radiohead ever repeated that experiment of allowing people to pay whatever price they wanted for its product, including zero. It does not help new talent coming into the industry when established players do that kind of thing.
Search engines have been alluded to. On Google, it is very easy to be pointed to sites that encourage and facilitate illegal behaviour. Dare I say it, but I would like Google, instead of trying to be crusaders for freedom, to work with the creative industries, and with other people such as Microsoft and Apple, to make something like a digital contract exchange work. That should be not a Government or state thing, but something on which industry takes the lead again, as it has done, to ensure that it is making it as easy as possible for people to do the right thing and behave in the right way, and to ensure that it is protecting value for people who generate creativity. There is an opportunity for Google to be good for both the industry and consumers, and use its expertise in a particular way. I note that when one tries to get certain sites taken down or content removed, very high-tech Google does not allow people to actually e-mail it—one has to write to it in California. That seems a bit bizarre.
On the challenges for the Government, with the advent of superfast broadband, they should look to South Korea, where piracy escalated dramatically as it became easier and easier to access peer-to-peer files and other technologies. South Korea imported its own version of the Digital Economy Act 2010, which has had some impact, but I would say that piracy is still a problem. The hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Jim Dowd) spoke about financial loss; I would echo what he said. I am surprised that the Treasury has not cottoned on to the amount of tax revenue that we are losing. I would hope that by supporting the creative industries, the Treasury might receive more revenue in the bank.
The issue of orphan rights has been discussed. The right hon. Member for Bath was on the right lines: if someone can establish ownership of their works, a share of the proceeds would be appropriate. I think of it almost like dormant bank accounts; banks can effectively put the money to good use, but if anyone reclaims the account, they are entitled to their money back, so there is a precedent.
On new exceptions to copyright, I will provide a physical example. Many people may not realise that cat litter is also very good for putting in pots and tubs to grow flowers in. The properties that one would want cat litter to have include absorbing liquid very quickly and releasing it gently into the atmosphere. Thus cat litter can be used as a way of preventing soil drying out and releasing moisture slowly. It took a bizarre incident for someone to realise that this was another way to use cat litter, but it is now marketed for that use—but not as cat litter. As one can imagine, there is more money to be got by marketing it as plant protection. That is an example of a creative way of using a product in a new way. In a digital situation, one could look at a map online. All the data that support that topographical map should be allowed to be given to somebody else. If they come up with something creative, they give the person whose map it is nothing for all those data and all the effort that was put into the map, but plenty of money can be made elsewhere.
I do not want to rubbish Hargreaves entirely, although it may sound as though I do. There is stuff to build on, but frankly I feel that he derides our creative industries when he says that there is almost hysteria and lobbynomics. Research shows some of the challenges for the creative industries, and shows why aspects of the Hargreaves report will damage, rather than promote, those industries. Ian Hargreaves needs to reflect that the issue is about trying to have something that is appropriate for the 21st century. We need something flexible that, most important of all, does not kill our creative industries, but instead sets a scene in which they prosper and grow. Long may that continue in cool Britannia.
Lorely Burt (Solihull) (LD)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Chope. I congratulate the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) and all those who were successful in securing this important debate.
I would like to address my remarks on the Hargreaves report to its effect on small businesses and patents. We have had plenty of discussion on copyright, but I would argue that Hargreaves does not concentrate adequately on the effect of copyright, particularly as it applies to small businesses. Does that matter? Well, it matters to businesses, for many of which patents are far more of an issue than copyright, according to the Hargreaves report in figure 2.1. Figure 8.2 also shows that patent enforcement is more of an issue to small businesses than copyright enforcement.
Taking small businesses first, I would contend that their interests and views, I am sorry to say, have been systematically and consistently ignored in the report. For example, the panel was composed solely of academics and corporate representatives who, in turn, supported a team of 10 intellectual property officers—the same people who are immersed in the day-to-day operation of the system. So how, one might ask, can a department independently review itself? I would not go so far as to say that it is like asking Rebekah Wade to review the activities of News International, but I think hon. Members will get my point. In particular, in response to Hargreaves, large and small companies have frequently criticised poor patent quality. The panel did not include a single representative of small business, although the report acknowledges, in paragraph 1.5, that
“Over the last decade the majority of productivity growth and job creation has come from innovation…primarily by small and young firms.”
It seemed strange, therefore, that the panel did not think the views of those firms important enough to be represented. Indeed, IBM—an American corporation, which you might have heard of, Mr Chope—was the sole member of the panel with direct knowledge of the patent system.
When small businesses submitted evidence, including solutions to their day-to-day problems with the patent system, some of that evidence was not only ignored but not even acknowledged as a submission to the report. I refer to the SME Innovation Alliance’s paper, “The Economic Failure of the Patent System”, which Hargreaves received. Hargreaves stated that a survey of small and medium-sized enterprises had been done, but that survey is not published, so we do not know the findings.
One of the recommendations of the report is that patents should not be issued for non-technical computer programs. One can have some sympathy with that view, and indeed a constituent of mine who designs software maintains that it is nigh-on impossible to get one. However, Hargreaves does not define “technical”, although he does suggest that “general application programs” should not obtain patents, and he includes word processing under that umbrella definition. But what if a general application program has a technical effect? For example, as of last night, 17,436 word processing patents had been granted in the USA, and they can also be obtained in the EU. By saying that we should continue not to issue similar software patents, we are preventing UK competition in the software industry.
Hargreaves also talks about thickets, which are blockages in the IP system caused by a boom in applications in a specific area. He maintains that, to reduce the thickets, it would be necessary to increase the “renewal costs” of the patent. Who, though, would be disproportionately disadvantaged by that? Would it be the IBMs of this world, or the little guys with less money, less support and fewer clever lawyers? However, we could increase the application fee to get a proper service from the Intellectual Property Office in the first place. The fee currently stands at £200, whatever the size of the company. America has separate fees for large and small companies. Why not, for example, have a £10,000 fee for a small company and a £100,000 fee for a large company?
Mr Binley
I have listened to my hon. Friend’s comments, which are always immensely constructive and helpful, but I was concerned when I heard mention of the £10,000 fee for a small company. Many of the small companies operating in software creation are one-man bands, for whom that would be a large amount, even if that one-man band was immensely successful. Would she temper that cost a little?
Lorely Burt
My hon. Friend makes an important point. I merely used the figure as one that would allow a patent to be properly researched before it was granted. A two-tier system, with a larger fee for larger companies, would stop some abuses. For example, IBM—I am sorry to use it as an example again; I promise I do not have anything against it—took out a patent for the optimal way to queue for the toilets on an aircraft, which is hardly earth-shattering.
On patent submissions, the review failed to deal head-on with poor patent quality and patent backlogs. As I said earlier, patents can be challenged as soon as they are issued, but once they have been issued, there is no mechanism for enforcement except through recourse to the courts. By taking out a patent, a company could be doing itself a disservice by drawing attention to its innovation and attracting the predatory attention of large companies with big lawyers, which can steal the idea and line up the fancy lawyers and see what the small company is prepared to do about it.
That brings me to costs and damages. Let us look at what happens when a patent holder finally takes an alleged infringer to court. Costs awarded to the loser used to be open-ended but, since 14 June, they have been limited to £50,000, which is a step in the right direction. That was not the result of Hargreaves, and he did not mention it in his report. However, that £50,000 is £50,000 more than in America, and the limit forms a substantial deterrent to a small company taking on a large corporate with resources and lawyers. Also, the award for damages is limited to £500,000, so if someone has a multi-million-pound idea and a big company comes in and steals it, the big company can infringe the patent, knowing that the maximum it will have to shell out is £500,000—a bargain. Compare that with America, where Dyson won damages of £6 million after the expiry of its patent because other companies were too quick off the mark in marketing bagless vacuum cleaners. Hargreaves seems to think that the UK garden is rosy, because fewer UK companies went to court than EU companies, but the reason is not because they are happier, but because too many barriers are in the way.
Hargreaves also ignored the SME Innovation Alliance’s request for a UK penalty for infringing a patent. Is that believable? We are the only country in the G8 that has no penalty. The worst that can happen to infringers is that they might end up paying a hypothetical royalty, as if nothing untoward had happened. By the time an SME has spent years, and money, pursuing infringement, it ends up losing substantial resources—and that is if it wins. As Sir James Dyson put it, it is a bit like having the family silver stolen, with the best result being getting some of it back. Why was the fundamental need for the introduction of a penalty for infringing a patent totally ignored?
The SME Innovation Alliance also complained about difficulties enforcing patent rights abroad, an area on which most SME growth and job creation is dependent. Hargreaves and the IPO have been made fully aware of that, and the IPO acknowledged the difficulties, but Hargreaves did not tackle the subject. All in all, I am sorry to say that SMEs—the main source of UK innovation—believe that Hargreaves has failed them. The Government have to take note of the real needs of UK SMEs, instead of setting up a review that has had the perhaps unintended consequence of pandering to the needs of foreign corporates. In Hargreaves’s favour, he recommends adopting the European patent system, but the total maximum damages of £500,000, covering the whole of Europe, hardly make the game worth the candle for many companies.
I welcome the patent box, an idea that SME Innovation Alliance officers are discussing with the Treasury at the moment. The patent box provides a £1.1 billion tax break for innovative industries. That has been extended to existing industries, and there are proposals to simplify research and development tax credits, but we need that now, not in 2013, if we are serious about job creation.
[Philip Davies in the Chair]
If the patent system does not protect British companies, we are making it harder to innovate in the UK than perhaps anywhere else in the G20, and far easier for others to steal our UK innovations. The SME Innovation Alliance has a number of ideas to improve the system greatly, and I would very much like our Government to take them seriously. Otherwise, all they can do is criticise Ministers for not providing a workable patent system for SMEs, the main source of UK innovation. I therefore conclude by asking the Minister to meet me and the SME Innovation Alliance to sort out the current mess in the patents system.
Mr Brian Binley (Northampton South) (Con)
I welcome you to the Chair, Mr Davies. It is a pleasure to serve under your direction. This is the first time that I have had that pleasure, and I promise that I will do my best not to cause you difficulties.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) on instigating this debate, which is opportune and important. His knowledge of the creative industries is second to none in the House, and his work on that does him and those industries great credit. We are all happy to support him.
I welcome the Hargreaves review as a start, but like the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Jim Dowd), I have some reservations. However, it is an opportunity to support intellectual property in the business sector, which is especially important for the creative industries. The case for those industries has been made very well in other contributions to the debate, and they might be starved of the oxygen of finance if we do not do something quickly. That is why I urge the Government to get on with the job of putting the report into effect. It is good that they have agreed to consult, but most of us want early notice of a Bill to support both business and the creative industries.
In a developed economy, intellectual property rights are fundamental to economic growth. If we lose sight of that fact, we do considerable harm to business and commerce in this country. I urge the Minister to recognise the needs of industry in that respect. It is vital that intellectual property rights are enhanced, protected and supported, and that the creators of those rights get their fair and just return. That cannot be said with confidence to apply at the moment, and therein lies the problem, as some contributors have said, which is why I urge the Government to act quickly.
We must get the matter right. If we fail to recognise and reward the value of creativity and innovation, we risk a reduction in the quantity and quality of new output, which is vital to the well-being of this nation. We have lost many of our rust-bucket industries and our young people are finding it difficult to get jobs, but creativity and innovation can be a vital spark to inspire many of those young people to become aspirational. I need only mention the games industry to show how inspirational creativity and innovation can be. Many young people have played a leading role in that and created a sizeable export industry for this country. We must take that into account.
The concern is felt particularly by the Authors’ Licensing and Collecting Association, which has 80,000 members who make a considerable contribution to the well-being of this nation culturally, educationally and technically, to say little of their contribution to GDP. We must recognise those creative people as small businesses, because every one of them makes a contribution in the way I have described.
The current copyright system has failed to remove barriers to innovation. There is a gap between the law and reasonable expectation, and the behaviour of many people today regarding digital access. There is a lack of understanding that creativity must be paid for. As the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge has said, to steal creative material is exactly that—it is stealing. If I produce something, I expect to be paid for it. That lies at the basis of a society that believes that hard work should have its reward. There is more to that in the spirit of our nation than often meets the eye. I have met young people who think it is their right to steal other people’s intellectual property, and that is the sort of culture that we have created. We must put an end to it, if we are to deal with the issue properly.
I welcome the single multinational regime, which offers the prospect of eliminating wasteful duplication and increasing the potential for cross-border commerce. That is a welcome innovation that the Government should think seriously about and get right when they draft a Bill. The Minister’s Department has estimated that that could increase income to the nation by at least £2 billion a year by 2020, and it could be considerably more than that if we released the potential that I believe exists.
The concept of IP attachés for emerging economies, such as China and India, is interesting, and I would be grateful if the Minister will give further information on that intriguing proposal. I want to know how he feels about the idea, which I believe is a good one. I recently led a delegation to China on behalf of the Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills. There is a view, rightly held in many areas, that China culturally sees knowledge as the birthright of all the peoples of the globe. It is a cultural concept that many of us admire, except that it means that they believe that they can have other people’s intellectual property.
To be fair, on that visit we found that the Chinese were genuinely getting down to the business of dealing with the issue, and they told that they have 60,000 inspectors on the ground. But I also saw a shop in Peking—sorry, Beijing, I am an old chap, as the Minister knows—selling CDs for £1 in our terms, which were clearly pirated and on open display. I am sure the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire who secured this debate will be horrified by that. He had worked on one of the CDs that I found, and he would probably like slightly more of a return from that particular enterprise.
I also want to talk about the impact of intellectual property on small businesses. I come from a county in which 94% of private sector work is in SMEs. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt) who has battled hard for the SME sector and suggested a meeting with the Minister. I know that he will want such a meeting to take place, and I am sure that a lot can come from it. Small and medium-sized enterprises are, without doubt, the main engine behind the Government’s growth agenda and behind wealth creation and the creation of more jobs in this country. Talking to those businesses about a matter that impacts so considerably on our young people has real import, and I look forward to hearing from my hon. Friend about the outcome of her meeting with the Minister.
The Hargreaves report deals with small and medium-sized businesses and recognises the importance of that sector, which I welcome. There is a symbiotic relationship between large and small firms on innovation and research and development, and supply chains are a large part of that. There are, however, complexities in the regime that are more challenging for small firms to navigate, and they need special understanding and help. I hope that the Government will recognise that when they introduce the legislation.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull and others have said, small firms need help with costs and with the law. A large company has the resources to promote understanding within the organisation about the impact of the law on a certain area of activity. Small businesses, however, do not have such resources. I have appealed again and again for the Government to recognise that the impact of a demanding regulation on large companies is multiplied 30 times in the SME sector in terms of cost and effort. The Government need to recognise that when they frame the legislation.
Small businesses want an integrated source of advice that combines commercial and technical insight with legal expertise. We need to understand how we can provide such a resource for the many small businesses that work in IP development, and we must enable them to commercialise as well as protect their intellectual property. I would, therefore, be grateful if the Minister were to expand on what action the Government propose to ensure that the regime is friendlier and more accessible to small and medium-sized businesses.
The Minister will not need telling that digitisation offers the prospect of democratising many of the written works in our language, which will spread economic, cultural, and educational benefits more widely. It is bizarre that researchers from Europe who seek to access material from before 1923 have to travel to the United States to view it. Although that material is readily available on the internet in the United States, it is not available in the United Kingdom. Ironically, much of it was produced and written in this country or in Europe, and it should be made available. It is a matter for the Minister to look into—I am talking specifically about material created up to 1923; I do not want the Minister to think that I seek to create a loophole to enable people not to pay their dues under copyright.
Digital material should be treated in the same way as other formats, offering the prospect of a simpler regime and architecture that commands greater compliance, respect and understanding. Copyright law should be technology-neutral, and contract law should no longer obstruct acts permitted by statute. Sadly, such acts are currently obstructed, and I want to draw that issue to the Minister’s attention.
In conclusion, I welcome the Government’s proposals on the patent box and on research and development credits. Applying a 10% corporation tax to profits attributed to patents would create a far more conducive environment in which innovators could operate. We need to retain our position as a world leader in patented technologies, and using the tax system to encourage that would be a positive measure for the Government to consider.
The Hargreaves report makes a vital and interesting contribution to the debate on intellectual property. We must, however, recognise that it is only a platform for debate,. The report needs genuine Government drive to translate into a Bill that will benefit the whole of our nation and, more specifically, be of import to small and medium-sized businesses. We need to be positive about encouraging innovation and growth, and we need to configure our policy and tax frameworks accordingly. As we gradually shift away from the economic woes of the past few years, above all else such innovation offers the prospect of sustained prosperity and success. My advice to the Minister, which I am sure that he will heed, is to get on with it.
Mike Weatherley (Hove) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) on securing this exceptionally well-timed and vital debate. I also draw the attention of hon. Members to my published declaration of interests. Intellectual property is suddenly popular, not only via my “Rock the House” project, but also in terms of Government attention. Intellectual property seems to have had more reviews than a west end show, and after 300 years, copyright is rightly back on centre stage.
As we have heard many times in this debate, intellectual property is the bedrock of a modern economy. Our traditional manufacturing base has gone, and industries that create new wealth are few and far between. There is one notable exception: we are very good at creating intellectual property in the creative industries. The figures speak for themselves—we heard some numbers earlier and I will introduce others. Global trade in IP licences alone is worth more than £600 billion a year. We are a major exporter of IP. In the UK, investment in intangibles has now outstripped investment in tangible assets by £137 billion to £104 billion. Our creative industries are world class and punch well above their weight.
Lara Croft was born in Wimbledon, and “The King’s Speech” dominated the Oscars. Adele is in the middle of a record-breaking run at the top of the US charts. Other countries envy the talent in this country, and as we heard earlier, our youngsters are queuing up to get a job in the creative industries. Some 2 million people already work in creative businesses. We want that number to grow, as do our youngsters who are looking for jobs now—that includes two of my children, who hope to join the creative industries shortly.
In recent years there have been 26 reviews into intellectual property. Who will invest in a country that is constantly reviewing its legislation and cannot decide whether to protect IP? Who will invest in a country that claims to value IP, yet turns a blind eye to theft on an unprecedented scale? Will the Minister confirm that there will be no more reviews of IP this Parliament? Will he unequivocally state whether the UK will protect IP or allow it to migrate elsewhere?
One example of the problem is the unauthorised reproduction of magazine and periodical publications online. If professional publishers are to continue to make significant investments in new applications for online publications, illegal copying and distribution must be more effectively addressed. That requires support for the enforcement of rights, and support from consumers for the use of legitimate services. Growth will not be promoted by removing or reducing rights that act as incentives for investment.
Mr Foster
I thank the hon. Gentleman very much for drawing attention to magazines. Often in these debates, we talk about music, film and video games; rarely do we mention magazines. However, the figures show that there is huge piracy of magazines. Future Publishing in my constituency is in real difficulty because of what is happening.
Mike Weatherley
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Future Publishing has pointed out to me a website—I think it is in Poland—that reproduces all its magazines online to as high a quality as it can. That is the type of thing that we need to shut down, so I welcome the intervention.
Mr Foster
I apologise for intervening again, but the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I, too, have seen that website. Pornographic material is included on the same site. The interesting thing is that it purports to be a genuine site, in that people have to pay a small amount of money to use it, so it is misleading consumers. It also contains advertising from reputable firms. We must deal with that.
Mike Weatherley
The right hon. Gentleman is exactly right. I think that the charge is equivalent to $10 a month, the payment of which allows unlimited downloads. Zero cents of that $10 goes back to the publishers.
As we come out of the recession, there is much talk of rebalancing the economy. Where will the growth come from? We cannot compete on labour costs and we do not want to. Our strength is in pharmaceuticals, high-end engineering, brands, bioscience and, of course, the creative industries. Our education publishers are No. l in the world. Our music industry is at No. 2. Our games industry used to be at No. 3—the position is under threat as other countries adapt and offer incentive packages that we are not matching. Surely we should be as proud of our creative industries and their podium positions as we hope to be of our athletes next summer.
To be fair to the present Government, the Hargreaves review is their first review of IP. I should also point out that there is a duty on those in the creative industries to adapt their business models far more quickly than they have done in the past. That includes reduced pricing models for the prime product and a changed emphasis on secondary income streams, such as live music and merchandising.
The Government’s response to the Hargreaves report is a tailor-made opportunity to celebrate our creative industries, and to confirm that we are open for IP business on a global scale. Will the Minister reassure banks in the UK that we are the best place in the world to invest in IP businesses? Will he confirm to creative businesses in this country that their assets will be protected by legislation? Will he encourage new talent with the message that people’s rights in respect of what they have created will not be reduced by exemptions and undermined by unnecessary regulation?
Let me turn to the Hargreaves report. It is better than I was expecting; I know that many other hon. Members have said the same. I have to admit that my heart sank when I met Professor Hargreaves and he hinted to me that he wanted to introduce US-style fair use here. His argument was that our IP laws were preventing internet companies from launching, yet I remember many search engines and social networks starting here. Some, such as Mumsnet and Friends Reunited, have been extraordinarily successful. They were not held back by our IP laws; they just did not have access to the same funding as Google and other silicon valley giants. Introducing fair use here would help only the likes of Google—established players with deep pockets that can fund the legal test cases that are such a feature of the US system. It was therefore with some relief that I read in the Hargreaves report that he rejected fair use for the UK. That is a sensible recommendation, and I urge the Minister to endorse it.
However, the report goes on to recommend a range of new exemptions. Let us be clear about what an exemption means for a creator. On the one hand, with our 300-year-old copyright tradition, we say that an author owns his work when he writes something. It is his property; he created it, and it is his. On the other hand, with an exemption, we say that he does not own his work any more in certain circumstances. Of course, there are situations in which the public interest must outweigh a property right, but we should be wary of taking away someone’s property, especially their own creation.
One example involves text and data mining. No case is made in the report for a text and data mining exemption. Such mining is simply described as making it easier to crawl the internet for material. Surely that is what Google and other search engines do on a commercial basis. Do we really need an exemption to make Google’s life easier? Should it not be obtaining licences if it wants to use other people’s material?
Parody, as we have heard, is another example. Parody is almost the hallmark of British comedy. It can hardly be argued that there is a shortage of parody in the UK. However, the Hargreaves report seems to think that there is a problem. The report concludes, with seemingly no evidence, that we should have a parody exemption, but should someone be allowed to take someone else’s work just because they are making fun of it? I do not see how parody justifies removing a creator’s basic rights in their work. Then there is research. Of course there is value in building on the work of others, but does that mean that the original researcher should get nothing for their work? I strongly urge the Minister to reject those recommendations in the report. This goes to the heart of copyright as a property right. Arguably, something that someone has created is even more precious than property. Our legislation gives creators ownership of their work. We should not take those rights away without good reason.
There are two areas where there is justification for an exemption, and that is broadly accepted by creators. The first is archiving. We have some unique collections of film and music in this country; indeed, I understand that film originated in my constituency of Hove. The British Library, for example, has the national sound archive, with millions of recordings going back to the birth of the gramophone, mostly donated over the years by record companies. Making digital copies is an obvious way of preserving those for future generations. When the Government consulted on an archive exemption three years ago, industry backed it. We should implement it now.
[Mr Christopher Chope in the Chair]
The second area is format shifting. That is copying CDs to MP3s, or DVDs to an iPhone or similar—something that millions of people do, despite its being illegal at the moment. Having just parted with cash for both a CD and their new MP3 player, consumers rightly expect to be able to copy music and films across without paying any extra, as they in effect paid for that in the purchase price.
The sticking point was whether musicians should get some recompense for that format shift. In the rest of Europe, that takes the form of a levy on copying devices. I do not like the idea of a levy. It is a blunt instrument that does not necessarily follow the market. Surely some form of licence could be allowed, provided that the material is solely for the private use of the purchaser. If it turns out to be impractical to stop internet file sharing, we could revisit the idea of a levy on equipment, as that would get some revenue to the rights holders and is attractive for its ease of use. In the meantime, I urge the Government to reject the idea of a levy on equipment and to allow personal-use format shifting, provided that an original licence has been purchased—in most cases, that would simply be someone paying for the CD for their own personal use.
On exceptions, the Hargreaves report gets some things right, but not others. The challenge for Government will be working out what to embrace and what to ditch.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
I would like clarification. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the licence would be bought at the same time as the CD, as part of the price?
Mike Weatherley
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Yes, my belief is that once someone has bought a CD, they should be able to shift the music to another format to listen to it in their own home, for their own private use; that becomes an infringement only if the material is used for other purposes. The industry got that wrong years ago. It is making illegal users out of millions of people in this country. They tend to ignore the law on copyright protection because they see it as a ridiculous law, and once people see something as a ridiculous law, they throw away other laws. We should allow format shifting for personal, private use once someone has bought a full legal copy.
I was saying that the Hargreaves report got some things right, but not others, and that the challenge for Government would be working out what to embrace and what to ditch. The same is true of the idea of a digital copyright exchange and the recommendations on licensing. The report identifies licensing as underpinning creative businesses. Indeed, licensing is now central to almost every business model, whether we are talking about a direct licence from a rights holder for a specific repertoire, or a collective licence covering an entire catalogue. The report recommends that the collective licensing bodies adopt a code of practice to facilitate efficient markets. That is a good suggestion, but does it need legislation and, if so, how intrusive should it be? The British Copyright Council is already producing a template code, and all the collective licensing bodies in the UK have agreed to sign up to it. If the industry is adopting good practice voluntarily, we do not need more regulation.
Perhaps the most high-profile recommendation in the report is the one for a digital copyright exchange. In essence, that is a good idea. Indeed, many parts of the industry are already developing databases. Phonographic Performance Ltd, for example, has a database of 5 million recordings, and the database includes record company ownership and performer line-up. That is essential for its licences with the BBC and others, so that the broadcasters know what is in their licence and the right musicians can be paid. Book, newspaper and music publishers, along with photographers and others, are developing similar facilities. There may even be a role for Government in co-ordinating those efforts and encouraging greater co-operation between databases.
However, the Hargreaves report certainly goes a step too far. It recommends that the digital copyright exchange become a licensing platform, with flat-rate pricing available at the click of a mouse. Far from encouraging growth, that is anti-market. It is extraordinary that a review about growth should recommend a trading platform where prices are static and there is no room for negotiation. How on earth could any rights holder be expected to set a price in advance for a totally new service that at the time exists only in the mind of the creative entrepreneur? That is a recipe for stagnation.
As if that was not enough, the report also proposes introducing penalties for rights holders who do not participate in the digital copyright exchange. Such wrongdoers would be denied access to their rights under the Digital Economy Act 2010, creating a two-tier system for copyright, and that must be resisted. Effectively, it is compulsory registration by the back door, and we should not allow it. One of the great strengths of copyright is its flexibility, and the fact that it is available to all creators, big and small. The principle of not requiring formal registration to enjoy copyright is enshrined in international treaties. We should uphold that principle, not undermine it.
We then come to the report’s suggestion that Government should appoint a digital champion to sort everything out. This is perhaps the most extraordinary of the report’s recommendations. The review rightly concludes that, if it is to work, the digital copyright exchange must be industry-led and must respond to the business needs of the creative sector. It then recommends that Government appoint a tsar to direct that industry initiative. “Industry-led” means led by the industry, not by a digital champion appointed by the Government. Will the Minister reject the idea of a digital champion, and allow the digital copyright exchange to be led by the industry from the start—or at least by a digital champion who is advisory rather than dictatorial?
In conclusion, I urge the Minister to be selective in his response to the Hargreaves report. Will he say yes to protecting our creative industries and the property owned by the creators? Will he say yes to archiving, private format shifting and some form of central rights database? Will he say no to the exemption of text and data mining for research and of parody, and will he be selective in exemptions linked to the national interest? Will he say no to fair use and to a centralised pricing model in the central rights database? Such confirmations and rejections would confirm this country’s commitment to ensuring that IP gives world-class support to business, and to the talent that drives it.
Eric Joyce (Falkirk) (Lab)
I apologise for not being here at the start of the debate, Mr Chope. I was at another event, which I shall mention briefly in a moment.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart)—his constituency was the place of my birth—on securing the debate, which is incredibly timely. He has committed himself to this subject for some time, and he regularly makes important contributions, as have many others here today.
Before coming here, I was chatting to Prime Minister Odinga of Kenya, and we spoke about this very matter. In the developing world, mobiles are being used much more and new services are becoming available. Those countries are looking to us to see how we deal with the emerging issues, and they are likely to follow the same principles, tenets or philosophical underpinnings, if that does not sound too grand. It is very much a current issue in Kenya—aside from piracy of the other type, which he is also particularly keen to address. These issues are at the forefront for countries in the developing world, especially in countries such as Rwanda. That country has mobile coverage across the country—it is better than in London. It also has fibre-optic cable, surprisingly good services and lots of new possibilities for creators. We must not forget that what we say now will have a powerful influence on people across the world, particularly those in the developing world.
I listened to the hon. Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley) with great interest. I thought that he struck exactly the right balance. On such matters, from the Digital Economy Act 2010 to the Hargreaves report, there tends to be a bit of polarisation, with the creators on one side and the distributors on the other. It is a false dichotomy, because one could easily argue that record labels are both creators and distributors. We tend falsely to put people in particular boxes. The hon. Gentleman was absolutely right to point out, as Hargreaves did, that our copyright law is elderly. It was intended for an entirely different purpose from how it is used today, and the way that people live now—I wish that I could remember exactly what he said, so I paraphrase—is very different from what the copyright law assumes.
The review is timely. Although no study undertaken on behalf of the Government, or of anyone else, is perfect, Hargreaves suggests some intelligent incremental steps. In broad terms, I think that we should support it. I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Hove (Mike Weatherley), and I completely understand his concerns. He is a champion of creators, and I do not pooh-pooh the important concerns that he expressed. However, it is important to realise that Hargreaves has attempted to pull together two disparate positions and has created a reasonably consensual outcome, which is difficult. When the Minister, and more significantly the Government, decide what to do, I hope that the changes to corporate law will reflect the general spirit of what Hargreaves has been trying to achieve.
We all agree with the hon. Member for Hove on format shifting—it is common sense that we should do something about it. Most people—probably most of us—have format shifted without realising that it was unlawful. That is a point of some consensus. For my own part, however, when I listen to debates on this subject, I still get the sense that some people are defending one position and others are defending a position on the other side. However, when we to talk to people in the industry, we find much more intelligent discussion and debate.
If we talk to record labels, we hear something different from what is said by the BPI. Much as I love, respect and admire the BPI—this is not to say that we should give in wholesale to what we have already heard happens in China—record labels will say, “Well, three or four years down the line things will be shifting a little bit; business models will shift a little bit.”
At the centre of Hargreaves is the recognition that creatives not only create the things they do, but create new solutions to problems. The hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt) mentioned small and medium-sized businesses. Small software companies are less concerned about patenting and are more interested in keeping people with good ideas. They are sometimes more reluctant to patent specific things, because it can give away their secrets, but the secret in parts of the software industry is hanging on to those clever creative minds. It is much like the House of Commons.
I will briefly jump to the digital copyright exchange, which is potentially contentious. It looks like a common-sense idea—it is a common-sense idea—but how will it work? As soon as the recommendation is made, people in different industries will say, “This looks fine, but what is the meat of it? How should it work?”
One line that I have not heard mentioned—it may have been mentioned before I arrived—which one hears reflected outside this place is the almost theological point that when someone creates something it is theirs for good and theirs to control. Some would say that that is not the case and that, as the hon. Member for Northampton South said about the Chinese view of knowledge, it is out there for people to use and manipulate. We should certainly give the benefit to the original creators. At the extreme, one way to interpret the possible function of the digital copyright exchange is that it should be compulsory, because if the creation is not registered, the creator will not receive the cash, which would be tough on the creators. On the other hand, I am not completely convinced that those who create things should necessarily be able to control them.
Damian Collins
One observation from my time in the advertising industry, based on the hon. Gentleman’s remarks, is that that could work against younger creative people. They do not have experience of the industry or the muscle to demand a higher price for their work at the initial point of sale and will therefore lose control of it for the future. Does the hon. Gentleman share that concern?
Eric Joyce
I absolutely agree. Indeed, the advertising industry is one of our more successful creative industries. I know a number of people who work in it or who have done so. The hon. Gentleman said earlier that the advertising industry often takes something that looks like an original idea from elsewhere, uses it imaginatively and creates something new, adding value to it.
The hon. Gentleman said something about orphan works that struck me; I had not reflected on the matter before. I do not have a great problem with orphan works. I was lobbied on the subject by photographers during the passage of the 2010 Act. It could be the case that something has been forgotten by the creator and is long-gone but is used in an advertising campaign, such as that famous kiss picture by Robert Doisneau. Such things could be completely forgotten, but if they are used in advertising campaigns and seen all over the place, the creator will not benefit from it. I see the logic of revisiting that aspect.
Damian Collins
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. I might be wrong, but I cast my mind back to the 1997 general election campaign and the famous demonised poster of Tony Blair. The original photograph was an orphan work.
Eric Joyce
That is absolutely fascinating. I think Tony Blair might have put the original up in one of his many houses. Perhaps he has put one up in each. I will not continue to wax rhapsodic, as I was late for the start of the debate.
Let me turn briefly to the internet service providers. There are hundreds of thousands of ISPs, many of which are small and fill a niche. In the UK, there are lots of ISPs serving local geographical areas. That may seem counter-intuitive, but that is the way it is. They provide a good service in their niche market. I am not saying, “Yah-boo sucks to all the creators and the ISPs are all fabulous.” However, we tend to forget that ISPs have to invest a great deal of money in infrastructure. We all want superfast broadband, but if we are not careful we could end up loading costs on to ISPs and slow down the superfast future that we all want. It is not the case that Google commands everybody and fair use will be next. As the hon. Member for Hove has said, fair use has essentially been rejected by Hargreaves, but I am sure that that will not happen in the UK. I understand that it was primarily a legal argument that did not fit terribly well into the European legal structure.
Let me just blow the trumpet for ISPs. The sector is not terribly big or sexy, and we understandably tend to speak a lot about our success in the music industry. However, the corporate debate goes much wider than the music industry. For instance, it involves software, as I have mentioned. There are all sorts of creative responses in the movie industry. We can see release dates being brought closer together, so that people are less likely to pirate. Often, if new technological solutions, creative ideas or new ways of selling a product are found, problems can be solved.
In his report, Hargreaves emphasises that enforcement and education have a limited effect. Instead, he says we need to find new ways of facilitating new creative ideas. He recommends the creation of a digital copyright exchange. I am not sure exactly how it will work and do not think that it will necessarily involve compulsion, but there are some interesting debates around it. The report states:
“Government should pursue an integrated approach based upon enforcement, education and, crucially, measures to strengthen and grow legitimate markets in copyright and other IP protected fields.”
That goes to the heart of what Hargreaves has tried to do. It is not perfect, but it recognises that we can make incremental steps at this stage. I hope that the idea does not get knocked off track for some technical reason that we cannot get round.
Hon. Members spoke at length with Professor Hargreaves, who made himself and his team available to them. I deduce that he and his team are a little concerned that the whole thing will be knocked off track by heavy lobbying. The hon. Member for Northampton South perfectly captured the problem. We recognise that we need to change; we accept what Hargreaves recommends as sound common sense; and we can get the copyright laws that we need not only now but for things that might be coming along in the future.
Dr Coffey
I hear what the hon. Gentleman has said about Professor Hargreaves and about his concern that everything might be put to one side. As my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt) said earlier, if he had broadened the panel to include not only academics and intellectual property officers but people from the industry, he might have had a more willing audience.
Eric Joyce
The hon. Lady makes a good point. I am always up for broadening the membership of panels. I did not select the panel. She may well be right. I do not deny that it was a tightly focused group. We all have small and medium-sized businesses in our communities, and we all get lobbied by the Federation of Small Businesses. I often get lobbied by small businesses that say that the corporate holders are too aggressive in pursuing their rights and interests. I am not sure what I feel about that, but the hon. Lady is right in what she says.
In conclusion—I was almost at my peroration before the hon. Lady intervened—Professor Hargreaves has produced a pretty good piece of work. It is not perfect, but it recommends good incremental steps forward. We need to reflect on the fact that ISPs are being relied on to contribute greatly to the roll-out of superfast broadband. We all want that. It is coming. When is it going to come? We will see what it looks like when it comes. This report is a small but significant part of the chain.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to be here this afternoon under your chairmanship, Mr Chope, and to have listened to such an interesting and intellectually challenging debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) on securing the debate. We all know about his musical talents from Runrig to the heady heights of MP4. He slips in a bit of politics from time to time. His insights have illuminated our discussion of the Hargreaves report. There were not too many surprises in his contribution. We have met on a number of occasions, and we have discussed these issues in different forums with many of the people who are here today. In particular, I remember an interesting tea that we had with Ian Hargreaves. Before I go into that, let me first say that I found Ian Hargreaves to be very accessible. To produce a report within such a short period of time was a demanding job. He has done that, and we are here debating the content of that report, which is positive.
That tea that I have referred to was pretty influential. It became clear to Ian Hargreaves then, if he had not known before, that there was a strong view among parliamentarians that the direction set out by the Prime Minister last November when the review was announced was not one with which many agreed. With the exception of my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (Eric Joyce)—I am glad that he contributed today—many parliamentarians here agree with the general view that fair use is certainly not what we need. We should ensure that our artists are suitably supported for their artistic and creative contributions. That is the view that comes across in most debates in Parliament, which is interesting because most of the e-mails that I receive on this subject say exactly the opposite. That is something that we should be very conscious of and that we should discuss in more detail with our parliamentary colleagues. Some of the people who need to be educated on this issue are fellow parliamentarians. When we were candidates before the last general election, we all had the happy task of responding to hundreds of e-mails on the Digital Economy Act 2010. There are heavy lobbies in this area, and I have received a number of them in connection with this debate.
