House of Commons

Monday 17th October 2011 Commons Chamber

Monday 17 October 2011

The House met at half-past Two o’clock

Prayers

Monday 17th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Monday 17th October 2011 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

1. What assessment he has made of the 2011 GCSE results for academies; and if he will make a statement.

[The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr Nick Gibb)]

The 2011 GCSE self-reported figures from academies suggest an increase of 5.6 percentage points in the proportion of pupils achieving five or more GCSEs at grades A* to C, including English and maths. That increase is, once again, greater than the historical national improvement rates for all maintained schools. Individual 2011 GCSE school level results will be not be available until January 2012.

[Annette Brooke]

I thank the Minister for his answer, and I congratulate all those pupils who did so well this summer, but I seek assurances from him. In the event of less than 10% of an academy's pupils achieving five A to C grades at GCSE, or even of less than 5%, would he expect full involvement from the local authority, playing a key role? Also, will he be giving support from his Department?

[Mr Gibb]

Where the performance of an academy is unacceptably low, we will ensure that urgent action is taken to bring about sustained improvement. There is nothing to prevent local authorities from offering help to underperforming academies, but ultimately it is for the academy or the sponsor to decide whether to accept that help. The success of the academies programme has meant a changing role for local authorities and they will have an important role to play as the champions of pupils and parents in the area, ensuring both sufficiency and quality of places.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

Many head teachers and governors in my constituency tell me that they feel pressurised into converting to academy status, not only because of the financial incentives but because it is the Government’s policy that as many schools as possible should become academies. Could the Minister say whether that is the case and explain the role of local authorities in state education in future?

[Mr Gibb]

There is no compulsion to convert to academy status, but all the evidence from around the world is that three factors give rise to higher performance: autonomy, high-quality teaching and external accountabilities—and it is autonomy that head teachers seek when they apply for academy status. There is no incentive, financially, to become an academy, as academies are funded on exactly the same basis as maintained schools.

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

Wootton Bassett comprehensive was, until Friday, an outstanding comprehensive, having achieved outstanding results in all five categories. Will the Minister join me in congratulating what from today will be called Royal Wootton Bassett academy on its achievement?

[Mr Gibb]

I congratulate both Royal Wootton Bassett and the school. It is a tremendous achievement for the town, and the academic results that my hon. Friend cites are a tribute to the teachers at that school.

[Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am pleased to join the Minister in welcoming the GCSE results of academies in 2011; their progress in English and maths is especially welcome. Some of them have focused successfully on improving vocational education —progress which is not reflected in the Government’s E-bac. Will the Secretary of State give serious consideration to creating a technical baccalaureate as has been proposed by many, including the Minister’s noble friend Lord Baker?

[Mr Gibb]

May I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his post? I know that he has a passion for education and I look forward to working with him in the months and years ahead.

The English baccalaureate is designed to increase the take-up in our schools of history, geography and modern foreign languages, which has declined significantly in recent years, particularly in modern languages since 2004. That is something we seek to reverse. However, the E-bac is sufficiently small to enable pupils to take a vocational subject in addition to the E-bac and to take music, art, economics—[Interruption.]—and religious education, indeed, and all the other subjects that pupils want to take.

[Stephen Twigg]

We will return to that in later questions.

The Government give the impression that they are interested only in the progress of academies and free schools. I welcome the great results that academies have achieved, but can the Minister tell me what proportion of the schools that he and the Secretary of State have visited are neither academies nor free schools?

[Mr Gibb]

Certainly the vast majority of schools that I have visited are maintained schools, and that may well be the case for the Secretary of State—we can send the hon. Gentleman the figures. It is important that we raise standards right across the board, and that is why the Secretary of State has raised the floor standards for all schools to 35% this year and to 40% from next year. By the end of the Parliament, we expect all schools to have at least half of their pupils achieving five good GCSEs.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

Question 2, Mr Speaker—no, Question 3.

[Mr Speaker]

We are grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is discussing mathematics.

[Duncan Hames]

3. What his policy is on the inclusion of financial education in the mathematics GCSE.

[The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning (Mr John Hayes)]

I should have more than a normal spring in my step today, because my son, William, passed his 11-plus, and I heard about it this weekend.

The Government are currently reviewing the national curriculum, which will go out to public consultation in the new year. We will await the outcomes of that work before making any decisions on the content of GCSE mathematics, to ensure that it aligns with the new national curriculum and reflects the core mathematical knowledge and skills that young people need.

[Duncan Hames]

Only in this place could three follow one.

Having taken as many maths qualifications as I possibly could when at school, I certainly appreciate the eternal beauty of geometry, but does the Minister not accept that, for many school leavers in today’s world, it is more valuable to understand the true value of a compound annual growth rate on an investment or, more likely, the annual percentage rate on a loan?

[Mr Hayes]

The hon. Gentleman is right that finance education matters. Indeed, as a governor of the George Ward school in his constituency, he will take seriously the role that core mathematical education plays in providing people with those applied mathematical skills necessary for their well-being and our collective well-being. The Government take that seriously, and we will certainly work to ensure that maths does the job that it should.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

4. What progress has been made towards resolving the dispute at the Cardinal Vaughan memorial school.

[The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)]

In the past week, I have spoken to parents at the Vaughan and the diocesan authorities. I am confident that the appointment of a new headmaster will bring new harmony.

[Mr Leigh]

I thank the Secretary of State most warmly for his personal efforts in trying to resolve this matter and in ensuring that, finally, the diocese caved in last week and a head teacher was appointed in line with parent wishes, but I wonder what lessons can be learned—in particular, to ensure that, in future, education authorities, whether or not diocesan, understand that the whole ethos of our policy is to enable parents, not education authorities, to have the dominant say in the governance of schools?

[Michael Gove]

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words. The Vaughan is an outstanding school, and the diocese and the Department are determined to do everything possible to ensure that it remains outstanding in the future. One of the changes that is being made in the other place by my noble Friend Lord Hill is a change to the provision that relates to governors, to ensure that parent governors and foundation governors who are drawn from the ranks of parents accurately represent the parents’ wishes, because part of the Vaughan’s success has been the close relationship between the parents who love the school and the teachers who have made it so great.

[Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)]

5. What consideration he has given to offering two GCSEs in mathematics.

[The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr Nick Gibb)]

We are reviewing the national curriculum requirements for mathematics and will take decisions on the content and number of maths GCSEs in the light of the review. A pilot of a pair of mathematics GCSEs—applications of mathematics and methods in mathematics —began last September and continues to 2013. Evidence from the pilot will also inform our decisions.

[Justin Tomlinson]

As part of the review, may I urge the Minister to provide an opportunity to include financial education as part of the syllabus?

[Mr Gibb]

My hon. Friend has worked tirelessly on financial education, and the all-party group on financial education for young people, which he chairs, is about to produce a report, following its inquiry into the issue. As he has said, financial education is important, and we will look carefully at his report when it is published and its conclusions will be taken into account as part of the national curriculum review and the review of personal, social and health education.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

On 19 June, an AQA GCSE maths examination paper contained an error, along with two other exam papers. How could that be, as a week earlier, we were told that every exam paper had been rechecked for mistakes? What has gone wrong, and what explanation has been given to the Minister?

[Mr Gibb]

The hon. Gentleman is right to raise these issues. The number of errors in exam papers this summer was unacceptable. A review is being conducted by Ofqual, which will report later in the year. As a consequence of the errors that took place this summer, we have reviewed Ofqual’s powers, and in another place, we are considering introducing into the Education Bill new powers for Ofqual to fine the awarding organisations when they are not delivering high-quality exams without error.

[Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that the distinction between methods and applications is spurious in a subject that is all about practice, and that instead we should have mathematics and additional mathematics at GCSE, or pure and applied? That would be more logical and more mathematical.

[Mr Gibb]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her passion for the subject of maths education in this country. She is right to raise, and continue to raise, the issue. We will wait to see the outcome of the pilot of the twin maths GCSEs, and we will take into account its conclusions before considering what further reforms to maths GCSE we will make.

[Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

6. What assessment he has made of the potential effect on student choices of the English baccalaureate.

[The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)]

A survey of nearly 700 schools indicates that the English baccalaureate is having an immediate impact on subject choices. The numbers of students electing to study modern foreign languages, geography, history, physics, chemistry and biology are all up.

[Tony Baldry]

Is my right hon. Friend aware that secondary schools report a significant decline in the number of students opting to study religious studies? The reason given is that it is not included in the E-bac. This year, will he at least give thought to whether, in the humanities, there could be a choice of two out of three subjects—geography, history and religious studies? If religious studies is not included in the E-bac, it will be increasingly marginalised.

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. He is a very effective spokesman for the Church of England, and indeed for the place of faith in the nation’s life. However, the data suggest that the number of people taking religious studies at GCSE is rising. It was up 17.6% to 222,000 in the last set of figures that we have, overtaking history and geography.

[Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Secretary of State say whether he, his officials or his advisers are using private e-mail accounts in assessing the impact of the baccalaureate? Does he accept the Information Commissioner’s view that private e-mail accounts that are used to talk about Government policy could be the subject of freedom of information requests?

[Michael Gove]

I admire the elegance with which the hon. Gentleman manages to insinuate into his question a matter that is dramatically different from issues relating to the English baccalaureate. All Government business in the Department for Education is at all times conducted with extreme propriety.

[Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD)]

In consideration of the impact of the English baccalaureate, will the Secretary of State discuss with Ofsted how it should evaluate schools’ performance to ensure that work on vocational and other subjects is taken into account?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. The English baccalaureate is a powerful nudge to encourage take-up in the sorts of subjects that lead students to be able to progress to good universities and great jobs, but it is important that Ofsted applies a nuanced measurement when it judges how schools are performing, and schools that do superbly in vocational, technical, cultural and other areas should expect Ofsted to applaud them as well.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Secretary of State will have seen that on Thursday the Skills Commission launched a report on the training of technicians. We desperately need more technicians, and there is great fear that the changes in the curriculum will squeeze out design and technology, which is, for many students, often the bridge to science, technology, engineering and maths subjects.

[Michael Gove]

That is a very fair point, and design and technology has many powerful champions, including the hon. Gentleman, but I would emphasise that the single most important thing that we can do if we are to ensure a generation of not just technicians but manufacturing leaders in future is make sure that we perform better in mathematics and that there are more students studying physics and chemistry. They are the key to success, and one of the reasons why the English baccalaureate has been so successful is that it has encouraged students to study those essential subjects.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there have always been core subjects and option subjects, and that the value of the E-bac is in signalling the most widely valued core subjects without precluding option subjects? That advice is of most value to the most disadvantaged in our society.

[Michael Gove]

That is a typically acute point from my hon. Friend. The subjects in the E-bac bear a close resemblance to the sorts of subjects in an Arnoldian vision of liberal education but, more than that, they are the subjects that modern universities and 21st-century employers increasingly demand. One of the problems that we have had in the past is that too few students from poorer areas have been able to access and benefit from great subject-teaching in those disciplines.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

The first university technical college in the country, the JCB academy, achieved 0% this year in the Secretary of State’s misleadingly titled English baccalaureate. I presume from what he has just said that he regards that as a failure, or are the rumours true and is he just distancing himself now from his Schools Minister’s pet policy?