The contributions today have been very helpful. I have already referred to the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire. We learned a lot from the excellent contributions of the right hon. Member for Bath (Mr Foster), who has such tremendous experience in the area, and of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Jim Dowd). The hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) made some interesting observations about search engines.
I want to raise one further matter, the vertical integration of search engine companies. Search engines do not always disclose their interests in the results of a search. They increasingly tend to acquire other companies that provide services and that are then linked to the search engine, so they are directly benefiting from their business. We need increased disclosure, so that the consumer is well aware of what is going on.
I enjoyed the contribution from the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) who quoted Abba. I was deeply disappointed that she did not give us the music to go with it. Perhaps she will do so on another occasion.
The hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt) told us about small business, and she emphasised its importance in this field. I am disappointed that the group to which she referred feels it was not taken into account in the review, but of course it was the Government she supports who selected the people for the review, so perhaps she should take it up with them. She obviously took it up with the Minister, and I am sure that he will respond in due course.
It is always a delight to hear from the hon. Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley), who told us about visiting CD shops in Beijing; I am sure he did not buy one. We also heard from the hon. Member for Hove (Mike Weatherley) who has great experience in this field. He has shown the benefits of someone who comes not from a political background but from a business background. He has the experience to talk knowledgeably about this issue, and it is very refreshing to hear someone who is clearly at odds with his Prime Minister being able to speak out so frankly and openly on an issue such as this. Long may he do so; I myself have done so in the past. My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk has a slightly different perspective, but it is important that it forms part of our debate.
I begin by discussing an important issue that we have not raised. When the Hargreaves report was commissioned last November, it was launched by the Prime Minister. The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills was charged with dealing with the issue, and the Minister with responsibility for culture, communications and creative industries in his Department is the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey). The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning clearly loves a debate. As a junior Minister, however, he does not have the same communication with the industry in connection with the internet, the media, culture and communications as the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for Wantage, who is now also a Minister in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. That is a major problem. It is important that the industry has a close relationship with the Ministers who are actually dealing with this issue on a day-to-day basis. That is not happening at the moment, because in Parliament there is a great deal of confusion about who is responsible for this particular area. We know that telecommunications was shifted away from BIS as a result of the discussions that the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills had with some of his constituents. This is a serious issue as far as the industry is concerned.
Pete Wishart
The hon. Gentleman is making an important and powerful point. I think Siôn Simon will go down in history as possibly the last creative industries Minister. Having someone as a central point of contact that the industry could go to was very useful. We have not even got the Minister with responsibility for the matter here, because she is in the House of Lords. There needs to be a get-together on all this to have one Minister whom industry and we as MPs can go to, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will continue to press the Government to create that one individual post.
Ian Lucas
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point and for his support. We all want this area to move forward, because we want jobs and growth in this sector. We all know and appreciate that this is a hugely important sector for the UK. We have heard the 8% of GDP statistic and the fact that we are No. 2 in the world in exports in this field, and we want the sector to progress. Under this Government at the moment, I am afraid that we are not making the progress that we should. On 18 May, the Secretary of State said that there would be a response within weeks to the Hargreaves review, and I want to hear from the Minister when the response will actually come. We have still not made progress on the Digital Economy Act 2010. We are not clear about the Government’s position on enforcing rights. We still have a spectrum consultation going on, and we are awaiting announcements on broadband funding allocations. In the context of a very serious economic position, with growth flatlining generally over the past few months, we need to have one of the most important and positive sectors in the UK in a position of certainty and stability.
When a new Government are elected, a sector always gives them some time, because it is clearly in their own interests to have a good relationship with Government. I am afraid that the sector is running out of patience, and it needs to have support from Government to take matters forward as quickly as possible. It is important that the Minister understands that the industry wants action in this area, and it wants it as quickly as possible.
I want to thank all the organisations which sent me submissions in connection with the Hargreaves review. I have met many of them, and I have discussed in detail what is a very complex area for anyone who comes to it for the first time, as I did about nine months ago. There are many different groups within the sector who lobby well. When I was reading the papers in connection with this debate, I was struck by the common ground, despite the fact that the different groups are often presented as having a great deal of disagreement. The first common issue is that everyone wants growth. We are good at this sector, and we need to do better. We know that we can compete with anyone in music, drama and computer games, and we know that with the right background and the right framework, we can do better. We need to get more people involved in the creative industries, because we still draw from too limited a pool, but I think that we can make real progress. We all agree that investment and talent need to be rewarded, or there will be fewer people working in the sector, and the growth that we want will not happen.
In its submission to me, Google stated that it
“will continue to help content creators to generate new revenues and take control over their online products.”
I deliberately selected Google as supporting the rights holders in that way. When I read that, I was reminded of an interesting discussion that I had recently with the poet Wendy Cope at a meeting. She is well worth reading, although she is often read online without payment. Not surprisingly, she is frustrated by this, because, like everyone else, she has to pay for her Sunday dinner, too. We need to ensure that all original artists are paid. We all agree that artists need to be paid, and we all agree that their work needs to be disseminated more widely.
Obviously, no artist or creator wants fewer people to see their work. No artist will object to format shifting, provided they are paid for it in some way. I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Hove make his position on format shifting clear. That is an area that needs to be sorted out. Frankly, I am not clear why it has not been done before. I was struck that it was not an issue for virtually every group that I have met. The fact that we have this format shifting that nobody seems to support is a barrier to growth. The example used by the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills when publishing the Hargreaves review was the case of Brennan, the format shifting company that first came to my attention in the New Statesman in the very convincing advert that it ran over a number of months, basically indicating that it is a company that is at a competitive disadvantage because of the position of format shifting at the present time. We all agree that the current position is not acceptable, and that we need progress, but no one can agree on a way forward, and in that respect copyright is a bit like House of Lords reform.
So, what can we do? There seems to be a consensus that the matter is best dealt with and led by the industry, but there is disagreement about what precisely should happen next, as has been reflected in the debate today. We have had, for example, a discussion about the digital copyright exchange, and part of the reason for the uncertainty, or disagreement, about that is that no one is exactly sure what is being proposed. If we are simply talking about a one-stop shop where someone goes initially and is then directed to existing registers somewhere else that can cope with the matters, that seems to be largely acceptable, but there is great resistance to any sort of compulsory system and to penalising artists if they do not take part in the digital copyright exchange.
The timetable for the Hargreaves review was so tight that the review was never really going to come up with a detailed and convincing response, but we need the matter to be taken forward and an agreement to be reached—within the industry, I think. There are lots of experts in this field, and it is better that they sort out a way forward themselves. I was very encouraged by the setting up of the Creative Industries Council, which is a good model. We have the Automotive Council UK in the very competitive automotive industry, and the different industry parties sit around the table and devise with the Government a strategy to take forward the UK automotive industry. The Creative Industries Council should perform a similar role in areas such as the Hargreaves report, and one of its first tasks should be to find a way forward through discussion within the industry and compromise. Sometimes, to make progress it is also necessary for the Government to knock a few heads together, but in all the discussions that I have had there has been a desire to establish stability and progress in the sector, and the industry in the UK would benefit as a result of that.
It cannot be beyond the wit of the creative industries to put this together; we know about their capabilities and the fact that they have devised structures and new models of working. The Government must, however, play their part too, and I am afraid that at the moment they are letting the side down. We have delay, confusion and a lack of clarity in the relationship between the Government and the industry, and the Government need to step up to the plate, act as quickly as possible—I hope that we will hear some dates for their responses to the review—improve their relationship with the sector and take matters forward from there.
Mr Foster
On a point of order, Mr Chope. Given that we are discussing media matters, would it be appropriate for me to inform the House that I have just received the news that the first major casualty of the appalling behaviour at the News of the World is that the newspaper will close after this Sunday?
Mr Christopher Chope (in the Chair)
That is not a point of order. The right hon. Gentleman could have made the same point in an intervention on the Minister. I am sure that the Minister will now be eager to deal with that point, as well as all the others, in his summing up.
The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning (Mr John Hayes)
I am delighted to be able to respond to this important debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) on securing it. He spoke with knowledge and commitment on a subject that I know is dear to his heart. I have, in fact, spoken on the subject on two consecutive days; I was in this Chamber debating with him just yesterday. As I shall explain later, the Minister in my Department with responsibility for intellectual property is Baroness Wilcox, so I am not here as the Minister with responsibility for the subject but am pleased to speak on it. I pray in aid my professional background in the IT industry. I had a small business, which I subsequently made bigger, and was heavily involved with many but not all of the topics that have been debated today.
The Government are acutely aware that there have been previous reviews and consultations on intellectual property, and I understand the point the hon. Gentleman made at the outset: this is a challenging area, not least because of the changing character of the industry and the technology, and consequent events. He is probably right that we will return to the matter time and again, because of that dynamic quality. The Government are equally acutely aware of the need to facilitate growth. That theme has punctuated this debate, and there is a close relationship between how far we intervene in some of these matters and how we catalyse or, conversely, inhibit growth. That has been the perhaps unspoken dynamic at the heart of today’s considerations.
I am mindful of the words of the late Sir Hugh Laddie, a distinguished commentator on such matters and a judge who presided over many intellectual property cases. He said:
“If patents had been applied from the start we would still be on very early operating systems”—
in the IT industry. He continued:
“To give a business method example, if Ford had patented the concept of the assembly line, the US’s industrial development would have been held up”
altogether. So there are, of course, tensions between how we protect intellectual property and how we facilitate the growth that we need to deliver prosperity.
The economic importance of intellectual property is clearly profound and growing, and it has been said this afternoon that the creative industries are critical in delivering the growth that we seek. I have regular interface with those industries in my role as the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning and am anxious that we tie the development of skills policy to growth, by identifying the sectors, including the creative industries, high-end manufacturing and the information systems industries, in which skills gaps and shortages might limit what we can achieve. Through that dialogue, I have gained some understanding of how we protect innovation. Innovation and growth are intimately linked by nature—a point made by successive speakers—and we need to make critical decisions about how we facilitate innovation and take advantage of its effect on business activity and employment.
This is a complex environment, and it will continue to change, perhaps even more quickly than at the moment. When people think about macro-economics and economic change, they often say, as has been said today, that as economies advance they become more high tech. I do not dismiss that by saying that it is often said—perhaps it cannot be said too often. What is less frequently cited, however, is the increasingly dynamic need of economies as they advance. Increasing dynamism requires public policy makers to be ever more responsive, and nowhere is that more true than in our handling of licensing, patents and copyrights. That is particularly significant in industries that are at the cutting edge, many of which have been cited. They are not all the same of course, and part of the problem with this debate is that we are dealing with an extremely diverse range of sectors and all kinds of innovation, with different pressures and opportunities.
To support growth, we certainly need an intellectual property system that helps business and consumers realise the opportunities that technology and change create. That is why, as the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) said, the Prime Minister commissioned the Hargreaves review in November. Professor Hargreaves was asked to develop proposals on how the UK’s intellectual property framework can further promote entrepreneurial activity, economic growth and social and commercial innovation.
The Prime Minister asked the review to identify barriers to growth in the IP system, how to overcome them and how the IP framework could better enable new business models appropriate to the digital age. The review considered intellectual property and barriers to the growth of new internet-based business models, including information access, the cost of obtaining permissions from existing rights holders and fair use exceptions to copyright and how they might be achieved in the UK. It also considered the cost and complexity of enforcing IP rights within the UK and internationally, the interaction of the IP and competition frameworks and the cost and complexity to SMEs of accessing IP services to help them protect and exploit IP.
The review issued a call for evidence and undertook a programme of stakeholder meetings and events, to engage with a broad range of organisations. The review team also travelled internationally, visiting the USA to share experiences on managing patent systems and discuss the role of fair use in the US copyright system. There were more than 300 responses to the call for evidence, from a wide variety of sources. More than half came from representative organisations such as the Creative Coalition Campaign and the Open Rights Group that represent hundreds of firms and thousands of individual members.
My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley) will be pleased to know that 20% of responses came from small and medium-sized enterprises. He was right to point out that some of our most innovative companies are SMEs, perhaps because innovation often springs from the mindset of an individual or small group of people, as I experienced in my own career. I emphasise, as did he, that the interaction between small businesses and larger corporations can be immensely positive in protecting small businesses’ interests.
I do not want to disagree with the hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt), but having worked with IBM for many years, I think that the partner networks established in that industry by organisations such as Microsoft, Oracle and IBM can be positive for SMEs, although I am not complacent about that. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South was right to say that those interactions can be a useful means of protecting the interests of small firms, rather than limiting or damaging them. It is not the time to debate that issue, as it is tangential to the thrust of what I want to say, but it is an important matter that perhaps we can debate on another occasion, when I will be more than happy to avail the House of my insight into such matters.
As I said, 20% of the responses came from SMEs. They are usually hard to reach, which is why it is so important that we proceeded on a consultative basis. Small businesses often have fewer resources available to get involved in Government consultations and reviews. We often hear from big representative organisations, and sometimes from large corporations, but ensuring that we have a dialogue with small businesses seems critical. The high response rate from SMEs tells us how important IP issues are to them. The hon. Member for Wrexham is right that the amount of correspondence and information that Ministers, shadow Ministers and MPs have received on the subject reinforces the level of commitment and proper concern felt.
Lorely Burt
Given all that the Minister is saying about the importance of submissions from small businesses, I am sure that he is as mystified as I am that the submission from the SME Innovation Alliance was never alluded to or listed among the submissions. Will the Minister confirm that he is prepared to meet me and the SME Innovation Alliance to rectify the Hargreaves report’s failure to take certain things into account?
Mr Hayes
The hon. Lady made both those points earlier. With her usual assiduity, she has taken advantage of this opportunity to intervene on me to amplify them. I will deal with them in turn. First, that submission was indeed received and considered, and it played a part in informing the review’s recommendations, although it was not listed because, as I understand, it was received informally rather than through the formal process. Secondly, I am more than happy to commit my noble Friend Baroness Wilcox to meet her. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Universities and Science will want to be involved, too, and will be happy to join that meeting. The Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey) was also mentioned, and I shall deal with him later in my remarks. Given his Department’s involvement in the digital industries, an interface with him would be desirable, too. Having committed three of my colleagues’ diaries, I had better end on that point. However, we will have the meeting. I will insist that it happens.
Professor Hargreaves delivered his report, “Digital Opportunity”, to Ministers and the Government in May. Members know that the Government are considering that report and will not expect me to anticipate our response, but—it is right that the hon. Member for Wrexham raised the issue in his role as shadow Minister—I again make a clear commitment that the Government will publish our response within a month. There is another commitment made by a Minister who is not responsible for these matters; that is one of the virtues of being in this position.
Pete Wishart
When presented with the Hargreaves report, the Government said that the response would be published by the summer recess. What is the reason for the delay? It was a clear commitment to respond by the summer recess. Now the Minister is saying that it will take a month. Why the delay?
Mr Hayes
The Government need to consider such things carefully. The issues are complex. The hon. Gentleman made the point that they are challenging, and the Hargreaves review’s recommendations are wide-ranging. He knows the report well; I have it here. The volume of responses to the consultation was large, and they were wide-ranging in terms of both the ideas presented and the organisations that contributed. It requires serious and studious work. He might have wanted an early response, but better to have something satisfactory than something quick. I make the commitment that it will be published in a month, and I assure him that it will be a studious and carefully considered piece of work. I cannot go further than that. I am unable to give an account of the response’s contents before its publication, but I reassure the House that the Government recognise fully the seriousness of the matters raised in this debate and during the review and its publication, as well as the value of the industries that rely on intellectual property as their life blood.
Professor Hargreaves suggested that in some areas the UK’s intellectual property framework, especially with regard to copyright, is falling behind what is needed to meet new opportunities. That point has been made repeatedly today. The argument is that if we do not fix the framework, our economy will enjoy less innovation and lower growth. It is certainly true—I will comment this far on what we might say—that the UK needs open, contestable and effective markets in digital content and a setting in which copyright enforcement is effective. Copyright provides the legal framework to sustain and protect creative value. It needs to fit current conditions, and it should warrant, and get, the respect of consumers. In other words, while not anticipating our response, I think it is reasonable and fair to say, given that we have had such a serious debate, that we feel that changes will need to be made to bring the system in line with current conditions.
We need copyright content and technology working together, as has been said repeatedly. They should be in harmony, not in conflict. There should be a happy union between changing technology and copyright. We need an environment in which new businesses and technologies can compete fairly with existing ones. I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Solihull. Although I qualified her argument about the relationship between SMEs, partner networks and large players, it is certainly true that there is a risk unless we get the balance right. The law in that respect is important. I mentioned the late Sir Hugh Laddie earlier. The hon. Lady will remember that he made a point, following the Gowers report I think, that the legal system militates against smaller businesses and against individuals purely on the basis of cost. The hon. Lady has reinforced that, and I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South made the same point. Therefore, there are issues to be considered, and as I have said, we take them seriously.
The review recommends that the Government ensure that the IP system is based on evidence. The right hon. Member for Bath (Mr Foster) was right to insist that the Government’s response should also be evidentially based, and I assure him that it will be. Economic considerations should play a stronger role in assessing the nature and perhaps even the limits to rights, which is another point that he made. It is critical that we take an empirical view, inasmuch as one can in this dynamic and complex area. We will prioritise that kind of evidential approach.
On international priorities, the report recommends that the UK pursue international interests in emerging economies and prioritise the EU patent. We will, of course, look at that too, given some of the comments that have been made during the debate.
To improve the environment in copyright licensing, the Hargreaves review recommends the establishment of a digital copyright exchange. That has been mentioned several times, including by my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mike Weatherley). Although he will know that that argument has been made by many people over a considerable period, the nature of the exchange, which we are considering alongside other recommendations, must be founded on consent. The idea that we have a state-driven, compulsory system that dictates and determines from the top is probably not compatible with the arguments that have been made by almost every contributor to the debate. It must be based on a collaborative and co-operative model.
The appointment of a champion for the digital copyright exchange has also been raised. I think it was my hon. Friend who said that the champion must not be a dictator, which is of course true. The champion would have to work closely with the industries concerned. The consultative nature of how the Government have gone about getting to where we are would need to characterise the subsequent arrangements that we put in place.
The review also recommends that the Government legislate to enable licensing of orphan works. I want to say more about that in response to the comments of the right hon. Member for Bath. It is important to design a scheme that prevents reappearing rights holders from losing control of their work. Any scheme proposed will have to involve a diligent search for rights information. That must surely be essential if such a scheme is to be fair to all parties. Perhaps I can put it in these terms: if the creator of a bestseller were to come forward, the work would no longer be an orphan work.
The right hon. Gentleman should welcome and not be fearful of the emergence of a missing great creative work. Occasionally, such things happen. Not long ago, an important work by Mozart was discovered, which is surely a cause for celebration. Mozart was perhaps the greatest of the baroque composers, but let us not go down that road or we will have a longer and perhaps less relevant debate. The character of genius is very interesting, but let us not talk about it here.
Mr Foster
I am slightly confused about the response given on orphan works. I apologise if I have misunderstood, but does the Minister agree with the basic principle that, if the creator of a work is unknown and that work is licensed by a separate body for use by a third party and subsequently becomes a commercial bestseller, the creator, if found, should be entitled to fair recompense based on the success of that work—yes or no?
Mr Hayes
I think that the right hon. Gentleman is underselling himself. He wants a much more sophisticated response than that. I think that there is an absolutely reasonable case to say that, if the person who authored a work is found in the way that he describes, they should receive some recompense or reward. We will need to look at that in our response to the review. The right hon. Gentleman makes a powerful argument, and it seems to me to be not without merit. That is not bad for someone who was not going to give him a direct answer, as I am sure he will be happy to acknowledge with his typical—characteristic, one might say—generosity.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South has argued, we also need to ensure that we are influencing effectively what is happening overseas and supporting, again, positions based on evidence. We need not only to look at relationships with key partners, but to encourage other states to develop IP frameworks and enforce them appropriately, which is the point that my hon. Friend made. He will be pleased to know that we recently announced, jointly with the Chinese Government, that we will host an IP symposium. It will take place later this year with the appropriate Chinese authorities. It will seek to find a better mechanism for British businesses to raise and have addressed IP-related issues.
I will visit China next week and have no doubt that, among the many issues that I will discuss with the Chinese authorities, this may come up. I will certainly be able to refer to this debate. I give my hon. Friend my pledge that I will reflect on what he has said and, where appropriate and with all the due diligence and courtesy that is fitting to a Minister of the Crown, raise these issues with my Chinese counterparts. Ministers and officials regularly raise IP issues in that way with their counterparts in other countries. It is important that we build on the good relations that we have established to deal with these issues straightforwardly.
Mr Hayes
I will give way to my hon. Friend in a moment, but I want to give him one other piece of good news first. The UK recently announced that it will appoint IP attachés in countries including India and—my hon. Friend will be delighted to know—China. We expect them to be in place by the end of this financial year. They will work with host Governments on IP policies and with UK businesses to help to ensure that they can exploit and protect their IP effectively overseas.
Mr Binley
That is the quickest response for action I have every had from any Minister. I am most appreciative. I congratulate the Minister on taking on a very difficult brief that is not primarily his own. I understand that he does not want to say too much before the Government consultation has finished but, on the basis of our long friendship, will he talk to the Minister concerned about the use of search engines? The need to ensure that the creative arts get well recompensed for their product is vital and increasingly urgent.
Mr Hayes
My hon. Friend is right about the matter that he raises, and I will certainly do as he asks. He has some professional expertise in this field. Other hon. Members may not know that, but I have been pleased to visit Northampton with him many times, including this week. He brings some expert understanding to the subject. As I said, I share his background in the information systems world. He is right about search engines. I will draw his comments to the attention of both my noble Friend Baroness Wilcox who has responsibility in this area and, indeed, the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage. If he had been asked to respond to the debate, contrary to what the hon. Member for Wrexham said, he would have been a peg below me; hon. Members are getting a Minister of State dealing with the matter, rather than an Under-Secretary. I think that that is a bonus. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South makes a fair point and, as I say, I will pass on his comments.
Ian Lucas
No, not at all, and I did not mean to be unkind to the Minister. I want to make that absolutely clear. This is not in any sense a personal criticism of him. As he knows, in November, the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey) was a Minister within BIS and he would have been responding to this debate if that situation had continued. He stopped being a BIS Minister because of the Secretary of State’s discussions with his constituents and he is now a Minister in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. That has a real impact on this area. I am making a serious point about a problem that the Department needs to address.
Mr Hayes
That is a point about the Government’s structure, which is a matter well above my pay grade, as the shadow Minister knows. I understand why he has made the point and it is his absolute right to put it on the record.
My hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) spoke about orphan works in his thoughtful contribution. As he knows, a number of details need to be worked out on that, including the matter of remuneration. If that recommendation were accepted, we would need to work out a protocol and system for dealing with the matter in more detail than Hargreaves understandably gives us. I would be interested to hear my hon. Friend’s further thoughts on that. If he wants to develop his argument following this debate rather than on the hoof, I am sure that the Government would be happy to take into account that further insight.
Damian Collins
In response to the Minister’s invitation and following the comments of the right hon. Member for Bath (Mr Foster), if there were a system for recompense—a protocol, as the Minister suggested—would it include an escalator? Would that just include the lost licence fee not paid, or would it reflect the value of the use of the work to the person who used it?
Mr Hayes
That is exactly what I was alluding to. My hon. Friend implied that in his earlier remarks; but for the reasons he has just given, the matter is complicated. The system would need to be thought through carefully to get the balance right. As I said, if he wants to give that more thought, I would be happy to receive representations on the matter. I will then pass them on to my noble Friend Baroness Wilcox and my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage.
Pete Wishart
I simply remind the Minister that I have five minutes to sum up at the end.
Mr Hayes
That is another interesting point. Again, that will form part of what we say when we respond to the report. The review did not deal with the subject in the detail that the hon. Gentleman refers to. The review recommendations do not come to a definitive conclusion on that subject, as he will know from having read them, but the proposal seems to be a useful addition to those recommendations and is certainly something that we will cover in our response. I am more than happy to give him that assurance.
Mr Christopher Chope (in the Chair)
Order. I remind the Minister that it is customary in these general debates to leave five minutes at the end for the hon. Member who initiated the debate to respond and that we have to finish by 5.30 pm.
Mr Hayes
I am happy to allow that, Mr Chope. In fact, I was just about to conclude by saying that the debate has been helpful and shown the House at its best. It has been technical, informed and non-partisan. In part, that is because of how it was introduced by the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire, whom I should be delighted to hear from further.
Pete Wishart
I am grateful to the Minister for those remarks. I agree with them entirely. This has been a well-informed and useful debate. I hope that some of things that he has heard during the past three hours will inform the response to the Hargreaves report. I have seen the officials sitting at the back taking copious notes, so I hope that some of the helpful things raised by hon. Members from all parties will be listened to and reflected in the Government’s response when we see it, which I believe will be in the next month.
I hope that you have been intellectually stimulated by the debate on intellectual property, Mr Chope, because some fine contributions have been made. We heard from my colleagues from the all-party group on intellectual property. The elder statesman—or the young prince—of creative industries the right hon. Member for Bath (Mr Foster) raised many pertinent points, particularly about orphan works. I hope that his comments will be listened to. The hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Jim Dowd) is right to say that the report has been generally supportive but that we must be careful about how we consider some of the issues.
It was fantastic to hear from the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins). I think it is the first time I have heard him speak in one of these debates. I hope that he comes back again to give us the benefit of his vast experience in advertising. His comments were very useful. He was right to say that we must ensure that we tackle illegal activity and recalibrate the public to ensure that they go to legal sites and that artists and creators are rewarded for their work.
Unfortunately the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), who is no longer in the Chamber, gave us the lyrics without the music—it would have been good to have had the music. We also received some useful advice about cat litter, which I took a note of. I will see what I can do with it when I get home. She is right to say that there must be recompense to artists. She also mentioned search engines, which are critical to the matter—Google was the inspiration for all this. It was good to hear from the hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt), too. She is right to remind us that patents are important. That subject did not get the coverage that it required or deserved from Hargreaves, but now the Minister has listened to her comments I am sure that patents will be covered in the response.
The hon. Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley) made a pertinent speech. I will be checking out that place in China to make sure that I get my royalty from those CDs. He was right to raise that as a real issue.
It was good to hear from the hon. Member for Hove (Mike Weatherley). We perhaps disagree a little bit about format shifting. It is right that the matter should be resolved. This has been going on since the time of the cassette tape. If there is going to be an exception for format shifting, I hope that the Government look at compensation for artists and creators. The UK would be in bad company if it were not going to give any compensation to artists, given that most of Europe is doing so.
It was also good to see the hon. Member for Falkirk (Eric Joyce). We do not agree on all the issues, but it is good that he is here. On some of the language in the early-day motion he has signed, nobody talks about disconnection in the Digital Economy Act 2010. It is about reconnecting the public with the legitimate means to secure that music. I sometimes wish that we could achieve greater consensus on the language that is used.
It has been a good debate. I thank the Minister for his robust response. We look forward to seeing the Government’s response to the Hargreaves report in the next month, as we have heard today.
Written Ministerial Statements
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Local Enterprise Partnerships
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Mark Prisk)
I, together with the Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government, Minister with responsibility for decentralisation, the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells, (Greg Clark), would like to inform the House that today we have written to the proposed Dorset local enterprise partnership inviting it to put in place governance arrangements.
Local enterprise partnerships see a real power shift away from central Government and quangos and towards local communities and the local businesses who really understand the barriers to growth in their areas. This announcement brings the total number of partnerships so far invited to put their governance arrangements in place to 36. Taken together these represent 2 million or 97% of all businesses (active enterprises) in England, 22 million employees (employee jobs figures) or 97% of all employees in England and; a population of 50 million or 97% of England’s population. We will continue to work with other areas with a view to establishing further local enterprise partnerships across England.
Social Housing Regulator
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister for Housing and Local Government (Grant Shapps)
I am today announcing the publication of a consultation on draft directions to be issued by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to the social housing regulator. Alongside the statutory provisions contained in the Localism Bill, the proposed changes to regulation outlined in this consultation will help deliver the Government’s package of reforms to make the system of social housing fairer and to reverse the consensus that had developed that allowed waiting lists to grow to record levels. This forms part of an overall shake-up of social housing that will also see the delivery of up to 150,000 new affordable homes over the next four years. These reforms will give social landlords and local authorities the flexibility to make the best use of social housing in a way which best meets the needs of their local area.
The directions consultation can be found at: http://www.communities.gov.uk/corporate/publications/consultations
Community Budgets
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Robert Neill)
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Baroness Hanham, has made the following written ministerial statement:
I have today, with the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Children and Families, written to local authority leaders setting out the next steps for community budgets. I have placed a copy of the letter in the Library of the House. The letter sets out our intention to roll out community budgets for families with multiple problems across England and explore how a community budget based on all funding for local public services in a local area, including giving neighbourhoods more influence, can be developed.
Croatian EU Accession
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
On 30 June Croatia’s EU accession negotiations were provisionally closed at an intergovernmental conference on accession of Croatia to the EU. EU common positions on the relevant negotiating chapters will be formally adopted at a Ministerial Council in July. I expect Croatia’s accession treaty to be signed by the end of 2011. The Government will then introduce the treaty for ratification by Parliament.
I welcome this important step. It represents the achievement of an historic goal for Croatia, which together with its commitment to continued reform shows the way for other countries of the western Balkans in pursuing their European future.
Croatia’s EU accession negotiations closed at an intergovernmental accession conference on 30 June. This has been widely covered in the press. It is likely that the ECOFIN on 12 July will formally adopt (without discussion) the last four common positions agreeing to close chapters 8 (Competition), 23 (Judiciary and Fundamental Rights), 33 (Financial and Budgetary Provisions) and 35 (Other Issues). A written ministerial statement (WMS) would inform Parliament of closure on 30 June, and would alert them to its future involvement during the ratification process.
G6 Meeting (Madrid, 30 June 2011)
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
The informal G6 group of Ministers of the Interior from France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Poland and the UK held their most recent meeting in Madrid, Spain on 30 June under the Spanish presidency of the group. The meeting was chaired by the Spanish Minister for the Interior and Deputy Prime Minister Alfredo Pèrez Rubalcaba.
The meeting was divided into two working sessions which were attended by the G6 Ministers of the Interior. Germany and Italy were represented at ambassadorial and junior Minister level respectively. Additional guests included the US Deputy Attorney-General, James Cole; the US Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano; European Commissioner for Home Affairs, Cecilia Malmström, and the EU Counter-terrorism Co-ordinator, Gilles de Kerchove.
The first working session considered the transnational threats of Africa’s Sahel region, including the strengthening of terrorist groups, notably al-Qaeda in the Maghreb (AQIM), and drugs, arms and people trafficking. Delegates agreed on the significance and nature of the threat and the security implications for the EU and the US, and recognised the importance of co-ordinated international action and increased capacity building in the countries of the region. There was wide concern about the negative impact of recent upheaval in north Africa and, above all, the conflict in Libya. The Home Secretary also underlined that the payment of kidnap ransoms was against international law and served to bolster terrorist and criminal groups. It was agreed that the election of the new President in Niger and the improvement in relations between countries in the region, notably between Algeria and Mali, was encouraging. There was seen to be a window of opportunity to put the EU Sahel strategy into action and to improve dialogue with the UN and the African Union.
The second session focused on the recovery of criminal assets. Ministers discussed both improvements in and ongoing difficulties associated with recovering the proceeds of crime. The Home Secretary outlined some of the UK’s successes in this area, announcing that it had impacted on over £1 billion of criminal assets in 2010 and that the National Crime Agency (to be launched in 2013) would play a key role in tackling money laundering and recovering the proceeds of crime through its economic crime command. The US underlined the importance of keeping legislative frameworks and processes up to date with ever changing money laundering methods. Delegates agreed that greater international co-operation and better use of the tools and powers available in the pursuit of criminal profits were essential, but that secure channels had to be used for the exchange of sensitive information.
In addition to the two plenary sessions, the Poles presented their justice and home affairs priorities for their EU presidency and the French presented plans for their G6 presidency, both of which would commence the following day (1 July). The Home Secretary also held separate bilateral meetings with the other heads of delegation to discuss a range of issues including extradition, north Africa, asylum, migration, counter-terrorism, aviation security, passenger name records (PNR) and the data retention directive.
The next meeting of the G6 is expected to be held in France in November or December.
Annual Report and Accounts 2010-11
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for International Development (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
I have today published and laid before Parliament the Department for International Development annual report for 2010-11 and accounts.
The report covers DFID’s activities in 2010-11 in line with the International Development (Reporting and Transparency) Act 2006 and includes a full set of accounts for 2010-11. The report has been placed in the Libraries of the House of Commons and House of Lords for the reference of Members and copies will be made available in the Vote Office. It is also available online on DFID’s website (www.dfid.gov.uk).
City of Liverpool Cruise Terminal
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Penning)
The Department for Transport is today launching a consultation on the proposal to remove its objection to lifting a grant condition which precludes the use of the City of Liverpool Cruise Terminal for “turnaround” operations—that is, the beginning and/or end of a cruise voyage.
This condition, which limits use of the terminal to port of call visits only, was originally imposed on the grant for the terminal, which opened in 2007, by the Northwest Development Agency because of concerns expressed by the Department about potentially unfair competition with other cruise terminals which have not received such public subsidy.
The Peel Ports terminal at Langton Dock in Liverpool may currently be used for turnaround operations, but it is argued that it is an unattractive prospect—both aesthetically and operationally—and has already lost traffic as a result.
Liverpool city council is proposing to make a partial repayment of the grant, staged over 15 years, amounting to approximately £5.3 million, in return for lifting the turnaround prohibition. This amount is abated from the original grant funding to take account of the time that the terminal will have operated with the restriction, and the fact that port of call visits will continue to deliver the benefits for which the grant was originally made.
It will be for Liverpool city council to satisfy the European Commission, if necessary, that having regard to the continuing regional benefits from overall operations at the terminal, no parallel repayment of European funding is required.
I consider that the repayment proposal by Liverpool city council can be justified taking into account the prospective regeneration and other benefits to the Merseyside area and, on this basis, I am consulting on the possibility of removing the objection. I am inviting comments by 15 September and will then consider responses carefully before arriving at a final decision.
Support for Very Long-term Claimants
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chris Grayling)
The Government are committed to delivering a radical overhaul of the welfare system to ensure that the benefits and tax credits systems is fairer and simpler and is more able to combat worklessness and poverty.
We are also making good progress to deliver on our commitment to reform the package of employment support which will ensure that benefit claimants have access to effective and high-quality support and that we deliver programmes which offer the taxpayer better value for money and also help move more people into work.
Work is well under way to introduce universal credit from 2013 and we have also recently launched the Work programme, the biggest single payment-by-results employment programme the United Kingdom has ever seen.
To ensure that we continue to build on these achievements, my Department will be exploring what further support could be used to help those claimants who have been claiming jobseeker’s allowance for long periods of time and who have been unable to find employment.
To help us gain a better understanding of what type of support could be most effective, we intend to run a small-scale trial to test whether with an increased level of support and opportunities to gain work experience, claimants have greater success in finding and staying in employment.
The trial will commence later this year across four Jobcentre Plus districts (Derbyshire; Lincolnshire, Rutland and Nottinghamshire; East Anglia; and Leicestershire and Northamptonshire) and will run for approximately nine months.
The evaluation of these trials, coupled with evidence from other programmes, will enable us to develop a better understanding of how best we can support the very long-term unemployed in the future.
House of Lords
Legal Aid
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Harrison
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how their proposals to reform legal aid in England and Wales will impact on the welfare and rights of vulnerable children and young people.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, we published impact assessments and equality impact assessments alongside the response to consultation. These lay out our best estimates of the impact of the reforms.
Lord Harrison
Does the Minister acknowledge that the likely rise in legally unaided, go-it-alone litigants in family cases will introduce greater delays in getting justice, as well as uncertain outcomes? In respect of Section 37 family cases, does he recognise that there will be no legal aid for interim court orders when a child is removed from a family? Finally, will he look again at the proposal to deny legal aid in domestic abduction cases, which are often very complicated, whereas, rightly, we are retaining it for international abduction cases?
Lord McNally
My Lords, I will certainly take back the points raised by the noble Lord on child cases. As far as possible, our intention is that, where children are involved, legal aid will still be provided.
On the broader point of impact, it is partly our intention to divert family and welfare cases away from outright litigation towards mediation and less confrontational ways of settling disputes. That may—and, we hope, will—change the pattern of demand in this area. That is the basis on which the Government are bringing forward their proposals. However, on the issues raised by the noble Lord, I will come back to him.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
Does the Minister agree that applications for legal aid in exceptional circumstances are likely to increase considerably? How does he propose to handle it? Does he not think that a court would be better able to assess exceptional circumstances than a Minister and his civil servants?
Lord McNally
It is an interesting idea. As this legislation goes through both Houses, I am sure that suggestions of that kind will be made. At the moment, our proposal is that this matter will be in the hands of Ministers.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland
My Lords, I declare an interest as the chair of the children and family court system. I welcome the Minister’s information that there will be legal aid in children’s cases, but does he mean that this will be in both private and public law? Did the impact assessments carried out during the consultation process include a definitive assessment in relation to children? If not, could that be carried out?
Lord McNally
The impact assessment was consistent with our equality duties which included the duty to have due regard to the impact of the legislation on groups of all ages. This is detailed in the equality impact assessment. I understand that legal aid is in public law. If I am wrong on that, I shall write to the noble Baroness and place a copy of my reply in the House Library.
Lord Newton of Braintree
My Lords, I am sorry to get ahead of the right reverend Prelate. There are least three pieces of major legislation currently going around that have an impact, as is perceived, on vulnerable people, including children, disabled people and others. I refer to the Welfare Reform Bill, this legal aid legislation and the housing provisions of the Localism Bill. Has anyone carried out an overall impact assessment of these pieces of legislation on the people we are concerned about? In other words, is this joined-up government?
Lord McNally
I believe it is joined-up government but it is set against the reality that all departments are faced with severe budget restrictions. I have never denied from the Dispatch Box that if you cut budgets in areas that are helping vulnerable people there will be impacts on the aid available to them. In my department and other departments we are trying to focus the scope of what we are doing so that we target what is available to the most vulnerable and needy.
Lord Bach
My Lords, can the Minister confirm that, as a direct result of Her Majesty’s Government’s proposals in the Bill that is now in another place, young children who have been severely injured will no longer be able to get legal aid to pursue their claims for clinical negligence? Is that not an outrage in a civilised society? How do the Government justify this denial of access to justice?
Lord McNally
The Government’s assessment is that in most clinical negligence cases it will be possible to carry actions forward through arrangements with solicitors willing to take the cases. Where it is not, the special legal aid fund will kick in for cases not covered by such arrangements. It is not the case that people will not have access to justice in clinical negligence cases; they will continue to have access to justice. We have taken this tough decision because we believe that there are alternative ways of gaining access to justice, with the safety net of the special fund, which will be in the control of my right honourable friend the Lord Chancellor.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon and Leeds
Will the Minister confirm that among those most affected by this legislation will be children fighting deportation, including those who have been in this country for many years and have no knowledge of the country where they were born? Would not such an effect be contrary to Article 8 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child?
Lord McNally
All the proposals in the legislation are fully compliant with the Human Rights Act. As I have said before, in cases where children are involved our intention is, where possible, to provide legal aid. The problem is that we are discussing the proposals against a background of questions to which we will know the answer only when the impact of the legislation is seen. That is why we have committed to keeping the impact of the legislation, when it is in place, fully under review.
Fair Employment Agency
Baroness Prosser
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their response to the proposal by Citizens Advice that the current five employment rights enforcement agencies be merged into a single fair employment agency.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Baroness Wilcox)
My Lords, the Government are currently reviewing their workplace rights compliance and enforcement arrangements to see whether there is scope to make them more streamlined and effective. We will announce our initial findings later this year.
Baroness Prosser
I thank the Minister for that reply. Clearly, I welcome the establishment by the previous Government of the single pay and work rights helpline. However, does the Minister agree that taxpayers’ money could be saved and the service to vulnerable workers improved if that helpline was administered by one helpline or agency? Further, will she explain how the service provided by the current helpline could be widened to enable it to address the issue of entitlement to paid holidays? That issue was found by government-funded research to be by far the most common employment-related complaint brought by clients of the citizens advice bureaux. Currently, it can be resolved only by application to the Employment Tribunal Service.
Baroness Wilcox
I think the first question was to do with Citizens Advice. The review of our compliance and enforcement arrangements is ongoing and part of it is to look at the different enforcement structures that bodies such as Citizens Advice have put forward. The answers from that will come to us in October. On holiday entitlements and workers with holiday pay problems—I imagine that that is what the noble Baroness is really getting at here—at the moment, advice on holiday pay is available on the Government’s Directgov website. ACAS offers pre-claim conciliation. Then and only then, if all else fails, do you go to a tribunal. I hope that that is helpful.
Baroness Brinton
Does the Minister agree that, in addition to the existing benefits of the pay and work rights helpline to the most vulnerable employees, a single fair employment agency would significantly reduce the cost of redress on statutory pay and holiday claims compared with the existing employment tribunal system?
Baroness Wilcox
There is, as the noble Baroness will know, a review of the tribunal system at the moment, and she will no doubt wish to put her views to that. As I said, it will report in the autumn.
Baroness Turner of Camden
Does the Minister not agree that the present tribunal system, which makes arrangements for lay people to sit on cases, is a very effective way in which to deal with cases and really should not be changed? There is some suggestion that future cases, particularly dismissal cases, should go before a single judge rather than a tribunal, which consists of lay people as well as a lawyer.
Baroness Wilcox
I seem to be giving the same answer to every question. I do not mean that to be dismissive, but there are two big reviews at the moment. Obviously, any questions that are asked and answered in your Lordships' House are the sort of things that go to the review, and I imagine that the noble Baroness herself will give evidence on that.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
I say this as someone who sat for 20 years as a lay member of an industrial or employment tribunal, but is the Minister aware that the provision was that people would bring their own cases to the tribunal? They were not required to have legal representation. Would she accept from me that, in my experience, people are sometimes badly represented legally, and even more so by the shark companies that pick up on cases as soon as the names are published and apply and seize these people? They can represent you far worse than you could represent yourself in many cases.
Baroness Wilcox
My noble friend speaks from her experience, which is usually very good on these matters. Yes, I agree—people should never feel that they cannot represent themselves in the courts. I have no doubt that the tribunal will look at this to make sure that people are very careful and that the advice that they are given does not make their case more difficult than it already is. It is very difficult to go into a court and give evidence; I have been there and I have witnessed it. People can be very nervous in doing so but, at the end of the day, if what they have to say is right and fair, they will win.
Lord Elystan-Morgan
Does the Minister recollect that, some weeks ago, the citizens advice bureaux published detailed accounts showing how much was saved from public funds by legal advice on employment? For every £1 spent, £7.13 was saved to the public purse. Will she confirm that these calculations have been checked and found to be accurate, and indeed show that a great denial of justice and a loss to the public purse are being brought about by these savage cuts?
Baroness Wilcox
The noble Lord knows how well the Government think of Citizens Advice. We take very careful note of everything it says, which is usually backed by very good figures and evidence. As we have already heard, it is asking for everything to be merged in this way. It has also campaigned on empty justice. Yes, we will listen to everything that it says and, with two big reviews going on, there is a fair chance that the things it is asking for will come about.
Lord Davies of Oldham
Is the Minister aware of the urgency of this situation? She must be aware of the rapidly deteriorating situation in the workplace; a local authority has sent out letters sacking all its workforce at this time. Will she inject just an element of urgency into her department to ensure that the rights of workers have some protection?
Baroness Wilcox
My Lords, it is this Government’s hope and plan that the relationship between employer and employee shall be of the best. It is important that we make sure that what we are doing in these reviews reflects the rights of everyone in the case, both the employer and the employed. As to the local authority, it is taking is own decisions and it is not for me to comment upon them.
Nuclear Reactors
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what research they have undertaken into, and what assessment they have made of, the use of thorium in nuclear reactors.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Lord Marland)
My Lords, the Government are in the process of assessing the benefits of next-generation reactor technologies, including thorium, for the longer term, and the Secretary of State has asked the National Nuclear Laboratory to prepare a report. A previous NNL assessment of a number of claims made by proponents of thorium fuel concluded that while the theoretical science is reasonably sound, the risks and resources involved in achieving commercial deployment are significant.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his response. It is helpful, and I certainly welcome the fact that the Government are taking this more seriously. He will understand that despite greater acceptance of nuclear power there remain concerns about nuclear waste, both because of its potential military or terrorist use and because of the costs and difficulties of long-term storage—as he and I have discussed on many occasions—as it cannot be disposed of. Liquid fluoride thorium reactors generate no high-level waste material, and can reduce existing stockpiles of waste. Given that, while I welcome the Government’s assessment and the expected report, is there more that the Government can do to test the technology? Also, on a wider basis, have the Minister and his department given any thought to whether this is a technology for nuclear power that could be safely developed in all parts of the world?
Lord Marland
I am grateful for the noble Baroness’s question. The reality is that we have waste, so it will not improve the situation with regard to nuclear waste. This Government are very concentrated at the moment on recovering from 25 years of no nuclear activity with what we have. We have to concentrate on the reactors that are available, which we have had approval for, in order to get our next-generation nuclear power off the ground. We know fully that thorium reactors will take 10 to 15 years to develop. There is a high cost in that development and, at the moment, I would not put it as a priority unless the research report that comes out at the end of this summer advises us otherwise.
Baroness Trumpington
My Lords, please forgive my ignorance, but what is thorium?
Lord Marland
If only my O-level science teacher could see me now. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for that question because I have learnt a lot about thorium recently. For those who wish to know, it is named after the Norse god Thor. It comes out of monazite sands, which are largely found in India and Norway, and is generated by a sifting process. The noble Baroness will be pleased to know that it is dimorphic, which I am happy to explain means that it changes from face-centred to body-centred. However, other noble Lords are far more qualified than me to inform us about thorium. All I would say is that it requires two neutrons to process it rather than one. The noble Baroness can find all sorts of other facts in Wikipedia, as, indeed, did I.
Baroness Worthington
My Lords, does the Minister agree with me that this is a serious topic? We have just seen a disaster in Japan that has reminded us that existing nuclear technology has inherent problems. Thorium is much safer. As my noble friend said, it does not generate waste and cannot lead to the proliferation of weapons and to terrorism. It is a very abundant and available source of fuel, unlike uranium. Given those advantages, does the Minister agree that we should have a programme to develop proof of concept of this technology?
Lord Marland
I am very aware of the noble Baroness’s views and read about them in the Guardian a couple of weeks ago. By the way, that was an excellent and most thoughtful article on this subject. However, the reality is that the nuclear accident in Japan to which she referred did not cause loss of life and we have reacted calmly to it. We are committed to the course that I have just amplified. Government funds are not available at the moment to explore new technologies. However, as I said earlier, if the National Nuclear Laboratory comes up with other suggestions at the end of the summer, we will be very happy to listen to those and explore them further.
Lord Taverne
My Lords, while some very interesting work has been done in India and interesting developments have occurred on the thorium-based reactor systems, is it not true that even those who feel that the research is very useful admit that it will remain very much a second string for a long time? Is it not vital that the Government should not be diverted from the fastest possible programme for building nuclear power stations? Should it not be noted by the anti-nuclear lobbies that the German decision to close down nuclear power will make Germany much more dependent on fossil fuels and will greatly increase carbon emissions from Germany?
Lord Marland
My noble friend makes a valuable point. He is referring to the Kakrapar plant in India, which the Indians are trying to develop. Clearly, we must press on with our nuclear programme. We are disappointed that Germany has taken a different attitude. I pay tribute to all those involved in the nuclear industry and in this debate, particularly in this House, who have kept a steady nerve while all around us things are going pear shaped. As a result, we will come out with a very careful and committed process for new nuclear generation.
Lord Broers
Does the Minister agree with me that we must fully fund R&D in nuclear, including thorium, so that we develop a mature understanding of this, but, almost more importantly, that we should focus our R&D in such a way that we enable our industry to bid effectively for the contracts that will be put out to build our nuclear plants, as, indeed, the Germans have done in the supply of train carriages?
Lord Marland
I think the noble Lord was referring particularly to training. We have to show a very clear pathway, as we have done recently. Last week, we announced six new sites for nuclear reactors. Clearly, we have to develop a training programme for the 60,000 jobs that will be required in the nuclear industry. The Government remain very committed to it.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)
My Lords, we must move on to the next Question.
Personal Injury Lawyers
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sheikh
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the practice by insurers of introducing customers to personal injury lawyers in exchange for a fee.
Lord Sheikh
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. I should like to declare that I am the chairman of an insurance broking and financial services organisation.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, the Government are sympathetic to the idea of a ban on referral fees and are looking at how to tackle the issue as part of our wider reforms, and at how we could do so in a way that would be effective.
Lord Sheikh
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that reply. Lord Justice Jackson’s review of civil litigation costs prescribed a reduction in fixed costs and hourly rates for solicitors, as well as a ban on referral fees. Does the Minister agree with this position, and will he indicate whether the issue will be addressed in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill, which is currently in the House of Commons?
Lord McNally
Whether the question of referral fees will find its way into the Bill is a matter for the study that we are undertaking into ways that this could be implemented. However, we are trying to bring forward a range of the Jackson proposals in that Bill. As to referral fees, as my noble friend will be aware, the Legal Services Board and the Transport Select Committee advised a solution in terms of transparency. Lord Justice Jackson recommended a ban and, as I indicated, the Government are sympathetic to the idea of a ban.
Lord Carlile of Berriew
My Lords, in addition to that, will my noble friend confirm—as he indicated to me in a Written Answer to me on 23 June—that referral fees or kick-back fees in criminal cases are illegal, corrupt and should not be undertaken in any case by any lawyer?
Lord McNally
If that is what I said in a Written Answer it must be—[Laughter.] Even more so, it just sounds right.
Lord McFall of Alcluith
My Lords, the industry has called this its “dirty little secret”. Given that over the past 10 years personal injury claim payouts have doubled from £7 billion to £14 billion while road accidents have largely reduced over that period, is this not a clear case of market failure, and the Government should report this to the OFT to look at this issue and get this industry sorted out?
Lord McNally
Whether it is a matter for the OFT or the regulator is a balance of judgment. The noble Lord is right that the figures are showing a doubling. One of the factors that one must look at is the unbelievable increase in whiplash claims, about which I know the Association of British Insurers has held talks with my colleague Jonathan Djanogly. It is far too easy to find in even the most minor of accidents that subsequently whiplash is claimed, along with quite substantial damages. One of the weaknesses in the system is that the insurance companies find it easier to settle and pass on the costs to the customer than to fight these bogus claims in the courts.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that this practice of insurers charging solicitors referral fees for names is not only unethical and offensive but ensures that the claims are handled not by the most competent or well qualified solicitors but by those who are prepared to pay the most to buy the clients—thus effectively depriving their clients of their right to choose the best lawyers to handle their cases? Is that not another good reason for implementing Lord Justice Jackson’s recommendation for a ban on such fees?
Lord McNally
I agree with my noble friend. I hope that the more the public are aware of what the noble Lord described as this “dirty little secret”, the more it is in the public domain and the more that all parts of the insurance industry, including the insurance companies, solicitors and the consumers, will demand—and we will respond to that demand—to ban it.
Lord Bach
My Lords, I am now slightly confused as to the Government's position on referral fees. I note what the noble Lord said in his written response to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, and what he said in his reply to the noble Lord, Lord Sheikh, today. Have the Government made up their mind to ban referral fees or have they not?
Lord McNally
I am only surprised that someone with such long experience as a Minister should leap on this as if I were dodging the question.
Lord McNally
I can see a few more experienced ex-Ministers over there. The Government are sympathetic to the idea of a ban on referral fees, and are looking at how to tackle the issue as part of wider reforms—how we could do so effectively. Perhaps the Opposition have not yet got used to the fact that we are not a knee-jerk reaction Government; we are looking at the problem. The Prime Minister himself has made it very clear that we believe that Lord Justice Jackson has given us the solution to the problem. We are now looking at how to make it most effective.
Lord Strathclyde
I really do not think that the Opposition should have two goes; it is the turn of my noble friend.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
Will my noble friend please take even more account of the fee-farming industry that has grown up in this country, which encourages indiscriminate and, I have to say, false claims because neither the fee-farming company nor the solicitor who purchases the case from the fee farmer ever sees the client? Without that, there is no constraint on dishonesty.
Lord McNally
My Lords, it is almost 15 years since I first asked a question on this. I have always had my doubts about claim management companies. There are more than 3,000 of them at the moment; 450 of them have had their authorisation cancelled by the claims management regulator, and I would like to see a lot more of them cancelled.
BSkyB
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
To ask Her Majesty's Government in the light of the loss of public and commercial confidence in News International and the imminent closure of the consultation period, whether they will suspend consideration of News Corporation’s bid to take over BSkyB.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given private notice.
Baroness Rawlings
My Lords, the Culture Secretary takes the view that News Corp has offered serious undertakings and discussed them in good faith. In all the circumstances, and given that the implementation of those undertakings will be overseen by the monitoring trustee and, thereafter, monitored and if necessary enforced by the OFT, he takes the view that there are sufficient safeguards to make certain that the undertakings are complied with.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, the House, and indeed the country, will know that that is the wrong Answer. Can the Government confirm that the Secretary of State legally has the discretion to defer if he so chooses? Refusing to suspend the process will be seen as incomprehensible by both the public and News Corporation’s advertisers and investors. Can the Minister set out for the House the reason for not doing so? If she is unable to do so now, will she do so in writing? Finally, will the Government provide for this House to debate these matters next week?
Baroness Rawlings
My Lords, to answer the final question first regarding a debate next week, that is in the hands of the usual channels. The Secretary of State has quasi-judicial discretion after the decisions of Ofcom and the OFT. Regarding the delay that the noble Baroness asked about, the consultation has not closed; it closes tomorrow, Friday 8 July. The Secretary of State will need to consider all the answers and all the presentations. At present, no date has been set for his decision—the Secretary of State will not be rushed. He will be fair. He has to make his decision on media plurality strictly within the law. He, like everybody else and like the press, has to work within the law.
Lord Dholakia
My Lords, I can well understand the dilemma faced by the Culture Secretary because the merger has to be decided on the basis of media plurality. However, I ask the Minister whether we need this sort of media plurality when all standards of professional behaviour and decency have been ignored by News Corporation. Would it not be wise to pause until the major investigations promised yesterday by the Prime Minister have been completed, because there may be some very serious criminal proceedings?
Baroness Rawlings
My noble friend asks an important question. The Prime Minister said yesterday at Question Time that there would be two reviews, and the Cabinet is discussing the remits for those reviews. Two areas will be looked into: one is the police investigation and the other is the practice of press regulation.
Lord Puttnam
My Lords, is the Minister having a conversation with her noble friend the Justice Minister, who is sitting at her side, and with the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, who is sitting behind her, to confirm that if she or her colleagues in another place check the record, they will discover that during the passage of the 2003 Act this exact clause was discussed in detail? The type of eventuality that we are dealing with today was anticipated and this clause was intended to deal with it. To ignore that is an abrogation of the will of Parliament.
Baroness Rawlings
The noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, makes a valid point. The Enterprise Act 2002 sets out the due process, which is that the Culture Secretary has to make a quasi-judicial decision on the impact of the proposed merger on media plurality issues alone. That was said by the right honourable Member in the other place, Mr Vince Cable, and that is what is happening. The decision will be made after Ofcom and the OFT have made their decisions.
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve
Does the Minister agree that the Prime Minister said yesterday that there would be one or two inquiries, not reviews? Does she agree that those inquiries should be chaired by a judge and that they should have the power to subpoena documents and take evidence under oath?
Baroness Rawlings
My Lords, it would seem that that is necessary. However, at the moment there are several inquires going on and the Prime Minister’s reviews or inquiries will happen afterwards. I am sure that the noble Baroness is right in that they will probably have a judge but at this stage I cannot give her the details.
Lord Prescott
My Lords, I think the House would agree that you can have a full inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005, and I am sure that that is what most of us would like to see. The Minister mentioned that the Government are prepared to look at plurality, but can I advise her that Ofcom has a responsibility to look into the invasion of privacy? Are the Minister and the Government going to take that into account in regard to the Murdoch application for BSkyB?
Baroness Rawlings
I have every sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Prescott, whom we all know has been a victim of this. We feel that personal freedom and privacy are of great importance, but so is the freedom of the press. Hacking is illegal—we know that—and wrong. These cases are disgraceful and shocking. I remind noble Lords that these present hackings are not new. Hacking has been around for a very long time and it is perpetuated by many different people, not only the press. All that does not make it any better; it is a foul deed and the press have to abide by the law, as do we all.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, does the Minister agree that both of the inquiries on foot heavily conflict each other? The first is News Corp’s own inquiry, of which Rebekah Wade has been put in charge; and the second, more important one, is the police inquiry to which my noble friend referred. Sadly—one says this with some reluctance—there is a conflict of interest in the second inquiry, as there is no question but that a great deal of money has passed hands, not just between this newspaper but also between other newspapers and the police in recent years. Do the Government propose to do anything about that?
Baroness Rawlings
My noble friend brings up the importance and involvement of the police. We are talking about criminal cases here that are under investigation. It would be wrong to prejudge. In this whole area, the Secretary of State has been very fair and very transparent in putting everything in front of the House. We have had many debates on this. My noble friend Lord Fowler has asked questions on this; I am afraid I do not see him in his place today. We know that any payments regarding the police are against the law.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal
My Lords, can the noble Baroness confirm that the consequence of her answers is that she agrees, first, that the Secretary of State’s hands are not tied; secondly, that there is no reason for him to make this decision now; and thirdly, that it would be quite wrong for him to make a decision about the validity of accepting the undertakings from News Corp before properly considering the impact of the horrendous allegations that are now being made? Can she also confirm that this Government chose to restrict the referral simply to plurality, but they were perfectly entitled to refer, and should have referred, this matter also on the basis of broadcasting standards?
Baroness Rawlings
Yes—the Secretary of State will not rush into a decision. From tomorrow, he will see all the presentations, which will take time. He will not be rushed. His hands are not tied; he is in a quasi-judicial position. Ofcom and the Office of Fair Trading are both involved. There will be no decision right now because he is waiting for the consultations to come in. As was said by Mr Ed Miliband in the other place, the hacking has nothing to do with plurality.
Communications Committee
Lord Brabazon of Tara
That the Lord Bishop of Norwich be appointed a member of the Select Committee in place of the Lord Bishop of Liverpool, resigned, and that the Earl of Selborne be appointed a member of the Select Committee in place of the Earl of Onslow, deceased.
Pensions Act 2007 (Abolition of Contracting-out for Defined Contribution Pension Schemes) (Consequential Amendments) (No. 2) Regulations 2011
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Freud
That the draft regulations and order laid before the House on 14 May be approved.
Localism Bill
Lord Greaves
Lord Greaves
My Lords, here we go again. I will speak also to Amendment 135A in this group. Amendment 133A challenges Clause 74(3), which states that assets that have been placed on a list of community assets will be removed after five years. This is a probing amendment. My first question is: why is it necessary to make the list temporary in this way and provide lots of extra work for the local authority? Why does an asset not remain on the list until there are good reasons for removing it, rather than being removed after an arbitrary period? Secondly, if there is to be an arbitrary period, why is it five years rather than two or 10? Thirdly, can assets be put back on the list once they have been taken off after five years? Will the procedure be the same as that for putting them on in the first place, which would seem to necessitate a lot of duplication?
Fourthly, can community organisations and parish councils propose that an asset which is due to come off the list at the end of five years should stay on? In other words, can they make a new nomination before the end of the five-year term or do they have to wait until the asset has come off the list and then make a new nomination—in which case there would be a gap between the end of the five years and the new nomination? These are straightforward questions, but they are not answered in the Bill and they are important if we are to know how the system will work.
Amendment 135A suggests that under the provision in the Bill for the appropriate authority—in England it is the Secretary of State—to change the period of five years to another length of time if he or she thinks that that would be a good idea at some time in the future, it should be possible to make different periods for different classes of assets. Why is it not possible for the local authority to make sensible decisions based on local circumstances, according to what is appropriate for a particular community asset? It will know the circumstances that relate to each asset. If there is a long-standing recreation ground that is not in council ownership—or even that is—and has been there for 50 years, having to apply every five years to put it back on the list would seem unnecessary. A village hall that might be in private or some sort of other ownership will not go away. One hopes that it will be there in five or 10 years, when the same problems will occur if the owner proposes to close it down or change its use to something else. That might also apply to a village pub or post office, and it seems that village pubs and post offices are where this legislation came from in the first place.
Why is it necessary automatically to take privately owned allotments off every five years and then put them back on? Why do all sorts of green spaces that people hope will be there for a considerable time have to come off and then be put back on? For example, burial grounds are not going to go away, although quite often there are proposals to take local burial grounds over, dig up the bodies and develop them. That is what happens in too many cases perhaps. That problem is going to be there in five, 10 or 25 years, so why cannot the local authority or even the Secretary of State allocate different periods for different classes of assets? These are practical problems and practical questions about how this legislation is going to work. It is important that we understand what the Government think about them. I beg to move.
Lord Howard of Rising
My Lords, before speaking to Amendments 134 and 135, I should declare some interests. I am a district councillor and a parish councillor, the owner of an agricultural estate which contains assets which might fall within the scope of the Act and chairman of the National Playing Fields Association.
These amendments, and other amendments in my name, were put down before the Minister deposited in the Library her paper on assets of community value. I thank her for the paper and for the helpful remarks she made when this Bill was being debated earlier in the week. I am most grateful as are, I am sure, many others in this House.
The effect of Amendments 134 and 135 would be to have included in the Bill a maximum period of five years for an asset to remain on the local authority’s register of community assets. It would stop the Secretary of State being able to extend the period without primary legislation and would thus avoid the worry and concern for the owner of the asset that the five-year period might be extended at short notice and without his or her foreknowledge.
In a property-owning democracy, such as ours, security of tenure is not just an important matter; it is, as my noble friend Lord Hodgson pointed out, fundamental to the way our society works. Anything which affects property ownership or value can have far-reaching effects for the vast majority of citizens of this country. For the Secretary of State to be able, by regulation, to extend the period of five years for an asset to be on the register will create uncertainty which will, in turn, affect value.
One of the faults of this Bill, as many of your Lordships have commented, in particular my noble friend Lord Jenkin, is that too much power is reserved for the Secretary of State to make what can be far-reaching changes. For the Secretary of State to be able to alter the length of time for an asset to be on the register without the requirement to introduce primary legislation could affect the value of any asset on the register. This will most affect the less well off, where the asset may represent virtually everything they have in the world. Owners of small shops and the other types of small businesses, at which this Bill is aimed, are not normally people of great resources. In the paper deposited in the Library, reference is made to renominating assets after a five-year period has ended. I urge the Minister to reconsider this, although if the five-year period remains in the Bill, having to take positive action for the asset to remain on the register would at least be a step in the right direction.
The value of assets is a theme to which I shall return in later amendments because there are other measures in this Bill which could cause harm.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham)
My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their points on this matter, to which I shall respond briefly. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, referred to Amendment 133A, but I think we should be referring to Amendment 133E. The amendment would remove the time limit all together. We do not think that this is a good approach because a fixed-term listing will ensure that assets do not remain on the list when they are no longer considered to be of community value.
Under Amendment 134, rather than a fixed period of five years for listing, the local authority would be able to remove the asset from the list at any time but no later than five years after listing. Amendment 135A would introduce different fixed terms for listing depending on the type of asset in question. Both amendments would have an unwelcome effect. They would make it unclear to community groups how long the listing would last and on what basis it could be brought to an end—consequently, reducing the transparency of the whole process. Under our proposals the fixed term will apply unless the site is sold in the meanwhile or the local authority changes its decision on review of the listing.
Amendment 135 would remove the power for the Government to change this period by order after the Act comes into force. We oppose this because the power will enable Parliament to review the five-year limit in the light of experience. The noble Lord, Lord Howard, suggested that this would require primary legislation but as things are in the Bill at the moment it would have to come back to Parliament without ever introducing primary legislation but on secondary legislation. We will also want to take account, for example, of the frequency with which listed assets come on to the market and how often communities wish to re-nominate assets that have changed hands.
In answer to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, yes, after five years an asset can be put back on the list but only if it is re-nominated and again goes through the process of the local authority having to judge whether the asset still meets the definition. The noble Lord, Lord Howard, asked whether the change of the five-year period and the period that land is listed would affect sites already listed. The answer is no. A change would affect only land listed after the change.
I hope that that answers the questions and satisfies both noble Lords for at least the time being. I ask that noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I am grateful for those answers. The question in the back of my mind is the extra staffing resources that local authorities will need in order to compile and maintain these lists of community assets. I suppose the answer is that we do not know because we do not know how many nominations there will be. I suspect that in some places there will be a lot and in others there will be very few. We will find out in due course. However, on the basis of the Minister’s response, I am happy to withdraw Amendment 133E. I apologise if I got the number wrong earlier. I have not brought the right glasses for reading and I will have to get them.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I gave notice of my intention to oppose the Question that Clause 74 stand part of the Bill. I do not intend to speak in the debate, although I note that the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, would like to do so.
Lord Cameron of Dillington
My Lords, I rise, at last, to speak in this clause stand part debate. I shall speak to whether all the clauses in Chapter 4 of Part 4 should stand part of the Bill. In some ways I am glad that I did not get to speak on Tuesday. Our debate then and some of the statements that have just been made confirm my view that I might have a solution to everyone’s concerns.
Before I set out my position, I must first make it clear that I totally endorse the intentions behind Chapter 4. I have spent the greater part of my life trying to save community assets, as envisaged in this chapter. When I was at the Countryside Agency, we worked hard to provide funding for villages that were trying to protect and enhance their pubs, shops, sports facilities and heritage assets. On the latter, we ran the local heritage initiative for the Heritage Lottery Fund for both rural and urban communities. At the same time, the agency was one of the instigators of the Pub is the Hub movement. We also had a great scheme for encouraging the use of village facilities for multiple purposes, such as using the same room or building for everything from a hairdresser and a citizen’s advice bureau to political surgeries and Jobcentre Plus services. We also worked hard with others to persuade the Government to put £150 million a year into saving rural post offices. We were not totally successful in saving all rural post offices, of course, but we certainly helped. Ultimately, in all these things, and as is the intention behind these clauses, whether prized community assets survive depends on the oomph or activities of the community itself.
Having established, I hope, my credentials and my enthusiasm for this chapter’s intentions, I shall now explain why these clauses, as currently framed, first, will not work and, secondly, are an unnecessary nightmare of administrative red tape. First, why will they not work? On the basis that the two main community assets to be saved are probably the village shop and pub, or, in urban areas, the local shop and pub, perhaps I may use them as prime examples. I note at this point that open land used for sport or quiet recreation is already catered for by Section 15 of the Commons Act 2006, under which it can be registered as a town or village green. I put that forward tentatively because I am not an expert on the use of Section 15.
Sticking to the pub and the shop, it is important to note, first, that they are both customer-based businesses. Any interruption to their trading is tantamount to a direct hit on their sustainable future. In any period of closure, people soon develop the habit of going elsewhere for their shopping or their pint. It is surprising that even those without their own transport find alternative ways of getting what they need. More to the point, those habits soon become ingrained. There are lots of reasons why a publican or shopkeeper might want to retire. Customers may be drifting away and the business owner might be finding it hard to make ends meet. It might all be too much hard work. Believe me, running such enterprises really is hard work. There might be family reasons for moving or they might just want to retire. However, if they do want to retire, it is likely that they will want to maximise the value of their business asset. At the moment, the best way to do that is to get permission for a change of use and sell the building as domestic premises. Often, half of it will already be a house, so they try to turn it into a bigger house, or even to have two units to sell.
If, on the other hand, they want to sell their business as a going concern, that is all well and dandy and none of this is needed. If not, and particularly if the business is failing, the first thing they will do is to close the business in order to justify any change of use application. Very often the business will sit like that with the shutters closed, in my experience, for six months or a year—in some instances that I know of, considerably longer—even before an application is made. As I have already explained, that means that the business as a community asset could be snookered anyway. Of course, as far as the business owners are concerned, it is more likely that they will get their change of use because such a permission will be merely confirming a fait accompli.
I should point out that there could be as much as an extra £100,000 accruing from a successful change of use application, but the main point is that, after planning permission and building conversion, the sale of a property in this scenario—the “disposal”, as it is called in Chapter 4—is often several years down the track, by which time there is definitely no community asset to save.
If the local planning authority refuses permission—I accept that, if the property is now deemed a community asset, this is more likely—the owner will probably hang on for a year or two, maybe until the five years have elapsed, and have another go. They are probably living in the property or they can lease the living quarters for a few years. Alternatively, they might, under the new circumstances, give up and sell the business as a going concern, in which case we do not need to protect this community asset at all. If the disposal of the property, being usually six months to a year or more after the closure of the business, is used as the trigger for the moratorium to give the community a chance to galvanise itself and take appropriate action, it is already too late. To plagiarise Charles I, “The bird has already flown”. The business, as opposed to the property, already has both feet in the grave.
I accept that the focus that the Bill now gives to community assets means that the owner will know that an application for a change of use is likely to be refused and is therefore more likely than ever simply to close the business and carry on living in or letting the domestic side of the premises until the property slips off the radar as a recognisable community asset. However, the effect is the same. No trigger has been given to spark the community into action. Although, frankly, if the community is not sparked into action by the closure of the business into doing something to revive it elsewhere—perhaps by using their right to build, for example—there is probably nothing we can do to help them anyway. In any case, my point is still valid: it is very unlikely to be the disposal of the asset—I stress the word “asset”, as in that particular property—that kills the business; it is the change of use.
If all this is not bad enough, Chapter 4 as currently proposed could actually be the killer blow to the community asset when it is in no danger at all. Let us take the example of a publican or shopkeeper who dies in service. It is not unknown, as I said earlier. It is extremely hard work. The widow or executors will want to implement a quick sale in order to keep the business going, possibly for the sake of the community, but under the current proposals, they cannot do that, so the proposals could actually cause the demise of the very business that they are supposed to save. I believe that it is important to stimulate the necessary community action only when the business is actually threatened, rather than when the ownership of the property is transferred. The threat to the business really only occurs when a change of use planning application is made. It is at that stage that the community needs to take action, rather than wait for a disposal, when it is usually too late. I accept that a passive closure of the business not involving planning permission has the same effect and that this event is not covered either by my proposal or by the current Chapter 4. As I said, only the community itself will be able to take independent action to deal with that scenario.
My other point, which I shall make briefly and is similar to the points made last Tuesday by the noble Lords, Lord True and Lord Jenkin, is that this chapter is a nightmare of administration and red tape. I looked at it, wondered how I could possibly put down any meaningful amendments and realised that I could not. I am sorry to be so blunt, but to me, it is totally over the top. At a time when local authorities are desperately trying to cut down on costs, they will possibly have to start new sections of administration keeping lists, and not only lists of successful community assets, but also lists of unsuccessful ones. Why on earth one needs the latter, I do not know. Like the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, I should have thought that a non-appearance in the first list was enough for everyone.
My solution, which I hope is a positive suggestion, is that the Government should put a loose but meaningful description of a community asset on the face of the Bill. Then, when an application for a change of use comes into a planning department, the planning officer could inform the parish council or neighbourhood forum and all the members of his planning committee immediately—just in case they disagree with him—that he is deeming the premises to be a community asset. The community would then have, as at present, six weeks in which to express an interest which, if forthcoming, will result in a moratorium on the decision for a change of use for, say, six months or more to allow the community to galvanise itself so that it could, as it were, head off the danger at the pass. That would be a very simple but, in my view, far more effective approach than the current quicksands that we are all being sucked into. Do we really need 19 clauses and a whole wodge of regulations to achieve a very simple procedure? I think not.
I am sorry to have gone on for so long—I bet that those who were here late on Tuesday night are quite glad that I did not speak at that hour—but, as I said at the beginning, this is an important matter. I am right behind the Government in their intentions and I really want to make this work, which it definitely will not do in its current form. I know that there have been consultations, but I expect that the responses were based on what is currently proposed. I bet that few have had the temerity to say that the emperor has no clothes. Chapter 4 sounds good politically, but I do not believe that it will achieve what it is trying to do. I cannot see these provisions saving a single village shop or pub. Indeed, I can see them condemning a few to the grave—
Baroness Thornton
Does the noble Lord accept that these provisions are not primarily directed at post offices and pubs? They cover wasteland in cities, disused bank buildings, disused offices, railway arches, warehouses, mills and allotments. Might not the noble Lord be undermining his own case if he is trying to tell the House that this is just about pubs and post offices?
Lord Cameron of Dillington
I accept that there are other community assets. As I said, I think that the open-space community assets could be dealt with in other legislation. However, the provisions are ultimately about a change of use rather than the disposal of what is a community asset. I accept that I speak for rural communities, but I think that one of the main purposes of these clauses is to protect, alongside urban community assets, rural community assets such as the village shop and the village pub. In any case, I think that my comments here apply equally to urban properties.
I urge the Government to rethink this whole chapter. I look forward to hearing the views of others.
Lord Reay
My Lords, as this is the first time that I have spoken at the Committee stage of the Bill, I would like to declare my interest as a landlord and landowner.
I have put my name down to remove all the clauses in Chapter 4, so I would like to speak to all those clauses collectively, but in fact I would not want there to be nothing in the Bill on this subject. The Government have made too big a political commitment for that. Nevertheless, I have always understood that the original political interest and intention was to make sure that local communities are given a chance to intervene to try to keep going a village pub or post office or shop or public library that has been threatened with closure. Despite what the noble Baroness said, the intention goes slightly further but not much further than that. When Ministers talk about the proposals, those are the examples that they generally give—my noble friend the Minister did the same on Tuesday.
However, the Bill goes vastly wider than that. In the first place, everything would have to be listed, as the noble Lords, Lord Greaves and Lord Cameron of Dillington, have emphasised. The Government have completely glossed over the implications of that. As the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, explained on Tuesday, this would be an extremely time-consuming operation. Every local authority would have to take on someone to list all assets of community value. My noble friend Lord True, sitting beside me, on Tuesday said that he thought that his council would need two extra staff. A cheer must have gone up in the Guardian newspaper’s advertising department upon seeing this provision in the Bill.
Secondly, almost any sort of asset could, by a creative council employee, without even being mischievous, be considered to have community value. Any sort of business which employed people who lived in the locality could be argued to promote or improve the economic well-being of the local community. Any cherished landmark, any listed building—although not, as the Minister tells us, if it is a residence, as regulations will prevent that—and any popular view, even, could be argued to promote the environmental well-being of the local community.