[Michael Gove]

I was asked last week by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) about the JCB academy, and by his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), about the JCB academy, so let me repeat once again for the slower learners at the back of the class: I applaud the amazing achievements of the JCB academy. The English baccalaureate is just one measure of excellence and there are many others. As I underlined last week, the success of the university technical college—a school whose success was made possible by a Conservative party donor and whose success is burnished by Conservative party policies—is a success that I am happy to trumpet from any platform.

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)]

7. What assessment he has made of the effects of the withdrawal of bursary funding on PGCE students who commenced their courses in September.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Tim Loughton)]

All PGCE students can apply for the same student support as undergraduate students, including maintenance loans and means-tested grants. As an additional recruitment incentive, the Department pays bursaries. These are adjusted regularly according to the size of the pool of potential teachers and the demand from schools for new teachers. For certain subjects we have therefore removed the bursaries for 2011-12. Other subjects, including maths, foreign languages and sciences, attract bursaries of up to £9,000.

[Caroline Nokes]

Can the Minister tell the House how the changes to the bursaries have affected recruitment to initial teacher training courses this year?

[Tim Loughton]

The hon. Lady is right. We will have recruitment numbers to courses in November, when the Training and Development Agency for Schools has completed its census of training providers. That will include the figures for initial teacher training, but it looks as though we will have high numbers of quality applicants in all subjects. The latest evidence suggests that this will be another strong year for recruitment, and that we are on course for the best year ever in the recruitment of physics and chemistry trainees in particular.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

8. What progress he has made on extending support for children with special educational needs.

[The Minister of State, Department for Education (Sarah Teather)]

We have finished consultation on our Green Paper, “Support and aspiration: A new approach to special educational needs and disability”. Twenty pathfinders, covering 31 local authority areas, are under way and will be testing proposals set out in the Green Paper. We will publish details of how we will respond to the consultation and take forward the development of special educational needs and disability provision by the end of the year.

[Richard Graham]

Some of the experiences of my constituents suggest that adopted children are especially vulnerable to developing special educational needs as a result of trauma. Would the Minister consider extending support to adoptive parents, especially information and advice, so that any latent special educational needs of adopted children can be identified as early as possible?

[Sarah Teather]

The critical issue is that children in care have particularly high levels of special educational needs. We need to get better at picking up those needs at an early stage and putting in place the right kind of care and support package for those children so that their needs are not latent and not picked up by the time the children are being put up for adoption. I announced in September which areas would begin the pathfinders. Some of those local authorities will be looking specifically at how they can improve that process of assessment for children in care. I hope that will make significant differences as we begin to learn the results of that for families who adopt a child.

[Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)]

The Minister touched on the issue of children in care with special needs. Many children with special needs are those living in situations of domestic violence. The Minister’s colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), recently sent a foreword to support Operation Encompass, which is based in Plymouth. Will the Minister agree to meet those involved, such as Police Sergeant Carney Howarth, and teachers to hear first hand how they are supporting vulnerable young people and how they quickly identify those whose education could be adversely affected by domestic violence, leading to special needs?

[Sarah Teather]

I am sure that I or my colleague, depending who is most appropriate, will be happy to meet people to discuss that matter.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

I am pleased that the Minister seems to be aware that looked-after children are nine times more likely than their peers to have special educational needs, yet while the number of children in care is increasing, support for special educational needs is decreasing. A recent report from Action for Children suggests that the impact of Government cuts on children and families will mean even more children being at risk of neglect and taken into care. There is no time to waste. What action will the Minister take now to reverse these worrying trends?

[Sarah Teather]

I welcome the hon. Lady to the Front Bench and look forward to working with her on these issues. I know that she has taken a particular interest in looked-after children and children in care. We have made it clear to local authorities that the early intervention grant should be spent on early intervention. We know that it is difficult for local authorities at the moment, just as it is difficult for the Government. We are all having to make difficult decisions, but I think that local authorities are the right people to make those decisions. In areas that are beginning pathfinder work, we will be able to test exactly how we can ensure that we support children with special educational needs better in a range of settings.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

9. How many university technical colleges he expects to open in 2012.

[The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)]

We now have 16 new university technical colleges approved, up to half of which may open in September 2012.

[Philip Davies]

May I tell the Secretary of State how much I support the introduction of UTCs, but will he guarantee that they will not be delayed by any unnecessary bureaucracy and red tape and that he will ensure that the process is not frustrated and slowed down by officials in his Department?

[Michael Gove]

When it comes to dealing with bureaucracy and red tape, the officials in my Department are allies. They are terrible, swift swords cutting through the bureaucracy that has so far held this country back.

[Meg Munn (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab/Co-op)]

This country is desperately short of skills in science, engineering and technology and far too few girls and women study those subjects. What will the Secretary of State do to ensure that at least 50% of the pupils who will go to UTCs are female?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady and know that she has recently completed a report on some of the barriers to young women taking advantage of the opportunities in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. A new UTC is opening in Sheffield and I hope to be able to work with her to ensure that it generates enthusiasm among boys and girls in Sheffield and across South Yorkshire for the superb education it will offer.

[Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)]

The Secretary of State will perhaps be aware of recent correspondence I sent to his ministerial team about the possibility of opening a UTC in Newton Abbot. Has he had an opportunity to consider the proposal, which would transform our local economy, and would one of his team be prepared to meet me to discuss it?

[Michael Gove]

One of my team will be more than happy to meet my hon. Friend—I imagine my colleagues will be fighting to see her. Plymouth is already benefitting from a new UTC, but there is no reason why other equally beautiful parts of Devon should not also benefit.

[Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)]

10. What assessment he has made of reductions in the budgets for Sure Start children’s centres in the financial year (a) 2010-11 and (b) 2011-12.

[The Minister of State, Department for Education (Sarah Teather)]

There was no reduction in revenue funding for Sure Start children’s centres in 2010-11. From April 2011, funding for children’s centres is included within the early intervention grant. It is for local authorities to decide how to use that funding, taking account of their statutory duties and local needs.

[Mr Bailey]

I thank the Minister for her reply. The changes to the funding streams for Sure Start amount to a slashing of expenditure of around 22% nationally and 25% in my local authority of Sandwell, and the removal of the ring-fencing condition gives local authorities the opportunity to plug their gaps in other services with Sure Start funding. Will the Minister undertake to conduct a full assessment and monitor the impact of those cuts on Sure Start centres in future?

[Sarah Teather]

The Government continue to monitor what is happening on the ground. We have made sure that enough money is available in the early intervention grant for a network of children’s centres. Local authorities have a statutory duty to provide sufficient children’s centres and to consult before opening, closing or significantly changing those services. We want to ensure that those are not just empty buildings and that they are providing high-quality services that are focused on outcomes that really matter, which is why I have recently announced the start of payment-by-results trials, which will focus much better on outcomes, and why we are consulting on a new core purpose, which will also focus on outcomes. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree that it is the outcomes that matter.

[Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)]

I support Sure Start centres, and I know that Her Majesty’s Government do and always have done. Will the Minister confirm that, despite the Opposition’s apocalyptic warnings, there are broadly the same number of Sure Start centres now as there were when the coalition came into power?

[Sarah Teather]

There is information available on directgov, and it links to what information we have about the children’s centres that are available in local authority areas. From speaking to local authorities, I certainly know, as I said in my answer just a few minutes ago, that on the whole good local authorities, which do have to make difficult decisions, are merging back-office functions and management functions to make sure that they can focus on outcomes—the point that I just made, and which I think every Member would want.

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)]

As the Minister does not have a clue about the actual impact on the ground of her decision to cut Sure Start funding—cutting it by more than a fifth and removing the ring fence—I decided to find out for myself, and I will let her know what I have found: 83% of councils are cutting their funding this year; 89% of councils are cutting it next year; they are being forced to lay off qualified teachers; and in some areas children’s centres are actually closing. Given those findings, is she prepared to rethink her decisions and act to ensure that families are given the support that they need in the foundation years?

[Sarah Teather]

I believe I read in the press that the hon. Lady said that 47 children’s centres would close, and it would be helpful if she sent me that information. I suspect that not all local authorities replied to her, in just the same way as not all local authorities replied to us. She could do much to chivvy her local authorities to reply, because we could then make absolutely sure that the information on directgov was completely accurate. I am not sure that I have an awful lot more to add to the point that I have already made clear: the money is available in the early intervention grant, and we are making it clear to local authorities that Sure Start children’s centres are a priority. Indeed, some of her colleagues complained that I had placed a moral ring fence—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Can I just point out that we have a lot to get through? We must press on.

[Patrick Mercer (Newark) (Con)]

11. What recent assessment he has made of the funding of faith schools; and if he will make a statement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Tim Loughton)]

No separate assessment has been made of faith school funding. The only distinction in funding between faith schools and other maintained schools and academies is in the contribution to capital-funded projects made by voluntary-aided schools.

[Patrick Mercer]

I am grateful for the Minister’s reply. I am sure that he will join me in congratulating the al-Karam Muslim school in Eaton in my constituency on its extraordinary achievement. Will he be kind enough to give me an idea of what we might do further to help not just that school, but the Everyday Champions school in Newark?

[Tim Loughton]

I am delighted to pass on my good wishes to those schools that have done well in my hon. Friend’s constituency. It contains no fewer than 17 schools with a religious character which have done well. I am aware that the Everyday Champions organisation applied for a free school but was unsuccessful, and I think that he has been copied in on the reasons why, but we will continue to encourage those faith schools that offer a particularly excellent education for the many children whom they now look after.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

12. What plans he has for the future of music education in schools.

[The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)]

We will shortly publish a national plan for music education, which will reform the delivery and funding of music education. It will ensure that pupils have opportunities to learn an instrument, to sing and to play in ensembles.

[Valerie Vaz]

I thank the Secretary of State for his reply. He will be aware of Plato’s theory of education, which says that musical training is one of the most important instruments in education. Is he aware also of the Institute of Education research which found that one in nine primary schools does not have a piano? Will he take steps to ensure that all primary schools have a musical co-ordinator and, more importantly, a piano?

[Michael Gove]

I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for making those points. She is absolutely right that the wider provision not just of trained music teachers, but of musical instruments will ensure not just that more children have access to the greatest of all art forms, but that more children as a result do better in every other subject.

[Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)]

I am sure the Secretary of State is aware of the excellent Blackpool Music Service, which has won national awards for bringing music provision to children who would otherwise not be able to afford it. As we debate the role of local education authorities alongside the new aims of academies, does he not agree that such co-ordination is a role that local authorities can still play, adding value to the work of all schools in their local area?

[Michael Gove]

That is a typically acute point by my hon. Friend; he is absolutely right. In many cases, though not all, county music services do a superb job. One of the reforms that will be central to our national music plan is a way of making sure that the best county music services can do more while those that are weaker can have the service they provide supplanted by someone who is in a better position to raise standards for all children.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

13. What his policy is on the inclusion of British sign language as a modern foreign language option at GCSE.

[The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning (Mr John Hayes)]

I understand that an awarding organisation is considering whether to develop and pilot a GCSE in British sign language. It will be for the independent regulator, Ofqual, to consider whether any such qualification meets the appropriate criteria for being recognised as a foreign language GCSE.

[Tessa Munt]

I thank the Minister for that answer. As he knows, I have very strong feelings about British sign language, which offers an opportunity for people of all ages to develop their vocabulary and to expand their communication skills, and particularly for young people to develop speech and language skills, including their comprehension. It breaks down barriers for everybody, including those with significant learning disabilities. Action on Hearing Loss runs a campaign called “Read my lips”, which seeks recognition for lip-reading as an essential skill, not a leisure skill, as it is classified at the moment, and proposes that classes should be free for those with hearing loss and those who have family members—

[Mr Speaker]

Will the hon. Lady ask the question?

[Tessa Munt]

I will indeed, Sir. Will the Minister please update me on progress on reclassifying lip-reading as an essential skill?

[Mr Hayes]

The hon. Lady has a long-standing interest in this subject, as I do, given my own hearing loss and my long-standing similar interest in disability issues more generally. I see British sign language as a bridge to learning and a key aid to communication, and I entirely agree that we need to look at ways to support it and to ensure that people old and young can learn to sign. There is an issue about whether we treat it in the way that the hon. Lady suggests, but I am more than happy to meet her to discuss this and see whether we can take it further.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

Some deaf children have been successful in learning foreign languages, but while deaf children are behind all children as an average, they do particularly poorly in languages. Given that, and with the Government wanting foreign languages to play a greater part, what plans do they have to ensure that deaf children do not fall further behind?

[Mr Hayes]

I have already had meetings with the Royal National Institute for Deaf People on the subject of signing, and, as I said, I am happy to meet the hon. Member for Wells (Tessa Munt) on the subject. However, I am not absolutely sure that treating BSL as a foreign language, as the original question suggested, is the best way forward. BSL is a preferred language of many deaf people in the UK, rather than a language of a different nation or culture. Some good qualifications are already in place, but I take the point that we need to examine whether they are effective in achieving the kind of results for deaf children that they deserve so that they can fulfil their potential.

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

14. What steps he is taking to encourage links between schools and employers; and if he will make a statement.

[The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning (Mr John Hayes)]

Increasing schools’ autonomy is central to our mission. Of course the Government take business very seriously and understand the importance of the relationship between business and education. It is therefore absolutely right that local businesses cement links with schools. It is not for me to dictate what those links should be; that will depend on local circumstances. Organisations such as the chambers of commerce and the Federation of Small Businesses, in which my hon. Friend plays a distinguished part, are best placed to make those judgments.

[Mr Jones]

I thank the Minister for his response. Over the past seven years, we have seen a trend of rising youth unemployment, and we are now also starting to see a real skills gap in engineering and manufacturing. Does my hon. Friend agree that if we are truly to rebalance our economy and reduce youth unemployment, we must, in partnership with our world-class manufacturing companies, put in place a strategy to energise and promote the future of engineering and manufacturing within our schools?

[Mr Hayes]

As ever, my hon. Friend makes a point that is both salient and persuasive. The Government need no persuading, however, that STEM—science, technology, engineering and maths—matters. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State spoke earlier of our work with university technical colleges, which were originally devised by Rab Butler, a great Education Secretary, and driven by the noble Lord Baker, who was another. We have delivering that policy a third great Education Secretary in the making, who is sitting next to me.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

Was any assessment undertaken of the approach taken by business education partnerships? In my area, the Humber, we had an excellent business education partnership, and most of the business leaders who sat on it are distraught that its funding was withdrawn without any notice at all.

[Mr Hayes]

As I said, such things are best dealt with locally, but make no mistake: this Government regard skills as at the top of the political agenda. If we are to equip businesses with what they need and allow people to fulfil their potential, we must, once and for all, give those with practical, technical tastes and talents their place in the sun, their chance of glittering prizes.

[Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con)]

I confirm for my hon. Friend that university technical colleges are providing a fantastic platform for bringing employers and schools together. Reading’s new UTC is supported by Microsoft, BT and many other leading companies. Considering that so many important companies are stepping up to these important responsibilities, is he not disappointed by the reaction of the teaching unions and some Labour Members?

[Mr Hayes]

I should declare an interest as an associate member of a teaching union.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Which one?

[Mr Hayes]

The Association of Teachers and Lecturers. It is absolutely essential that teachers, businesses and learners combine to best effect to ensure that we equip our young people, and our country, with the skills that they need to prosper.

[Mr Speaker]

We are all greatly enlightened by the Minister of State’s observations.

[Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

15. What steps he plans to take to promote the involvement of primary schoolchildren in IT and internet-related activities.

[The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr Nick Gibb)]

Information and communications technology in the national curriculum will be considered as part of the national curriculum review. The effective use of technology can support good teaching and raise educational standards, but primary schools are best placed to make decisions on how to use technology to meet the needs of their pupils.

[Alun Michael]

But enthusiasm and encouragement are also important. With your support and encouragement, Mr Speaker, MPs across all parties have encouraged their local primary schools to engage with the “Make IT happy” competition, organised by the Parliamentary Information Technology Committee, which I have the honour to chair. Will the Minister join me in urging schools to enter that competition, because it is good for pupils, good for Parliament and good for the early engagement of children with issues that are important to our economy?

[Mr Gibb]

I am happy to do so, and I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the initiative. Already, about 90% of primary school pupils say that teachers help them understand how to use technology. That is a great success story, and I wish his project every success.

[Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)]

16. What plans he has to improve the quality of teaching.

[The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr Nick Gibb)]

Nothing has more impact on a child’s achievement than the quality of the teaching that they receive. We are raising the bar for new teachers, supporting existing teachers to improve and making it easier for head teachers to tackle underperformance among teachers who cannot meet the required standards.

[Mark Menzies]

I thank the Minister for his answer, but exactly how will he raise the bar to ensure that we get the best possible new entrants into the teaching profession?

[Mr Gibb]

We are offering strong financial incentives to the best trainees, and are consulting on issuing bursaries of up to £20,000 to the best trainees in priority subjects. We are also expanding and doubling the successful Teach First programme and introducing trips for teachers to bring the skills of service leavers into schools. We will ensure that all trainees have a good understanding of maths and English, by requiring them to take tests prior to entering initial teacher training. We are reviewing the qualified teacher status standards under the excellent chairmanship of Sally Coates, the principal of Burlington Danes academy. I could go on, Mr Speaker, but I will stop there.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

Does the Minister think that lessening teachers’ employment protection and worsening their terms and conditions will improve or diminish teachers’ morale?

[Mr Gibb]

That is not our policy. Teachers in academies are generally paid more. What we are doing is reviewing the performance management regulations to make it easier for head teachers to tackle underperformance in our schools and to bring the employment regulations in schools in line with employment practices in other professions and industries.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Does the Minister feel, as I do, that the quality of teaching is adversely affected by the recently reported high number of false complaints made by children against teachers? If so, what sort of protection can the Government give innocent teachers who are put in that situation?

[Mr Gibb]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise the issue. For a teacher to have an accusation made against them by a pupil, which ultimately turns out to be false, can have a devastating impact on not only their career but their private life. We are therefore determined to do all we can to protect teachers, to enable them to maintain discipline and improve behaviour in our schools. That is why the Education Bill, which is currently going through another place, has a provision giving school teachers anonymity in the reporting of such accusations in the press.

[Michael Fallon (Sevenoaks) (Con)]

17. Whether academies are able to move in-service training days to dates outside term time.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Tim Loughton)]

Academies are able to allocate time for teachers’ learning and development, including training days, at the most suitable time for the academy and its staff, including outside an academy’s published term time.

[Michael Fallon]

Given the inconvenience to some parents when in-service training days are simply tacked on to the half-term holiday, does my hon. Friend agree that the evolution of academies and free schools provides an opportunity to see how we can better match the training needs of teachers to the school year?

[Tim Loughton]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Of course, one advantage of academies is the flexibility that they can offer in training their teaching staff. Of course, that is also an advantage for the pupils and their parents, who may have to make arrangements for child care when training days are taken during term time. That flexibility is available to academies, and I hope that it will benefit everybody.

[Mr Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (Con)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)]

I was delighted that last Friday, Her Majesty’s new chief inspector of schools, Sir Michael Wilshaw, was appointed. I am confident that under his leadership, Ofsted will continue to do its fantastic work in driving up standards in state education. May I take this opportunity to pay an appropriate debt of gratitude to his two predecessors, his acting predecessor Miriam Rosen and, of course, Christine Gilbert, who did such a distinguished job as Her Majesty’s chief inspector?

[Mr Carswell]

Many mums and dads in my part of Essex would like to see local free schools, but for all their enthusiasm there are still too many obstacles and obstructions. What will the Government do to make it easier to establish free schools? Will they perhaps allow specialist charities and businesses to do so? May I bring a delegation of mums and dads to discuss with officials how it can be done?

[Michael Gove]

We will do everything possible to support the establishment of free schools, but there is one barrier that I can do nothing about—the confusion on the Labour party Benches. Just last Friday, the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) said that he would back the setting up of free schools, but yesterday he said on Sky television that the Labour party opposed the free schools policy. That U-turn within 72 hours leaves parents and teachers in a quandary, which is why so many of them are saying, “Thank heavens it’s a coalition Government in power rather than Labour!”

[Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)]

May I first join the Secretary of State in welcoming the appointment of Sir Michael Wilshaw, who has a fine track record, and in thanking Miriam Rosen and Christine Gilbert for their service?

May I take the Secretary of State back to my earlier exchange with the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb)? I welcome the increase in the number of young people taking history, geography and modern foreign languages, but schools are getting very mixed messages about the E-bac. Will he answer the question that I put to his colleague? Will he look to create a technical baccalaureate, as proposed by many including his noble Friend Lord Baker? If he does not, the UTCs and others will simply be frozen out of the improvements to education that he says he wants to deliver.

[Michael Gove]

It is a curious type of freezing out that has seen the number of UTCs increase by 800% as a result of the changes that we have made. If we are going to talk about freezing out and frostiness, what about the cold shoulder that the hon. Gentleman is turning to the parents and teachers who want to set up free schools everywhere? If we are talking about a chilling effect, what about the chilling effect on all those who believe in education reform, who will have seen his brave efforts to drag the Labour party into the 21st century, only to see him dragged back within 72 hours? We detect the cold and pulsate hand of his leader dragging him back from a posture of reform to one of reaction.

[Paul Uppal (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)]

T2. Recently, at the WorldSkills competition in London, Britain came fifth out of 49 countries that were entered, above Germany, France and the USA. However, we still face a skills gap, and in some areas of the country, such as the area just north of Wolverhampton where there are new developments involving, for example, Jaguar and Land Rover, worries are high that jobs will not go to local graduates. What measures are in place to ensure that school leavers are in a position to fulfil the needs of business and manufacturing in the 21st century?