Thirdly, I should like to ask the Minister about the degree to which the provision is limited to assets of which the community has already enjoyed the use. Could a piece of ground that in someone's eyes might make a nice football pitch, cricketing pitch or playground be listed? Could it not be argued that the prospect of enjoying the use of a certain building or piece of land had contributed to the well-being of a local community?
Fourthly, the point of sale—here, I take up the point emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington—is not the point at which local interest and local involvement should be triggered; it should be change of use or the threat of change of use. A pub can change hands and still remain a pub, but if an owner wants to redevelop it, then the community should have the right to bid. Change of use should trigger the right to bid—ditto with post offices and village shops. Could not this be done in a way that tied in with existing planning powers?
As it is, we have a snooper’s charter which could lend itself to all sorts of inventive arguments and practices, and which would surely result in landlords and landowners who have willingly made facilities available in the past less likely to do so in future for fear of having such a restriction placed on their property. They would want to avoid a situation where, whenever they might want to sell or transfer their property, this blocking mechanism could arise to impede and, in practice, prevent the transaction. On Tuesday my noble friend Lord Moynihan explained in detail how this could have massive adverse consequences for the provision of land and buildings for recreational and sporting use by private landlords in private agreements with local communities throughout the country.
Many amendments have been put down that deal with one or other part of the objections which I have mentioned, but none deals with all of them. I liked the amendment proposed on Tuesday by the noble Lords, Lord Greaves and Lord Tope, which would have required assets to be businesses. Unfortunately, when she wound up the debate, my noble friend the Minister said that she did not like the amendment and wanted to include more than just businesses. I am not sure what specific assets she had in mind but the examples that she and her colleagues tend to give are of businesses.
I also liked the amendment of my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding, which would have required that land to be listed needed the consent of the owner. Again, my noble friend the Minister did not like that; she said that no private owners would sign up. That in itself is a bit of a giveaway. She and her officials know that they are imposing on landowners something that they will not like.
Unless landowners see a way of providing facilities of whatever sort on their land to local communities without incurring the risk of the land or building being listed as of community value, with all the nuisance that that could bring, I foresee that supply drying up. That would be a huge tragedy. It would be a great folly, if the outcome were likely to be so counterproductive, to allow the Bill to be enacted with this part of it unamended.
Ministers have so far not come up with anything that remotely measures up to the numerous and serious objections to this part of the Bill. However, they have certainly listened to us, and I hope that something can be achieved during the Recess if not before. Meanwhile, I shall follow carefully other amendments which we are about to come to. I certainly liked what I hope may be an amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, mentioned towards the end of his remarks.
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, we need to recognise this for what it is—a full-frontal attack on this part of the Bill. I am sure that I do not need to say that to the Minister.
I need to amplify the remarks that I made to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington. I am an urban person—I live in Bradford and in London—and I have been involved in community activities, projects and the acquisition of land and property for community benefit in both places. For example, my title is Baroness Thornton of Manningham. I am the patron of the community centre in Manningham Mills—the wool mill in Manningham which was acquired as part of an arrangement to provide a community centre in a very deprived urban area. That is what we are talking about. It was acquired through the imagination and drive of local community organisations and is replicated in thousands of initiatives, both rural and urban, across the country.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
What more does the noble Baroness think this part of the Bill will give to what already existed for the acquisition which she has just referred to? She and her group seem to have been very successful in acquiring it; why do they need all this bureaucracy?
Baroness Thornton
If I can continue with my remarks I think there will be some agreement across the House. We would all prefer the Secretary of State to have a smaller role in these matters. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, that this is a convoluted part of the Bill which may need simplification and to give more reassurance. However, it does not need to be deleted completely. The Government are on the right lines.
In answer to the noble Lord’s question, I would be happy to list for the noble Lord, although perhaps not right now, a host of initiatives that have fallen by the wayside, either because the powers or the time did not exist for community organisations to raise the money—this applies also in rural locations—to enable them to use the asset in question for community benefit. That is what this part of the Bill is about, and I believe that the Government are on the right lines.
During the Second Reading debate I said to the Minister that we needed to discuss this part of the Bill. I have yet to be involved—as have any of my Front-Bench colleagues—in any discussions on this part of the Bill, but we hold ourselves ready. On Tuesday evening several remarks were made about the discussions taking place but, so far, those discussions do not involve us. I hope that that will change. I also hope that organisations that are expert in these issues—the Plunkett Foundation, Locality—will also be involved in those discussions. I am sure and confident that this House can resolve this situation satisfactorily.
Earl Cathcart
My Lords, I was in two minds whether to speak on this but I have something here that I prepared earlier.
The whole chapter has been so badly thought through that, as written, it will do more harm than good. I have two points to make. First, we must not forget that the original aim was to allow communities to save their village shops, pubs and post offices from closure. That is an admirable aim, but no mention is made of businesses and services in the Bill. Why not? Why is the wording so broad? I suppose it was thought that there may be other assets of benefit to communities, and so the scattergun approach was adopted. The great danger of using a scattergun is that one often misses the target—and that is exactly what has happened here.
The Bill needs to be drafted so that it hits the nail on the head. As it is currently written, any person, parish or community group can nominate any asset they deem to be of value to the community. As has been said before, this has put the cat amongst the pigeons. Landowners who for purely altruistic reasons have allowed their communities to use part or all of their land for sport and recreational activities are now reconsidering their positions. On Tuesday, my noble friend the Minister said:
“The fact that my noble friend Lord Moynihan spoke about the loss of sports and recreation facilities if this goes ahead, and that other noble Lords commented on the fact that landowners will be advised not to let their land be used for any community facility, is something of which we need to take cognizance. If that is what is being said, and if that is a fear … We need to take note of that”.—[Official Report, 5/7/11; col. 243.]
I assure my noble friend that I know of national firms of land agents that have already advised their clients of the consequences of this Bill as it is currently written. I was talking to my agent the other day, and at the end of the business he asked me what I was up to. When I said that I was involved in the Localism Bill, he said, “Oh, we are watching the progress in the Lords very carefully and we will advise our clients during the summer”. So warnings and advice have already been given to landowners.
Baroness Thornton
I am bound to ask, what about railway sidings, for example? What about waste land in cities? What about all those places that people want to have access to and cannot? I beg noble Lords to stop thinking about this just in terms of pubs and post offices.
Earl Cathcart
The noble Baroness raises a good point—what about them, indeed? If communities do not use them at the moment, they do not form part of this Bill. It is the very question that my noble friend Lord Reay has just raised.
My second point is that the Government seem hell-bent on the trigger point being when an asset is disposed of or sold. Like the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, I do not think that the selling of an asset of community value hits the spot at all. Hundreds of shops and pubs are sold every week up and down the country, with no loss to communities, as the purchasers are another shopkeeper or publican. So the business continues with no loss to the community. The real trigger point is when the facilities are closed down subject to an application for change of use or a demolition order. So I ask my noble friend to listen sympathetically to my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts when he speaks to his Amendment 144.
To illustrate the point, there is great concern over the loss of so many school sports fields to development over the past 20 or 30 years. I do not believe that the measures in this Bill would do anything to stop this in future. The Minister might say, “But they can be listed as assets of community value”. And so they can. But the local authority can give itself planning permission for development without a sale of the land taking place and without triggering the right to bid provisions. The local authority can receive a shed load of money from the developers and retain ownership of the land for a nominal annual ground rent. The land has not been disposed of or sold, but the playing field has been irretrievably lost. Surely there should be an obligation on local authorities to supply alternative sports facilities.
I know that my noble friend is well aware of the shortcomings of this part of the Bill and is as keen as any of your Lordships to get it right. She recognises that the most valuable asset is the current good will and genuine community well-being that already exists.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, in a number of respects, not least in that I think the Government are on the right lines. Some aspects of procedure and process—how this may be delivered—might need to be looked at before Report. I wanted to give some examples from my personal experience of where this legislation could well help to protect a community asset.
This is not entirely about pubs and post offices, but let me give an example of what can happen with a pub. Let us say that a pub is owned by a national, private sector organisation and is closed down. It is sold on the open market but, when research is done with a small advert in a newspaper over the summer, it is knocked down by the purchaser, and the community has no power under planning law to prevent it being knocked down. There is then an application for a change of use, but the criteria for change of use alter because the building no longer exists. It is treated and deemed to be a brownfield site. As a consequence, different planning law pertains and new planning permission for a change of use is much easier to obtain.
My second example is more hypothetical, but it reflects a concern that I have about the financial viability of sports clubs, which often find themselves in financial difficulties and needing to do things to protect their position. This might involve a merger, for example, or moving to a new site. There is an issue about whether land used for a sporting purpose should be considered, before it is sold, for permanent use as a sporting provision. Of course, planning law and the zoning of land help in that respect, but are not the entire story. There has to be a right to give a community the power, if the sports club is going to move, to say whether some greater community interest should be considered whereby a trust could be formed to perpetuate sporting recreational activity on that site.
A third example is government-owned land or buildings. This is not just about privately owned buildings. What about a cricket pitch on open space that is within the purview of a government building, such as a National Health Service building? Planning law currently protects that. One of my great fears is that it becomes easy, when finance is difficult, to suggest that the solution to that finance problem would be to sell off more land and that, to secure a reasonable price, it needs to be sold off for housing or some other purpose with a commercial outcome, which then generates a large sum of money for that government department. The community has to have some general right to intervene to protect that open space, above and beyond the rights bestowed by the planning system.
Another real-life example involved Ministry of Defence buildings for the Territorial Army next to a large secondary high school on a constrained site. The school needed further land, ideally for expansion, because it was too tightly constrained for the growth that it needed. It was in the community's interest that the school should expand, but it was clearly in the Ministry of Defence’s interest to secure the largest income it could from the sale of the buildings and land. That was a housing use issue. We are then up against the difference in values between what one government department is prepared to pay to another. Nothing in current legislation says that one government department must give another the right to buy at a price lower than open market value—in this case, for housing development. This is a problem because the community's interest is not in the housing development—that may be in the MoD's interest—but in that of the children being educated in our schools.
Lord Beecham
Would the noble Lord not agree that it is most important to deal with that problem because it is a right to bid, not a right to buy?
Lord Shipley
I fully understand that the Bill does not deal with precisely that problem, but I am trying to give the community's point of view on what it worries about, such as controlling the assets that it perceives to be of community value in its area.
There is a further general issue with council-owned buildings: whether councils should have an automatic power to sell buildings that they own prior to testing community interest in running a building, such as a loss-making facility. With everyone's good intentions, I am sure that is what councils would do under the Bill. However, a register of those buildings would make councils ensure that they behaved reasonably in protecting community assets that local people might want to use. The development of community trusts and facilities whereby people in a neighbourhood can get together and form a community interest company trust is in the public interest. Put simply, there is a lot of discussion to have on the Bill between this stage and Report, but this debate is not simply about pubs and post offices. I agree entirely with the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, that we have to think much more widely about what is in the public interest.
Lord Greaves
This has been a very interesting debate and I am stimulated to make one or two comments in view of what has been said. I am less sanguine than my noble friend Lord Shipley about whether this chapter of the Bill will help to do the kind of things that he has been talking about. I agree 150 per cent with what he said about the need for communities to be able to be much more active and involved, particularly over pieces of land. There are ways forward here, but they require resources and organisation. Local government can help in that area, but it is not just a matter for local government.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, said that some of the comments were a full-frontal attack on this part of the Bill. When I first heard about this part—indeed, when I first saw it in this telephone book of a Bill that we have—I was enthusiastic and excited about it, because I thought that someone was at last getting to grips with the problem of the loss of community resources in both rural and urban areas. The more I have looked at it and thought about it, and the more I have listened to comments here, the more I think that what is being proposed will cost money but not actually do much good at all.
Lord Fellowes of West Stafford
My Lords, I would like to make a brief observation about this business of declaring private assets to be of community value by referring to something that occurred many years ago when there was a great scandal about ruthless landlords, such as Rachman and various others, and there was a public outcry. The result was a mass of legislation protecting the tenant. Of course, that was perfectly right and proper, but during this nobody thought to ask the question: why would anyone be a landlord? The result was a tremendous shortage of rental accommodation, which eventually had to be addressed by new legislation protecting a landlord’s rights.
Nobody seems to have asked why a landlord would volunteer to allow any of his assets, either buildings or open ground for sports activities, to be used if it immediately compromised his property rights. Some whose assets are already used by the public will find themselves in this spot, but many landlords will either withdraw the assets or simply refuse to allow them to be used in future. We must ask ourselves why owners would let their property be used if that immediately compromised their ownership, and somehow address that before the Bill becomes law.
Lord True
My Lords, I will briefly extend the remarks that I made on Tuesday—before I had to leave—on the potential costs of this measure. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, also commented on that. The financial memorandum to the Bill says that the total cost of the measures in the Bill, on the heads of all local authorities in this country, will be £21 million, if I remember rightly. I am afraid that that is a grotesque underestimate. I referred to the burden that I believe that the compilation of a register might impose on my authority—two officers might translate, with overheads, into about £100,000. However, that is only for the routine management of a list.
I very much welcome the fact that my noble friends have placed a discussion document in the Library. I also welcome what my noble friend Lady Hanham said about restricting the ambit of the legislation and excluding some of the potential properties which some people are already beginning to think might be included. As has been pointed out, the discussion document relates to buildings which might improve social and environmental well-being and cultural activity. We have 8,200 buildings of townscape merit in our borough. Not all of these are residential premises—some of them are—but I can certainly envisage circumstances where communities might say, “We might want to have a bit of that if it ever comes up on the market”. You have only to think of that number to envisage the time that might be devoted to this matter while this worthy legislation beds down.
I hear what my noble friend has said about looking at how the measure works in the first two years, but in the first two years there is potentially a very considerable burden. We have an appeals system. Private property owners would be able to appeal to the local authority. Beyond the local authority, there would then be an appeal to an independent tribunal. Thereafter, if there is a compensation matter, private owners will have a right to appeal, and then there will be a right to appeal to an independent tribunal on a point of law against that review decision. I make no complaint about private owners having the right to appeal. Noble Lords will not be surprised to hear that I feel as uneasy as some of my noble friends who have spoken about the potential invasion of private property rights. Given the fact that this will end up on a point of law, case law will evolve, the measure will ultimately go to the courts and local authorities will have to set up open procedures. Regulatory committees will have to consider all these measures in the open and a substantial process of quasi-judicial activity will emerge. This will cost a lot of money, involve a great deal of time and officer time will be diverted away from neighbourhood planning, to which I would like to see it being devoted, into the mere compilation of lists. However, we have plenty of lists.
I hear what my noble friend Lord Shipley said about local authorities and I acknowledge that they have a responsibility in this area but we are already supposed to have asset management plans and asset management registers, and how bureaucratic they were. I was grateful to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for reducing some of the bureaucracy in that regard. The fundamental problem here is that this is really emergency legislation. It provides for an emergency position. It all started with people being about to lose their post office or small shop, although serious potential problems of blight are involved, as the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, said. A giant register is being sought of all potential assets of community value across every local authority in the land. As a result, like so much else in this excellent Bill, which as I said at Second Reading I believe could be a historic Bill, the measure will become sclerotic and have unintended consequences.
This is part of a tendency, begun under the previous Government but sadly continuing under this Government, of introducing Bills which are too large, take too long to progress and contain too many important measures. This issue of trying to preserve assets of community value, which is testing your Lordships’ ingenuity and potentially interfering with private rights, could have been well dealt with in a narrowly defined piece of legislation. It could have been dealt with in Grand Committee and we could have teased out the question. However, we are here; but I hope that my noble friends—not those on the Front Bench, but the people who manage the Government’s programme—will perhaps think again about some of theses massive and wide-ranging pieces of legislation that we face.
It is obvious that the Government will want some legislation along these lines, but we should not try to include everything. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, about railway land. We have a lot of it but putting it on a register will not actually release it for excellent community use, as my noble friend Lord Greaves said. If we want to deal with railway land—and, my goodness, we should—let us go after it with a specific piece of legislation rather than try to include it in this wide piece of legislation. I should like there to be a narrow definition; a lot of thought about how the administration of this legislation will go forward; and quite an eye to the costs of time, effort and potential division in the communities. I hope that between now and Report we can think further. My noble friend has been generous in the information she gave to the House and the time she has spent listening.
As to the compensation scheme, which I also have not mentioned, it is assumed that local authorities will simply pick up its cost. No one mentioned that. We are asked by our communities to list all these private assets, and then we have to pay for it. There is no help there.
My final comment is that I very much agree with what my noble friend Lord Hodgson said on Tuesday. He said that there are issues about the loss of community assets that do not relate to privately owned assets. A second Tesco is opening in my small ward. I mention Tesco because the noble Lord mentioned it. That opening will do more harm to the small shops in my ward than anything else envisaged in this Bill. Where are the planning powers of local authorities to deal with such matters? I do not find them in the pages of this legislation. Some of the things that we are trying to target in this chapter could be dealt with in better and improved planning provisions. Then we might be able to pursue some of the problems that my noble friend Lord Hodgson mentioned.
Rather, as I said at Second Reading, I should like the Bill to be thinner, less sclerotic, better targeted, and respectful of the rights and interests that noble Lords on all sides have mentioned.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, the noble Lord and I live in and have represented the same borough; he still does, and although I have not always agreed with him, I very much do so on this occasion.
As to bureaucracy and cost, is he as puzzled as I am about the notion of a list? If you are a member of a local community, you know what its assets are—I use that term broadly. The proposal to set up a list of community assets suggests something much more commercial and directed at people and companies who are not within the local community. Does the noble Lord share that view?
Lord True
I certainly have doubts as to whether we need a list of assets of community value and a list of things that are not of community value. We already have a lot of lists and a lot of local knowledge. As I said at the conclusion of my remarks, neighbourhood planning should lead to greater local awareness and involvement. It may be a better mechanism for releasing resources and it would be on a better timescale, because this is, essentially, emergency legislation and you have six months to save it. That is how it all started. Compiling the lists is extremely complex and would relate to any use to which any of the land could be put. It states in the discussion paper that the local authority could consider former or current use, any planning policies, any use for the asset that the nominator is proposing, community support provided by the nominator, any statutory provisions affecting the asset, or any alternative sites in the neighbourhood that could serve the same purpose. I wonder whether some of the people who drafted this Bill would care to volunteer to give their time to some of the local authorities in this country to prepare for and work on those kinds of lists.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
I rise briefly to underline the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, that once the shop or pub is closed the game is almost certainly over. It is certainly past half-time, and every month during which they are closed makes it less likely that they can recover. It is absolutely astonishing how quickly shopping and drinking habits change. I referred on Tuesday to my involvement with a pub company. We inevitably have a continuous refurbishment programme for our 2,400 pubs, involving putting in new lighting, carpets and so on. We have to go in and get out very quickly. If a pub is closed for refurbishment for a couple of weeks, people start to drift away. They know it is going to be reopened and that it will be better, because that is part of the programme, but you have to be incredibly quick about it. The noble Lord made a powerful point that we have to take into account when considering this matter.
Perhaps I may say to my noble friend Lord True that the arrival of Tesco damages not only in terms of shopping patterns but in the pricing of the beer and alcohol it sells, which undermines all local pubs because it sells virtually at cost price.
The Earl of Lytton
My Lords, this is such a complex part of what is in any event a complex Bill with a new concept of localism, but I confess that it is extremely difficult to know where to start on this chapter. I begin with the three words to which I should like to bring back the Committee’s focus—assets, community and value. Each word opens up a raft of complex and interwoven considerations. I am pleased that the noble Lords, Lord Cameron of Dillington and Lord Greaves, have brought forward this series of clause stand-part debates to deal with the chapter as it is important to see it as a whole.
On the question of assets, one might ask, “Whose assets?”. Are they land or are they services and facilities? The two are not the same. Are they intrinsic assets, are they activities or are they something that indirectly protects some other asset? Is it a current asset, a potential asset or a previous asset that has been lost? I do not need to say more, other than that it is always very difficult to turn the clock back. As to “community” as a term of art, in this part of the Bill one might ask: how local is it? How representative is it? What are its objectives? Is an objective stance being taken on behalf of the community? “Value” is a word with which I, as a practising valuer, am very familiar. What is the purpose? To whom is it of value? What is the time horizon and what are the constraints relating to it, including planning issues?
I turn to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton. I spent the first seven years of my professional life working out of an inner city area. I spent the next four-and-a-half years working mostly in Greater London. I can relate to the issue of redundant land and wasteland. Even if they cannot immediately be used they have a negative effect by blighting the appearance of a neighbourhood. I wondered whether “asset” also meant the converse—the non-assets that detract. If so, we need to be much more careful about what we are defining.
Wasteland often relates to orphan sites that have somehow been left over. I alluded to this on Tuesday in connection with bits of rural verge. The same thing happens when urban land is built out. During the great expansion of the Victorian era, all sorts of things were left behind and no one knows who owns them. It may be that there is a case for adopting a sweeping-up principle but, if so, I would follow the dictum of the noble Lord, Lord True, that the issue is not for this Bill. It must be dealt with somewhere else.
However, perhaps the former statutory undertaker on redundant utility property land and that owned by charities, religious foundations and government agencies should have a specific social responsibility to make that land available to the community as a first choice. I point the finger at the privatised utilities in that respect. But that raises all sorts of issues, because privatised utilities are now large companies. They may be owned by French conglomerates or Scottish power companies. It is difficult to turn the clock back because the horse has gone from the stable. It does not matter what we do about the stable door, we cannot deal with that problem. As has been mentioned before, peer pressure or government pressure on companies may procure better social responsibility concerning some of that land. Again, we cannot put that in the Bill
The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, touched on a matter which I first thought might be dealt with under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act: that the future use of land can be governed by legal agreements. The problem is that the legacy of past practice did not foresee where we are now. Again, it may be difficult to turn the clock back. It is possible that what we are considering is not relevant under planning law. There could be a lacuna here that we have to deal with.
I cannot remember which noble Lord mentioned Ministry of Defence land. Try getting the Treasury on side. A little thing called best value and getting the proper return for the taxpayer is trotted out. If any Member of your Lordships' House has a sure-fire way of getting hold of the Treasury, I have another proposition that I was not going to float. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, knows what it is. If you give a douceur for offering land or assets to the community—a tax credit or tax break—you might find people making an orderly queue instead of running a mile. I have no confidence that Her Majesty's Treasury will be brought on side for that. I am also confident that it lies outside the scope of the Bill.
A county officer of parish and town councils told me not long ago that he had been approached by a parish about whether this chapter, once enacted, would enable a parish to bid for land where the recalcitrant owner was threatening to sell his paddock to Travellers. I dare say that that was a wind-up by the owner, but it brings into question whether such negatives are part of the concept of asset or something different. I think that the parish was told that the council did not think that the Bill was the right vehicle for that. I point out that relationships are not necessarily always lovely between private individuals, as owners, and communities, in either urban or rural areas. I cannot help pointing out the possibility of what I can only describe as sharp practice, where a local commercial interest gets alongside a community interest with the intention of collaborating over the ultimate division of spoils of a land development project. That is not as far-fetched as one might think. It operates as, “You, the community interest, use your neighbourhood planning and asset nomination rights and we, the commercial interest, will put in some funding and technical backing”.
Lord Avebury
My Lords, I do not want to interrupt the thread of the noble Earl's argument, but did I understand him to say that it was always contrary to the interests of a community for a landowner to offer to sell land for the purpose of building a Gypsy site on it? Is that invariably contrary to the interests of the community?
The Earl of Lytton
My Lords, absolutely not. I was going to go on to say that there are many examples where owners take a benevolent view towards the community. It has already been highlighted that they might take a much more cautious attitude in future. No, I am thinking of downstream of the Bill when there are neighbourhood planning powers vested in a community, a community right to nominate and potentially unpleasant practices.
I acknowledge the desirability of communities being able to acquire assets that are important to them. I made that point at Second Reading. That is a bit different from a facility to cherry-pick assets that are not or have never been in community use or have been provided on a voluntary basis. The mechanism is wrong. The visible benefit of the top of the iceberg that we see gleaming above the water masks a much larger lump lurking below, which we need to consider carefully.
On Tuesday, I enumerated various points where I thought that authorities preparing lists would have their work cut out. I add only one thing to that on Clause 81, which concerns the publishing of the lists. Have the privacy and confidentiality issues been considered?
I come to the question of values. As a property valuer, I must suggest that that is not without consequences. I will be brief. Uncertainty is very damaging to property values. We should not await with eagerness the first case of a claim based on a lost sale.
I shall not cover the excellent and helpful paper that the noble Baroness has placed in the Library, but I shall write to her about that, because it does not cover all the things that it ought to. In particular, I mention compensation. The Bill does not provide for an automatic linkage to what is a long established compensation code under the land compensation Acts. That begs the question of whether it is intended to include the same checks and balances that are tried and tested or to introduce something else. I would welcome her comment on that.
Lord Patel of Bradford
I genuinely think that this stand part debate has got to the crux of many of the amendments laid before us. It has been extremely useful. It has helped us to explore and clarify many misconceptions as well as real issues. I thank the noble Baroness for laying the note in the Library and for the many meetings that she has offered to have with us. As my noble friend said, I think that we need to have a meeting with some of the groups that have lobbied us to have them round the table and have their views heard.
We agree with many things that the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and others have said, especially about the bureaucracy in this chapter and the rest of the Bill. My noble friend Lord Beecham pointed out one example. Clause 81(6) states:
“In this section ‘free’ means free of charge”.
I hate to say this but I would almost be willing to let the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, have the red pen and have a go at this chapter because he could probably delete some of the nonsense and actually make it workable. That is the key to this—we endorse what the Government are trying to do in this chapter; the intentions are right. The key issue, as highlighted very clearly by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, is about definitions. What is a community asset? There are different views around the country—for example, in rural areas. What we think a community asset is in Bradford clearly differs from elsewhere. It is not just about pubs and post offices but about the use of other community assets, such as land, where the community can transform these places.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, asked a very important question very early on in the debate about why we need this to do what we have already done in Manningham Mills in Bradford. It is a really important and symbolic step forward, which, if introduced, could effectively provide an additional mechanism for community groups to acquire their own assets, while increasing their confidence, independence and capacity to deliver valuable services in the area. This is really important. We underestimate the creativity, innovation and cost-effectiveness that exists there and this would be a mechanism that would allow organisations such as Locality, which has been working in this area for some 20 years, to work with community groups and give them support to do this. We only have to look at the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, who could probably spend the next two hours telling us how to transform community assets into viable, lively and effective services.
Let us not throw the baby out with the bathwater. The key intention and thrust behind this, in terms of supporting communities to acquire and develop assets and to turn blight into benefit by providing a training centre, community meeting space, young people’s activity or social enterprise start-up centre in disused buildings, is a real benefit. I know the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is going to ask what difference this makes but—
Lord Greaves
It is a slightly different question. I am stimulated to stand up by the mention of Manningham Mills. I remember being taken there by an auntie who lived there when I was a small lad to look at the steam engine driving the mills—an absolutely wonderful sight. I am not aware—perhaps the noble Lord or his colleague will know—who provided all the resources and finance for that scheme. As he knows, I am passionately in favour of the kind of schemes he is talking about. In general, do they not require a great deal of resources of different sorts, whether it is money or people or whatever, from either local or national government, or from other organisations of one sort or another? Without that it is very difficult indeed in such communities to achieve such schemes. This Bill does not do that.
Lord Patel of Bradford
I take on board the point the noble Lord is making but I think the Minister would agree—going back to the community right of challenge—that this is about partnership. Manningham Mills was a big partnership with Urban Splash and a number of developers, but with the community as well. It absolutely needs the community. There are small communities that can raise £30,000, £40,000 or £50,000. I have seen it happen. If they are given the opportunity, they can take over small buildings or bits of land and change them. I completely take on board the anxiety about landowners who currently allow the use of their fields for cricket facilities but may become anxious about that, and we need clarification on that. I hesitate to say that it ought to be in regulations, but we absolutely need clarification on these issues. My heart missed a beat when the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, said that the local cricket pitch could go. That absolutely must not happen, despite the injuries. I look for reassurance from the Minister that we can address some of the issues that noble Lords have rightly raised—they are valid points—but I hope we can trim this down to the core, where we do not lose the gem in this; which is giving that confidence and a symbolic way forward for communities to really say, “Here is an opportunity for us to get a building we have been looking at for years on the list. We are going to get together, if need be, with local private partners, and have an opportunity with this”.
Lord Greaves
I am entirely in favour, as the noble Lord is, of having partnerships with the private sector and getting spin-off from that; and indeed have experience of it. That is fine. However, the noble Lord talks about cricket pitches—he will be aware of the cricket ground at Park Avenue in Bradford, which used to be a very fine Yorkshire county cricket ground and is now just used by a local team. It must be in danger, in the future, of being developed or of no local team being able to keep up the expenditure on the large ground—all the terracing and so on. I believe it belongs to Bradford Council anyway, but how will putting that on an asset register help to save it? Surely what is required is for the project and scheme to be put together that will do something about it. They might save the football ground as well, while they are about it.
Lord Patel of Bradford
It is ironic that this Bill could be the trigger to sort out Bradford Park Avenue, because a team called Wibsey Park Chapel plays on the ground and I have played for them for the last two years. The noble Lord is absolutely right that there are issues about not being able to maintain this historic ground. If it got on a list, I bet my bottom dollar a number of groups would get together in the community, get the money required and have this historic ground restored; and you would see cricket on there on a regular basis all the year round. That is a really good example and it is what would happen. At the moment it is in the hands of the Friends of Park Avenue, who feel like they are not the friends of Park Avenue when they see it is falling to bits. You are absolutely right: the cricket team is struggling to keep it going, because it does not have the funds. If it was opened up more widely, a number of other cricket clubs would get involved.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, that was a good debate. We had a very long time for it, and quite a lot of it had very little to do with the centre-point of the Bill—we roamed pretty widely, near to the subject, but also away from it—but I return to the points I made when we last discussed this issue the day before yesterday. We are looking for a simple way of ensuring that local communities can have an opportunity to try to put together a business case and purchase a facility in which they have a particular interest if it comes up for sale. I shall not try to answer all the points made today, some of which will come up again later. This debate has gone right across this clause, but various amendments cover other clauses and I shall respond to them then. I shall be sympathetic to some of those amendments but not to others. As I also said last time, there is a terrible danger that I will go back over what I have said before. As noble Lords said, I have put in the discussion document, and at our previous sitting I gave a pretty good indication of the sort of areas that the Government are considering. I think that I have also given a pretty good indication that we are not closed to thinking about possible unintended consequences. Many of the speeches today raised the question of unintended consequences. I think that a number of those consequences are completely outside the scope of the Bill. We want to narrow the debate and return to the Government’s starting point which, as I said, was precisely to try to deal with situations where facilities simply vanish from the community’s sight because it cannot do anything about it.
I have taken notes throughout the debate and have to say that so many separate points have been raised that I will need an opportunity to consider them. As I said, I am happy to discuss these issues—some for the first time, some not—with noble Lords. We want this part of the Bill to be right. We want it to do what we believe it should do, and we do not want people to spend the next 10 years of their lives trying to sort out what it means and does not mean. As I said, I am happy to have more discussions about this to see how we can look at the issues further, if necessary.
Lord Tope
My Lords, I am very grateful for the noble Baroness’s offer of further discussions, negotiations and consideration. I think that all of us in your Lordships’ House who have taken part in the Bill over the previous five days in Committee have very much appreciated the—dare I say it?—conciliatory tone from the government Front Bench and their willingness to discuss, consider and, if agreed, make changes to the Bill at the next stage.
However, as we have just found out today when the next stage will be, I ask the noble Baroness how she envisages that we will achieve that further discussion and consideration, given that the last day in Committee will be the day on which we go into recess and the first day of Report will be the day that we come back, the intention being that Report will be completed in the two weeks in which we sit in September. I do not doubt for one moment the sincerity with which these assurances and offers have been made. My concern, which I suspect will be shared on the Front Bench, is how that is going to be achieved between 20 July and 1 September, the day on which amendments have to be tabled for the first day of Report. I suspect that there is no answer to that but we have to find one.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I endorse what the noble Lord has just said. We increasingly have concerns about the timing of the process. We are doing everything we can to make sure that we make progress, but there is an issue with trying to resolve some of these matters when the House is in recess. Frankly, some Ministers will be away, and writing to everyone will be more difficult when officials are also likely to be away with their buckets and spades. If we want to get the Bill right, I urge the noble Baroness to consider that point.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, it is not for me to consider. As the noble Lord knows, government business and the timing of that business are dealt with by the usual channels. That does not fall within my remit at all. We have three weeks left with virtually two days a week to be spent on the Bill. Somewhere within that time people will, I hope, come together and we will be able to discuss the issue. I just make the point that I have had several meetings and I am very happy to extend the invitation to those meetings to the Opposition.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, on a different point, the Minister referred just now to compensation, as she did on Tuesday. I have two linked amendments on that issue in today’s Marshalled List that we shall come to later. Have I missed an amendment on this that the Government have already tabled? I do not see a provision in the Bill about compensation, other than that an authority may make compensation available. Has an amendment been tabled? If not, is it the intention to table an amendment about it?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, the noble Lord is right. I suspect that the intention is to put something in regulations but I shall check that and let the noble Lord know.
Lord Cameron of Dillington
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for what I thought was a very good debate. I want to make it clear that, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, I do not want this part of the Bill to disappear; I want it to work. I want it to save pubs, shops and some community spaces. I accept that there is more to life than pubs and post offices, and I totally accept that communities should get involved with their open spaces. I am not sure about railway sidings—that is obviously a very difficult matter which I am afraid is beyond me—but clearly it does not really belong in this Bill.
However, if wasteland and other sites are owned by public bodies, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, said, there is nothing to stop the community getting together now and trying to buy a particular site. If it is owned by a private person, they can also make a bid, as is being proposed. As I said, under Section 15 of the Commons Act 2006 people can make a bid to have a site declared as a village green. However, I still think that the real danger to an existing community asset occurs with a change of use. That applies to the possible cricket pitch of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, or his MoD sale for business development. I am not sure about the demolition of the pub. I always thought that you had to get permission to demolish a pub. I am told that you do not; I accept that. That may be an exception but there is probably nothing that any legislation can do to stop that in any case.
As I said, I do not want this part of the Bill to disappear. I want it to work, but there is also no doubt in my mind that the chapter as currently proposed is not the right answer to saving community assets.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara)
My Lords, before we move on to the lunch hour business, there are about a dozen amendments which have already been spoken to and it may be for the convenience of the Committee if we deal with those now. However, if any noble Lord wishes to move one of those amendments, we must stop immediately.
Clause 75 : Land of community value
Supply and Appropriation (Main Estimates) Bill
UK Borders Act 2007 (Commencement No. 7 and Transitional Provisions) Order 2011
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Avebury
That this House regrets that the UK Borders Act 2007 (Commencement No. 7 and Transitional Provisions) Order 2011 (SI 2011/1293) changes the law that applies to appeals that have already been lodged.
Lord Avebury
My Lords, I am very grateful for the opportunity to discuss this Motion, which relates to an order that brings into effect Section 85A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, inserted by Section 19 of the UK Borders Act 2007. The title of Section 19 is “Points-based applications: no new evidence on appeal”, and that is a succinct description of its effect. The general rule that applies to immigration cases is that the immigration tribunals have power to consider any evidence relevant to the substance if the UKBA decision is under appeal, except in entry clearance cases—that is, cases relating to applications from abroad. In such cases, if there is a new development, the individuals have to make a new application to UKBA.
Section 19 makes provision for a new exception: all points-based system cases dealing with people either coming to or remaining in the UK for the purposes of work or study. A good deal was said about the substance of this section in the debate in Committee on the Bill which became the UK Border Act 2007, although there is no point in recapitulating the arguments against it that were deployed in both Houses, including in your Lordships' Grand Committee, on an amendment which I moved on 1 July 2007. If anyone is interested, it starts at col. GC 70, but I am afraid that the arguments are now only of historical interest.
In this short debate, I invite your Lordships’ attention to the specific reason for this Motion: namely, what I consider to be the unlawful retrospective effect of the commencement order. On Thursday 19 May, the immigration Minister, Damian Green, made a Written Ministerial Statement, announcing that this change would come into force the following Monday, 23 May, and advancing as an argument that around two-thirds of successful points-based system appeals were those at which further evidence had been submitted after the dismissal of the initial application. At some point on Friday 20 May, the commencement order was placed on the website www.statutelaw.gov.uk and printed copies were available in Parliament some time on that day.
There was hardly any time for your Lordships or Members of another place to consider the merits of the order or its lawfulness, let alone to consult with persons who might be affected by it or their legal representatives. On the Localism Bill, we have just had a discussion on the unwisdom of allowing discussions on the further edges of that Bill to be channelled into the Recess, the only opportunity between the last sitting day and the first day that we come back—it is a similar case. Your Lordships are not being given adequate opportunities for discussions on what may be very important details or of consulting with outside experts or lawyers on the way in which these matters are being dealt with.
This is not the way to treat Parliament and I would be grateful if the Minister could explain the reason for such unseemly haste when Section 19 has been lying unused on the statute book for the past four years, during which time six commencement orders relating to other sections of the 2007 Act have been approved by Parliament. It could not have been for the reason sometimes given for orders changing immigration law being brought in with little notice, which is to prevent a spike in applications before the change comes into effect. In this case the only persons affected were those who had already received a refusal from the UK Borders Agency and had either lodged an appeal or were within the 10-day working window for deciding whether to lodge an appeal.
The Immigration Law Practitioners Association, ILPA, wrote to UKBA protesting about the lack of notice and, in its reply, UKBA said:
“The order is not required to be laid before Parliament and it is not subject to the 21-day rule, as such no parliamentary conventions have been ignored in the introduction of this measure”.
No doubt that is true, but your Lordships still have the right to consider these orders, by tabling a Motion before they come into effect, as I have done. I respectfully suggest that, to table these Motions on a Friday when generally neither House sits in the hope that no one will notice them on Monday when they arrive for a busy week, is a sneaky way of preventing any parliamentary scrutiny. This case is not only an insult to Parliament, but it creates major problems for the affected applicants, their legal representatives and tribunals.
Looking at the order, the new provisions on evidence do not apply to appeals that were part heard on 23 May, but they apply to appeals that were pending before the tribunal on that date; in other words, when a person has lodged an appeal and is waiting for it to be heard. The gravamen of my Motion is that it is a violation of the principle of legal certainty when a person has gone to the trouble and expense of lodging an appeal on one legal basis only to find the rug pulled from under their feet by a change in the legal basis, which has come into effect without warning or notice. Indeed, they would have had every reason to believe that, as Section 19 had been dormant for the past four years, they would be very unlucky if it suddenly came to life during the interval between the refusal of their application and the hearing of their appeal. Such a person may have concluded or may have been advised that their prospects of an appeal succeeding were good because there was substantial new evidence available, but they would have those expectations dashed because that evidence was instantaneously disqualified.
We are advised by ILPA that the terms of the order are not lawful. It argues that unless the language clearly indicates a contrary parliamentary intention, a statutory provision has to be construed as not interfering with existing accrued rights. There is a presumption against retrospectivity which can be displaced only by clear statutory language and there is nothing in Section 19 or in Section 59 of the parent Act 2007 dealing with commencement that displaces the presumption in the case of Section 19. It is particularly telling that Section 59 displaces the presumption in the case of other sections of the Act, such as Section 26.
Without going through all the consequences of what Section 19 will mean in practice, there is one on which I seek an assurance from the Minister. This is the refusal of appeals on the grounds that mandatory evidence is missing or faulty. UKBA has issued a notice to its consultative forum, the employers’ task force, stating that a validation stage is being trialled in which applicants are contacted when mandatory evidence is missing and given the opportunity to provide it before the decision is made. Those with pending appeals on the date on which this order came into effect had not had the benefit of that validation stage and I ask my noble friend to check that none of them had their applications rejected solely on the ground that a mandatory document had not been produced. As we all know, when dealing with complicated applications, it is easy enough to omit accidentally some piece of information that is required and we would expect to be reminded of the omission rather than to be told that the service requested would not be granted to us because of the omission.
Entry clearance appeals have always been held under the law which applied when a negative decision was made by UKBA and before that by the Home Office on the application, going right back to the original immigration Act 1971. Not surprisingly, challenges to the lawfulness of this order are coming before the courts, a situation which could have been avoided if the Government had made transitional provisions for the small number of points-based system cases where the application had been refused but the appeal had not yet been started when the order came into effect. The wording of the order could simply have been amended so that it applied to appeals against decisions made on or after 23 May.
For the sake of this handful of cases, the Government are breaching a fundamental principle of law and it is the duty of Parliament to warn them of the enormity of what they are doing. We ask them to lay orders in proper time to allow Members to judge whether they are lawful and never again to scurry them in furtively over a weekend. We ask them never again to fail to make it clear in primary legislation where it is the intention to make the commencement of a section or sections retrospective. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I will not repeat the arguments that my noble friend made so powerfully. I have one point and one question for the Minister. My noble friend mentioned the validation pilot. Before hearing about that, it struck me that the problem may lie in a lack of clarity about the evidence required, and in poor initial investigation. Can the Minister say anything about that?
I will not talk about making rods for our own back, but as a country we owe it to those who are applying for visas to be as clear as possible about what is required. We have talked in many debates about immigration and the importance of warm feelings on the part of other countries towards this country—the reputational area. I will mention that in this context.
Lord Judd
I will follow on from that sentiment, but first I feel that it is important to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, on raising this matter. In this House, there is sometimes—shall I say?—exaggerated and even slightly operatic flattery, but it is impossible to overdo our appreciation of the noble Lord. Throughout his parliamentary career, he has been a model of what disciplined, detailed scrutiny is about. We may have big and emotional debates and focus on sensational issues, but the noble Lord has demonstrated that for Parliament, doing scrutiny well requires a great deal of detailed application and thoroughness. He does not easily let points of principle escape his attention, and we should all be grateful to him.
The issues on which it would be important to hear comments from the Minister include retrospective legislation of any kind. I deprecate retrospective legislation because on the surface it always casts doubt on the principle of legal certainty. From that standpoint, there has to be a very special case for anything that involves retrospective legislation.
My second point is one that the noble Baroness has just emphasised, namely that we spend a lot of time preaching to the world about the absence of the rule of law. Immigration policy puts us in the front line of relationships with people from other countries. It is terribly important that in our policy we demonstrate an absolute commitment to the rule of law. There is a perception—we could debate this more fully on another occasion—that what we take as important in the general administration of law does not always apply to immigration; that the task of immigration is to say no and to get people to go home rather than to find the truth behind the application; and that it is not to put ourselves in a position to understand a person’s desperate plight and to determine that no stone shall be left unturned in ensuring that justice is fulfilled in their case. From that standpoint, what the noble Lord has put before us today is an applied illustration of why it is so important to take these matters seriously. I hope that the Minister will deal fully and convincingly with what he has put before us.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon and Leeds
My Lords, I support the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. Like the noble Lord, Lord Judd, I thank him for his persistence on this issue of justice for those coming to or remaining in this country, in particular to work or study. That includes a significant number of people who come at the invitation of churches and other faith communities, as well as academic bodies, to be a part of the life of churches, universities and so on in this country.
The points-based system has proved problematic for many long-established relationships with other countries. It is in some danger of causing the lack of warmth to which the noble Baroness referred moments ago. The order adds to the perception that we are more interested in obtaining decisions in favour of UKBA than in achieving justice for applicants.
I stress again the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Judd. Why do we move so fast on immigration law? Why does it appear to be different from other laws that we consider in this House? I would like the Minister to indicate as clearly as she can what we are doing here. What we should be doing is seeking justice for claimants based on all the evidence that we can possibly have at a particular moment. Any legislation that looks as though it is seeking to exclude available evidence must be dangerous and problematic. The order also appears to ignore the fact that many of those applying have little in the way of resources, and that new applications, which would be possible, will add significantly to the costs.
There ought to be an absolute rule, first, that our legislation is not retrospective, and, secondly, that commencement orders such as this should provide proper notice to those affected. As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, indicated, this order applies to appeals already in the pipeline, and there was only a weekend between it being published and coming into effect, so it fails the test on both counts. I, too, regret this unnecessary threat to justice being done and being seen to be done for those applicants whom it affects.
Lord Hylton
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, made a very strong case, and we are all grateful to him. I will ask one question. Will the Minister tell the House how many appeals were still pending on 23 May of this year? That would be very helpful in indicating the scale of the problem.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for tabling this Motion of Regret and enabling us to probe the reasons for the Government’s actions in relation to the retrospective effect of this commencement order, which brings into force Section 85A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, inserted by Section 19 of the UK Borders Act 2007. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, explained in some detail the background and significance of Section 19 of the 2007 Act. I do not intend to repeat all the ground that he covered, although inevitably there will be some repetition, for which I apologise.
The noble Lord raised the issue of the retrospective effect of the commencement order and, as a result, its legality. Section 19 is entitled “Points-based application: no new evidence on appeal”—which is exactly what it is about. As the noble Lord said, in immigration cases the general rule is that immigration tribunals can consider any evidence that is relevant to the substance of the UK Border Agency’s decision, including evidence from after the date of the decision.
An exception to this is entry clearance applications, and Section 19 makes provision for a new exception; namely, points-based-system cases which relate to cases about people coming to or remaining in the UK for the purposes of work and study.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Browning)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Avebury for the opportunity to debate this Motion, and I am also grateful to him for correspondence relating to this debate that he has made available to me. A number of points have been raised, and I will do my best to deal with the issues to which they give rise.
The Motion deals with a distinct subject: the manner of implementation of Section 19 of the UK Borders Act 2007. As we have heard, the UK Borders Act 2007 (Commencement No. 7 and Transitional Provisions) Order 2011 commenced Section 19 of that Act and introduced a new Section 85A into the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. That section introduces a restriction on the new evidence that can be presented at points-based system appeals so that only evidence considered by the UK Border Agency caseworker can be taken into account.
The Government believe that migration has enriched our culture and strengthened our economy, but that it must be controlled so that people have confidence in the system. In today's global economy, we need to be able to attract the best and the brightest to ensure that our companies remain competitive and our standard of living remains high. We have already pledged to transform the immigration system so that it does the best by the public. People have a right to know that the Government are protecting their jobs, keeping a firm grip on those who come here and sending home those who break the rules.
The UK Border Agency is committed to improving the quality of initial decision-making across all case categories, overseas and in-country, and has already made good progress with a dedicated programme of work under way to make such improvements. However, where evidence is not supplied with an application, caseworkers are unable to take it into account. They are then seeing their decisions overturned on appeal when appellants submit new evidence. It cannot be said that the PBS application process is complicated. A customer satisfaction survey found that around 85 per cent of applicants are clear about what evidence they need to provide and that up to 92 per cent of applicants find the application process easy to understand. I particularly draw that to the attention of my noble friend Lady Hamwee.
The Government commenced Section 19 to help ensure that applications, and therefore decisions, under PBS are made correctly first time. Before Section 19 was commenced, 63 per cent of allowed PBS appeals were allowed because appellants were submitting new evidence at the appeal hearing that was not provided to the UK Border Agency with their application. Such documentary evidence, for example, relating to a person’s level of funds or demonstrating their English-language ability, will be taken at face value by the immigration judge and cannot be validated by the UK Border Agency. There simply is not time when that new evidence is submitted at the appeal stage. I stress that that sort of information is required at the time the application is made and should not be submitted at a much later date as part of an appeal procedure where no validation can take place.
Section 19 will also help to end unnecessary appeals. Applicants should submit all necessary evidence to allow the caseworker to reach the right decision in the first instance. An expensive and publicly funded appeal is not the remedy for those who fail, deliberately or otherwise, to submit the required evidence with their applications in the first place. Evidence can continue to be presented at PBS appeals where it is in support of a human rights, race relations, asylum or EEA ground of appeal, is provided to prove that a document previously submitted is genuine or valid and is provided in support of grounds that do not relate to the acquisition of points.
The Government carefully considered the best way to introduce this legislation and decided to apply it to all appeals heard for the first time on or after 23 May, the date of commencement. Doing so creates a clear cut-off point.
The view that introducing the legislation in this manner is unfair on those who have already lodged their appeals, because they did so in the expectation that they would be able to introduce new evidence at the appeal stage but are now prevented from doing so, is contrary to the way in which the law was established in the first place. We considered very carefully the manner of introduction of this measure, which is shown in that there are transitional arrangements included in the commencement of this provision. Any appeal where a hearing has already taken place or part heard at the First-tier Tribunal will not be affected by this measure.
I would remind the House that this provision has been on the statute book since October 2007, with a clear intention that it would be implemented once PBS became established in order to give applicants and legal representatives the chance to become familiar with the process. The provision is widely known among applicants and legal representatives, and it can hardly be a surprise that the Government have now chosen to implement it.
The legislation as it stood prior to 23 May did not entitle applicants to delay submitting evidence until the appeal stage. It is the applicant’s responsibility to submit any and all relevant evidence with their application. I would remind the House of the statistics that I gave at the beginning of my remarks. Applicants say that it is easy to undertake that exercise and to understand the paperwork involved. Supplying this information at the time of application will enable caseworkers to make the right decision in the first place and to avoid that unnecessary process of expensive appeals funded by the taxpayer.
The Immigration Rules, the UK Border Agency website and associated policy guidance make it clear that all relevant evidence should be submitted at the time of application. The commencement of Section 19 does not change what is already expected of applicants. The immigration system’s integrity relies on UK Border Agency officials being able to conduct all necessary checks on applications to ensure that the right people are allowed to stay in the United Kingdom. It is vital that all relevant information is given in order to enable them to perform these checks. Simply presenting additional information at appeal, which effectively circumvents those checks, is not acceptable. The practice needs to be stopped as soon as possible.
My noble friend suggests that a better way to have implemented Section 19 would have been to exempt all those who had already lodged their appeal. I realise that this may sound reasonable but I believe that it would in practice have created confusion in the system. A person refused under PBS has 10 days to lodge an appeal. Two persons refused on the same day a week prior to 23 May could have lodged an appeal either side of 23 May, one being caught by the legislation and the other not. Implementing in that way would have led to considerable confusion on behalf of appellants and the courts.
Several noble Lords have asked for precisely the number of people in that situation on 23 May. I do not have the exact figure and I will not give a guesstimate. I think that the House would like the exact figure: I promise to write to noble Lords and to lay a copy of that figure in the Library of the House.
The UK Border Agency is working hard to improve the overall appeals system. The commencement of this legislation is just one element in an overarching appeals improvement plan which, through a mix of operational changes and longer term policy solutions, focuses on reducing the number of appeals in the system, on improving representation and organisation, and on working in partnership with Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service to modernise the system over the next 12 to 18 months. For example, we are committed to embedding a right first-time, every-time approach to decision-making in the agency and we use information we learn from appeals heard to make continuous improvement to our processes. We have already increased representation at appeals from 74 per cent last year to 83 per cent so far this year by making more flexible use of our resources and increasing productivity.
Lord Rosser
Could the Minister give me a reply to a question that I asked? Can she confirm that it is the Government’s judgment that this commencement order is not open to successful challenge in the courts, bearing in mind that the issue is the retrospective effect of a commencement order?
Baroness Browning
My Lords, I think the noble Lord has been in the House long enough to know that the Government do not comment on the legal advice that they receive. Certainly, in bringing this measure into being, as I have outlined, it is our understanding that, unlike other statutory instruments, commencement orders are subject to no parliamentary procedure. It would not be appropriate for me to comment on any legal advice that the Government have taken in this matter.
Lord Avebury
My Lords, I did not expect my noble friend the Minister to be able to respond to that question from the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, knowing that there are already actions before the courts that have not yet been heard. She obviously cannot predict the result of those actions. Nevertheless, it is worth underlining that legal advisers of some applicants believe that they have a chance of success; otherwise they would not have been able to launch their actions in the courts. The precedent and the lawfulness of the order are still under review. We will not know the answer to the noble Lord’s question until those cases have been determined.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and all others who have spoken in this debate—my noble friend Lady Hamwee, the noble Lords, Lord Judd and Lord Hylton, and particularly the right reverend Prelate, who made the extremely valid and useful point that to do justice to applicants, all the evidence must be heard. By this order, we deny that to many people who would otherwise be successful, as illustrated by the Government’s own figures, which were just cited by the noble Baroness. Sixty-three per cent of those who produce fresh evidence after being refused were successful on appeal. I understand perfectly well her point that 92 per cent of the applicants found the process easy to understand.
However, looking at this the other way round, 8 per cent had some difficulty with it. As I said, even those who are very used to filling in forms occasionally omit a document or make a mistake on the statement that would invalidate the whole application. These minor errors cannot then be taken into consideration at the appeal stage because the documents must stand on their own merits without exception. As the right reverend Prelate pointed out, this means that any applicant who is in that position will have to formulate a new application simply because he omitted a document or made a literal error on one of the forms. This seems an unnecessary burden on both the applicant and the tribunals.
I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for her comprehensive answer to all the points that were raised in the debate. She gave full value for money in her reply, and answered many of the points that we dealt with. We look forward to receiving answers in due course to those that she did not manage to squeeze into her time, particularly to the question about the number of people who were affected at the time.
Needless to say, I did not accept my noble friend’s point when she said that my suggestion would have led to further difficulties if it had made it into the transitional provisions. With respect, nor do I think that she answered adequately the question about why it was necessary to bundle this order before your Lordships with such haste over a weekend, with no adequate opportunity for either consideration by your Lordships or consultation with outside interests that might well be affected by it. I wish my noble friend had been able to give me the assurance that I asked for: that this would not happen again on future occasions, and the Government would not make retrospective orders unless doing so was given express authority in the parent Act. However, I look forward to these points being dealt with by my noble friend in the reply that she has kindly promised to give. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Localism Bill
Baroness Thornton
“( ) by a community organisation operating in the local authority area,”
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, given the comprehensive debate we had before the break, I intend to speak for about 30 seconds. This group of amendments is all about who should be represented on the lists to inform either consent or denial. My amendment addresses itself to the fact that it should be community organisations operating in the local authority area; other amendments have different versions of that. In a way, we just need to listen to what noble Lords have to say and then the Minister can respond. I beg to move.
Earl Cathcart
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 136B. There has been much concern that individuals will be allowed to make nominations. The argument is that if an asset is of community value, the nominations should be made by that community group, which has local connections, and not by an individual. This amendment would provide a safeguard against vexatious individuals making nominations, or individuals listing everything they can think of just to be on the safe side. This approach would complement the earlier proposal in Amendment 136ZD, tabled by my noble friend Lord Gardiner, regarding the definition, which would require local authorities to take evidence of community support for a nomination into account. It might be worth defining “voluntary and community bodies” so that it has to be more than 21 people. This is the definition being used for a neighbourhood forum and the principle is the same.
Lord Mawson
My Lords, I apologise for coming in and out of the debate on Tuesday and missing the key parts of the discussion. I will speak to Amendment 136A. My day on Tuesday was punctuated by meetings about the Olympics and a meeting with a Minister. However, by 11 pm on Tuesday evening I think I had managed to get a good flavour of the debate. I also apologise for being another speaker in the debate who hails from Bradford. I do not know what was being put into the school milk all those years ago up there for so many Bradfordians to be speaking in this Chamber on this subject. I was a milk monitor for a while, but it was not me who put anything in the milk.
More seriously, who decides what land or buildings are included in the list? As I have listened to this debate on the Bill there has often been an assumption that local authorities, be they in Bradford or Tower Hamlets, are in close contact on the ground with local communities, that they know what is going on and that their staff have the entrepreneurial flair and skills to spot a building or land and create an opportunity when they see it. I hear a very different message in some things I have looked at in Bradford and elsewhere. Having had 30 years of experience attempting to negotiate with local authorities, both in east London and up and down this land, I must say that this is not my experience. There is one view looking down the telescope into a local community from the offices of a local authority. There is quite a different view looking up the telescope in east London from one of the poorest housing estates in Britain.
In my experience, often local authorities are actually not in touch with the practical opportunities on the ground presented by land and buildings. Local authority staff, and sometimes the local councillors, do not always possess the skills and mindset to know what to do with these assets, which they view from a fairly traditional public sector point of view. Some local authorities are just not innovators, and some are. Some local authorities resist social entrepreneurs like me who come along and suggest a wholly new approach or point to new opportunities presented by land and buildings that challenge the status quo. Of course, there are some excellent exceptions to this rule.
As the Bill stands, and as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton has reminded us, the nomination of land or buildings as a community asset can be done only by a parish council, a county council or local authority. This means that, for example, the Bromley-by-Bow Centre in east London—which I founded, and of which I am now the president, so I must declare an interest—could not suggest that any land or building be included in the list. This is ridiculous. The Bromley-by-Bow Centre began 27 years ago as a small charity and has today expanded its operation such that it works closely with local residents across the whole of Poplar and beyond. We have done in practice what many contributors on the Bill have talked about. Today, what began as a small charity runs a three-acre site and has 170 staff. With local people, we have created 37 businesses and social enterprises that operate across Tower Hamlets and beyond. We built the first integrated health centre in the country that is owned by local people through a development trust, and now our doctors and their partners run four health centres in Poplar with responsibility for nearly 40,000 patients.
I also helped found the housing company Poplar HARCA, with which I do some work now and so must also declare that interest. This £300 million company has challenged the traditional logic of the housing association movement and has done a great deal of work to demonstrate how housing associations can use their capital investment in housing to trigger social and economic development with residents in a way that allows local communities to start to think very differently about how we can use both land and buildings in an innovative way. Today, the company has responsibility for nearly 10,000 housing units, operates in Poplar on an area of land that is the same size as the Olympic Park, on the opposite side of the road, and now owns 34 per cent of all the land in the area. This is a resident-led organisation. Today, Poplar HARCA, in partnership with the Bromley-by-Bow Centre and Leaside Regeneration Ltd—another interest that I must declare, as I am a director—has put together a £1 billion regeneration programme, which will have major implications for the area over the next 15 years, both for land and for buildings.
The idea that the Bromley-by-Bow Centre and Poplar HARCA, both of which are charities, should not be able to nominate land and buildings on to the list would be resisted by local residents, who have voted through a democratic process for the housing company. These charities have widespread support and are far more in touch with the opportunities for innovation on the ground than the local authority, even though we work in partnership together. What I am describing in practice is the opportunities that the Bill can present to local social enterprises and their partners if we get the detail right. I am describing what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, has rightly described as the wider opportunities with which the logic of this Bill might, if the detail is right, present local communities.
With regard to the fears that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, expressed on Tuesday about large companies coming into the local area and cutting out local organisations, I understand that fear, but in practice the Bromley-by-Bow Centre has a very successful partnership with the multinational company G4S. Together, we created the first £35 million LIFT company, which has now built 10 health centres in east London. The social enterprise Green Dreams, which was founded at the Bromley-by-Bow Centre, is a landscape business that now has a contract with G4S to work on 26 school sites across Tower Hamlets. Together, social entrepreneurs and a large business are now going for large contracts that are focused on creating local jobs and skills. This has all been done in partnership with local residents. Because G4S as a company has a long-term interest in the area, as does the Bromley-by-Bow Centre, good working relationships exist on the ground. Both partners are of course constantly looking at the opportunities presented by land and buildings.
For those reasons, I suggest that this amendment should be on the face of the Bill. Local community organisations should be able to nominate both land and buildings if going local is to look like this in practice in the future. If such an amendment is not included on the face of the Bill, I fear that some local authorities will not necessarily listen to the pleading of a small but developing local charity or social enterprise that is attempting, as we have done, to grow in capacity. The danger is that the local authority will ride roughshod over the community organisation, and a small flower in a new garden, where a thousand flowers need to be allowed to bloom, will be crushed in the process. Outside this Chamber, a new world is emerging that is challenging both local authorities and the public sector, and that world is made up of organisations that are often deeply committed to the lives of local people. We need to enable this world to grow.
Finally, I must say that, in my experience, we sometimes need the intervention of the Secretary of State—not too often, but occasionally—because, without the intervention of key Ministers of State in the development of the Bromley-by-Bow Centre, we would not be where we are today. Innovation in local communities is difficult to do. I know that—I bear the scars—and sometimes you need friends in high places to help you to break through the local inertia.
This is an important amendment for charities and social enterprises across the country. I suggest that the Government should support it if they truly desire to let a thousand flowers bloom. My colleagues and I would certainly be willing to sit in a room with the Minister and her colleagues to discuss further how we might make this part of the Bill work in practice. I have certainly found my conversations with the Minister on the Bill to date very helpful.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I almost feel the need to apologise for not being a refugee from the dark satanic mills of Bradford, unlike so many other noble Lords who have spoken in this debate.
Lord Greaves
All Bradford’s problems stem from the fact that the mills all closed down quite a long time ago.
Lord Beecham
That is presumably why there are refugees in your Lordships' House.
My amendments are designed slightly to strengthen and clarify the position in respect of those who should be included in the list. The first relates to Clause 76(2)(b)(iii), which speaks of “a person specified”. I simply suggest that we make that “person or persons”, because it is clear that an individual is not the only, or indeed the likeliest, source of a nomination. Amendment 136BZB would then add a qualification to make that person or persons,
“resident and eligible to vote in local elections of the relevant authority”.
Again, it is necessary to tie in the individual making a nomination to the local community.
Amendment 136BZC would give “the local authority” the right to make a nomination as well. That seems sensible and should be no problem to the Government.
However, an issue arises in that respect, and in other respects in this part of the Bill, about the definition of a local authority. There is a clause in the Bill which sets out the hierarchy of local authorities, counties and so on. There is also, I believe—I cannot for the moment identify it—a provision in the Bill which requires local authorities to co-operate on issues across the Bill. That leaves the question, with which the Minister might help us, of which authority in a two-tier area has the duty to compile the lists or whether it is both. Both levels of authority might have an interest, or one might have an interest and another not, in the particular function for which a nomination is made. For example, there might be some functions—recreation and so on—where a district councillor would have an interest; there might be others, in the realm, let us say, of social services, where a county authority would be more likely to have an interest. There seems to be nothing in the Bill to dictate, or even indicate, which of the two authorities should make the list, whether there should be a combined list or how it might operate in practice. It would be unfortunate, to pick up the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord True, about the cost, if both authorities were obliged to maintain lists and staff up accordingly.
I do not expect the Minister to be able to deal with these matters immediately, but could they be looked at, clarified and worked through, perhaps in consultation with the Local Government Association? The vague “duty to co-operate”, a phrase to which we will return when we come on to the planning section of the Bill, does not really take us very far.
Lord Patel of Bradford
There is a consistent message here about making sure that local community groups take advantage of the opportunities that the Government have put forward, the emphasis being on “local”. I shall not go into this in great detail, because my noble friend Lady Thornton and my noble Bradfordian friend Lord Mawson have spoken clearly about the importance of making sure that community groups are local.
Perhaps the Minister could comment on how we define that local connection. Does it relate to the electoral register or issues? The question whether local authorities should be included on the list of those who can nominate is also interesting, though that may be covered in Clause 76(3)(b). Again, if the Minister could clarify that, it would be helpful.
The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, relating to representation of other groups, specifically people with disabilities, is obviously welcome. However, as community groups represent a number of minority groups, is that not the intention of the whole Bill anyway?
The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cotter, on capacity, is interesting in terms of local authorities. There is a slight temptation to say to the Minister that she may want to consider placing a duty on local authorities to provide support to local groups to make sure that they have capacity.
Lord Cotter
My Lords, my Amendment 139A states:
“In considering whether to accept a community nomination, a local authority must be satisfied that the person or body making the nomination has demonstrated that it has the intention and capacity to be treated as a potential bidder should a relevant disposal be entered into”.
The requirement of intent is important, ensuring that persons or bodies on the list are serious possibilities, thereby avoiding frivolous or vexatious nominations.
Baroness Hanham
I apologise for getting up too early. I had not realised the Front Bench was boxing and coxing and acting as supports as well as leads. We can sort out who is doing what when.
These are interesting amendments. I was very taken by the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, on Amendment 136A. That amendment would make eligible a community organisation operating in the local authority area to make a community nomination. We shall put down in regulations who nominations can be made by; that is, any voluntary or community body with a local connection. I shall see that that includes what the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, spoke about, because, if not, we limit what can be done. We shall consider bringing forward an amendment at a later stage if it is necessary.
The duty to co-operate is in the development and planning area. My expectation is that the duty to co-operate would continue to exist between one authority and another if something straddled the two authorities. I am making all this up as I go along, so I may have to come back to it. The communities bidding to put a facility on the list must come from the authority area in which it sits. I cannot see that stretching out unless there were two facilities in different authorities, in which case they might have to put on both.
Lord Beecham
The problem is that you have a district council within a county area, so the resident and land may be in one place geographically but there are two authorities within whose boundaries it is situated. That is the problem that I foresee.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, the district would in that case maintain the list; the lower authority maintains the list. In London, it would be a borough.
Lord Beecham
Again, taking up the point of the noble Lord, Lord True, that might be quite burdensome for some districts. It is worth looking at again. Perhaps it can be discussed between now and Report.
Baroness Hanham
That is as it stands.
Amendment 136B proposes restricting those who may be specified in regulations as eligible to make community nominations. The majority of responses in the consultation which has just closed agreed with our initial proposal for groups and individuals to be eligible to make nominations. However, a large number of respondents experienced serious concerns about the risk of individuals—a point which has been made again today—and, therefore, we are sympathetic to Amendment 136B. We shall look at that issue further before Report. We will have nearly the whole Bill to come back to on Report.
Amendment 136BZA tends to assume that the term “person” in the Bill refers to an individual and has been brought forward alongside the earlier Amendment 136A. In fact, “person” is a legal term which can refer to either an individual or group of individuals forming an unincorporated body or an incorporated body such as a company. So adding “persons” does not add materially to the scope of the power to make regulations that define who can make community nominations. I shall consider whether it is sufficient for the legislation because sometimes legal definitions are totally misunderstood. It may perhaps be helpful if we consider whether it should be “person” or “persons”.
Amendment 126C would add detail to those who may be specified in regulations as being able to make a community nomination. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, mentioned two categories: first, those with a particular interest, disability or—the amendment states “advantage”, but I presume it means “disadvantage—and, secondly, people or bodies with a common right to use land because they own or occupy neighbouring property. We do not consider it necessary to specify either category. While we fully intend for the community rights to buy to be inclusive, we do not want to be too prescriptive on the kinds of organisations eligible to list land. It will be a broad list anyway and we would rather not have specific organisations on the face of the Bill.
Amendment 136BZC would add the local authority to the list of those eligible to make community nominations. We are not sure about the local authority being able to make nominations to itself because, effectively, it would have to go through the process and would have to be the promoter, the decision-maker and the final arbiter. We think it is for local community associations to make the bid and not the local authority. The tension we are talking about is better served by the existing provisions in Clause 76(3)(b), which enables regulations to be made that specify that local authorities can list assets on their own initiative, thereby avoiding pointless bureaucracy. So there is a provision there that local authorities can do this but not that they have to go through the nomination process; they can list of their own will. We have already made it clear that we intend to include this in regulations.
Amendment 139A would require a local authority, when considering a community nomination, to assess whether the nominator has the intention and the capacity to be treated as a potential bidder to buy the asset. This would make the consideration of a nomination much more burdensome and bureaucratic—a point which has been heavily laid around us today—for the local authority, requiring it to consider the merits of the nominator in addition to whether or not the asset is of community value. Such a requirement might be more appropriate where a right of first refusal is provided to the nominator subsequently. However, in a situation where the nominator will still need to compete with other potential buyers to take on the asset, such a requirement is, in our view, disproportionate because if they cannot raise the money and they have not got the financial security, they are not going to be able to bid.
With those explanations, I hope the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Taylor of Goss Moor
I declare my interest as both chair of the Rural Coalition and chair of the National Housing Federation. I do not think the latter is particularly relevant, but it might be.
Having listened to the Minister’s response, I have a niggling concern that the Government are creating a vastly overcomplicated system for doing something very simple. Individuals and organisations in a local community ought to be able to nominate and there should be a simple process for then deciding whether it is appropriate. I am not clear why there have to be decisions by any bodies about who those nominators are. If they are local individuals or organisations, surely they should be able to put forward a nomination. If we turn it round the other way, I am not clear about who we are trying to rule out. If they are in, or active in, the community, who are we saying should not be able to put a nomination forward? If there is not an obvious group of individuals who should be excluded—and I cannot think of any—why do we have to have a decision-taking process at the local level on who should or should not be able to make such nominations? Complexity is the last thing we need because it does not empower communities. Arguments about whether or not a nomination has been made by a relevant local individual, group of individuals or organisation misses the point; the arguments should be about whether it is a suitable nomination in the first place.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, the decision by the local authority would probably have to be made on only a very few occasions because it will be blindingly obvious whether or not an organisation is a community association under the terms of the Bill. It is just possible that there might be a body which no one has any idea about; a body which might have been suddenly thrown together and claims that it comes from the local community but does not, will fall outside the parameters of the Bill and it is reasonable that the local authority should be able to say, “I am sorry, you do not fulfil the requirements” and be able to turn it down. It is expected that any body which is understood to be a community body or people of the local community will find themselves nominating quite happily.
Lord Taylor of Goss Moor
I still find think this is overcomplex. At the point at which an organisation has nominated something within the community for this purpose, is it really worth having an argument about whether it is a community organisation or a part of the community? Would it not be easier to say whether or not it was a suitable asset? That process would surely trump any issues about who is eligible to nominate it provided that they can show they have a community connection.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, we are not trying to make this overcomplicated. I am trying to simplify the local authority’s role in identifying a community body. One is trying to rule out a very large body which does not have any particular community interest but would like the asset, coming in through the back door and the local authority being unable to stop it. That is how the Bill stands. I hear what the noble Lord says.
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her response. I think she has won over the Bradfordian party in the House. We look forward to the next stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Howard of Rising
Lord Howard of Rising
My Lords, in moving Amendment 137 I shall also speak to Amendment 138. These amendments would allow a local authority to decide for itself what assets should, or should not be, included in that authority’s register of assets. Surely this is what localism is about: allowing decisions that affect the community to be taken by that community rather than being dictated to by central government. I cannot see much localism if a local authority “must” include an asset, as defined by the Secretary of State. Would it not be more in keeping with the sentiments of the Bill to allow local authorities to decide themselves what is best for their local communities? It might well be that, for reasons peculiar to that area, a slightly different consideration is more appropriate for what asset needs to be included on the register. By setting the parameters, the Secretary of State can prevent abuse by local authorities, while the discretion that these amendments provide would allow for a modest amount of flexibility to suit local circumstances. Decisions taken locally is what this Bill is meant to be about. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about this. I beg to move.
Lord Patel of Bradford
I have just a very short point to make about the noble Lord’s amendment. One would think that it would be better to be clear about what a local authority must do rather than introduce further doubts or a lack of clarity. That has already been debated considerably today. It goes back to supporting the Government’s intention to have clarity about what must be done rather than leaving any vague options open for the possibility of any misinterpretations. It would be good if the Minister could address that issue.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, it is the Government’s intention to set out a definition of an asset of community value in regulations that will require local authorities to judge whether an asset meets that definition in particular local circumstances. It seems right that there should be some pretty clear idea of what we are talking about and what is justified.
If the local authority decides that an asset meets the definition and it was proposed by a community nomination, it is required to list. There is a “must”; it must do that, if it fulfils the ambition of the legislation. I hear what my noble friend says about leaving it to the local authority to decide what is a community asset and what is not, in its terms, but if we get it right in regulations, there should be no doubt as to what it can list and what it cannot. To leave it without the definition in the Bill would create much more room for uncertainty for both the community groups and property owners and reduce the transparency of the process.
Amendment 138 would amend subsequent wording in line with the change proposed by Amendment 137. We do not accept the amendments that my noble friend has proposed, because we think that on this matter the local authority needs to have pretty well defined parameters.
Lord True
I understand the point made by my noble friend the Minister, but I have some sympathy with the amendment, for reasons that she will understand from my previous interventions. I do not think that this is easy, and I look forward with interest, as many other noble Lords in this Committee will, to seeing the regulations and the guidance that her department will produce. The Minister was very receptive to that point when it was made by noble Lords two days ago and today. There are circumstances in which a local authority, using its reasonable discretion, could cut short a bureaucratic process that is pre-eminently likely to end in the rejection of a nomination. I really do not see why, taking its local circumstances into account, a local authority should not be given slightly greater freedom than is presently suggested in the Bill. I understand my noble friend’s argument and that of my noble friend Lord Howard, but in many ways I slightly move towards my noble friend Lord Howard’s because I hope that some degree of latitude and discretion will be allowed.
Lord Howard of Rising
The Minister said, “If we get it right for the whole country”. If it were possible for whatever is decided in Westminster to be absolutely correct from Land’s End to John O’Groats, my admiration would be endless and unlimited. The whole point of the Localism Bill is that central government cannot get it right for everyone all the time and that therefore there must be some discretion locally to make things work for each area as it thinks best. Having said that, I can see that the Minister does not want to move on this, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Howard of Rising
Lord Howard of Rising
My Lords, this group of amendments seeks to remove the requirement for a local authority to give reasons for not including an asset, which has been nominated for inclusion, on its register of community assets. As has been said by my noble friend Lord True and the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, at a time when officers in local authorities are being stretched to their limits in trying to reduce their authority’s expenditure in line with the Government’s requirements, it is perverse to burden them further. Having to do the work required of them by this Bill is bad enough; if local authorities then always have to justify declining to include an asset, that must inevitably lead to a very strong bias towards officers including assets on the register in order to avoid the extra work that would be involved in justifying a refusal.
I realise, and I know from personal experience, that officers in local authorities have the highest integrity, but there would nevertheless be a strong temptation automatically to include certainly all marginal nominations and probably a number of others. Aside from the unfairness of creating this bias, ultimately it will lead to more arguments and more appeals that will, in turn, lead to much greater expense for the public purse—a worry that already concerns those of your Lordships connected with local authorities.
Over 60 per cent of referrals to the Standards Board were malicious. I should declare an interest in having been a victim of just such an accusation. There will inevitably be a number of malicious nominations for inclusion on a register of community assets. It will be time-consuming and difficult to have continually to be giving reasons for refusing this kind of nomination. Not having to justify refusal will in no way prejudice the ability of genuine community assets to get on to the register, but it will ensure a fairer consideration of what is appropriate and proper to be included on it. I beg to move.
Lord True
My Lords, again, I have some sympathy for my noble friend’s arguments. Any noble Lord who has seen, for example, the papers for a meeting of a licensing committee, with hundreds of voluminous pages of submissions and comments, or who reflects on the fact that I tried to draw to your Lordships’ attention earlier—that the process of a decision on whether an item should be listed is ultimately subject to appeal, as is the matter of consultation—will realise that, inevitably, however light touch it is intended to be in the first place, the process is likely to generate a large amount of natural paperwork.