[The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning (Mr John Hayes)]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that WorldSkills was a triumph. In an event involving 1,000 competitors from 52 countries and more than 40 skills, Britain achieved its best ever result. It is our commitment to excellence and our belief in rigour that combines our approach to academic learning and vocational learning. Whether it is Pliny or plumbing, or Plutarch or plastering, we believe in excellence, excellence, excellence.

[Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

T6. Labour Members believe that the E-bac might be for some, but certainly not for all. Some people are better suited to more vocational courses rather than purely academic routes. Why does the Secretary of State not believe in parity of esteem?

[Michael Gove]

I certainly do believe in parity of esteem. In particular, I think that we should esteem working-class students in the same way that we esteem those from other backgrounds. The fact that under the previous Government working-class students were too often denied the opportunity to study the academic subjects that would lead them to university is a contributory factor in the freezing of social mobility over the course of the past 15 years. A fatal flaw in this country’s approach to education is that we automatically assume that just because children come from poorer backgrounds, they cannot succeed academically. At last, under this coalition Government, that unhappy prejudice is being uprooted from the education system.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

T4. Will my right hon. Friend send a message to Enfield council—two days ago, such a message would have been endorsed by my predecessor, the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg)—which has a policy of opposing free schools despite a shortage of primary school places, and which decided last week to sell off the old town hall rather than offer it up for a free school?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. Just last Thursday, the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby visited an outstanding free school in Enfield. I would have hoped that that would have been a powerful signal to the reactionary elements within the Enfield Labour party that they should support education reform in the interests of the poorest rather than stand against it. However, I am afraid that his words on Sky television will have given heart to those reactionary elements rather than put them in their place. He has a direct responsibility to reassure reformers that he is on their side.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. That is quite enough. Could I just remind the Secretary of State—I know that he tends to make this mistake—that he is not today at the Oxford Union making a speech, but answering questions in the Chamber of the House of Commons? He does so brilliantly, but from now on he will do so more briefly. That is the end of it.

[Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab)]

T9. Charities play an increasingly important role in education—indeed, the Secretary of State has been involved in a variety of charities. Can he assure the House that he took all appropriate steps to ensure that Atlantic Bridge did not abuse its charitable status?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. I was proud to play my part in ensuring that the relationship between this country and the United States of America was strengthened, and I will always stand in favour of the Atlantic alliance. As a member of the advisory board of Atlantic Bridge, I took the opportunity, as I will on all platforms, to say that I believe—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The Secretary of State will resume his seat. He will answer questions on matters for which he is responsible, not on other matters. I have made the position clear, and no dilation from the Secretary of State is required.

[Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)]

T5. My right hon. Friend will be aware that so far two secondary schools in my constituency have become academies, and that a further two are applying to do so. However, one of those schools has run into problems because it runs a nursery. Rawlins college tells me that it has received unclear advice from his Department on the best way for the nursery to be constituted, which must be sorted before the college can become an academy. Will he agree to assist me in finding the most effective solution to this problem, so that Rawlins can hit its preferred conversion date of 1 November?

[Michael Gove]

I shall do everything in my power.

[Mr Speaker]

We are grateful to the Secretary of State.

[Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)]

I have been contacted by parents and teachers about the difficulties of online registration for school milk. There have been reductions in the past year of between a quarter and a third in some schools in Ashfield. Are Ministers aware of that situation, is it a national trend, and what can they do about it?

[Michael Gove]

I am now aware of that situation. I do not know whether it is a national trend. Of course, every child deserves the opportunity to have school milk.

[Jessica Lee (Erewash) (Con)]

T7. In light of the recent UK adoption rate figures, will my hon. Friend set out what steps the Government are taking to continue to encourage prospective adopting parents to come forward to be assessed? Those in Erewash and throughout the UK could provide much-needed homes for looked-after children.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Tim Loughton)]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point, and she knows that the Government are absolutely committed to improving the lot of looked-after children in this country and getting more of those for whom it is appropriate into adoption. We need to get the message across loud and clear that people who want to do the noble deed of coming forward and showing an interest in adoption should be welcomed with open arms at the town hall door and given every encouragement, rather than the “Don’t call us, we’ll call you” attitude that has prevailed in too many places up to now. We will make that change.

[Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

Further to that question, will the Minister update the House on plans to introduce savings accounts for looked-after children?

[Tim Loughton]

The right hon. Gentleman and I had a conversation on this matter recently when I was on my way from Leeds airport, and I hope to be able to update the House on it shortly, because we are committed to the scheme. Sorting out the practical details has been a complete nightmare, but we are now close to doing so and I hope that he will welcome the good news that will be coming soon.

[Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)]

T8. I am sure that the Education team will be delighted to hear that the highly acclaimed Manor Church of England school in my constituency has experienced a smooth transition to academy status. Now, however, it is moving into its second year as an academy, and it has raised concerns about the delayed allocation of its annual budget. Is the Secretary of State aware of these issues, and will he be addressing them before the next round of budget allocations?

[Michael Gove]

I am very aware of these issues, and that is one of the reasons we are consulting on replacing the system of funding that we inherited from the previous Government.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

Many 16 to 18-year-olds choose to study at a college rather than in a school sixth form, and they are therefore not eligible for free school meals. How and when are the Government going to address that anomaly?

[Michael Gove]

I am familiar with that anomaly; it is a situation we inherited from the previous Government. We are seeking to ensure that funding is equalised between colleges and school sixth forms.

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

Following the very popular announcement that there is to be a university technical college on the Southwark college site in Bermondsey, may I encourage the Secretary of State to complete the set by allowing a college, a UTC and a secondary school all to be on the same campus, given the breadth of experience that many youngsters in an inner-city seat such as mine are really looking forward to?

[Michael Gove]

I will do everything I can. How lucky Southwark is to have such an outstanding MP, and what a pity it is that the local authority has taken a grudging response to new school provision.

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

Ministers will have been horrified to see that the UK Border Agency is still routinely detaining children, and that it does not know where, for how long or how many there are. Will the Minister responsible for safeguarding call on her colleagues urgently to investigate this matter, not only to meet the coalition’s pledge but to ensure that the Government whom she represents are not actively putting children at risk?

[The Minister of State, Department for Education (Sarah Teather)]

The hon. Lady will be aware that we have a commitment to abolish detention—[Hon. Members: “By last Christmas.”] We have already set up the panel, and that is now beginning. I am aware of the article that the hon. Lady mentioned, and the reports that have appeared in the press. This is a matter of concern to me as well.

[Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)]

In Calderdale, 15% of all schools have now converted to academy status, but that is unique in our region, particularly because of the disinformation that is being peddled on the subject. Will the Secretary of State consider increasing the amount of communication to schools on conversion to academy status to help to dispel many of the myths that are being peddled?

[Michael Gove]

I will certainly do everything in my power. We could of course be helped by the Labour party, and not least by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby, who says that he is “relaxed” about an enormous expansion of academies. Let us hope that the next time he has an opportunity to share his views with us, he will be enthused about this.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I was very pleased that the Government continued the capital funding for myplace, and the Fuse has now opened in my constituency, but we are very concerned about revenue funding to ensure that we are not simply left with a beautiful empty building. Can the Government offer any advice or assistance that would help to make a difference to some of the most disadvantaged young people in my community?

[Tim Loughton]

The hon. Lady is right to highlight myplace, and I was delighted that we were able to find £124 million for the building of some 63 myplace centres. I want them to be the hub of communities up and down the country. If there are particular problems with her myplace, she should speak to the Big Lottery Fund, which manages the scheme on our behalf. We will be putting forward our policy in “Positive for Youth” later in the autumn, which will set out how we can bring in new, mixed sources of revenue that I hope will help myplace centres and other youth provision.

[Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend will be aware that his Department has received a bid from Patchway community college in my constituency for investment under the Government’s priority schools building programme. Given that the school was overlooked by the previous Government’s Building Schools for the Future programme, will he look seriously at Patchway’s deserving bid? I must tell the House that one of my children still goes to that school.

[Michael Gove]

A beautifully tailored bid from my hon. Friend! We will look as favourably as we can on all schools that were overlooked by the previous Government’s BSF programme.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

The Association of Colleges has surveyed its members and found a fall in recruitment to colleges this autumn. What steps is the Secretary of State putting in place to monitor and evaluate the effect on student recruitment, retention and achievement of his decision to scrap the education maintenance allowance?

[Michael Gove]

I was interested to look at the Association of Colleges survey, which showed that an equal number of colleges were, in fact, attracting more students. The truth is that there is increased competition among colleges to attract students, with strong colleges, like the one of which the hon. Gentleman used to be the principal, doing a fantastic job, but with weaker colleges—of which, sadly, there are still one or two—having to up their game.

[Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)]

Last week, the governing body of the historic Prince Henry grammar school, which is a comprehensive school in Otley, voted by 10 to nine to become an academy, although one governor, who had made it clear that she was going to vote against it, was away. Regardless of that decision, does the Secretary of State understand the concern that such an important decision has been taken on such a close vote?

[Michael Gove]

When schools become academies, it is important that governors are clear about the advantages and the issues. It is always difficult, when the vote is narrow, to discern what any individual who was not there, having heard all the arguments, might have done when the decision was taken. I would be happy to discuss the pros and cons of this case with my hon. Friend. If the school does become an academy, I am sure it will flourish as one, but if it chooses to keep its current status, I am sure it will benefit as well.

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

How many children do not have access to a breakfast club or an after-school club place because of the removal of extended school funding?

[Tim Loughton]

I was delighted to attend in Leeds recently the Magic Breakfast charity, which has done fantastic work. It is a social enterprise that has worked its brilliant magic on schools up and down the country to make sure that kids get a healthy breakfast. We want to see more of that through organisations such as Magic Breakfast. I would hope that the hon. Lady supported such organisations.

[Joseph Johnson (Orpington) (Con)]

There is a strong feeling in Bromley, which is in the vanguard of the academies movement, that the proposed formula for the top-slicing of LACSEG—local authority central spend equivalent grant—unfairly penalises very efficient local authorities. Will the Secretary of State agree to a meeting to discuss this concern?

[Michael Gove]

Strong feelings in Bromley always weigh with me. It is the case that the approach to LACSEG needs reform, and we are consulting on it. I expect that, as ever, voices from Bromley will be among the most persuasive.

[Mr Speaker]

I am extremely grateful to the Secretary of State and his colleagues for those brilliant and brief replies over the last few minutes, which meant that I was able to accommodate more colleagues than would otherwise have been possible.

Speaker’s Statement

Monday 17th October 2011 Commons Chamber

15:32

[Mr Speaker]

I have a statement to make. Following it, I will not take questions or points of order.

In July, I instituted an independent review of security arrangements, following the attack on Rupert Murdoch while he was a witness before the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. I have now received a report on the matter and have had an opportunity to consider its findings.