I also submit that as a strong supporter of committee action, as I hope I will reveal when we discuss neighbourhood planning, I believe that those who wish to propose that a property should be listed should be prepared to take the trouble to attend a meeting and argue their case. There is a high risk that in a process that ultimately becomes subject to a test at law, whether by judicial review or by whatever other process is envisaged under the Bill, these matters will not be able to be decided by officers setting out a letter saying, “Sorry, chaps: we’ve decided we’re not going ahead with this one”. There will have to be paperwork and a process. Adding a further burden on local authorities to send out individual written notices to every body or individual who suggests that an item be listed may be extremely burdensome, in administrative terms. My noble friend Lord Howard of Rising might not have the right mechanism in what he seeks to excise from the Bill but he touches on what is, potentially, a very important matter.
Lord Patel of Bradford
I will be very brief. The noble Lord, Lord True, has touched upon some of the key issues and the noble Lord, Lord Howard, raises some important points. As this is a localism Bill, it should be left to local authorities in local areas to determine this, but we have an issue about the need for transparency. If a community or others go to the trouble of listing or raising issues, they need a clear and transparent response. Some balance has to be struck between reducing the bureaucracy and, perhaps, issues in regulations that allow local authorities to take the actions they want to. However, we certainly say that they should give reasons that should be clear for anyone who has gone to the trouble of putting in a bid of any kind.
Lord True
I agree with the noble Lord’s point on transparency. My point is simply that, given the potential legal implications here, the process would have to be transparent in the way that a licensing process ultimately is. It would therefore be a matter of public record, properly minuted and so forth, so that setting up a separate process by legislation seems otiose.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, five of these amendments look to remove the requirements on the local authority to give reasons for its decisions in connection with the scheme, whether in favour or against. On those five amendments, Clause 77 provides that where a community nomination is unsuccessful the local authority must enter the land on the unsuccessful nominations list and give the nominator written reasons for the decision. Amendment 139 would remove that requirement of giving reasons to the nominator.
Clause 78 deals with notices about the lists. Amendment 140 would remove the requirement for the local authority to give reasons in its notice for removal of land from the list of assets of community value. Amendment 141 to Clause 79, which gives a landowner a right to review of the decision to list, would mean that the local authority would not have to give the owner the reasons for the decision it has taken following the review.
Amendment 141A also concerns the right to review in Clause 79. At present, if the local authority decides on a review to remove the land from the list of assets of community value, it must give a written copy of the reasons for the review decision to the person or body whose community nomination had previously been accepted. Amendment 141A would remove this requirement. Clause 80 concerns a list of unsuccessful nominations. Amendment 142 would remove from this clause the requirement for the local authority to include in the entry the reasons for not putting the land on the list of assets of community value.
These amendments would all remove an essential guarantee of transparency from the scheme. We of course expect local authorities to behave reasonably and tell a community organisation why its nomination was refused, or why an asset had been removed from the list. We would also expect them to tell an owner who had asked for a review of the decision on listing the reason for the decision. These are basic provisions that we consider essential for all community groups and landowners to be able to expect in every case if these measures are to be effective in giving communities real power. That is why we think it is important that these requirements are set out clearly in the Bill, and stay there.
Amendment 141B concerns what should be included in the procedural regulations for the review of listing. This also relates to Clause 79. At present, the Bill sets out matters which the Secretary of State or Welsh Ministers may include in these procedural regulations. The amendment would mean that these matters must be included in the regulations. This appears to take a contradictory approach to that taken in the previous amendments, as there is a request for prescription of the process but no intention to tell the owner or the nominator of the outcome. In every case it is the Government’s intention to make procedural regulations and to ensure that they contain those details that are necessary for the effective operation of the scheme.
Finally, Amendment 140A appears to be seeking to amend Clause 79, so that where an owner requests a review of the decision to list, the time limit, if any, set for the owner to make this request is not as provided in regulations. We believe that this would be unhelpful to owners of listed land as it would create uncertainty as to how quickly they should act, and would again reduce the level of transparency. I hope that, with that explanation, the noble Lord will be happy to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Howard of Rising
I cannot say that the explanation thrills me. What is proposed will create an immense amount of work and a very strong bias to go in a certain direction. Existing freedom of information legislation would enable the transparency to be maintained. I do not suppose that there will be any assistance from the Government in funding this work or, indeed, in creating the lists in the first place. It would be nice if the Government would consider removing this provision, thereby reducing the amount of work that will be necessary for overstretched local authorities to carry out. I might want to return to this subject later. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hanham
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, this group comprises various minor and technical government amendments to improve the working of the community right-to-buy provisions. Before I go through each amendment, I wish to give a short introduction on them.
Clause 82 contains key details for giving communities the chance to bid for listed land. There are four broad aspects to consider: first, who has to do what to initiate the windows of opportunity; secondly, the identification of certain types of disposals which will be exempt from complying with the rules at all; thirdly, disposals which can be permitted within the full moratorium period; and, fourthly, the lengths of the interim and full moratorium periods—that is, the windows and the protected period.
Lord Beecham
I have three short questions on Clause 83. The noble Baroness may not be able to answer them immediately; if not, perhaps she will write to me. First, for the purposes of subsection (2), could a charge on a property be regarded as a disposal if the property is then vacant? The second question arises under subsection (6) in respect of the qualifying leaseholders’ state, which would have to have at least 25 years to run. It strikes me that someone might grant a lease for less than that, which would take it outside the parameters of the clause, with an option for the tenant to renew it which could effectively carry it beyond 25 years. Had that been a straightforward grant, it would be within the framework. Does that need to be considered? Finally, subsection (7) gives the appropriate authority the right to amend the clause by order. As in previous debates, I would like confirmation that that would be subject to an affirmative order, as it deals with personal property rights, rather than a negative resolution.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I was intending to ask some questions on the clause.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester)
The Minister has not yet moved the amendment.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I have nearly finished. I apologise that I have been rather long. In fact, I have only another two lines to read.
The proposed amendment to Clause 85, Amendment 147E, would enable the regulations to include an appeal against compensation decisions under the community right-to-buy scheme. The amendment will strengthen the protection for property owners affected by the scheme. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee
My question on Clause 83 has turned into a short supplementary to the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. The Minister has told us that the order-making power in Clause 83(7) will be used to deal with matters of inheritance and partnership. Can she give the Committee an assurance—I am sure she can—that the order-making power will not be used to alter the principal definitions of relevant disposal, which are already contained in the Bill? As subsection (7) is set out, it could, on the face of it, actually change the 25-year term or the definition of disposal in Clause 83(2). Those are quite fundamental points.
Lord Taylor of Goss Moor
My Lords, I welcome much that the noble Baroness said about the Government’s willingness to look at the particular circumstances that may arise, for example, in the sale of going concerns and where the community asset is a small part of a larger concern. These issues have certainly raised great concerns, and I would like to add another.
I am not sure that I need to declare an interest but I shall do so just in case. I chair the eco-town strategic partnership in the St Austell area, a wide area of mining land which was mined formerly by English China Clays and more recently by Imerys. Over many years the policy of past and present mining companies in the china clay area has been to open large areas of land to community access, but always with the proviso that it might be worked in future. That is not a bad example of the concern that I want to put to the Minister about the deterrent effect that this policy—a policy which, broadly, I very much support—could have on landowners of that sort in opening up land to community use, whether for walking, riding, cycling and so on, if it were severely to limit their ability to sell and dispose of the land as part of the operation of their business. My fear is that, as things stand, it will simply freeze in aspic the current position on community access as people would be able to argue that access already exists and to list it. Equally, in terms of new community access, it is in the nature of mining land that the areas which may be accessed by the public will change over time depending on where the workings are and where land restoration has taken place following tipping. I can see this creating a substantial block to opening up land for future community use. The same may well apply to the farmer who very willingly allowed a corner of his land to be used by the cricket club. That usage now exists and a listing could be applied for. It could also create a substantial deterrent to any landowner opening up land for such use in future.
I am very much in favour of the idea that we should register assets of community value—which clearly applies to things like village shops, community halls and so on—but I am concerned about how to ensure that the creation of new community resources is not blocked by the fear that these elements will be applied.
I have one more question; I should already know the answer to it, and no doubt there is an answer. What is the position when the sale of land options—which are usually bought because planning permissions might be granted—in practice trumps these proposals to register community assets? I wonder whether the purchase of an option in any sense triggers this process.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lords, Lord Beecham and Lord Taylor, for their interventions. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, had three questions. I have the answer to two of the questions but cannot remember the other one. Would he like to ask me again, if he can remember it? If he cannot then that is fine. Perhaps we should both read Hansard. I apologise—I was getting so excited about the orders that I forgot about the next bit.
The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, asked about the 25-year period. The land will qualify only if the lease is granted for 25 years, rather than having 25 years left to run at the time of disposal. If it is granted for less than 25 years and is therefore subject to renewal, I suspect that it will not qualify, because the lease will have to be for 25-plus years.
Lord Beecham
I understand that and am grateful to the noble Baroness. That of course means that there is a way out for an owner. My first question was whether, assuming that the property was vacant, a legal charge would constitute a disposal. The Minister may need some legal advice about that, as indeed I may do too.
Baroness Hanham
If noble Lords know the answer to that, I shall be extremely grateful. I shall have to write to the noble Lord on that as I do not have a response.
Any orders will be affirmative, and that is also my answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. Under the Bill, the need to change will stay unamended. It is fair to say that at some stage there might be a requirement to change the definition. If that is the case, again it will be done through an affirmative order.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, has produced the sort of conundrum that we had over private land where a small piece is taken out or is open to community use. I suspect that mining land is not part of the Bill, although I shall have to write to the noble Lord. However, if it is, I accept that what he said is very similar to what was said about the problems of small bits of land being used, through benevolence, for cricket pitches. I shall come back to that with an answer before the next stage.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
My Lords, I listened very carefully to what my noble friend said in her introductory remarks to this set of amendments. I do not think that she has shot my fox but she has probably hit it. Nevertheless, I should like to press on. I think that what she was saying—and she is sympathetic to not interfering with commercial transactions—is at the root of what I am seeking to achieve with this amendment. At the same time, the amendment addresses some of the issues raised this morning by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, in our Clause 74 stand part debate, as well as the issues that have arisen in prior debates on the difference between a service and a piece of property and on how a “going concern” works in relation to assets of community value.
Amendment 143 is an introductory amendment that seeks to add a further requirement where the moratorium takes effect. That relates to Condition D in my Amendment 144, which would permit disposals unless,
“the business is at risk of closure … the business is closed … the business is subject to an application for change of use”,
or,
“the building is subject to a demolition order”—
the sorts of issues that came up in our earlier debates. In other words, where the business is at risk, the community has some reason to interfere. However, where there is a going concern and the service will continue to be provided or the business will continue, it is not clear why there needs to be any interference with normal commercial development and commercial enterprise. That takes us back to the balance between the right to enjoy one’s private property and the rights of those in the locality. Of course, this will apply to pubs probably more—I shall say a few words about that in a minute—but it will also apply to anywhere where an entry fee is charged and anywhere run as a commercial enterprise. It will include farm shops, rural zoos, gardens and parks. Therefore, it is important, in that it could cover a wide range of commercial assets that are owned by individuals.
On the specifics of the pub trade, pubs are sold in blocks and there can be between three or four or 200 or 300 in a single block. Why is that? It is nothing very unusual or surprising. It is perhaps because an individual has run a pub successfully and would like to buy two or three more and wishes to do so in a particular area because geographical proximity improves managerial control. It may be that a specific pub operator is overrepresented in one geographical area and underrepresented in another and, therefore, both wish to rebalance their portfolios.
Then there is the question of different companies viewing different sectors of the pub trade as offering particularly attractive opportunities. Those noble Lords who read the Financial Times will have seen in today's copy a long article on the decline of what is known as the wet-led trade; that is what is called the spit-and-sawdust boozers, where there is just drink and not much of a food offering. Beside those sorts of pubs, which have been under considerable strain, there are obviously town bars, village pubs, housing estate pubs and trunk-road pubs, with hotels attached such as Travelodge and Premier Inn, which do not provide food, so the pub does. Increasingly now, there are also retail park pubs.
I would argue that, provided that the pub, business or service is to continue, there is no need for the community to be involved. If it is going to be closed and it falls into one of the categories that I have listed in my Amendment 144 then there would need to be a locus for the community and I could understand why the community might wish to get involved. I would say caveat emptor—pub companies do not close pubs that are very successful, they close them because they are failing. It is not an idyll, rural or urban. In this country 30,000 of the 60,000 pubs are individually owned. They are free houses, and there are 30,000 small businesses struggling to make a living.
Perhaps I may be permitted a brief rant. Governments of all persuasions talk about the importance of the pub trade as a centre where community activity can be developed and a community feeling can be expressed. That is all very well until you come to the legislation, which continually hammers pub operators, big and small, with legislative procedures and processes. You have only to look at the amendments that we shall be discussing on the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill to see how many of those will land quite heavily on small pubs and small pub operators.
There are the competitive pressures. The fact is that, so far, nothing has been done about supermarket pricing. On their way home tonight noble Lords can buy a pint of lager in their local supermarket for 60p a pint, but they will have to pay £2.80 in their local pub. In the supermarket it is sold at or below cost—probably below cost— before a bank holiday weekend.
Inevitably young people will buy a slab—as they call it—in the supermarket and sit in the village square or the street drinking the cans, which they may then drop on the ground while vaguely insulting the passers-by; and at about 8.30 pm they will go into the pub to watch the football and have a couple more pints. They may then be sick outside the pub, and the pub will get blamed for the disorder caused.
There is a lot in this trade which is not as easy as it looks. There are the societal pressures of people staying home, as well as the rapid societal and economic changes in our towns. A simple example is that 15 years ago, the company with which I am involved had 20 pubs in Kidderminster, the home of the UK carpet trade, and today there are three. The carpet trade has gone, so the pubs have gone. The rapid changes in our society have left pubs of all types and sizes beached.
The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, referred to the Pub is the Hub scheme. It is an excellent idea and a brilliant concept. However, its case studies emphasise very strongly the need, for example, for obtaining sound professional advice on running a pub as soon as possible, and include comments to the effect that running a pub is more complex than was anticipated, no one should underestimate what is involved in running a successful pub, running a pub via a committee is challenging, and so on. While we talk about the need, even where a pub has closed, to safeguard the rights of the community—I quite understand that—it is important that people are realistic about what can be achieved with these assets. They have not got into the state they are in merely because they have been neglected, but most often because they are in a declining or difficult section of the trade or of their particular geographical location.
That is the end of my rant. The purpose of the amendment is to urge the Government to consider carefully the exclusion from the provisions of arm's-length commercial transactions. If there is going to be a change of the sort listed in my amendment—a closure or a change of use—of course the community should get involved: it has every right to. Otherwise, we are in danger of impeding normal commercial transactions of varying sorts concerning various sorts of assets, which cannot be in the interests of the vibrancy of our local communities. I beg to move.
Lord Cotter
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 143ZA. There is an overall concern that the Bill is sometimes aimed at property rather than at the services provided. Surely it is vital for our local communities that there is a good provision for local needs. It is fair to say that in this country—many noble Lords have spoken about this—too often, for various reasons, local shops and services have been lost. I cast my mind back—I thought it was 10 years ago, I have now written “20 years” but actually it was 25 years ago—to when I was a councillor. I thought it was not that long ago. Supported by local people, I managed to get our local council to realise that a local parade of shops was at risk of being turned into a parade of building societies and offices. Fortunately, we were successful in getting the matter addressed at that time.
Under the Bill, if a business intends to sell, say, a community shop as a community shop, that will be welcome, and would be welcomed by local people. The amendment inserts,
“unless the relevant disposal will be the sale of the land privately to another business for the same use as when it was listed as an asset of community value”.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 144A in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Cathcart. The intention is to set out explicitly some types of disposals of land that should be exempted from the moratorium rules and that would therefore not require notification to the local authority. I am very aware of many discussions that noble Lords have had about seeking a positive result from what we do. I hope that the amendment will produce some harmony, because there are legitimate concerns from owners of private property.
New paragraph (a) proposed in Amendment 144A would exempt from the moratorium disposal of a listed asset where the asset forms part of a larger site that is held as a single legal estate. The intention is to avoid delaying the sale of a larger piece of land or an estate if one small part of it has been listed as an asset of community value. New paragraph (b) would exempt other types of disposals of land, such as bona fide gifts following a philanthropic donation, transfers between members of the same family, made as either a gift or a sale, land passed on by inheritance, transfers between associated companies or companies in the same group, and transfers between trustees or partners in a firm. Indeed, there may be other exemptions that other noble Lords are more aware of. The intention of this amendment is to avoid any disruption to internal transfers between business partners and trustees. It would not interfere with the rights of landowners to pass their land on to future generations.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I start by reiterating that I hope it is clear that we on these Benches very much want to see the Government achieve their aspirations in these provisions. However, Amendment 144A in particular illustrates the danger we are getting into of making this very complicated and bureaucratic. For example, there is a proposition that transfers between companies in the same group should not be a relevant disposal. Let us reflect on how you would cast that provision. There are plenty of differing definitions of groups of companies around. If we think one step beyond that, what happens if you sell the shares of a company that owns the asset, but not the asset itself? If that company were not only to have the asset but another asset, for example, the group of pubs mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, where does that leave you? We ought to be focusing on something that is deliverable, even if at the edges it is a bit rough and not technically watertight. It offends me as an accountant to suggest that, but this group of amendments and the issues that were raised in respect of the previous amendment illustrate the complexity that we are in danger of building into this provision which could undermine it completely.
The Earl of Lytton
What the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, has just said highlights the fact that we are trying to talk about exclusions from something that would cover a potentially vast range of circumstances. I support the thrust of what he said. We need to reverse that so that we catch the transactions that need to be caught because in the global family and order of property transactions that could potentially be caught, the class of transaction that we are trying to catch is very small. The problem is the lack of definition, and therefore the clause has to be all-encompassing, and it sweeps up all these other things that other noble Lords have referred to. I think of situations where there might be transfers of assets one way or another between parish and rural community councils or between community groups of whatever form and structure. What about transfers of assets between various tiers of authorities? Are all these to be caught up? It seems to me that we are almost at the point of needing a category of owner that gets caught by the Bill, but I am not going to suggest that because I think there might be a simpler way of dealing with it, as the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, suggested. However, there is a relatively narrow class of circumstances, and it all boils down to the fact that we have these open-ended definitions. I plead with the Minister to find some way of rendering this down so that we can get to the nub of the issue and not have a one-line provision and then 1,000 lines of exclusions and caveats and things to try to exclude all the bits that have got caught up and should not be in there in the first place.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, we keep coming back to the same issue. I take the point that we probably need to look at the narrowing of the classification but by doing that we will still have to look at what would not be caught, which is what these amendments address. I heard the rant by my noble friend Lord Hodgson and I do not suppose for a moment that he expects me to say anything other than that we have heard what he said. I will deal with all the points raised but I should like to say from the outset that we are quite sympathetic to looking at this again.
On the government amendments, I have already said that we are sympathetic to the intention of Amendment 144A. We understand the concerns of some rural landowners who are already making their land available for periodic community use. It is certainly not our intention to discourage them from doing so. Where a listed asset forms part of a larger piece of land, we recognise that to delay the sale of the whole estate would in most cases be completely disproportionate. I am happy to confirm for the noble Lord that we will have a look at this, which complies with my previous commitment.
As set out in our consultation document, which I am sure everyone has read from cover to cover, we intend to exempt a range of different types of disposals that do not impinge on the intended aim of a policy. We have already indicated our intention to exempt disposals of land due to inheritance and gifts, and transfers between family members, in light of responsible consultations. I think that that encompassed everything put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner. But in hoping that we have a little time before the Recess and Report stage to discuss these issues, I am happy to say that we will reconsider or consider those with him and other noble Lords concerned.
Amendments 143, 143ZA and 144 would exempt the disposal of business-to-business transactions where there was no risk to the continuation of the business. Earlier, I mentioned that we understood that the use of a power might stay as the use of a power but if it was sold between two companies we would not expect that to be caught up in the community asset ability to buy.
However, we are slightly afraid that the amendments could have some unintended consequences and would create more confusion than clarity, which a number of noble Lords seem to think this is anyway. We are not sure what the terms “risk of closure” and “business” mean. We are prepared to look at these again and discuss them with noble Lords to see whether we can avoid any further unintended consequences that would impact on the aim of the policy. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for those answers and for her sympathetic ear to these probing amendments. Amendment 144 is focused on business-to-business transactions. I entirely accept that the phrase “risk of closure” would not commit itself to parliamentary draftsmen but I have never known any Back-Bench Members who have ever committed themselves to parliamentary draftsmen because they always want to take it away and tidy it up. As regards the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, the time to act is before the closure takes place but, once the closure has happened the business, or service, may well be doomed or its risk of failure much increased.
I am grateful to my noble friend for her positive response and look forward to returning to this matter later when we have some further thinking from the Government. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hanham
Baroness Thornton
“( ) where the owner is a public body, any community interest group or groups which meet the requirements of subsection (3)(a) have been provided with the option of first refusal to purchase the asset, with regulations for this purpose specified by the appropriate authority, or”
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 147A. I realise that we are moving to a sensitive part of the Bill about which noble Lords have already expressed various anxieties.
There are two things that I should like to raise at this time. I understand that the Government propose that a community group should have the first right of refusal not within the moratorium period but, rather, at the end of it when the community group would compete against others on the open market. That presents a real difficulty. We all want to avoid the bureaucracy that has been a big problem in Scotland. On the other hand, we do not want to find ourselves in a position where the new community right leads to a widespread loss of assets of community value. It is a question of balance that we need to explore.
For the assets of community value in public hands, I suggest that there should be a first right of refusal for community groups. I think we all believe that it is a reasonable presumption that, where assets of community value are already being applied for public benefit, the default position should be to retain that public benefit. Only if there is no community purchaser should the asset then go on the open market. Therefore, the first right of refusal in such a case would require the introduction of mechanisms. Based on experience to date, it is possible for local authorities, with support from the Asset Transfer Unit, to devise a sensible low-cost system to agree a sale price, decide between competing community bids if applicable and establish fair arbitration mechanisms.
For assets of community value in private hands, I think everybody accepts that the right of first refusal might not be the best way forward. Again, we do not want to go down the road that has been followed in Scotland. The desire to safeguard private interests, which we have already discussed, is already resulting in a level of procedure and regulation that could stifle community efforts in some cases. That is what leads us to the idea of a simple system in which a moratorium at least provides a window for any community group to prepare a bid, rather than any complex process that will tie the community up in red tape.
That brings me to the second amendment in this group, which deals with the moratorium period. I am not alone in suggesting that the period should be a minimum of six months, which could be extended if necessary. Our experience and that of community groups across the country is that even the most capable and well established community organisations certainly need more than three months to get themselves up to speed. It often takes from six months to a year to progress to the point of purchase. Therefore, we need to find a mechanism that means, when there is willingness on all sides, the process will not be stymied by a moratorium period that has a cut-off point. Instead, if there is agreement to proceed, the moratorium period should be flexible enough to allow that to happen. I beg to move.
Lord Mawson
I shall speak specifically to Amendment 147A. I notice that the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, has now joined us in the Chamber. I assure noble Lords that the Bradfordians are not pulling the wagons around in this debate.
Six months seems to be a reasonable period. We live in a very bureaucratic world. If you are a small charity or a social enterprise, without all the back-up of a local authority to get your ducks in a row and achieve the necessary permission, it can take at least six months to move forward with land or buildings. One property that my colleagues and I have been working on with a very competent group of people has taken at least two years to get through planning and to reach a point where we can do the development. That is with even the support of local neighbours and a lot of people behind us. Six months is a reasonable period; all my experience tells me that it is about right.
The noble Lord, Lord Rogers of Riverside, who has great experience in this field, is no longer here but I know he would tell us that nowadays it takes a mini-miracle to build a building or get a development going. It is very difficult to get projects off the ground. We wonder sometimes why we are not hitting the housing targets. It is because, as the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, reminds us, there is so much red tape and treacle that you have to swim through to make any of this work.
The real test for the Bill will be whether it will be easier for those of us who develop land and buildings, whether we are business or social entrepreneurs, to do so. Will this legislation make it easier for us to do this work, or harder? This is the real practical challenge for this piece of legislation.
Lord Howard of Rising
My Lords, Amendment 145 seeks to place a time limit on how long a community interest group is given to purchase a community asset. Again, this amendment was tabled before the Minister deposited her paper in the Library. Having read her paper and seen that she is minded to have a window of six months, I imagine she will be falling over herself to accept this amendment.
I spoke earlier about the importance of excluding measures from the Bill that might affect the value of property. As I mentioned then, the erosion of property value is far more important to the less well-off, for whom such an asset might be all they have in the world. Uncertainty over the length of time an asset must be held while local interest groups find the necessary cash to make the purchase would very seriously damage the value of any asset. Banks and financial institutions will not lend if the sale of the asset concerned could be delayed for an unknown period. Having a fixed term in the Bill would give the measure of certainty that is needed to enable banks, mortgage companies and other financial institutions to provide the funding for the sale and purchase of the sort of asset that the Bill is aimed at.
It is no help that the time available can be altered by regulation by the Secretary of State. The Minister, when responding to my Amendment 134 earlier, commented that regulation would come before Parliament, but in practical terms this is a formality. In no way does it have the strength of having to introduce primary legislation. Who knows what some future Secretary of State might decide is an appropriate length of time? I have the utmost confidence in my right honourable friend the present Secretary of State not to do something unreasonable, but he will not be in that position for ever and it is important that the Bill does all it can to avoid creating doubts over the value of assets included in the register.
Mortgages and other forms of long-term finance usually extend over the life of more than one Government. The protection given by having a maximum period of six months for a community interest group to raise finance is essential if property values are not to be badly damaged by unreasonably hampering the ability of owners to sell their possessions. There is an argument that the Human Rights Act would prevent a community interest group having an unreasonable length of time to find funding, but this would in no way be an adequate substitute for including a time limit in the Bill. I recall that it has been Conservative Party policy to abolish the Human Rights Act.
Baroness Thornton
How would the noble Lord feel if a vicar leading a group to turn the local shop into a community shop run as a co-operative missed the deadline by two weeks? Is he suggesting that you have a six-month cut-off point and that is it?
Lord Howard of Rising
Yes, that is precisely what I am suggesting. There would be nothing to prevent a local interest group starting long before an asset came on sale. We should also remember that assets of the nature we are talking about usually come up for sale only because the local population, or community, has not been using them. As someone who has subsidised his local shop for the past 30 years, I can tell you that there is a frightful squeal if people think that it will close, but while it is open they all go off to Tesco or Rainbow or wherever and never use the shop, so my sympathies are rather more limited.
I think that six months is a perfectly adequate amount of time for people to put together such a bid, bearing in mind that they could start long beforehand. In my view, it would be perfectly adequate to allow three months, which I hope is the time limit that will appear in the regulations. My amendment mentions six months as a maximum only so as to give the Secretary of State room for manoeuvre. I might also say that, whatever period of time is chosen, the point that people would feel rotten if they missed the target by two days would still apply. If we made it 20 years, people would still say, “Oh, how terrible, if it was 20 years and two days”, so that is not an argument.
Lord Patel of Bradford
Before the noble Lord sits down, could I just ask a question for clarification? Did I hear correctly that it is his party’s policy to do away with the Human Rights Act?
Lord Howard of Rising
I did not say that that is my party’s policy. Let me just see from my notes what I said—I did think about this before raising it. I recalled that it has been Conservative Party policy to abolish the Human Rights Act.
Lord Howard of Rising
I did say that it has been the Conservative Party’s policy.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
My Lords, my Amendments 146 and 147 in this group have been slightly overtaken by the paper that my noble friend has put in the Library, by her opening remarks today and, indeed, by the remarks of other noble Lords during the preceding debate. I am aware that the timescales for the moratorium are controversial, and I quite understand the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, about the difficulty of getting together local initiatives and getting them to the financing stage.
The simple purpose of Amendment 146 is to encourage the Government to put on the face of the Bill the moratorium periods for the interim window of opportunity, the full window of opportunity and the protected period. As a result, Amendment 147 would remove from the Bill the power to change this by regulation. I seek to do that really for the reasons given by my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising. I think that this issue is sufficiently important and goes sufficiently deep into our culture and into the structure of our society that these periods should not be able to be altered by means of a statutory instrument, which I think Members on all sides of the House would agree do not get quite the scrutiny that they often deserve, in the sense that voting down a statutory instrument is always a nuclear deterrent and so is a very rare thing indeed.
As a matter of principle, there is a strong reason for having the time periods on the face of the Bill, although I am less concerned about what those time periods are. As my noble friend Lord Howard has said, most communities will know that something is happening and, therefore, they will not start de novo from the day that a decision is announced; they will know that the particular service or shop or whatever is in trouble and, therefore, will be able to begin to get their act together. However, there is clearly a difficulty or problem or issue with timing, to which the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, referred. I am just concerned that we have clarity about the timings on the face of the Bill, which should not be capable of being altered for better or for worse—for longer or for shorter—by a future Government.
Lord Patel of Bradford
My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of Amendments 143A and 147A.
As noble Lords have heard, the first of these amendments concerns the conditions by which an owner of a listed community asset can dispose of that asset. For example, Amendment 143A would ensure that,
“where the owner is a public body, any relevant community interest group or groups … have been provided with the option of first refusal”.
This additional protection would make sure that the priorities of local communities come above those of the landowner. That has to be a good principle to support in a Bill that seeks to make local communities the prime driver in considerations about the use, sale and disposal of community assets. I shall not repeat the arguments already succinctly made by my noble friend Lady Thornton, but I hope that the Minister will give this matter serious consideration.
Amendment 147A is different from the others in this group, but they are all concerned with the appropriate time that any moratorium should be in place. Amendment 147A would ensure that the prescribed period for any full moratorium should not be less than six months. This is another important protection, especially for community and voluntary groups, which may need more time to respond to any bid and to take advantage of the provision for community assets in the Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, said.
However, I understand the concern raised by the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Howard; that is, that the prescribed period should not be more than six months as it is reasonable for there to be some time limit to the process. At the same time, I believe that the specification of a minimum time is equally important and I hope that the Minster will accept it.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, we are continuing to cover ground that we have largely covered previously, but in the interests of clarity I am quite happy to go over it again. As the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, said, we have looked at this matter, but it is important that we return to it in light of these amendments.
In considering the length of the various windows, we have taken account of responses to consultation and of the need to balance community benefit with the rights of property owners. The consultation demonstrated a broad consensus in favour of an interim window of six weeks to allow a community association to decide whether it is able to put its name forward for a bid, and a protected period of 18 months. We believe that these are the right periods.
Opinion was more divided on the length of the full window, though a majority favoured a window of a maximum of six months as opposed to 40 per cent of respondents who favoured three months; that is, less rather than more. We are minded to accept six months, as I have already said.
Amendments 145, 146, 147 and 147A propose a range of lengths—in some cases, a maximum or minimum—but all agree on the importance of providing some certainty by including reference to the chosen lengths in the Bill. We have also noted the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee that, if the moratorium lengths were to be set in regulations, the first exercise of the power should be subject to affirmative procedure. I also heard what my noble friends said about having assurance in the Bill. We accept that there is a case for providing greater clarity. I shall therefore come back to this matter on Report having consulted with the Welsh Government and otherwise as necessary.
We oppose Amendment 143A, which would give a right of first refusal to community interest groups where the owner of the asset concerned was a public body. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, introduced the amendment very persuasively, as she always does, but the amendment would mean that the existing government proposal would apply only to assets with private owners, including the voluntary sector.
The two schemes would need to be run in parallel, imposing greater costs and making the system more confusing for those trying to use it. Powers already exist under general disposal consent for local authorities to transfer assets to community ownership at less than the best consideration to further local social, economic and environmental well-being. We think that that would satisfy the noble Baroness’s problems.
We already intend to provide in regulation for both public and private owners to be able to sell their asset to a community group while the window of the opportunity is in operation. If there was a willing buyer and a willing seller, they could just get on with it. This would give community groups advantage over other purchasers, who would have to wait until the end of the moratorium period for a decision to be made. With those confirmatory explanations—because I think that I have given them previously—I ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Lord Greaves
Am I right in thinking that during the six-month period there is a moratorium on disposal but not on putting property or land on the market? The land could be marketed during those six months and, presumably, if it was a competitive market, the resultant price would be the price that the community group would have to cough up if it wanted to buy it.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is correct. The moratorium does not prevent property being put up for sale or marketed. All it does is to prevent the sale taking place before the community group has had an opportunity to consider whether it can match or beat what has been brought forward.
Baroness Thornton
I thank the Minister again for repeating what she has now said three times. Indeed, I believe she gave the answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, late on Tuesday evening.
I am quite pleased. I think we have made some progress and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hanham
Baroness Hanham
“Informing owner of request to be treated as bidder
(1) Subsection (2) applies if—
(a) after a local authority has received notice under section 82(2) in respect of land included in the authority’s list of assets of community value, and(b) before the end of the interim moratorium period that applies under section 82 as a result of the notice, the authority receives from a community interest group a written request (however expressed) for the group to be treated as a potential bidder in relation to the land.(2) The authority must, as soon after receiving the request as is practicable, either pass on the request to the owner of the land or inform the owner of the details of the request.
(3) In this section “community interest group” means a person who is a community interest group for the purposes of section 82(3) as a result of regulations made under section 82(6) by the appropriate authority.”
Lord Greaves
“Local authority additional powers for assets of community value
(1) A local authority may acquire and make fit for community use any land that is included in the authority’s list of assets of community value.
(2) An acquisition under subsection (1) may be by compulsory purchase if authorised by the Secretary of State.
(3) Any land acquired under subsection (1) or any interest in it less than that acquired may be sold or let to a community interest group or to a person representative of the group.
(4) A sale or letting under subsection (3) may, subject to appropriate restrictions of use and further disposal, be at less than the full market value.
(5) A local authority may contribute the whole or part of any expenditure that is incurred by or on behalf of a community interest group in the acquisition, improvement or maintenance of a community asset subject to appropriate conditions.”
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I have tabled the amendment in order to discuss the role of local authorities and other public bodies—but particularly the role of local authorities—in assisting with community purchases as a result of this legislation. The amendment states that the local authority may acquire and make fit for community use any property which is the subject of these proposals; that an acquisition could be by a compulsory purchase order, with the approval of the Secretary of State in the usual way; and that the local authority could sell or let a property or a business to a community interest group, and could do so by not charging the full market value—in other words, by subsidising the purchase or the maintenance of the community asset. I think the definition of a local authority should include a parish, although I have not included it.
I am not suggesting that this proposal should lead to a large-scale acquisition by local authorities of new community assets. Given the present financial circumstances of local authorities, that is unlikely to happen anyway in most places. However, this will change. In the very nature of things there is a cycle, which many of us have seen more than once, in which local authorities, for various reasons, are more flush with money at one time than they are at others for this kind of purpose. However, being practical, in many areas the only way in which the purchase or the running of community assets that are being disposed of is going to work is through some kind of subsidy from the local authority. It may be from some other public body but it is most likely to be from the local authority. In many areas, it simply will not happen and simply will not work unless that happens.
The subsidy might be relatively modest or it might be quite substantial—or it might be a big subsidy to purchase the asset and then no subsidy, or a small one, towards the maintenance of it, or the other way round. It all depends on the circumstances. But in practice, unless there is an active interventionist policy by local authorities in areas that are not as prosperous as a few places appear to be, it is simply not going to happen. It may happen on a small scale. The noble Lord, Lord Patel of Bradford, said earlier that communities can raise money. I agree with him. They can. But very often they will raise money as targets and as matching funding as against other grants, and so on. Therefore, it seems to me that local authorities ought to have those powers.
I may be told that, at least in the areas that do not involve subsidising a purchase or passing it on at a lower price than cost, the local authority has these powers anyway—and if they have not, they will have them under the general power of competence, and therefore this amendment is not needed. A short debate is needed on the role of local authorities in this matter and the absolutely central role that they will have to have if this is going to work in a lot of areas, and certainly the areas that I am familiar with. I beg to move.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, we appreciate the intention of this amendment and agree that local authorities have an important role in assisting community interest groups to take on assets of community value. Indeed, the Secretary of State has announced a social responsibility deal for councils, asking them to give greater support to voluntary and community groups. However, that does not need new powers; they already exist. Therefore, this amendment is not necessary.
Local authorities already have wide powers to acquire land by compulsory purchase—for instance, to secure the proper planning of their area and grant public access to land for recreation. In June, we published revised guidance to local authorities to take seriously all viable requests from voluntary community groups put to them for the compulsory purchase of a threatened community asset. But community purchase is not a step to be taken lightly, and the local authority has to demonstrate a compelling case in the public interest that outweighs the private interests of the current owners.
The amendment goes further to suggest that local authorities be given the power to sell the acquired site to a community interest group. Local authorities already have extensive powers to dispose of land, including under the general disposal consent the power to sell land at less than market value, if it is for the social, economic and environmental benefit of the community. We therefore ask that the amendment be withdrawn as it is not necessary.
Lord Greaves
I am grateful to the Minister for saying what I thought she would say—but it is important to have it on the record in relation to the system or scheme that is proposed. One problem with compulsory purchase is making the case that the interests of the wider community outweigh those of the individual who owns the property in the first place. When you have community facilities that are not being put on the market and whose owners are closing them down and refusing to consider transferring them, or are putting them on the market deliberately to be bought by people who are not going to use them for community purposes, an interventionist role for local authorities may be necessary in some cases. I am grateful for what the Minister said and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Beecham
Lord Beecham
My Lords, the Minister and I have previously exchanged amicable words about the question of compensation and it is clear that the Government have an intention to bring forward regulations. However, the Bill does not strictly require that. The purpose of this amendment is to reverse the onus. In a previous amendment the noble Lord, Lord Howard, who is not now in his place, wished to transfer “must” to “may”. In this clause, I want to do it the other way round and substitute “must” for “may”. The intention being what it is, I cannot see any difficulty in the Minister accepting this.
There are legitimate concerns, some of which we have heard today and previously, about the position of owners in relation to the possible losses that they might incur as a result of the processes created by the Bill. There is the question of delay, the loss of a potential purchaser and so on, and perhaps other expenses involved in contesting the situation. I appreciate that time is still running on this, but it would have been helpful to have had draft regulations. I hope that by the time we get to Report, there will be draft regulations because we need to be in a position to assure landowners, business owners and so on that there will be a proper scheme for compensation and a suitable method to adjudicate the amount in the event of a dispute. That is the purpose of my second amendment, Amendment 147EA, which would refer any contested issue to the district auditor—I beg your pardon, not the district auditor but the district valuer—as would be the case in relation to a compulsory purchase, with which this is an analogous situation.
As it is, the clause indicates that the regulations which might be made under it will deal with a range of matters with the widest possible discretion for the Secretary of State on compensation—the amount, who is to be entitled to it and so on—and, indeed, on the review of decisions made under the regulations. It would help the passage of the Bill and help reassure people with an interest if, by the time we get to Report, at least draft regulations could be tabled and discussed. In the mean time, perhaps some comfort could be given by going beyond the expressed intention of declaring that regulations will be made to accepting this amendment, which would require regulations to be made to deal with these matters. I beg to move.
Lord True
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, for raising this matter. I referred to it in earlier remarks and I will not repeat what I said, but it would be extremely helpful for the Committee to see this, given the far-reaching potential range of the regulations—who is to pay, who is to be entitled, what it should be in respect of, the amount, the procedure, appeals and so on. That is not only from the point of view of the potential effect on landowners but, as I argued earlier, from that of local authorities. I would not expect my noble friend to answer this now.
I have now found the financial memorandum to the Bill—it is indeed £21 million which is suggested as the total cost to local authorities—where we are told that funding for these new burdens will be provided through the Secretary of State. I wonder whether that is the case. When the regulations are produced, I wonder whether my noble friend could give some estimate of what she thinks the total cost of compensation levied on local authorities might be, assuming that it is levied on local authorities. From the financial memorandum, it may be that the Secretary of State is going to produce the money. That is not clear to me but perhaps those things could be clarified when the note for which the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, has asked is laid before the House.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, the question of regulations is not going to be in my hands. I will make sure that the request that they should be available is passed on but it is not up to me, I am afraid, to make sure that they are. I assure noble Lords that we recognise the importance of offering compensation and have said that in the consultation document.
Through the consultation we sought views on the detail of the scheme—for instance, who should be entitled to compensation, what costs could be compensated and how claims should be dealt with. The noble Lord, Lord True, asked about those matters. We are therefore sympathetic to the spirit of Amendment 147DB, but believe that it is unnecessary as we have already indicated our commitment to establishing a compensation scheme and will be making regulations to do so. I will try to ensure that we at least have sight of those.
Amendment 147EA is also not necessary because we are proposing a government amendment to add to Clause 85 the power to give a right of appeal. That would be done through regulations. This will be an additional power to give landowners the right to request an internal review by the local authority of its decision on compensation.
We consider that the proposed introduction of an external right of appeal will be more suitable than the proposal in Amendment 147EA to have the appeal referred to the district auditor, by which we presume is meant an independent auditor appointed by the Audit Commission. Their role is to check the financial—
Lord Beecham
I had intended to say that depends entirely on the district valuer.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I apologise, the noble Lord did correct himself. However, we still believe that we have a better route than the noble Lord. We do not think that the district valuer would have a role in this. As I say, we think that that provision would be unnecessary in view of the legislation that we will be introducing.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, we will have to see what happens as regards the draft regulations. I cannot say that I am persuaded by the argument that the district valuer is not the appropriate person to deal with these matters. However, we shall see precisely what the Government have in place when somebody else provides the noble Baroness with the ammunition. I hope that by Report we can have a clearer picture and possibly reach an agreement. If not, it may be a matter on which we shall have to take the opinion of the House. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hanham
“(vii) appeals against decisions made under the regulations.”
Baroness Hanham
“Co-operation
If different parts of any land are in different local authority areas, the local authorities concerned must co-operate with each other in carrying out functions under this Chapter in relation to the land or any part of it.”
Lord Beecham
“(a) a London borough,(b) a metropolitan district,(c) a unitary council,(d) a county council, or(e) by agreement between a county council and one or more of its constituent district councils, a district council.”
Lord Beecham
My Lords, this amendment reverts to the issue that I raised previously about districts within counties and who is to be the appropriate authority. It suggests a framework whereby there may be a shared interest that might be disposed of between the two tiers within county areas. I am not asking for a decision on that today but perhaps it is something that we might look at. The views of the Local Government Association might be taken on how best to deal with these matters. I suspect there may well be cases where at county level there is an interest—at district level, possibly not—and it would be invidious if there was a refusal by a district council when the county council might wish to accede to a request. It is worth exploring that grey area further. If the noble Baroness will indicate that discussions can take place, I would be very happy. I beg to move.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I have tabled Amendments 147FA and 147FB in this group. I do not wish to pursue the technicalities of what they say but they are a means of probing the role of national park authorities in all this—whether the proposed system would be any different in national parks, and whether the special nature of national parks might mean that the system will have to be tweaked or be quite different in those areas. I shall be interested in what the Minister says.
In relation to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, and with my district council hat on, I have to say that if this job is to be done—and, as I have already demonstrated, I am sceptical about whether it will have any real value—this really is a matter of local knowledge. Whether a particular pub in a remote area in the Forest of Bowland is an appropriate community asset to be stuck onto this register, or whether it is the kind of pub that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, was talking about—which is nothing to do with the local community—are local judgments. I cannot see the county barons who sit in their fastness in county hall having much of an idea about it. If they were to set up a system, they would have to decentralise it and set up systems at local and district levels. If county council functions can be operated at those levels, they should be operated by district councils. That seems to be common sense, but we discussed that earlier.
Lord Beecham
Would the noble Lord concede that in children’s or adult services there might be a need and a demand for buildings or other facilities to be made available whereby the actual funding and support would probably come from the county council, rather than the district, and that there would be no need for the county to be involved? That is the sort of issue that I suggested we needed to discuss. Given the costs of all this, might not some very small district councils find it difficult to operate this scheme? Is there not a case for flexibility here between the two levels—obviously while promoting co-operation between them—in the interests of the community that we would all seek to be fulfilled?
Lord Greaves
My Lords, the last point might apply in some places. If it does, the basic power should rest with the district council, and if there is to be an agreement, it should be devolved upwards from the district to the county, rather than the other way round, which the noble Lord’s amendment suggests.
His other point about children’s services or other care services may be valid, but it is clearly different from funding a service—for example, totally or partly funding a voluntary or community-based service—where funding might well come from the county council. However, as to the question of who maintains the asset register, which is the narrow point we are talking about, it seems to me that if this job is to be done it ought to be done by the more competent people who, in this case, are probably the more local people.
While I am on my feet, I think that I need to declare another interest, given that I am talking again about councils. I am informed that in this past week I have been added to the long list of vice-presidents of the Local Government Association. I am not sure that it was the thing that I most wanted in life, but if it is an honour, it is an honour. I am sure that it is nothing like as big an honour as being a freeman of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, but we all pick up these crumbs where we can. So I declare that interest.
Lord Beecham
Did the noble Lord by any chance replace the Secretary of State as a vice-president of the Local Government Association?
Lord Greaves
I would like to replace the Secretary of State, but I do not think that there is much possibility of that happening. I do not know whether I would do a better job, but I might have better ideas—in some areas. I had better be careful what I say or the Whips will be after me again. We have been talking about Bradfordians a lot. There are about half a dozen Bradfordians in the Committee. The Secretary of State pretends to be a Bradfordian, but he is not really, he comes from the posh part of Keighley.
Earl Cathcart
The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, has twice raised an interesting point about county councils having care homes within a district and whether they should be involved. Could not the county council nominate that asset as an asset of community value? Then it would be registered with the district and, if something happened to it, the county council could make an offer to bid, or whatever it wanted to do. Would that not be the answer?
Lord Beecham
That is what I suggested under a previous amendment, but I think the whole area needs looking at.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, that was an amusing exchange. I look forward to seeing the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, taking over as Secretary of State, although I do not think that the Secretary of State would appreciate that. This exchange is about matters which I have answered briefly, although, I appreciate, not in detail.
We believe that it is important that we clearly set out who should run the community right to buy. Clause 91 defines what we mean by local authority and who will be responsible for administering the provisions. It makes sense that a decision on listing is made directly by the local democratic authority, rather than any other. For that reason, we have chosen to give powers to specified local authorities to run the scheme.
Where there is more than one local authority in an area, we have decided that, in most cases, implementation of the scheme should be by the local authority with the relevant planning powers. That would mean that, in two-tier areas, the running of the scheme would fall to the district council. However, in the case of the national parks and the Broads Authority, which have planning powers for the area but are not elected authorities, we have left administration of the scheme with the local authority as having democratic accountability. We would expect the local authority to liaise with the local national park or the Broads Authority where appropriate. We also consider it important to retain the Secretary of State's power by order, if necessary, to amend the definition of local authority in the light of experience. Amendment 147A would remove that power, so we resist it.
Amendments 147FA and 147FB would give powers to a national park authority and the Broads Authority to make decisions on what is listed and to run the scheme. National parks and the Broads Authority have members appointed by the local authorities, but they are not themselves democratically accountable local authorities, so they would fall outside the scope of the definition of local authority.
Amendment 147FZA would replace the current list in Clause 91 of what counts as a local authority for the new list. Some items are the same, but the proposed new list would allow a county council in a two-tier area to take responsibility for administering the scheme by agreement with the district council or councils. That would remove the important link between these provisions and the planning authority. The new list also omits the Common Council—the City of London—and the Council of the Islands of Scilly and deletes the Secretary of State’s power to amend the list later for England, although not the power of Welsh Ministers to do the same in Wales. For the reasons I have given, I cannot accept the amendments, and I hope that noble Lords will feel able not to press them.
Lord Greaves
“The purpose of planning
Before section 1 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 insert—“A1 Purpose of planning
(1) The purpose of the planning system is to achieve sustainable development. (2) Any person exercising functions and duties under the planning Acts must do so with the objective of furthering the achievement of sustainable development and shall have regard in doing so to any guidance given for that purpose by the Secretary of State.A2 Interpretation
In this Act—
(a) “sustainable development” means development that meets the social, economic and environmental needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs and includes the application of the following principles—(i) living within environmental limits,(ii) ensuring a strong, healthy and just society;(iii) achieving a sustainable economy;(iv) promoting good governance;(v) using sound science responsibly;(b) “the planning Acts” include—(i) the Localism Act 2011;(ii) the Planning Act 2008;(iii) the Planning and Energy Act 2008;(iv) the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004;(v) the Town and Country Planning Act 1990;(vi) the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990;(vii) the Planning (Hazardous Substances) Act 1990; and(viii) the Planning (Consequential Provisions) Act 1990.”
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 147FD to 147FF, which are grouped. We had a good debate at the very beginning of Committee about sustainable development. We are now back to where many people may think that we ought to be, which is planning and the planning system. This is a serious attempt to strengthen the commitment to sustainable development in the planning system at all levels and to probe the definition of sustainable development and whether we can get a definition in the Bill, which some of us have tried with quite a number of Bills over the years. This is turning out perhaps to be one of the really important flashpoints as far as this Bill is concerned—certainly one of the key issues that is facing your Lordships as it goes through this Committee and then through the House. I do not think this discussion today will be the last we see of it.
The amendments do several things. The first amendment, as set out, is headed, “The purpose of planning” and states very clearly:
“The purpose of the planning system is to achieve sustainable development”.
It does that by amending the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Then it defines sustainable development as set out in one of the traditional definitions. One of the purposes of tabling these amendments is to probe whether the Government will tell us any more about whether they are trying to or intend to change that definition, and in what way. They may tell us to wait for the draft of the national planning policy framework, which we are promised we will have before Report. However, these are matters where we are going to continue prodding.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, I have read these new clauses with some interest. I am not sure that they could sensibly form part of the Bill, but they provide a useful vehicle for debate. When will we get the national planning policy framework? It was foreshadowed in a very positive and, to my mind, very welcome Statement made by my right honourable friend the Planning Minister, Mr Greg Clark, on 15 June. It addresses many of the questions which the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has been speaking about.
What attracts me is the presumption in favour of sustainable development, which is right, but the default position will be that an application should be accepted, subject to the important environmental safeguards that one would need to have for such important features as the green belt, national parks and so on. This is quite different from what has grown up over the years. It was already apparent when I was in charge of the planning system, which was several decades ago, when there almost seemed to be a presumption that it should not be allowed. If we can change the balance, that would be right.
We are facing a period of need for more jobs and more homes, which may well require development to go ahead. For too long we have been prisoners of the nimby phenomenon and people making enough fuss to stop something happening. I remember being told by one of my very senior officials, “Just watch it, the man who starts as the champion of new homes and eventually finds himself the owner of the last home in a new development, immediately signs up to become the secretary of the local preservation society”. That is nimbyism. I was also told of another phenomenon, note—not over there either. Of course, it is summed up in the well-known expression banana—build nothing anywhere near anybody. These are public attitudes which are deeply ingrained and, in the past, they have tended to colour the way in which the planning system works.
As I said, we need more jobs and we certainly need more homes. A planning policy that is worth the paper it is written on must have that very firmly in mind. I hope that, when we get the national planning policy framework, it will be made very clear. Having said that, I repeat the question: when will we get it? Will we have it in time for the Report stage of the Bill? It is rather like Hamlet without the Prince of Denmark; we do not yet know what will be in it. Like my noble friend Lord Greaves, I do not believe the press on such matters. They have not seen the draft but they think they have; they have seen something. I await the genuine document. Please may we have it fairly soon?
Lord Cameron of Dillington
My Lords, I support the amendments in this group. I put my name to them but was too late to get on the Marshalled List. I support them not because they are necessarily the right amendments—as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, said, the wording could be different—but because I believe strongly in the principles of sustainable development. In the old days it was called “stewardship”. Probably the most important thing that we can do in our short stay on this planet is to leave it in as good a condition as it was when we arrived—or, one hopes, better.
The great thing about the principles of sustainable development is that they can cater for short-term needs such as today's economic recession, but also ensure that the best solutions will look after today's and tomorrow's needs of people, of the countryside and of the environment that surrounds us all. We must plan—as most farmers farm—as though we are going to live for ever.
We can be justifiably proud of the planning system in England. I say “England” because it is the fifth most densely populated country in the world, yet we still have some of the most sensational countryside in the world, including our national parks, our AONBs and our coast. Who has not revelled in the TV programme of that name? Even some of our ordinary, unremarked villages, dales and copses are an integral part of our historical culture. We must not damage them.
Bill Bryson once wrote a foreword to a booklet on the English countryside. I know that because I wrote a co-foreword to the booklet. Noble Lords can imagine which foreword was the most readable. In his, he said that one of the unique features of the British countryside was that it was almost certainly the most loved countryside on earth. I believe he is right. Therefore, politically this clause has huge support from the vast percentage of our population, including most business leaders. The clause is in no way anti-business and anti-development. It merely incorporates a different way of thinking about progress.
The other reason I support the principles behind the amendment is that it would give certainty to all sides involved in the planning system and would endure. I spoke at Second Reading, and will do so again in Committee, about the necessity for a framework of rules to underpin our planning system and make it effective so that everyone will know where they stand. There is no doubt that the existence of a clause such as this would be a central pillar of such a framework.
What would happen if a local development framework or a neighbourhood plan—or even a strategic impact assessment, if I have my way later—is not ready on time or is not renewed when it should be? The existence of a clause such as this could be an important safety net. Its principles could be a satisfactory guide for the planners of the day and it would provide a framework within which we would all understand the principles on which our planning system operates, in the absence of a detailed local context. Therefore, I urge the Government to accept this or some other similar proposal.
Baroness Andrews
My Lords, I am very happy to support the amendment and to follow the noble Lord in much of what he said. Amendment 147FC is very important. I feel a bit like a sinner saved, because I remember the many arguments that I marshalled in relation to the 2008 Act about why it was very difficult to put such a clause in the Bill. I hold my hand up and say that it is absolutely right that we do so in this Bill and make it good.
It is very timely to start with a positive definition of the purpose of planning. Planning gets a bad press. It is misunderstood, and most of the time people come across the planning system because it stops them doing things—or they assume that it will. A positive definition stating that its purpose is to achieve sustainable development is very important now.
Perhaps the Minister will say that the amendment is not needed and ask what other purpose planning could have. However, it is because the purpose of planning is obscure that we need a definition. We need it precisely because of the limitations on the definition of sustainability that the Government offer in their presumption in favour of sustainable development. We need a consistent definition that does not retreat from the Brundtland definition, and I believe it is time that we had a legal definition in the Bill that reads across to other legislation.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, has already referred to the pressures in the system. There is pressure on land, the greatest non-renewable resource we have, for housing, employment, green space, aggregates and all the things we need increasingly urgently for a growing and ageing population. We need to balance land for housing and all those other demands within a framework that is trustworthy and transparent and works. Like the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, I believe that in England we have a planning system that works. A statement that planning is there to sustain the needs of the community within environmental limits serving the well-being of society alongside a sustainable economy is extremely timely and welcome, but the amendment becomes crucial when you set it alongside the limitations of the definition set out in the presumption of sustainable development as published by CLG. When you read it and follow its logic, it destabilises the careful definition of sustainability offered by Brundtland.
This amendment lays a responsibility on our generation not to put at risk future generations in the way we use our resources. Anything that moves away from that balance is extremely regressive, out-of-date and out of tune with what most people want, and that includes the business community. My experience is that good business leaders know that economic growth and sustainability are not incompatible. Indeed, good planning plans for both because they are symbiotic. The argument that growth and sustainability are interdependent is no longer a minority interest or a minority argument. It is mainstream in what planning is trying to do and what the economic and business community is trying to do in terms of its own future. It does not make sense to invest in unsustainable development, and to collude with the notion that there might be a conflict between growth and sustainability is rather irresponsible at this point. If we move to dilute that, we move the clock back and deny credibility to those who do not believe that climate change is a reality, and we undermine effective planning.
However, I agree that the amendment is not perfect. Few amendments are. The text serves very well in terms of its principal definition. I am confident that the Minister is going to accept the amendment or, at least, that he will take it away for further consideration. I have to put on my hat as chair of English Heritage and declare an interest. I believe that the definition can be improved. I would like to see inserted a reference to sustainable development meeting the social, economic and cultural needs of the present. I believe that takes on board the entire well-being that is represented by our landscapes, our historic environment and all the things that make places work for people and make our country so special. I believe that definition of cultural will give depth to the purpose of planning, bring in the nature and wealth of our built environment and give it protection. I hope that Minister will be very pleased to accept the amendment when he replies.
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, I am very pleased to support these amendments. They are some of the most important ones in the Bill because I get the impression that the Bill somehow dilutes the sustainability agenda and gives rather confusing messages, as we have heard. It is going to encourage more development, possibly in the green belt, if the Times article can be believed. Then we have the nimby’s charter which allows anybody to have a referendum if they want to stop big projects. At Second Reading, I said that if the Secretary of State wants to build his high-speed line to Birmingham, he will have 25 referendum votes against it all the way through the Chilterns. I do not know whether that is the way to build a sustainable railway.
The problem we have at the moment, which I hope these amendments could help dilute or even get rid of, is that over the years we seem to have built up a policy whereby we believe in sustainability unless it costs us more. Then we somehow find a way of saying, “We are going to have to do this even if it costs more” or “If it does not cost any more and is cheaper, it may use up a bit more CO2 but we cannot help it”. For example, we have got the 80 per cent carbon reduction target, which this Government have confirmed. But I suspect that if there are problems with nuclear power stations—I hope that there will not be any but if there are—windmills or something else, the dear old coal-fired power stations will be fired up as no Government will allow the lights to go out if they can pollute the atmosphere with a bit more CO2. The same would happen with transport.
I have just been involved in investigating with Thames Water the tunnel that will collect all the drainage from London and go from somewhere in Hammersmith underneath the river towards Beckton. I discovered that Thames Water is planning to remove all the spoil by road, which I calculated would be about 500 trucks a day from central London. That is about 10 times what Crossrail was criticised for when it was moving spoil from one of its stations. I was told, “This is all very fine. If you want us to be more sustainable and not cause quite so much damage to the residents of London, it will cost someone £70 million more”. I asked where the evidence was for this and was told that the regulator would not allow it. We are still in discussions but it is extraordinary that it can claim that this is a very sustainable solution. It might make the river cleaner, but we need to debate whether it is the right solution. The fallback situation was, “We will use road unless someone can pay us extra”. To some extent, that reflects the national policy statement, to which we will come in future amendments, which basically says that you should use river or railway transport rather than road if it is economically viable. Of course, the figures can be adjusted to suit whatever you want.
The important thing is that even for those big projects, the policies as set out in these amendments need to filter down, as other noble Lords have said, all the way through the planning system to even the smallest planning application and discussion. It seems to me that this is a good way of setting out the structure, about which we can debate many more things later. I join other noble Lords in asking the Minister when we will see this national planning policy framework. I would also ask—again, this will come up later—whether it will be statutory, voluntary or advisory.
On the basis that the House of Commons is required to approve and debate national policy statements, will the House of Commons and, I hope, the House of Lords, be asked to debate this one? There is quite a lot to talk about on this and a lot of questions to be answered. I join other noble Lords is asking this fundamental question. Do the Government accept the need for some comprehensive sustainability definition in the Bill?
Baroness Byford
My Lords, I should like to add a few comments to those made by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, in moving his amendment. All those who have spoken are very conscious of the fact that planning in the future must surely be a balance between social, economic and environmental needs. Subsection (4) of Amendment 147FD in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, clearly defines that. However, I have a slight problem with what to include and not include in the list. It is always the same whenever there is a list. Certainly, I have no difficulty with,
“social, economic and environmental needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”.
That is something to which I hope the Minister will, when he responds, say, “Yes, this is something that we feel is extremely key”. I have a slight difficulty as we go through paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) because it is quite difficult to strike a balance between them. I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, might well feel, for example, that environmental limits should be given a higher priority than the economic side. I think that the two go together and you cannot define them separately. I have difficulty with paragraph (b). We would all like to see,
“ensuring a … healthy and just society”,
included but most of us know that the society we live in is not fair for all as it is. Therefore, I have concerns about putting that in the Bill.
Turning to paragraph (e), “using sound science responsibly”, I would much rather have seen something such as “using our resources better”. We have such wonderful new technologies available to us now. We can make better use of water and can use better means of energy-saving. In future, we shall see many more of those technologies coming on-stream.
I do not wish to be a killjoy on the amendment. I support the thrust behind it. However, as it stands, it raises certain questions. Lists have never been one of my great loves. One often puts things in that one should not, or leaves out things that ought to be included. However, I very much support the theme behind subsection (4), which I started by mentioning—social, economic and environmental needs.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I have put my name to these amendments and am happy to support them. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has set out the case in his usual exemplary manner. My noble friend Lady Andrews said that it was right that we should have a positive definition, which this is. She referred to the need possibly to expand it to include cultural needs. We have the opportunity to debate that in relation to other amendments in the not too distant future.
The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, challenged the definition and the listing of some of the principles. However, this is not a new definition, but one that has been around, and internationally accepted, for some time. Those principles were enshrined in the 2005 sustainability principles that were set out by the previous Government and have, I believe, been accepted all round. My noble friend Lord Berkeley referred to a fear of what has been accepted to date being diluted. The noble Baroness may also have strayed into that territory. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, said that there was no conflict between business and the environment. The definition and proposition are neither anti-business nor anti-development.
There are imperatives for having this definition in the Bill. The planning proposals in the Bill represent a major upheaval for the current system. Amid all the change, it is important to anchor a focus in the purpose of planning. There is concern among some that, despite the rhetoric and the expressed ambition to be the greenest Government ever, that ambition is being sidelined. With a new governance framework involving neighbourhood planning, the achievement of sustainable development must be at the heart of the local decision-making process.
This issue is brought into sharper focus because there are apparently other versions of the draft national planning policy framework. Like other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, I ask when we shall see the official version, which will clearly help our deliberations through the myriad amendments on planning. There are concerns that the drafts vary from the previously adopted and accepted meaning enshrined in the 2005 UK sustainable development strategy. We have also seen, along the way, the demise of the Sustainable Development Commission on the basis that its funding will go towards mainstreaming sustainability.
We took it from earlier responses by the Minister, Lady Hanham, at Second Reading that we were in accord with the definition of sustainable development and the five principles set out in the amendment. I think it follows from that that we should be in accord with the “purpose of planning” definition, but perhaps the Minister will take this opportunity to reconfirm that on the record. Of course, we must await the final, official draft of the NPPF, but perhaps the Minister will also say whether he considers the current version of the NPPF to include an identical definition of sustainable development, the purpose of planning and the principles set down in this amendment. It is important for us to be clear whether our discussion with the Government—and a possible disagreement with the Government on this—is on the substance of the definition or the principles, or on the fact that it is in the Bill, in primary legislation.
These issues have been brought into focus by a number of matters which lead to concerns that attempts are under way to redefine sustainable development. For example, the draft presumption in favour of sustainable development—my noble friend Lady Andrews referred to this—has a definition that states:
“stimulating economic growth and tackling the deficit, maximising wellbeing and protecting our environment without negatively impacting on the ability of future generations to do the same”.
Such statements give rise to fears that overwhelming weight might be given to the need to support economic recovery and to incentivise development that will facilitate this.
Of course tackling the deficit is an issue of huge importance, although—this is probably not the occasion for the debate—we believe that the Government’s approach is dealing with it too far and too fast. However, economic growth is only one of many objectives that the planning system can and is meant to deliver. On sustainable development duties, as the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said, there are existing duties under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and the Planning Act 2008 on local planning authorities and the Secretary of State to prepare planning policy with the objective of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development. However, in order to properly achieve sustainable development, the statutory duty, as the noble Lord said, should be more positive and proactive. That is why we support the amendment in this form.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, was not particularly enamoured of this form of amendment. He made reference to the default position of LDVs, where there is not a full suite of plans at local level in place. One issue that seems to be emerging is that, if the new NPPF is written in a high-level general way and is therefore not specific around special issues, and if LDVs are not in place, then the presumption and the default position could open up opportunities for development, which would not be the case if, in fact, that local development framework was in place. If I have misunderstood the noble Lord, I apologise, but I think that he almost equated sustainability with nimbyism. I do not believe that that is right.
As other noble Lords have said, this is an extremely important start to our deliberations on planning. It is fundamental, we believe, to get that definition clear, agreed and in the Bill, because that will help drive our deliberations on a whole raft of stuff, the tiers of planning, that flow from the Government’s effectively new system.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, contrasted two definitions of sustainability—theirs and ours, as it were. May I say to my noble friend how much I prefer ours, which is in plain, understandable English? One can understand what its implications are for any particular project, while the definition in these amendments is largely phooey.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I will not enter into that controversy, but I will say that it is quite nostalgic to be discussing these issues. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Greaves and I have been arguing a case not entirely dissimilar from that of today in other Bills and in other situations—only the geography of the Chamber appears to have changed, whereas the arguments remain. However, in my contribution to this debate, I think that I can show that the argument has in many ways moved on, and I would like to think that the Government have also moved on. I have enjoyed listening to the debate because I am interested in the subject area and, as I am sure noble Lords will know, I share the concern that all developments should be sustainable. I also think that it is important that we try to make sure that a theme of sustainability runs through all this planning section of the Bill and, indeed, through the Bill as a whole.
The Government's commitment to sustainable development should not be in doubt. That point was made forcefully in the statement published in February by the Deputy Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for the Environment. We have recently indicated how we intend to introduce a presumption in favour of sustainable development in the forthcoming national planning policy framework. I agree with all noble Lords that it would make today’s debate so much easier if we were all clutching a copy of that freshly minted document, which would inform our debate. However, I can reassure noble Lords that the document will be published not only “shortly” but “very shortly”, in which case I feel that I can assure noble Lords that the document will be available before we discuss these matters on Report. The document will inform the debate, and I think that everyone senses that in the way that the arguments have gone.
On the subject of the national planning policy framework, the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, asked whether the document would have statutory force and whether the House of Commons or House of Lords would have an opportunity to debate it. The national planning policy framework—which, as that is a difficult thing to say and we know what we mean, I think I will call the NPPF—will be an important material consideration in all planning decisions. The NPPF will flow throughout the whole planning system from top to bottom: plans will have to take it into account and individual decisions will need to be plan led. As has been said, the Minister for Planning has made a commitment that he will present the framework to Parliament. Obviously, it will be up to the usual channels to provide an opportunity for it to be debated.
As I say, the NPPF is an important document and we want that presumption in favour of sustainable development to be at the heart of the system. We have said that we see the three pillars of sustainability—namely, economic, social and environmental—as interconnected. The NPPF will be pro growth, but it wants that growth to be sustainable, and I am sure that all noble Lords would share that view. Therefore, we understand the genuine intentions driving these amendments, but perhaps I can explain why, in the Government’s opinion and in the context of this Bill, they might well set the bar too high.
For example, Amendment 147FC seems to expect any and every planning decision to be reached with the objective of furthering the achievement of sustainable development. However, we must bear in mind that planning decisions can require trade-offs. There must be freedom for decision-takers to make such choices according to the circumstances of the individual case. For example, what are the implications of applying the duty in Amendment 147FC to applications to carry out works to nationally important listed buildings? The noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, would understand the implications of a rigid sustainability test for that task.
Baroness Andrews
Since the Minister raises that point, my argument would be that the conservation of historic buildings is a central expression of sustainability. Sustainability in terms of our historic environment serves a wider purpose and does not back up the case that the Minister would want to make.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
The case that I was making, if I may repeat it, is that the materials used and the standards required may not necessarily be the most sustainable. One has that with listed-building provision already. There are limits to a rigid test of sustainability, which I was hoping to illustrate by using that example.
Lord Berkeley
Is the Minister suggesting that it would be better if one of my noble friend’s buildings fell down? Or is he talking about using old-fashioned mortar instead of new cement? It seems a bit of a detail in the context of this debate.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Of course, my Lords, it is a detail; it is an illustration. All noble Lords have said that they felt that the context of this debate was the influencing of all planning decisions. This planning section of the Bill deals with just those issues, when it comes to local decisions being made in the context of sustainability. That is why it is important to understand the implications of the detail of the amendment and why—without my arguing with the general principle—there may be deficiencies in it as it has been presented by my noble friend and supported by a number of noble Lords.
Amendment 147FD is formulated slightly differently but in essence applies the same set of expectations on plans, most—but in this case not all—decisions under the planning Acts, and policy or guidance issued by the Secretary of State relating to planning functions. The amendment, like Amendments 147FC and 147FE, risks pushing to and beyond the limits of planning. I have no difficulty with the five principles of sustainable development promoted by the previous Government, but they risk loading on planning more than it can deliver. Would all five have to be met by any development proposal? How would, for example, someone extending their home demonstrate that they are promoting good governance?
Amendment 147FE focuses on the planning regime for major infrastructure—the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, referred to a project here in London. It proposes a number of changes to the existing legislation, including extending the sustainable development duty currently applicable to the preparation of national policy statements to all decisions on applications relating to major infrastructure. In this, it is consistent with Amendment 147FC and mirrors Amendment 147FD. It therefore has the same pitfalls.
For example, applying the sustainable development duty at the decision stage could introduce great uncertainty, because it would require the decision-maker to second-guess policy in the national policy statements, which will have been scrutinised and secured Parliamentary approval. By applying the sustainable development duty in the way proposed, the amendment could unintentionally undermine our efforts to deliver energy security.
I remind the Committee that we already have sustainable development duties applicable to the planning system. These are as follows. For major infrastructure, the duty applies to national policy statements for good reason. These national policy statements set out the policy framework for decisions on major infrastructure and integrate the Government’s objectives for infrastructure capacity and development with its wider economic, environmental and social policy objectives, including climate change goals and targets, in order to deliver sustainable development. We also have a planning duty on sustainable development in the Town and Country Planning Act system. The duty applies to those preparing plans, which in turn bears on planning decisions.
The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, emphasised how important it was that we have a future debate on these subjects with the NPPF available to us. I am sure that it will inform such debates and will be greatly to our advantage. I have not seen any text on this document at present. However, we know that the current duties within the planning system work. They avoid the risks that these amendments pose to the Bill and I hope that my noble friend will feel free to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Taylor of Goss Moor
My Lords, I have listened carefully to what the Minister had to say but, although I welcome the Government’s commitment to sustainable development, the longer he spoke the less I was convinced of the argument he was making.
I conducted a review of rural planning policy for the previous Government. The first chapter of the review was devoted to sustainable development because there are potential perverse consequences in the way in which it is interpreted by planners at the local level from time to time. Most typically they argue that the community is not sustainable because it lacks public transport and other facilities, or people have to travel into a town to do their shopping, and therefore no development should be allowed because it is unsustainable. This ignores the fact that no development will make the community less sustainable in the long term, and that change can improve the sustainability of a community even if it does not deliver perfection.
With his colleagues, the Minister has committed the Government to the principle that we should favour sustainable development—so much so that there will be a presumption in favour of such development in the absence of other policy. Yet the Minister argues now against these amendments on two grounds. The first argument is that the detail of the amendments is imperfect—and, indeed, most of the comments against have been around that. However, if we are to believe that we should incorporate policies that favour sustainable development as a default option, surely it is incumbent on us to have a clear idea—and, more importantly, that the Government have a clear idea—of what we mean by that. If the Government do not have a clear idea, the principle that we are in favour of sustainable development as a default option cannot possibly stand.
We may have our differences around this—I do not think it is that complex an issue—but if the Minister has doubts about these amendments, he and his government colleagues should come forward with what they believe is the right definition and establish it in the Bill so that we are clear what we are empowering to happen as the default option in planning.
The second argument against is that it will in due course be in the national planning policy framework. That is welcome. I am sure that it will elaborate the detail of it and, of course, those details over time will be able to shift within the framework. However, what is being proposed is not a mere detail but is central to the Bill. In the absence of policy, the Government want it as the default option that we will approve proposals that support sustainable development—yet they will not incorporate the fundamental answer of what that means into the Bill.
I am sympathetic to much of what the Bill is trying to do; I am a proponent of sustainable development. I have argued about the perverse consequences of the misapplication of this—the gold standard. The Minister referred to it in terms of heritage, but it can be reduced to absurdity whereby nothing is allowed because nothing ever meets perfection. It is precisely for those reasons that the Government in due course should come forward with their explanation and proposition in the Bill so that we understand what it is we are being asked to approve in this legislation.
Baroness Andrews
My Lords, I completely agree with the noble Lord. I think that was a very eloquent exposition of the Government’s dilemma. The Minister addressed the amendment’s frailties in its language and definition, but perhaps the Government could be persuaded to agree in principle that there should be a definition of sustainability in the Bill, which we could debate. It could build on the NPPF definition of the presumption in favour of sustainability, which is not adequate, but it would be a good start for a debate. There is an opportunity now, which may not occur again, to have something which recognises—as so much else is recognised in climate change legislation, for example—that this is a very serious issue for the economic future of the country.
Lord Berkeley
Can I just add to those comments? The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Goss Moor, introduced some very interesting comments about how this might be taken forward, as did my noble friend Lady Andrews. The Minister mentioned the national policy statements. I welcome the fact that the national planning policy document is to be published very soon and that it might be debated in both Houses. What is the relationship between that document and the national policy statements, if and when and as they are developed? Furthermore, with any planning application that falls below the cut-off level for NPSs, the policy still has to take into account the relevant parts of the NPSs. Is that going to stay? What is the relationship between these two documents and the hierarchy? My noble friend suggested putting a basic definition of sustainability in the Bill. Maybe the Minister could put in the more detailed bits of these amendments in the NPPF and then we would see it all together.
Lord Lucas
I very much support what my noble friend Lord Taylor of Goss Moor said. It is terribly important for the neighbourhood planning parts of this Bill that sustainability should be able to be interpreted at that level. At the moment in Hampshire it is part of the local policy that there should be no development in the countryside. If that is allowed under the new system, it will completely wipe out all neighbourhood planning in Hampshire. The argument is that development should take place in towns, where it is more sustainable, but if one applied that nationwide we would choose the wettest, least attractive part of the country and put all development there. It must be possible to focus down on a neighbourhood and look at what is sustainable for that neighbourhood.
Lord Greaves
Can I ask the noble Lord to decouple the words “wettest” and “least attractive”? Some of the wettest parts of the country, such as the Lake District and the Pennines, are some of the most attractive.
Lord Lucas
I am sorry if I coupled those words in the wrong way. I meant that it had to be both. It has to be the wettest because clearly we do not want to put a lot of houses where there is a water shortage. Having decided where it is wet enough, you then choose the least attractive place. I am sure that we can all have arguments about where it should be, but clearly it is not Kent or Norfolk.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Perhaps I can start with the whole business of neighbourhood planning, because in some ways this is a bottom-up Bill and neighbourhood planning is perhaps the first building block of a new way in which to look at the planning process. I agree that sustainability must be an integral part of neighbourhood planning—and, indeed, neighbourhood plans will need to be prepared in conformity with a strategic policy in local plans, which in turn need to be set with the objective of contributing to the objective of sustainability. That is already built into the Bill, as it stands.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I thank everybody who has taken part in this interesting debate, not least my noble friend the Minister, who answered a lot of the points. He spoke with customary care in the words that he used and we will read them with interest, to try and work out if any sort of Kremlinology is to be found in them. We will probably find that there is not, but it is nevertheless worth trying. He said that this amendment conflicts with the Planning Act 2008. I do not think it conflicts with it; it is trying to amend it by shifting its balance and emphasis. That is not a conflict but trying to improve it. However, he is absolutely right that we will return to these debates before we finish with this Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, made some very interesting comments. He mentioned a default position that applications should be accepted. That always used to be the case. It was when the town and country planning system was introduced after the war, and it was until about 20 to 25 years ago—I am not sure exactly when it was changed—when Parliament made an overt decision that the system should become plan-based. It might have been a 1990 Act; I do not know. There is a difference because you start with the assumption either that an application is passed unless there are good reasons not to; or that the provisions in the local plan will prevail so that if an application is in accord with that plan it will be passed but, if it is not in accord with it, it will not—subject to other considerations.