The review found that at the time of the attack none of the security staff in the room was in a position to be able to reach the assailant before he got to Mr Murdoch. Those present commented upon the chaotic nature of scenes inside and outside the Committee Room following the incident. The inadequate security in the room was the result of a serious failure of planning for this event, based upon the wrong assessment of risk. These and other deficiencies should have been recognised and rectified in advance. They were not.

Public access to Committee sessions is of fundamental importance and must be protected. Not only is it a precious freedom, but it provides a valuable opportunity for engagement between this House and the people it serves. Equally important is our duty to protect the personal safety of witnesses appearing before our Committees and to ensure the effective operation of these Committees. Clearly, the personal safety of all involved—witnesses, Members, staff and the public—must be the guiding principle for those charged with security.

The review makes a number of practical recommendations. All of those relating only to this House I have accepted in full, and all of them either have been, or are in the process of being, implemented. In future, risk assessments for the most high-risk events will be reviewed, robustly scrutinised and formally approved by the most senior security official in the House. There will be enhanced physical security arrangements in Committee Rooms for high-risk events, and a regime has already begun to prevent visitors from bringing bags into a meeting room for such an event.

There is a recommendation that the establishment of a post of director of security be reconsidered. I will begin discussions—including with my counterpart in the House of Lords, the Lord Speaker—about whether that merits further attention, and could complement existing roles.

I have placed copies of the recommendations, and of an update on progress in giving effect to them, in the Library, the Vote Office and on the parliamentary website.

The safety of those participating in, or visiting, public Committee hearings must not be compromised, and I will do everything I can to ensure that it is not.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

As I have just explained, I am not taking points of order on this matter.

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is on a different subject.

[Mr Speaker]

I have another statement to make. If Members will hold their horses, they will have their opportunity.

I wish to tell the House about implementation of the resolutions agreed on Thursday 13 October on electronic devices and e-tabling of questions for written answer.

The House agreed to allow the use of hand-held electronic devices, but not laptops, in the Chamber,

“provided that they are silent and used in a way that does not impair decorum”,

and to allow Members to refer to such devices in making speeches

“in place of paper speaking notes”.—[Official Report, 13 October 2011; Vol. 533, c. 555.]

The occupants of the Chair will seek to enforce the resolution as from today, but in practice it is up to individual Members to give effect to the will of the House by complying with the resolution. I therefore ask colleagues for their co-operation in this matter. Implementation of the resolution in Committees is a matter for the Liaison Committee and the Panel of Chairs.

The House agreed to an experimental regime for a daily ration of five e-tabled questions for written answer and a 6.30 pm deadline for tabling such questions. This will have effect from the rise of the House on Friday 21 October, for an experimental period of three months. A detailed memorandum on its operation is available in the Table Office, it will be printed in the Order Paper, and it will be accessible on the intranet. A message will also be sent to all Members who are signed up for e-tabling. The Table Office will of course be happy to give further advice on the new experimental regime.

Points of Order

Monday 17th October 2011 Commons Chamber

15:37

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Things have certainly moved on since last Monday, when the then Defence Secretary made a statement to the House. There has been a great deal of comment, and reports in the press, about various individuals and United States-based companies that were apparently involved with the individual who described himself at the time as the adviser to the Defence Secretary.

In view of the undoubtedly serious matters and allegations involving the Ministry of Defence, will the House have an opportunity to hear a statement? We heard a statement last Monday, but we have not heard one since, and these are very serious allegations.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

I will take it, and then respond to the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick).

[Paul Flynn]

During business questions last week, the House was reminded of the promise the present Prime Minister made shortly before the election that the most serious threat to the reputation of the House—after MPs’ expenses—was the possibility of abuse of our procedures by big corporate lobbyists. Sadly, the Government have taken no action to ensure that some control is exercised over the affairs of lobbyists, and there is now abundant evidence that that is an urgent priority.

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Have Ministers informed you that they will come to the House to make a statement on that report before releasing it to the media?

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

I think that the hon. Lady’s point of order is on an unrelated matter.

[Lisa Nandy]

indicated assent.

[Mr Speaker]

I am correct in my surmise. We shall therefore come on to the hon. Lady’s point of order shortly—we will save her up. First, I shall respond to the earlier point of order and the subsequent comments on it.

The short answer to the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), speaking from the Labour Front Bench, is no: I have not received any such notification. My response to the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) is that I have, of course, noted what he has told me and the House this afternoon, but, as he will know, responsibility for deciding to make statements, and then for making them, lies with Ministers. It is a matter of calculation or good fortune that as the hon. Gentleman was raising his point of order with me he was in the presence of the Leader of the House, who is sitting on the Treasury Bench. The comments that have been made will therefore have been heard, and I feel sure that if as a result of the publication of documents, or because decisions have been reached, a Minister wishes to make a statement, he or she will do so. Finally, I note what the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) has said, and others will also have done so.

[Lisa Nandy]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Following last week’s Westminster Hall debate on disabled access to public transport, I seek your advice on the treatment of visitors in wheelchairs to this place. This weekend, I received a number of complaints from people who missed the start of the debate because, despite stating their destination very clearly on arrival, they were directed to another Committee Room where a lobby meeting held by employees of Remploy was taking place. They, and others, were unable to fit into Westminster Hall. The majority of the chairs had not been removed because if they had been left in the corridor it might have disrupted a later debate. Our office gave notice that some visitors in wheelchairs were expected, but it does not seem right that people with disabilities should be required to give notice to come to this place when others are not. I have the greatest respect for the staff in this House and I do not attribute responsibility to any individual, but it seems that we have, collectively on this occasion, fallen far short of the standards that the 12 million people in this country with disabilities should be able to expect from their elected representatives. I therefore ask that you urgently investigate this matter, Mr Speaker, and ensure that such situations never arise again.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for providing me with notice of her intended point of order, I am grateful to her for what she said and I am grateful for the manner in which she said it. I attach the greatest importance to all our proceedings being accessible to everyone, without discrimination. The hon. Lady relates to me a sequence of events with which until a short while ago I was entirely unfamiliar. The best I can say to her and the House is that I will inquire into the matters she raises, reporting back as necessary to her and the House. I hope that is helpful.

Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund

Monday 17th October 2011 Commons Chamber

15:43

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir George Young)]

I beg to move,

That this House reasserts its view that the salaries, pensions and expenses scheme for hon. Members ought to be determined independently of this House; accordingly invites the Leader of the House to make an order commencing those provisions of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 which transfer responsibility for the pensions of hon. Members to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA); supports the approach to public service pension reform set out in the Final Report of the Independent Public Service Pensions Commission chaired by Lord Hutton of Furness; believes that IPSA should introduce, by 2015, a new pension scheme for hon. Members which is informed by the Commission’s findings and their subsequent application to other public service pension schemes; recognises the case for an increase in pension contributions made in Lord Hutton’s interim report; and accordingly invites IPSA to increase contribution rates for hon. Members from 1 April 2012 in line with changes in pension contribution rates for other public service schemes.

[Mr Speaker]

I should inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope).

[Sir George Young]

Should the House agree to this motion, we will have completed the transition to a wholly independent system for setting and administering MPs’ remuneration. The first and most pressing task was to establish a transparent new expenses scheme in time for the beginning of this Parliament. That was achieved, albeit not without some issues about the operation of the scheme, which have been aired on other occasions. Since May this year, responsibility for setting MPs’ pay has also rested with the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority; under the relevant legislation, MPs will not vote on their own pay again. Today’s debate on MPs’ pensions represents the final piece of the jigsaw. Once the powers in relation to pensions have been transferred to IPSA, it will have responsibility for looking in the round at the whole remuneration package for Members of Parliament.

The motion before us should not come as a surprise to the House.

[Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

The right hon. Gentleman says this is the last piece of the IPSA jigsaw. Is he satisfied that all the other pieces of the jigsaw are perfectly placed?

[Sir George Young]

I know that my hon. Friend is not so satisfied. He will know that a Committee of the House is looking into the legislation and that there is a committee that liaises between this House and IPSA. I think that the latter is aware of his views on the improvements that need to be made to the scheme. This motion relates not to the allowances that, I believe, are his preoccupation but to pensions.

Before we rose for the summer recess, I set out the Government’s approach to hon. Members’ pensions in a written ministerial statement, and I also published the motion we are debating. Should the House agree to support the motion, we will have protected the principle that MPs’ remuneration should be independently assessed and determined and demonstrated to our constituents that we understand that Parliament must not be insulated from the fiscal circumstances affecting the rest of the country.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

The Leader of the House said that we will never vote again on these matters. Does that mean that the House will not vote the money needed to pay these salaries? What will be done about the overall budget for the costs of government and Parliament, which I thought was of interest to the Government?

[Sir George Young]

The position is exactly as I said: under legislation passed by the House we will not vote on our own pay, which IPSA will determine independently. It will have the authority to do that and, without primary legislation, which the House would have to agree, its determination will be the last word.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

May we get this clear? Some of us will be rather surprised to hear that we will never again vote on our salaries, because Ministers have told us that before but we have always been persuaded to vote again on them.

[Sir George Young]

Primary legislation precludes that. Were the Government to be minded to change that, they would have to persuade the House to reintroduce primary legislation overturning the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009, which deals with IPSA, and the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, which have taken the matter out of our control, so there is no longer a parallel with the previous position.

[Mr Redwood]

I understand the narrow point about rates of pay, but my question is rather different: are the coalition Government still interested in the overall costs of Parliament and of MPs? Will we vote through the money, or will somebody else do that?

[Sir George Young]

It would be quite wrong to say that, in principle, our pay should be determined by IPSA but to try, by the back door, to circumscribe that decision by voting down the money it had determined should be paid as our salaries. That would not be an independent determination of our salaries.

[Mr Brian H. Donohoe (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)]

rose—

[Sir George Young]

I will give way to the chairman of the trustees.

[Mr Donohoe]

May I ask why the motion does exactly what the right hon. Gentleman is saying?

[Sir George Young]

I am not sure that I follow the hon. Gentleman. The motion transfers responsibility for determining MPs’ pensions to IPSA and delivers a commitment made in the Parliamentary Standards Act and the CRAG Act, which I believe were passed without dissent in the previous Parliament.

[Mr Donohoe]

The second part of the motion does the exact opposite. The Leader of the House is trying to suggest that the independent IPSA should take on board what he proposes in the motion, which is that the contributions made by Members of Parliament should increase in line with those of people in the public sector.

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for clarifying his point. If he looks at the legislation, he will see that he and the House are statutory consultees for IPSA: if it wishes to make any changes to the scheme, it is obliged to consult the trustees, the Senior Salaries Review Body and anyone who might be affected, which includes all of us in this Chamber. We therefore have some locus in the consultation. The second part of the motion expresses a view on behalf of the House, which we are entitled to do under the legislation. It is right that Members make it clear to their constituents that they expect to be treated no differently from others in the public sector in the determination of their pension contributions.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Sir George Young]

I would like to make a bit of progress before I give way.