I am not clear where the Government are going on this because, on the one hand, we have statements suggesting that what the noble Lord has said will be the new policy and, on the other, we hear Ministers say that the plan in future will be sovereign. That was said in the House of Commons, and by Ministers in briefings that we have had. We understand that it might perhaps be even more sovereign than it has been. You cannot have both those. This is one of the fundamental differences that we have to resolve. It is one of the fundamental discontinuities as regards what individual members of the Government are saying, and what some of the same people are saying at different times.
This is a new planning Bill; we should be under no illusions about that. Part 5 of the Bill is a planning Bill on its own and could have been presented to us as a planning Bill on its own. Personally, I wish it had been as we could have given it better consideration. It is turning the planning system upside down, or making very fundamental changes to it in exactly the same way that the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 did. It will fundamentally change the way the planning system works from top to bottom. I am not saying that what it is proposing is not a good thing; I am saying that that is the situation. We have to ensure, if only to apply the workability criterion of the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, that at least the thing will not cause chaos when it leaves here.
The same difficulty in understanding what is proposed applies to neighbourhood plans as opposed to the rather top-down, pro-growth agenda which was pushed by the Chancellor in his Budget speech and in documents issued after that. On the other hand, promises seem to be being made to people that, in future, neighbourhood planning really will be neighbourhood planning and decisions will be made at the very local level. I have heard the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, wax lyrical in these debates about how the new neighbourhood planning system will release growth. It may well do so but it will not do so everywhere. There is absolutely no doubt that in some places it will result—if the neighbourhood level is going to be predominant—in the nimbys winning, because if you have local democracy and make decisions at local level, some go one way, some go the other way, but they certainly do not go the way that you want. This all stems from the original Conservative document, Open Source Planning, which came out over a year ago. That was a very interesting document but it was based on the premise that everybody would have a local neighbourhood plan and the district plans—the local authority plans—would be a sort of jigsaw made up of each of the local plans stuck together. That was a bit idealistic as you have only to think of two adjoining places having completely different policies to realise that that does not work, but that is what the document said. My interpretation of what we have now is that the philosophy underlying Open Source Planning has gone through the mill of the civil servants, who have turned it into something a bit more practical—or is it a bit more practical? That is what we have to find out.
It is delightful to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, arguing the case that I was arguing when I was sitting where she is sitting. I am still arguing it over this side. It would be interesting to go back to those debates and see what the noble Lord, Lord Taylor—the Minister—said then. However, we understand how this works and Governments have to take a corporate view. If the noble Baroness is a repentant sinner, we should remember that there is more joy in heaven at one sinner who repents than there is with everybody else, so she can bask in that glory for a moment.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, talked about HS2. That is a classic case. As I said when I was moving the amendment, this does not mean that every single decision has to have exactly the same balance. The important thing is that you have the framework that sets out the balance and you make the judgments on each individual decision—each project, planning application or plan at whatever level—in the light of that overall framework. Clearly, there are trade-offs and compromises—that is life. I passionately support HS2. However, on the basis of its effect on a small narrow strip of the Chilterns, you could say that it is environmentally damaging—how damaging you can argue about. If, on the other hand, you look at it from the point of view on the other side of the environmental dimension—climate change—you would probably agree that investing in new railways rather than new roads is a good thing. You have to balance those judgments, but that does not alter the fact that you need an overall framework that balances the different elements.
I accept what the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, said about cultural factors. However, a scheme in Nelson involved building a new school as a regeneration project in a different and unique conservation area, which was an old industrial area with lots of old houses. We had a long battle with the noble Baroness—or at least with her organisation—and other heritage groups about how many of the derelict empty terraced houses we could knock down. I am very pleased to say that the issue has been resolved, planning permission for the new school was approved last week, and the scheme will go ahead. However, as to the compromises and trade-offs between the different viewpoints on the scheme, we were very irritated—a mild word to express how we felt—at the behaviour of the heritage organisations. Perhaps they were right and in the end we may get the best solution because it will be balanced and do what everyone wants it to do.
I have said enough. There should be a statutory framework for this matter. I am not suggesting that these amendments are absolutely perfect, but I nevertheless strongly believe that something within this general framework should be in the Bill; it must be the purpose of the planning system; and it must apply, if not to everything, then at the very least to all the plan-making activities within the planning system. I hope that when we reach Report we might have something that has been agreed with the Government and that we can all support—who knows? If that is the case, as with everything else, none of us will think it is perfect but we will accept it as a trade-off and compromise. I hope that the Government will look at this in that way. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I was not sure that we had formally debated Amendment 147FF, which is in a separate group—although I think the noble Lord spoke to it.
Lord Greaves
The noble Lord is in the position that I was in on Tuesday of having an old list. In the interests of getting some brownie points with the business managers and the Whips, I grouped it with the other amendments.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Perhaps I had the 11 am, rather than the 11.10, list this morning.
Amendment 147FFA
Lord McKenzie of Luton
“National Planning Policy Framework
(1) The Secretary of State must issue, designate and update a National Planning Policy Framework, to establish policies to achieve sustainable development.
(2) Such policies should relate to mitigation of, and adaption to, climate change.
(3) Before designating a document as the National Planning Policy Framework for the purposes of this Act or before amending any such document, the Secretary of State must carry out an appraisal of the sustainability of the policy set out in the document or the amendment to it.
(4) A document may be designated as the National Planning Policy Framework for the purposes of this Act only if consultation, publicity and parliamentary requirements set out by the Secretary of State, have been complied with.
(5) The requirements in subsection (4) above apply to any amendments to the National Planning Policy Framework.”
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, this amendment relates to the national planning policy framework, which we have just discussed and will doubtless feature in each day of our considerations. The amendment requires the Secretary of State to,
“issue, designate and update a National Planning Policy Framework”
that must set out,
“policies to achieve sustainable development”
and focus on mitigation of climate change. Before designating a document as an NPPF, the amendment requires there to be an appraisal of sustainability and for the proposal to be the subject of consultation, dissemination and an appropriate parliamentary process. It is not, at this stage, specific about what that process might actually be.
I contend that the amendment goes very much with the grain of government and with what the Minister said earlier. The coalition agreement stated:
“We will publish and present to Parliament a simple and consolidated national planning … framework covering all forms of development and setting out national economic, environmental and social priorities”.
If the commitment can be enshrined in the coalition agreement, why can it not be in the Bill? This does not call for the NPPF itself to be part of the Bill, just the requirement to produce one. We could have asked for—and we may do so on Report—an obligation to review and update on a regular basis.
On 13 September 2010, the CLG Select Committee inquiry into the work of the department asked the Minister how the NPPF is to be produced. He said:
“We are committed to bringing together and simplifying a set of planning documents that has become like the tax code, it has grown over time and we want to step back and distil it to its essential principles. In so doing, and I do not want to pre-empt the announcement we will make, but I do not want that to be done in the way that these things have been done before, behind closed doors, drafted by people in secret and then just a puff of white smoke emerges and there it is. I want this to be collaborative. There are lots of people who have a great interest in the financial planning framework. Whether town planners, whether people in local government, whether environmental groups and I want them to participate in that re-drafting in a way that I do not think has been extended to them before. That is the direction that we are going, but obviously I need to make a formal announcement to the House in due course”.
He was asked:
“Will Parliament be able to contribute?”.
He said yes. When pressed again about whether it was the committee or Parliament, either or both, the Minister, Greg Clark, said, “Both”.
It is unfortunate that we have to discuss the issue without the benefit of the official draft, in circumstances where what purports to be an unofficial draft seems to be in wide circulation, already commented on by various organisations and the press. The Minister has told us when an official version will be available—very shortly, was the expression that I believe he used.
As we made clear previously, it is very difficult to debate some planning issues effectively without that. There has already been pre-consultation and a draft of the NPPF produced by the practitioners’ group, and there is now to be a full public consultation, so the Government are delivering on aspects of the promises that they made last September, but perhaps the Minister can confirm how they will complete that promise and what will be the role of Parliament, particularly the role of the House of Lords, as well as the House of Commons. The role of Parliament is crucial, given the fundamental significance of the NPPF, as the Minister himself outlined. It represents, according to Mr Clark, part of a radical overhaul of planning policy cutting out thousands of unnecessary central instructions.
A role for Parliament would be especially important if there is anything in some of the fears expressed by certain groups on the basis of the unofficial draft. They say, on the one hand, that the NPPF is written at a high level without much detail. It is therefore difficult to gauge compliance of local plans with the NPPF. Where many local planning authorities have yet to adopt local plans, the bulk of planning applications will be assessed against the NPPF. They characterise that as a potential planning free-for-all. It remains to be seen whether that is the case, but it remains imperative that Parliament has a say in the outcome. I beg to move.
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, my Amendment 166VZC is grouped, and I of course support my noble friend Lord McKenzie's amendment. My amendment is designed to be a helpful contribution to Ministers. As we have not seen the NPPF, it is a suggestion of what it might contain.
I declare an interest as chairman of the Rail Freight Group. There is not much about rail freight in here, but there might be a bit. The key point is in subsection (2) of the amendment, which tries to set out in more detail how the activities and development of other parts of local authorities, regional authorities, the Government and other people could be made more sustainable if they took into account the cost of environmental issues such as transport. The obvious example is when, two years ago, a lot of law courts were closed in different parts of the country, which meant that people had to travel for long distances and sometimes even stay overnight or pay for taxis because there was no public transport. Of course, the assessment of the benefits of closing law courts did not include anything to do with transport, and one could make the same comment about the closure of hospitals. Therefore, the amendment is intended to try to link planning with transport and to look at the sustainable elements involved.
Transport routes are fundamental in the location of warehouses and distribution sites so as to reduce distances travelled and traffic congestion on busy roads. I have included something about former railway lines. I know that the Government are not yet interested in reopening former railway lines, and I can understand why in the present situation, but a lot of people will be looking at this. I know that it is planned to locate High Speed 2 on some disused railway lines, but there are many other lines in this country which could be used not for railways as such but for cycle ways and other transport routes to get people off congested roads. However, it is very difficult to reinstate corridors for those types of purposes if bits of the land are sold off. Reinstatement costs an enormous amount.
I mention in paragraph (d) under my proposed new Clause 2 in the amendment the need for travel to be minimised and, in paragraph (e), sustainable transport modes for the movement of people and freight. However, it is also useful to talk about, as I do in paragraph (f), public transport, pedestrians, cyclists and disabled people. I believe that in future all these things will have a much greater impact if we are to meet the famous 80 per cent reduction in carbon. That is the Government’s target and I think we all support it but achieving it is going to be pretty challenging. Lastly, paragraph (g) would remove the need to travel so far and would maximise sustainable modes of transport. I do not know whether those points will be in the final version of the NPPF but, if they are not, perhaps the Minister could consider making a few last-minute amendments and including them.
We have talked about the parliamentary requirements, and there is obviously a need for consultation.
Proposed new Clause 5 in the amendment makes yet another attempt at achieving sustainable development. I do not think that I need to go through it with your Lordships now because noble Lords will all have read the NPPF and we all have ideas about what it should contain. However, it certainly demonstrates to me the need to have something like this in the Bill and to have more detail somewhere in the NPPF, as I have tried to do in the amendment.
Lord Reay
My Lords, there was considerable discussion in the debate on the previous group of amendments about the national planning policy framework, although there was no mention of it in any of the amendments in that group. We come to it for the first time with these amendments.
I agree with those noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, who said that it is unfortunate that we do not already have the NPPF—the document that is, as I understand it, in 50 or 60 pages going to replace 2,000 pages of PPSs, PPGs and other planning documents that stretch back over 50 years or more. Of course, it will have a very large impact on how the Bill works in practice. I hope that we will have it very shortly, as the Minister said, and debate it.
However, I do not believe that this is the right place to debate the NPPF or to go further and pre-empt it, as the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, seeks to do here in particular, with four pages of text setting out suggested contents for the NPPF. Being an amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, it concentrates on transport and is highly prescriptive in that field. It talks about giving priority to bicycles and pedestrians, installing electric charging points and so forth. I shall not say what I think about any of those details because I simply do not think that this is a suitable moment to debate them. However, what I most certainly do not agree with is a reference in the first amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, to climate change policies. I do not believe that either the NPPF or this Bill should be used to give impetus to the Government’s renewable policies. I shall have more to say about that on a later group of amendments. I hope that the noble Lords who put their names to this amendment have said what they want to say and that they will be able to withdraw their amendments and not reintroduce it.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, we shall come, although not tonight, to clauses in the Bill dealing with national policy statements. Many noble Lords here are veterans of the debates about how national policy statements should or, in many cases, should not be dealt with. Perhaps it is not fair to say, “should not be dealt with”, but perhaps I should say, “should have been dealt with in a more extensive and iterative fashion”.
I use this opportunity to say to the Minister that I hope that by the time we get to Clause 114, on national policy statements, he may be in a better position to explain to the Committee how the national planning policy framework will be dealt with in procedural terms. I cannot gaze into a crystal ball, but I do not think it takes much imagination to guess that we shall debate the role of this House, as this House could make such a contribution to the planning policy framework and to the policy statements. I am sure we shall debate those things. As well as making that plea, I put down a marker for what I have said might be a more iterative and more measured process and certainly for the House to have an opportunity to make more of a contribution than it was able to do on the current arrangements under the Planning Act 2008.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I would like to add a couple of points. Following on what my noble friend Lady Hamwee has just said, anyone who has taken part in the discussions on the national policy statements in this House probably realises that it has not been a very satisfactory process. When we talked about them under the 2008 Bill, there was a question about whether this House would be involved in discussing them at all. A campaign was led by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, for this House to have a role in scrutinising them. That was successful to a degree, but the powers that be restricted what was to happen to the absolute minimum. The level of scrutiny which national policy statements have had in this House has consisted of a session in the Moses Room, when there was a debate with a speakers list, and then the matter came back to the Chamber. In theory, amendments could be moved when it returned to the Chamber, but I cannot remember any. Apparently, there were some. Did we vote on any? The noble Lord will know better than me.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
In the House, we had some very good debates and amendments that were debated. When the Government published their revised national policy statements, they took every single amendment and most of the comments that had been made and responded to them. Apart from the issue of approval, which of course is new in this Bill, and is confined to another place—the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has a lot of amendments down on that—I would have thought that the way in which the Government have handled the national policy statements has been exemplary.
Lord Greaves
I stand reprimanded by the noble Lord. All this excitement obviously took place in a period when I could not be in the House. I still think what I thought at the time—that the best way to scrutinise detailed documents such as this is to have a Select Committee-type scrutiny process. If that could be combined with the exciting dénouement debate in the House that the noble Lord spoke about, that would perhaps be the best solution.
This will be a very important, overriding and high-level document. I am starting to use American management jargon: next I shall start talking about deep-diving into the detail and that sort of rubbish, but never mind. One of the great things about these Committees is that we veer from talking about high-level things to debating how they will affect a particular group of allotments or whatever.
My second point is a question to the Government. What is the timetable—perhaps I have missed this—for the phasing out of planning policy statements and the phasing in of the NPPF? Local authorities are in some sort of limbo as regards planning policy statements and planning policy guidance. They still employ people to make sure that their local development documents are in accord with them, but they are not sure to what extent they are wasting their time, or whether it is useful work as guidance for what they are doing. At what stage will there be a changeover? Will the planning policy statement suddenly cease to have any validity when the new system comes in? When that happens, what will local planning authorities do with the work they are doing? Will they have to start again from scratch if they are half way through developing their core strategy in order to make sure that it accords with the new national policy planning framework, as opposed to all the documents that they have been working on until now? Many local planning authorities are in limbo. They are not sure what is going to happen and could do with advice on what to do.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, this has been a useful debate, which has reinforced our previous debate and put the NPPF at the heart of it. In its absence, we can but note its significance and importance in relation to the Bill. I will start by reassuring the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, that the Government plan a full public consultation on the document—it will not be just for Parliament to debate the matter—and will follow established best practice for consultations. We have already sought a variety of consultations in formulating the NPPF, including with community groups.
Bearing in mind the interest of noble Lords in this matter, I will ask that as soon as it is published copies will be made available to all noble Lords who have participated in the debate. I appreciate that there may be an interval before we in the House are able to debate this. That is a matter for the House authorities, not for the Government. However, it is an important part of the discussion of this document.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, there is a great appetite to see the document. However, on the matter of timing, I note that the noble Lord said that the consultation will accord with best practice. Will that include taking account of the August holiday period, given that publication is likely to be just as that starts?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I assure my noble friend Lady Hamwee that this is at the heart of what we are trying to achieve.
The Government are not seeking to railway—I am looking at the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and I immediately think of railways—railroad this through. They want it to be a proper discussion document because it is going to be at the heart of the planning process. Indeed, community involvement is going to be vital in the planning system at the local level where plans are created and decisions are taken. Community engagement is embedded at the heart of the planning process through tools, such as the statement of community involvement, to ensure that local people are involved in the shaping of their area.
There is no need formally in legislation to forge a link between the framework and sustainable development because the latter has long been the basis for all planning policy, as I said in the previous debate. It will be a core principle of the new framework. The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked about where plans are not up to date. The NPPF will be able to provide a clear basis for determining applications. It will be up to decision-makers to decide the weight to give to the plan and the NPPF in each case.
I understand the desire to put a presumption in favour of sustainable development on a statutory footing as it should be central to the way the reform of planning policy works, but in making it central to the NPPF, as we propose, we believe we can do that without creating conflicts with existing legislation, as this amendment would do. For example, we could not, as proposed here, require in law all individual proposals to be approved wherever possible and still have a plan-led system.
Turning to the proposals put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, the transport planning policy has been set out within the national policy. This is the best place to spell out how the impact of new development should be considered through the planning system. Legally, decision-makers must have regard to national policy where it is material to their decision, and transport issues are one of the material considerations routinely taken into account. Importantly, policy is more flexible and more capable of responding swiftly to changes in circumstances than legislation. Therefore, I do not think it is appropriate to make changes to transport policy through legislative means, particularly when the Government are due to publish the NPPF, which will include transport policy. If changes are required to transport policy, they should be carefully considered as part of that consultation and, if appropriate, taken forward through the NPPF.
Moving to the next issue, the proposal that the NPPF should be able to trump all other plans where there is an inconsistency fundamentally changes the way the plan-led system is designed to operate. At local level, this is unnecessary and deeply centralising. Section 19(2) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 means that local plans should be prepared having regard to national policy, which will include the new NPPF. The Planning Act 2008 requires decisions on major infrastructure projects to be taken in accordance with any relevant national policy statement. There is a national need for a new infrastructure, and it is essential for growth. That is why the Government are establishing what is needed and how planning decisions should be taken for those national-level schemes that will have impacts and benefits beyond the local area. Each infrastructure sector is different, which is why we are urgently pressing ahead with sector-specific national policy statements rather than a single national policy statement to cover all sectors.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
Can the Minister confirm what has always been my understanding that the national policy statements will continue to exist and operate under the 2008 Act alongside the new national planning framework? It is not, as I understood the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, to suggest, that one is going to sweep away the other.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My noble friend Lord Jenkin is absolutely right. I am happy to confirm that and I thank him for his helpful intervention to clarify that point. Of course, the two run in parallel and the design is that they should be in harmony.
Lord Berkeley
That is good news and what I understood myself. Will the Minister give any indication of when the missing national policy statements might see the light of day? They keep being delayed and delayed. Some are published in draft form but it would be nice to see them and eventually debate them.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Like the train, one might say that they will be along in due course, but I do not have the timetable to hand. I am left rather, as is the noble Lord, waiting on the platform. They are on their way. I think that the most urgent document we want to see is the NPPF. I am sure that is where we all stand on this issue.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I have a note here to say that we are working with the lead departments to ensure that the national policy statements and the NPPF work in concert. We see them as being in harmony with each other. I have a note which might be useful to my noble friend Lord Greaves. He asked for the timetable of phasing out PPSs. The current suite of policy and guidance will remain in place until the NPPF is finalised but we will notify the arrangements in that respect. I would imagine that the NPPF will influence planners immediately after it is published.
Perhaps I may say to my noble friend Lady Hamwee that the consultation period will continue way beyond the summer, as I implied in my opening statement.
Baroness Andrews
This may be the only time we get a chance to discuss the NPPF. I understand that guidance on the NPPF is being prepared. It will be very important because the NPPF is a reduction of principle and it is vital that local authorities in particular understand exactly what they are meant to do. The production of guidance alongside the NPPF is critical. Will we be able to see the guidance as well when the NPPF is published and will there be an opportunity for the House to have a look at that at some point? That will be very important.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I cannot give an answer to the noble Baroness at this moment but I can assure her that when the copy of the NPPF is sent, I will accompany it with a letter giving the arrangements for the guidance to go with it. I hope that that will help the noble Baroness. In the mean time, I hope that this has been a useful debate. It has rather reinforced the debate we had earlier and I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for his reply and for the contributions from other noble Lords. I am not a veteran of past debates and discussions around planning and I am not sure yet whether that is a disadvantage or an advantage. Perhaps I should assess the matter at the end of proceedings.
The noble Lord, Lord Reay, is right. There is no point in debating the document if we do not have it—so the sooner we get it, the better. I would not agree with him on climate change but it looks as though that will be a subject for debate as our deliberations proceed. As the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said, this is a very important document. I am a little unclear from the Minister whether he supports the principle that there should be in the Bill an obligation to produce an NPPF and some parliamentary process attached to that. I am not asking for the content of it but whether he supports the principle. I may have missed it when the Minister was responding, but I am not sure that he dealt with that point. I understand that, as a parliamentary process, a Select Committee might be a more productive route than a few days on the Floor of this House, although that can be good fun as well. I should be interested in the Minister’s view on that.
I apologise to my noble friend Lord Berkeley. I had not realised that his amendment had been grouped with this one. As the Minister said, it is, perhaps, more prescriptive. My understanding was that national policy statements sit alongside the NPPF, and I think that is what the Minister has confirmed. I am happy to withdraw the amendment but before I do so, can the Minister say what the problem is with having a requirement in the Bill to produce an NPPF? That requirement is not there. What is it that obliges a Government to keep it up to date?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
The noble Lord is quite right: there is no reference to the NPPF in the Bill. The Government have no intention at this stage to include it in the Bill, but we will listen to any argument that the noble Lord puts forward and consider the matter. However, it is not the Government’s intention to produce an amendment to put a reference to the NPPF in the Bill.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Will the Minister just say why? I know it is not there at the moment and that he will not accept this amendment, but why do the Government not wish to put that in the Bill?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I am answering the question directly. I think the noble Lord wants to know what the Government’s position is. The rationale behind it, I expect—I am only deducing this—is that the Government want flexibility in the mechanisms that they use in national policy frameworks in future and in any replacement device that they might consider necessary. Not enshrining the NPPF in primary legislation makes it easier to change the arrangements. None the less, there is determination at the moment to use the NPPF as the main device. I have some advice on this matter which may help. The law already requires a local planning authority, when making plans, to have regard to policies and guidance issued by the Secretary of State. As we know, the NPPF is a replacement for that guidance and advice. Therefore, this applies to the NPPF. The NPPF’s authority derives not from this Bill but from the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act and the Town and Country Planning Act. In the absence of an NPPF, the Secretary of State would still be obliged to issue guidance under those Acts. That is where the NPPF fits into the equation.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, again, I am grateful to the Minister for that response. As I understand it, he is saying that local planning authorities must have regard to what the Secretary of State issues. The missing link is what requires the Secretary of State to produce the framework. This is an issue to which I should like to return. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“(3A) Subsection (3) shall not apply to those policies in an approved regional strategy that have been specifically referred to as part of the policy content of a Local Development Framework submitted under section 20(1) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (independent examination) in advance of the coming into force of this section.
(3B) Subsection (3A) shall apply until whichever is the earlier of—
(a) at the end of the period of three years starting with the date on which regional strategies are revoked under subsection (3) above,(b) the day when in relation to a policy covered by subsection (3A), a new policy which expressly replaces it is adopted or approved.”
Lord Best
My Lords, Amendment 147FG relates to Clause 94 and the abolition of regional strategies. I fully accept that regional spatial strategies are to be abolished and the Government will not want to extend their life. However, there is a danger of a hiatus before the issues currently covered by the regional spatial strategies can be properly incorporated into new local development plans by the relevant local planning authorities.
Quite apart from the many cases where no local development framework has been completed, there are the situations where a local development framework has been properly finalised, but refers specifically to items in a regional spatial strategy which will now disappear, or where the local development framework is silent on an issue because it is addressed by a regional spatial strategy and those preparing their local development framework were encouraged to exclude matters already set out in a regional spatial strategy, particularly relating to environmental aspects of the plan. The local development framework has gone through its planning inquiry exercise with evidence in public and endorsement by the planning inspectorate. If it wishes to change its contents now to take on board those items which the abolition of the regional spatial strategy means are no longer in place, it has to go through a partial review, through the whole consultative process all over again. With cuts in staffing levels, not least in growth areas, through the loss of the previous planning and housing delivery grant for extra staff and IT, getting into a new local development plan exercise will be expensive and problematic.
My amendment to Clause 94, Amendment 147FG, would mean the retention of those items in regional spatial strategies which local development frameworks relied upon, but which will evaporate with the abolition of the old regional spatial strategies. This transitional measure would stay in place for up to three years, giving local authorities the chance to produce a new local development plan that can take into account the fact that the RSS no longer exists. I have resisted suggestions that I table an amendment that would retain regional spatial strategies until such time as all the new local development plans are prepared and approved. Indeed, it will be necessary for local development plans to embrace the new national planning policy framework’s content in due course and this will include the definition of sustainable development, which will thereby be incorporated into local development plans. However, all this is some months away. Nevertheless, I do not think that hanging on to the regional spatial strategy would be acceptable to the Government. Instead, I am hoping that the Minister likes this way of approaching the transitional problems that particularly face the 40 per cent of local authorities that have been efficient enough to produce their local development framework. The amendment would let them avoid having to go through the LDF process all over again simply because some words in the regional spatial strategies were not repeated in their own local development framework.
The Royal Town Planning Institute feels that this amendment would be of considerable help and I hope that the Government will look sympathetically at it in order to help local planning authorities get through this transitional phase to the new system. I beg to move.
Baroness Andrews
My Lords, this is a very important amendment and it is supported by other organisations as well as the RTPI. I hope that the Government will take this in the spirit in which it is intended. I believe that this is an oversight, in fact, and one which, unless it is addressed will really make life difficult for, ironically, the very assiduous local authorities which completed their LDFs, as the noble Lord, Lord Best, says. I will not say that we have given up the case, because I believe that regional spatial strategies had a great deal to offer, but we are not revisiting that debate at all here. This is about a transitional situation, where a local authority has its LDF in place, but where it has preferred, to save itself time and resources and to be consistent, to use the content of the RSS as a way of indicating what its policies—on housing supply and distribution, on climate change—will be. It is now in a very difficult position, if there is this lacuna, because, obviously, with the RSS having gone, the content has been abandoned as well, or put into some strange sort of limbo.
It is very important that we do not waste those resources, such as the information and the data sets. More importantly, the local authority should not have to waste time and resources by revisiting those matters or by reiterating the process through a partial review. That would not make any sense. Therefore, it is extremely important that the Government look closely at this provision to see what can be done, which I suspect would not be too difficult to do. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Best, has a good amendment here.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I, too, support the thrust of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Best. I am concerned that the change-over to the new system will simply result in more delay and more expense for local planning authorities that have struggled to produce their local development frameworks—or local plans, as we may now have to call them.
My Amendment 147H is slightly different. It seeks to tackle part of the same problem, but it looks at the issue from the point of view of the local planning authority rather than from that of the regional strategy. My amendment reads:
“The provisions of this section do not affect the validity of any local development documents or of any policies contained in any local development document whether or not any such policy was adopted in order to be in conformity with a regional strategy or structure plan”—
the old structure plans were incorporated pro tem into the regional strategies, although I do not know how much of them survive. The crucial thing is that, if a local planning authority is taking its core strategy, for example, to an inquiry for examination, the strategy should not be torn apart just because those aspects of it that have been adopted in order to be in conformity with the regional strategy—or regional spatial strategy—would no longer need to be so if the local authority was starting again from scratch. Although the local authority might be able to argue that a policy is good for this reason or that reason, the true reason that a policy has been included might be in order to achieve conformity with the regional strategy. The issue is as simple as that.
Under the old system, the local authority’s approach to the examination could be to say, “It is there because it has to be there,” and that would have been the end of the argument. However, the inspector might now say, “Yes, but we have a new system now, so are you sure that this applies to your area?”. As we know, the imposition of regional policies has not always been in accord with what was desirable in a particular area, such as was the case with the old housing targets. As the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, will remember, in East Lancashire we fought for a long time with the Government to be allowed planning permission for new housing. Because the housing targets were so low and had all been achieved, we were not allowed to give housing permission for housing that we wanted. That was a total nonsense as a result of the planning system being too prescriptive and too top-down. We were in the opposite position to that of authorities in the south-east, which were arguing against being forced to build too many houses.
However, that has all gone now. I do not know how much the noble Baroness had to do with this, but when I asked a Question in your Lordships’ House, the Answer that I got from her colleague the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, started a process. It then took a year before what Ministers were saying here and in the Commons filtered down to grass roots, but it actually changed what was happening, and I was very grateful for that. That is very good example of how the old system did not work very well.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, briefly, I support Amendment 147FG for the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Best, has very fully described. Basically, the policies were two sides of the same coin and, if one set of strategies drops off the edge, that will give rise to the possible confusion and legal challenges that have been mentioned.
I also support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. If I understand what he said, his amendment is slightly different, in that it would provide that, where policies from the structure plan are still around, they would be saved. In a sense, that is unlike the situation where the policies do not exist at local level because they disappeared with the regional spatial strategy. I would certainly support the thrust of his amendment as well.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for raising this issue because it is important that the Government have an opportunity to explain their position on it. I am also grateful that noble Lords have not sought to revisit the fundamental decision.
We know that the difficulty with regional strategies is that they imposed policies and targets on local councils and communities. As my noble friend Lord Greaves said, this has created a certain antagonism and set people against development. As a result, the regional strategy process has been controversial and protracted, creating uncertainty for communities and investors. In reality, the process has not been effective. Regional strategies did not deliver the housing that the country needs, and housebuilding fell to the lowest peacetime level since 1923-24.
In proposing Amendment 147FG, the noble Lord, Lord Best, seeks to allow councils to retain regional strategy policies for a three-year transitional period, but the Government do not agree that there is a need for this sort of transitional arrangement. The coalition agreement clearly set out the Government’s intention to abolish regional strategies and to return democratic decision-making powers on housing and planning to local councils. The Government’s intention to abolish regional strategies has therefore been public knowledge for some time, so we do not consider a further period for transition to be necessary.
Baroness Andrews
My Lords, this is not the point. We agree that regional spatial strategies should not be revisited; we are not challenging that point. The point is that there is a gap in the ability of local authorities to develop and implement the policies that they have already agreed, because the content was in the regional spatial strategy. What allowance will be made for those local authorities which might now have to go through a partial review and reinvent it all? Why is it so difficult simply to allow them to save those policies? I am sorry for having interrupted the Minister prematurely, but I just felt that he was not addressing the point that we had made.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I may not be addressing the immediate point of the debate; I was trying to put the Government’s position in the context of their wanting to set the drivers for local authorities to address this issue and set about these reviews as quickly as possible. We did not want to leave the regional spatial strategies in place as a backstop, because the drivers for change must come from local authorities undertaking the review themselves.
We recommend that any reviews be undertaken as quickly as possible. That will enable councils to move away from an inflexible, top-down approach, which I think the noble Baroness will admit was the effect of the regional strategies, and take a lead in planning to meet the aspirations of their local communities.
Councils are perfectly capable of addressing strategic issues locally, working with adjoining authorities—we will talk about the duty to co-operate when we meet again—and other bodies as needed. The duty to co-operate will help them to work together. We know that some councils are already forging ahead and developing strategic policies in their local plans.
Reviews should be proportionate, focusing on relevant key issues. Councils do not need to undertake wholesale reviews as a result of the change. Plans must be based on robust evidence and be deliverable, otherwise they will not have the confidence of communities or investors and may not pass the tests of soundness at independent examination. I reassure noble Lords that the same evidence that informed the preparation of regional strategies can be used to support local plan policies.
Amendment 147FH would ensure that policies in existing local plans which were originally drafted in conformity with saved structure plan policies, or regional strategies, were not undermined by the revocation of these policies. As with the Government’s intention to revoke regional strategies, the commitment to revoke the saved structure planning policy has been known for some time and, for the reasons I have already given, we do not think that the amendment is necessary. Councils will be free to incorporate elements of saved structure plans and revoked regional strategies into their local plans when they review them. It will be for them to decide how much of these policies they wish to retain for their areas.
Revoking regional strategies is an important part of our proposals—I think the Committee recognises that—to decentralise decisions on housing and planning to local councils and communities. It will make local plans drawn up in conformity with national policy the basis for local planning decisions and put greater power in the hands of local councils and communities. If councils intend to review their local plans once regional strategies are revoked, they should do so quickly and in a proportionate way. There is no necessity for transitional arrangements.
With these assurances, I hope the noble Lord is willing to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
The Minister referred to the inclusion in the coalition agreement of the abolition of the regional spatial strategies, and all noble Lords understand that. I am sure that the Government would not say that local authorities should work on the basis that regional change had happened as a result of an announcement, as distinct from within legislation. If I am right about that, can the Minister give the Committee any news about when the Government intend to bring what will be Section 94 into force? Its commencement might answer some of the points about transition. It strikes me that there is a relationship there.
Baroness Andrews
My Lords, requiring local authorities to go through this process is completely inimical to the idea of localism. As I understand it, the Government’s policy is to reduce burdens on local authorities, but I do not know whether the problem that is being addressed is a political problem—we understand why the Government want to get rid of regional strategies—or a methodological problem; you cannot save these regional spatial strategies if you have abolished them. I do not whether the Government are wrestling with a practical problem or a political problem.
On the basis of the information that I have received, I know that in every previous attempt at moving from one planning system to another there have been transitional arrangements and a capacity to save plans. This has meant consistency and the saving of time and resources for local authorities. The noble Lord, Lord Best, and I are genuinely trying to help the Government in this situation and to help local authorities to avoid having to go through an elaborate double process.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, perhaps it would help if I reiterate what I said before. There is no conflict here. It is possible to inform the review on the evidence provided by the regional strategies and to form the new plans on that basis. Indeed, elements from the regional strategy can be included in them, as I have made clear. It is important to see this as an evolutionary change. We believe that the drivers to get local authorities to address this issue need to make it quite clear that local authorities are responsible for it.
The noble Baroness rather oversimplified what localism means in the sense that it would release the burden on local authorities. It will not; in many ways it will increase the responsibilities that local authorities will have in forming their own destiny and their own policies. It is an oversimplification to say that this Bill is about relieving the burdens; it is about delivering a much more community-led planning policy. That is why the Government are very keen to make sure that it comes into effect as quickly as possible.
I cannot answer the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, unless it is on the piece of paper that I have just been given. It says that revoking the eight regional strategies will be by commencement order as soon as practical after Royal Assent.
Lord Greaves
The Minister said, about amending the local development frameworks or documents, that authorities should get on and do it quickly. Does he have any understanding of how long it actually takes to do these things, even for an efficient authority? Can he give us an estimate of the delay that that will take in a typical authority?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
When I made my introduction to the Government’s position on this, I hope that I made it quite clear that we go back to May of last year for indications of what the Government would require of local authorities in this respect. I cannot believe that local authorities have been sitting there, waiting for this to happen. I believe that local authorities are sufficiently on top of the job to know what they are required to do to make their local plan that much more relevant to their community. I believe that they feel liberated because of that and I think that most of them will eventually set about that process. Indeed, many of them will already be well down the road.
Lord Best
My Lords, I must confess to being a bit disappointed. I clearly did not explain the position adequately. When I asked the people behind these proposals what they expected the Government to do about this, I was told that they thought the Government would be very pleased not necessarily to accept the wording of the amendment but to have a peg to hang something on to handle the transitional problem that faces local authorities. It faces in particular the good guys, who have already prepared their local development frameworks. Just for a partial review of the local development framework, they will have to go through the whole process of hearing evidence in public, getting the planning inspectorate back again and allowing all kinds of people to come and make their case. They may need that partial review just because the framework had referred to a regional spatial strategy that suddenly did not exist and could not be referred to any more, or because it was silent about a particular ingredient because the authority was encouraged by the DCLG not to put in something that the regional spatial strategy already had in it. Those are technical changes that will require a whole bureaucratic process to be restarted, when we could have a quite simple transitional arrangement.
I had rather hoped that the Government would say, “We will fix this, maybe not in the way that you suggested—but we absolutely understand that nobody wants to go through all that bureaucracy just for nothing, since it is a very expensive exercise. We will sort it”. I confess to being rather disappointed at this stage, but I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.