It is accepted by Members on both sides of the House that the UK faces an unsustainable structural deficit that must be brought down. The Government have been forced, as any Government would be, to take difficult decisions across the public sector that have consequences for hon. Members. In March, the House agreed that Members’ salaries should be frozen this year in line with the two-year pay freeze on public sector workers earning more than £21,000. After that debate, I commenced the relevant parts of the CRAG Act, formally transferring power to IPSA. I am sure that the chairman of the trustees and the House will recognise the comparison of that procedure and the one we are debating this afternoon—we are transferring responsibility while at the same time expressing a view.

Before the election, all parties publicly agreed that the current final salary terms of the parliamentary pension scheme should be brought to an end. However, as with other public service pension reform, changes will not be made retrospectively, nor will they have an impact on past benefits—an assurance that is as important to Members of the House as it is to those in other public sector schemes.

Looking ahead to a future scheme, the coalition agreement committed us to consult IPSA on moving from the final salary arrangements. In June last year, the Government established the independent public service pensions commission, chaired by Lord Hutton of Furness, to make recommendations on how to put public service pensions on a sustainable footing. Although the Hutton report did not include hon. Members within its scope of inquiry, it was immediately apparent that reform of the parliamentary pension scheme must be tackled in the light of the commission’s findings and their subsequent application to other public service schemes. I do not believe that there is any case for our scheme being treated differently from other public service schemes. Indeed, there would be justifiable disbelief if it were.

[Mr Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

I accept that there is much to be said about our needing to set the public an example, particularly given the reforms we are trying to make to public sector schemes, but unlike many public sector schemes the parliamentary scheme is—or is near to being—fully funded and the contributions are rather larger. Will the Leader of the House go into more detail on the nature of the parliamentary scheme, which is slightly misunderstood in much of the press coverage?

[Sir George Young]

The contributions for those subscribing at one fortieth are indeed higher than those for many elsewhere in the public sector, but so are the benefits. The Exchequer contribution, at some 28%, is also substantially higher than for other public sector schemes. One needs to consider it in the round when one comes to a judgment about the appropriate treatment of the scheme.

Today’s motion supports the approach to public service pension reform set out in the final report of the independent public service pensions commission.

[Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)]

Some of us strongly support the principle behind my right hon. Friend’s motion, but our dilemma is that once again IPSA is acting as administrator and as the body that sets the rates—an arrangement that one does not often find anywhere else. If the committee chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) finds that there should be some division between the administration of our pay, pensions, allowances and so on and the setting of their rates, will my right hon. Friend reassure us that the motion, if passed, will not be the final word on the matter?

[Sir George Young]

The administration will be performed by the trustees; there is no change in that. The contribution rates and ultimately the shape of the scheme will be determined by IPSA, which will set the rules. The trustees will continue to administer the scheme, with some slight change in their membership to reflect IPSA’s new involvement.

[Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Leader of the House give way?

[Sir George Young]

If I may, I will make a little more progress, and then I will give way.

The amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) suggests that the parts of the motion relating to the Hutton review should be removed. Its implication is that our scheme should not be treated the same as other public sector schemes, and I do not think our constituents would welcome such an interpretation.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

On what basis does my right hon. Friend think that is a fair assessment of my amendment, which seeks to put in the motion the fact that IPSA is independent and should reach its own judgment? That is the effect of my amendment and I am sorry that my right hon. Friend seeks to misrepresent its purpose.

[Sir George Young]

My hon. Friend’s amendment would delete the following words:

“and accordingly invites IPSA to increase contribution rates for hon. Members from 1 April 2012 in line with changes in pension contribution rates for other public service schemes.”

It is perfectly legitimate to say that one can deduce that he does not want Members’ pension schemes to reflect other public service schemes.

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

On that point, will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir George Young]

Let me make a bit more progress and then I will give way.

The motion also states that

“IPSA should introduce…a new pension scheme for hon. Members which is informed by the Commission’s findings”

by 2015. That is a similar timetable to that for the rest of the public service. However, as with other public service pension reform, changes should neither be retrospectively made nor have an impact on past benefits.

[Mr Love]

In his final report, Lord Hutton spoke warmly about the continuation of defined benefit schemes in the public sector. Is the Leader of the House fully aware of that, and does he support that recommendation?

[Sir George Young]

Indeed; the Government welcomed Lord Hutton’s report, including the interim report, the final report and the budget. He made it clear that he wanted to retain a defined benefit scheme, and on that basis negotiations are continuing. IPSA will be mindful of that recommendation by Hutton—and, indeed, of the hon. Gentleman’s views.

The Constitutional Reform and Governance Act already provides full protection for pension benefits already earned, including a link to the salary on leaving the scheme, so any new scheme would apply only to future service. Furthermore, the legislation includes comprehensive provisions requiring IPSA to consult widely before making any changes to parliamentary pensions.

[Bob Russell]

rose—

[Sir George Young]

I think I had better give way first to the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson).

[Mr Anderson]

I was pleased to sign amendment (a), but I want to make it clear that my case is very different from what the Leader of the House described. I believe that we are in exactly the same boat as every other public sector worker in the country and that we should be treated the same. We should be allowed, with our trustees, to negotiate with IPSA as local government pension schemes are being negotiated with their trustees and their employers. It should not be the Government who set the standard for the pensions—it should be the pension schemes.

[Sir George Young]

The hon. Gentleman will know that paragraph 15 of schedule 6 to the CRAG Act states:

“Before making a scheme under paragraph 12 the IPSA must consult…the trustees of the Fund,”

so there is that opportunity for dialogue.

[Tony Lloyd (Manchester Central) (Lab)]

I should make it clear that I will support the motion, but something is causing alarm bells to ring. The Leader of the House rightly says that the motion means that the parliamentary scheme will not be better than those for other public sector workers, but will he make it quite clear that nothing in the motion has any implications for the negotiations that are taking place with other public sector schemes?

[Sir George Young]

The motion is purely declaratory, so the hon. Gentleman is quite right. The second half of it expresses a view, on behalf of the House, that we believe we should be treated no better or worse than those in other public sector schemes. It is important that our constituents know that that is our view and that we do not expect to be treated any differently from others in the public sector.

A further development is the increase in pension contribution rates for public service schemes, as already announced by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. The case for public service employees to pay more into their pensions and therefore reduce the burden on the taxpayer was made clearly in Lord Hutton’s interim report, which was published last autumn. The report states:

“In the short term, however, I consider there is also a strong case for looking at some increase in pension contributions for public service employees, to better meet the real costs of providing these pensions, the value of which has risen in recent years with most of these extra costs falling to taxpayers”.

The subsequent statement made by the Chief Secretary made it clear that each scheme would be required to find savings equivalent to a 3.2 percentage point increase, phased in over three years, with scheme-specific discussions to make proposals on how the savings were to be achieved.

If the House accepts the principle that hon. Members should not be out of step with changes that affect other public service schemes, we should also accept that our contributions should rise at the same time. I can therefore confirm that the Government propose to increase contributions to the ministerial scheme, with increases being applied from 1 April next year on a staged basis, and we will consult on that proposal as required by the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act.

Finally, I shall end where I began: the most important development of which account needs to be taken is the acceptance that MPs’ remuneration should be assessed, determined and administered independently.

[Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although there might be concerns over IPSA’s role, we should not make the perfect the enemy of the good and that this debate is long overdue? We must all look our public sector constituents in the face every day and justify changing their pensions schemes.

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her support and for the views she expresses.

There were constraints on IPSA taking over absolutely everything right at the beginning of this Parliament. The priority was allowances, so that was its first commitment, followed by pay. As I have said, this is the final piece in the jigsaw puzzle. We will have then passed over responsibility for the total package by 1 April next year.

[Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)]

Let me make it clear that I support the motion and the thinking that lies behind it, but what will be the role of the trustees between now and 2015, and what will it be after 2015? Will they have any fiduciary responsibility for the new scheme, or will their responsibility be limited to the current scheme?

[Sir George Young]

The trustees will continue to administer the scheme. The chairman of the trustees might want to catch your eye, Mr Speaker. Under our changes, the rules that govern the scheme will no longer be made by the Government or the House; they will be made independently by IPSA. After the process of transfer on 1 April next year, the scheme will continue to be administered by the trustees until such time as IPSA makes any change. If it wants to make changes, it must consult the trustees. The motion indicates that the first change should be an increase in the contribution rate. It then suggests that, along with other public sector schemes, a new scheme, perhaps moving from final salary, should be introduced by 2015, but the scheme will continue to be administered by the trustees, and I pay tribute to the work they do.

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm my understanding that the arrangements being put in place for the trustees, some of which come from the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act, are in line with best practice for other pension schemes?

[Sir George Young]

Yes; I believe that to be so. There has been no representation on the issue the hon. Lady raises. There are some changes in the composition of the trustees to reflect IPSA’s responsibility, as part of the 2010 Act.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir George Young]

I propose to conclude.

Independence is a crucial part of the process of restoring trust in Parliament. Any decision to defer the transfer to independence would result in MPs continuing to determine their own remuneration, which the House has firmly rejected. It is not incompatible—this goes back to some of our discussions during the debate—to argue that responsibility for our pensions should be made independent and, by agreeing to the motion today, to send a strong signal about the direction we feel the scheme should take in the light of the application of the Hutton recommendations to other public service schemes.

Subject to today’s debate, I will move as quickly as possible to commence the relevant sections of the CRAG Act, transferring all responsibility for MPs’ pensions to IPSA. Once responsibility for MPs’ pensions has been handed to IPSA, the House will have finally relinquished the power to set the terms of its own remuneration. I hope that that will represent a significant further step in drawing a line under the problems of the past and in helping to rebuild public confidence. I commend the motion to the House.

16:04

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

As the Leader of the House says, the motion seeks to deal with some unfinished business from the previous Parliament. The order that we are debating is necessary to commence the provisions of section 40 and schedule 6 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. Those parts of the Act transfer responsibility for hon. Members’ pensions to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. That legislation was passed, with all-party agreement, by the previous Government. It gained Royal Assent in April last year, just before the general election, and there was a general feeling that it was wrong for existing arrangements to be left unchanged, and that the independent determination of salaries should extend to cover pay and pensions. Having voted for the primary legislation that brings about that switch of responsibilities, we Labour Members will not oppose the motion today.

The order will change the current arrangements, under which the Leader of the House—in effect, the Government —determines MPs’ pension arrangements through regulations. Following the 2009 report by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, the previous Government accepted in principle that the independent regulator should be given statutory responsibility for MPs’ pay and pensions. While that change was being legislated for, there was, quite properly, input from the trustees of the parliamentary contributory pension fund, which ensured that Members’ accrued rights had protection consistent with that provided to members of other occupational pension schemes. There was also agreement to amendments that ensured that the parliamentary contributory pension fund would continue to be a trustee-based scheme with appropriate member representation, and that required IPSA to obtain trustees’ consent before making changes in the administration of the scheme.

[Bob Russell]

The hon. Lady rightly draws attention to the history that has led to our discussing the motion today, and to what happened in the previous Parliament. After 18 months’ experience of IPSA, does she have total confidence in that organisation’s ability to deliver our pensions?

[Ms Eagle]

We all have our IPSA stories, and we could probably dine out on them—with each other, and we would not claim it back. We all have stories about some of the absurdities of the scheme, especially at the beginning, when it was bedding in. There has been considerable progress, and I would like further progress to be made. There are ongoing ways in which we in this House can bring to light any remaining absurdities, and I hope that we can continue to iron them out. The principle of independent determination is right. IPSA seems as good a body as any—not withstanding the chaos at its beginning—to undertake all that responsibility. Clearly, we will have to wait and see whether my confidence will be rewarded, but I am willing to give IPSA a try. I know that the hon. Gentleman is somewhat more sceptical about the authority than I am.

[Mr Winnick]

When the Leader of the House spoke, he was justifying, on behalf of the Government, what is happening to public servants across the country, including many of our constituents who are on relatively low pay, and justifying the attack on their pensions. I certainly do not agree with what is happening, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) does not.

[Ms Eagle]

I will come on to make a few short, in-order remarks about that aspect of our debate, but I think that most Members of the House would agree that we cannot expect to be treated differently from other public sector workers; that is a principle that most of us would share.

I was talking about appropriate Member representation on the trustee board, and the fact that IPSA, under the primary legislation and the order, will have to obtain the trustees’ consent before making changes to the administration of the scheme or the management of the scheme’s assets. Again—this is an important principle—it is entirely in keeping with the usual practice of other funded schemes. It is important that we maintain that parallel.

The order will change the legal structure of the parliamentary contributory pension fund. It will become an IPSA scheme and the power to amend it will be vested in IPSA rather than in the Government via regulations tabled by the Leader of the House, so the Leader of the House is giving away powers in the order. He seems to be quite happy about that. IPSA will acquire the duty to do all this, rather than the current Leader of the House.

The primary legislation ensures that there is a requirement, though, for IPSA to consult interested parties prior to determining benefits or contributions in future. In the primary legislation interested parties include the Speaker, the trustees of the scheme, the Senior Salaries Review Body, the Government, and in many ways the most important organisation in all pension deliberations—the Government Actuary’s Department. This is all entirely sensible, and I look forward to IPSA undertaking this work in due course.

[Bob Russell]

It is incapable.

[Ms Eagle]

Time will tell. If IPSA proves incapable, which I doubt, I suspect we will be back here quite quickly, dealing with the consequences. I do not anticipate that we will be in that position.

[Mr Redwood]

The hon. Lady is making an important contribution. May I see if I have understood what she is saying? She is saying that the order does not suspend normal trustee law, so are the trustees under a duty to give their consent or to seek to modify the scheme that IPSA brings forward? I do not know whether this is a normal scheme or not.

[Ms Eagle]

This will be an IPSA scheme. My understanding of it, in my reading of the primary legislation which we all supported prior to the last election, is that the trustees would have the normal legal requirements and fiduciary duties in the new scheme that trustees of other schemes have. That is my understanding. I am looking at the Leader of the House, who does not seem to be shaking his head. I assume that if the Government had a different interpretation, we would have heard about it by now.

[Sir George Young]

rose—

[Ms Eagle]

The right hon. Gentleman is rising, so there may be a different interpretation. I am happy to give way.

[Sir George Young]

The hon. Lady is right. Paragraph 12 of schedule 6, which deals with the MPs’ pension scheme, makes it absolutely clear that it is up to IPSA to devise the scheme. There are rights of consultation, but it is an independent scheme set out by IPSA.

[Ms Eagle]

The question from the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) that I was answering was about the duties of the trustees. My understanding, from reading the primary legislation, is that it does not impact in any differential way on the legal duties of trustees.

[Bob Russell]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. If those on the two Front Benches cannot agree on a matter of such fundamental importance as this, how on earth can we proceed?

[Mr Speaker]

That is definitively not a point of order. It is a point of obvious and intense frustration.

[Ms Eagle]

I do not want to use the word “frustrated” in the Chamber because it is rather a difficult one to use. I did not think we were disagreeing. I thought I was answering slightly more accurately the point that the right hon. Member for Wokingham had made about trustees’ duties in law. The Leader of the House was answering a slightly different question about the fact that IPSA would be in charge of the scheme. Again, that does not undermine our existing understanding of trustee law and the fiduciary duties of pension trustees.

[Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

rose—

[Ms Eagle]

I suspect that a lawyer is going to help us with this point of debate.

[Stephen Phillips]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. I do not know the answer, but can she, and in due course the Leader of the House, confirm the position as I expect it to be, which is that the trustees will continue to administer the scheme for the benefit of the beneficiaries, and the terms of the scheme for existing entrants but not for their accrued contributions will be set by IPSA, as indeed will the terms of the scheme for new entrants in due course? The trustees will retain the duties that I understand them to have under the relevant legislation.

[Ms Eagle]

That is also my understanding, although I am not a trained lawyer, unlike the hon. and learned Gentleman. However, I did a stint as Pensions Minister so have some understanding of these matters.

Other aspects of the motion have proved more controversial, if the presence of the amendment, which proposes deleting everything from line 6, is anything to go by. The wording of the motion was not decided by cross-party agreement, unlike the decision in principle to transfer responsibility for pension arrangements to IPSA. It is the Government’s wording and appears to reflect their position on public sector pensions more generally.

When Lord Hutton produced his final report on public sector pensions, it fell to me, as shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury at the time, to respond to it on behalf of the Opposition. We certainly welcomed Lord Hutton’s commitment to the ongoing provision of pay-as-you-go pensions in the public sector—our own included—as a matter of principle. We also noted his view that the pensions currently provided were not—to use the phrase that is bandied about—gold-plated. It is easy to forget in the welter of propaganda about the generosity of public sector pension provision that the majority of public sector pensioners receive less than £5,600 a year. Indeed, many beneficiaries are part-time women workers who take home considerably less than that after a lifetime of service. Both the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister have been guilty of using that alarmist phrase. We may have a far better and more measured debate about these important matters if they would accept what Lord Hutton has said and stop using that highly misleading and derogatory phrase about public sector pension provision.

Although Lord Hutton made the case for an increase in contributions, which is mentioned in the motion, he did not specify what it should be. He stated on page 119 of his interim report that the Government

“should have regard to protecting the low paid and to the possibility of significant increases in the number of employees opting out of schemes and should consider staging increases in contributions where appropriate, to minimise this risk.”

After the Hutton report was published, the Opposition recognised the merit of considering a move to career average benefits, rather than final salary schemes. We also recognised the pressure generated in all pension schemes—again, ours is no different—by increasing life expectancy. We had acknowledged this in government by negotiating changes to existing schemes involving increases in contributions, later retirement ages and “cap and share” arrangements. These agreements will save £1 billion a year.

Clearly, MPs’ pensions cannot be immune from such changes, and I am sure that IPSA will consider that in due course when it looks at what our future contributions and benefits should be. I am also sure that it will take into account the 1.9% increase in contributions that was agreed in 2009 as a cost-saving measure in our scheme, which takes Members’ contributions to 11.9%, 7.9% or 5.9% of salary depending on the chosen accrual rate. Likewise, I expect IPSA to take into account the fact that the average time a Member serves in the House is 15 years.

I know that some right hon. and hon. Members have suspicions about the timing of today’s motion, which is ahead of any outcome of the so-called negotiations on the pension provision for millions of public sector workers. The motion might be read in a certain way, as if it is pre-empting those negotiations, because it states that IPSA should increase Members’ pension contributions

“in line with changes in pension contribution rates for other public services schemes.”

The fact is that the talks are ongoing. If they are to have any meaning whatsoever, rather than being exposed as a charade, we cannot know in advance what their results will be.

[Mr Mark Field]

I understand some of the hon. Lady’s concerns about pre-emption, but does she not also think that at this juncture we need to take a lead on this, despite all the concerns I have—I hope that she will be able to say a little more on the relatively generous rates for parliamentary contributions, compared with others—given the difficulties we will face throughout the public pensions sphere?

[Ms Eagle]

It is certainly important that we are not seen to exempt ourselves from the required changes, and in this debate so far that sense has been put across by speakers on both sides of the House.

The Government have to show understanding and good will if they are to make progress on public sector pensions.

[Tony Lloyd]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, as ever, and the point that she makes is the real one: nothing in today’s vote in the House should be seen to pre-empt the legitimate negotiating process that is taking place with millions of public sector workers. If something should not be pre-empted in particular, it is the opportunity for the Government to say that, somehow, the motion before us gives them legitimacy in refusing to negotiate in good faith with public sector unions.

[Ms Eagle]

I agree. I certainly hope that the Government want to negotiate in good faith with public sector unions, and I understand that sector-specific talks have been going on. In education there were meetings last Wednesday, in health there are meetings tomorrow, and the civil service has had a few meetings, because on public sector pensions it is hard to generalise. The schemes are quite different, and the local government scheme is funded completely differently.

I understand also that a meeting is due a week today between the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Cabinet Office Minister with responsibility for the central talks, and I certainly hope that all sides show flexibility so that there can be a negotiated settlement.

[Mr Winnick]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, after a lifetime working in public service, and with the expectation of a pension somewhere in the region of £5,000, many of our constituents will not accept a reduction because the House has today decided that its pension scheme is going to be different? They would be daft to be so persuaded, and they will not be.

[Ms Eagle]

I do not think that I was making that argument, and I hope that the negotiations will be meaningful and successful.

[Mr Anderson]

It is quite clear from my discussions with people in the negotiations that the Government are not negotiating seriously: they have made the point that they want a 3% reduction no matter what. All they are talking about is how they should do it, not whether they should do it, and no evidence has come forward—there are no actuarial reports and there is no cognisance—of the impact that the number of people dropping out, which could be in the hundreds of thousands, will have not just on those schemes, but on the investment potential of those schemes.

[Ms Eagle]

My hon. Friend makes a perfectly good point, and I hope that the Government are listening. They have to show understanding and good will if they are to make appropriate progress on public sector pensions, especially at a time of pay freezes and the most ferocious squeeze on living standards since the great depression.

The Government should not play politics with this issue, and they cannot take our support for the motion as any endorsement of the way in which they have so far chosen to pre-empt meaningful negotiations with public sector trade unions to resolve the outstanding issues on pensions caused by the announcement of an across-the-board 3.2% increase in contributions, a shift from RPI to CPI for indexation—

[Mr Bone]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Ms Eagle]

Yes, of course.

[Mr Bone]

The shadow Leader of the House is making quite a powerful argument. I think that she is arguing for the amendment, because it would remove all the talk that she is particularly concerned about. Is she arguing for the amendment?

[Ms Eagle]

The trouble with the amendment, as the hon. Gentleman would probably admit if he sat down and thought about it, is that, the amended motion would look like we wanted our public sector pension to be treated differently from the generality of public sector pensions, and that would be an unfortunate impression. I hope that he reflects on that meaning of the amendment, to which he has put his name, and thinks better of it when it comes to the debate.

I was in the middle of saying that the outstanding issues caused by the announcement of an across-the-board 3.2% increase in contributions, a shift from RPI to CPI for indexation and speeding up the increase of retirement ages, the latter of which hits women particularly hard, are real issues that I hope the Government will address with good will in the negotiations, rather than regard as a complete fait accompli.

[Mr Mark Field]

Does not the hon. Lady recognise that one reason for what she would regard as this breakneck speed of reform of the age of retirement and pension arrangements is that so little was done, and not just in the past 13 years, since one could argue, given the actuarial evidence about life expectancy, that the inaction goes back well before 1997? The force of necessity has meant that the Government have had to act relatively quickly to make up for very slothful action from past Governments.

[Ms Eagle]

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman’s interpretation at all. We sometimes agree on things; we do not happen to agree on this. We made some good reforms and we saved considerable amounts of money through the negotiations that we had on public sector pensions, which came to an agreement. I am arguing that MPs’ pensions should not be exempt from changes, regardless of whether they are independently provided for and decided on.

I hope that the Government show determination and good will in having meaningful negotiations with the representatives of millions of public sector workers whom they are meeting, and that they recognise the real challenges and dangers, as Lord Hutton pointed out, of going too far and too fast on contribution rates and driving people to leave schemes at a time when there is a ferocious squeeze on living standards. There is a balance to be negotiated, and I am not at all certain that the Government are getting that balance right. If they get it wrong, many hundreds of thousands, even millions, of people will leave schemes and will then look forward to a life on means-tested benefits when they retire, which, paradoxically, will cost the country more than if we can keep them paying into schemes. There is a delicate balance that has not often been reflected in the rhetoric—the bellicose rhetoric, in some cases—from Government Members as these negotiations proceed.

I hope that there will be a new and constructive approach from the Government in the ongoing negotiations on public sector pensions. In the meantime, we will support the motion.

16:24

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

My amendment effectively separates the two distinct issues in the motion and says that the first of those—whether the issue of pensions should be referred to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority—is something that we should support today. Indeed, it might not have been necessary to have a debate, because the Government could have dealt with it, and done so earlier, by laying an order under subordinate legislation.

The second part of the motion was described by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House as declaratory, in that we do not expect to be treated any better or any worse than other public sector employees. If that is what it actually said, I am sure that there would not be any dispute. Certainly, I would not have tabled an amendment, and I do not think that the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) would have been as troubled as he, too, is about this issue.

My right hon. Friend said that the essence is that we are handing over to IPSA the responsibility for looking at our whole remuneration package, including salary, allowances and pensions, and ensuring that it should be able to do that independently. As he and the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) said, once IPSA has that responsibility, it will make proposals or issue a consultation paper and invite comments from you, Mr Speaker, from the Government, from Members of Parliament, from members of the public, and from other so-called stakeholders. The Government seem to be pre-empting that consultation process by saying, “Irrespective of whether IPSA asks us any questions, we’re going to volunteer some answers before we’ve been asked the questions.”

The hon. Member for Wallasey raised a number of key issues that she thinks IPSA should take into account when it considers parliamentary pensions. It was not an exhaustive list, but it contained a number of points that are not included in the second part of the motion. The second part of the motion therefore invites colleagues to sign up to a selective list of propositions, including that there should be an increase in contribution rates from 1 April next year

“in line with changes in pension contribution rates for other public service schemes.”

However, no standard formula affects all other public service schemes, which vary from one to another. The Government have said that any increases in contributions should be made in progressively and in stages. That is not included in the motion.

The motion states that the House

“supports the approach to public service pension reform”.

I do not think that is a controversial issue, but it is important that we do nothing to undermine our commitment to the belief that this is now the responsibility of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. We should not give it authority with one hand while putting constraints on it with the other. That is where the Government have got it wrong; they are seeking to interfere in the process.

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

I see no discrepancy in the Government seeking to apply the principles of public sector reform to the decisions that IPSA will ultimately take, as is stated in the motion. That does not preclude IPSA from consulting on the finer details, as my hon. Friend said. It is important that it is explicit in the motion that the principles of the wider public sector reforms should be applicable to MPs’ pensions. It is imperative that the message goes out that that is what we are voting for.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady. That may well be imperative, but it is also imperative that interventions from now on are brief, because a number of people wish to speak. I remind the House that a debate of exceptional importance is to take place under the auspices of the Backbench Business Committee. I do not think that I am alone in hoping that that debate will not be delayed unduly.

[Mr Chope]

I will make a brief response to my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Margot James), Mr Speaker. What she says about perceptions is important. That is why it is essential that the Government do not bring forward motions that seem to be designed to appeal to an outside audience, while at the same time leaving things rather vague and open to the accusation that they are trying to tie the hands of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority.

[Stephen Phillips]

Surely all that the second part of the motion does is establish that we should be treated in precisely the same way as other public servants.

[Mr Chope]

It does not say that, actually, because if it did, it would be worded in that way. That is how it is being interpreted. If nothing else comes from this debate, something will have been achieved if that is how the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority interprets the motion. My concern and the concern of many colleagues is that it seems as though the Government have picked a few items and put them in the motion.

To take one public service scheme as an example, the Government have made it quite clear that they do not think that the principles we are talking about today should apply to the armed forces scheme. I support the Government in that, but it is a completely separate issue from trying to tie the hands of IPSA at this stage. IPSA will come forward with its proposals and they will go out to consultation, at which point the Government will have a chance to express a view, as will everybody else.

[Mr Redwood]

Am I right in remembering that the idea of the Hutton proposals was that they should be negotiated between the representatives of the employees and the employers? Does my hon. Friend think that that is the idea in this case as well?

[Mr Chope]

My right hon. Friend is, as almost always, absolutely right. The hon. Member for Blaydon made the point that in the public sector, proper negotiations are going on based upon information about specific schemes and about employment issues overall. It seems that for some reason, the Government are trying to pre-empt that negotiation, although we have a strong and independent group of trustees for our pension scheme.

As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, I tried to negotiate with the Government a slightly longer debate on this issue, believing that we should take it up to 7 o’clock. I lost out in that negotiation, so now I feel it is incumbent on me to reduce my remarks pro rata to give others the chance to participate. I have tabled the amendment as a probing amendment, and I have been quite interested in the reaction that it has engendered. Since I tabled it I have heard colleagues say that they think I am on to a good thing, and that they would support it if the House were to divide. However, I will wait and see the view of others before making a final decision on that.

16:36

[Mr Brian H. Donohoe (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)]

As the chairman of the pension fund, I have had many meetings with the Leader of the House and with the chairman of IPSA. As a consequence of my concerns and those that other trustees had expressed, I wrote to every Member of Parliament. They should have received the letter on Thursday by e-mail and over the weekend by post. I presume that, as a consequence, much that I would have said does not need to be said, but I can assure all Members and former Members that I and the trustees will take on board any observations and questions that they may have.

I would argue that we are where we are today as a consequence of successive Governments, since time immemorial, interfering with MPs’ conditions of service. That is the whole reason for this debate today and why IPSA was introduced. On that basis, it seems strange that even at this late stage, the Government continue to think they can interfere with our conditions of service by putting motions such as this before the House. I reject their position and do not think it is right.

I believe that, having been given its new responsibility, IPSA should be fully independent. It is proving itself to be so in the discussions that I have with it. It has assured the board of trustees that it will operate free of Government interference on this subject and on conditions of service across the board.

[Bob Russell]

Will the hon. Gentleman clarify precisely what he has been promised and who promised it to him? Is it in writing?

[Mr Donohoe]

What has been suggested is in the minutes of the board of trustees, and it is open to the hon. Gentleman to ask for a copy of them. He will see the discussions that have taken place.

[Bob Russell]

rose—

[Mr Donohoe]

I do not have time to give way again, because I am conscious of the fact that so many Members want to intervene or make speeches. Rather than reading out the minutes of meetings, if the hon. Gentleman writes to me I will furnish him with that information.

[Mr Redwood]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Donohoe]

I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman if I get to a point at which I have some leeway, but I have some important things to outline before I take any further interventions.

The trustees of the time had no choice about the move to IPSA, which was agreed by a motion of the House. However, they fought for and won significant concessions within the Bill that made the change. There is absolutely no doubt that the protection of Members’ pensions was at the forefront of their discussion, and I have to praise the staff and advisers of the pension unit and its previous chairman, Sir John Butterfill. They are to be congratulated on the protection that they got for the pensions of Members and retired Members.

The legislation necessary to transfer the Leader of the House’s powers to IPSA was in place before my appointment as chairman of the board of trustees, but as I continue I shall tell the House that the trustees will have important powers that they did not have previously. The transfer of powers was agreed, as all hon. Members will know, in the wake of the expenses scandal, following the recommendations of the Kelly report. One recommendation was that IPSA should have statutory responsibility for setting Members’ pay, which of course includes pensions, and other conditions of service. It is important to understand that that must be done in consultation with the House. IPSA also has the responsibility of oversight for the administration of Members’ pensions.

Therefore, amendments to schedule 6 to the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 were made to give effect to the decision to transfer powers over pensions. That is what the Act was all about, and that is what it achieves. However, Members who read the Act will find that aspects of it clearly transfer more powers to the board of trustees.

[Mr Redwood]

Will the hon. Gentleman make that clear, because I do not quite understand him? Is he saying that the trustees have the power and the duty either to consent to IPSA proposals or to withhold their consent? If they have that power, how might they use it?

[Mr Donohoe]

The trustees do not have that power. Given IPSA’s independence, which is enshrined in legislation, at the end of the day, it makes the ultimate decision, but it must do so after meaningful consultation with the trustees. Any changes that IPSA wishes to make to the pension fund must be reported to the Speaker and laid before the House. That is the power within the Act.

The trustees at the time were presented with the proposals to amend the 2010 Act. They asked for and got a number of amendments, but they had no power to overturn the Government’s proposals, which were eventually agreed. I can tell the House that the trustees made an exceptional effort and fought extremely hard in that period, and they won numerous and significant protections for Members’ pension benefits. By way of an example, accrued benefits will be fully protected after the transfer. Because the benefits have been built up, they obviously must be protected, but they are not currently protected and they could be interfered with. That is a clear indication of what the trustees were able to implement—that protection will be enshrined in legislation following the transfer. I do not have time to give more examples, but I can give them to hon. Members after the debate if they want me to.

IPSA can make changes to MPs’ future pension benefits and contributions only after formal consultation with the trustees, the majority of whom, following the transfer of the power, which will happen whenever the Leader of the House gets round to signing the order, will be Members of Parliament or former Members of Parliament. That is an enhancement of the trustees’ powers, because there is currently no such requirement.

Currently, there are 10 trustees—eight are Members of Parliament and two are former Members, but when the order is signed, one trustee will be appointed by the board of IPSA and one will come from the Government. The Ministry for the civil service, the head of which is the Prime Minister, will appoint the latter. I do not suppose the Prime Minister wants to become the trustee of the Members’ pension fund, but who knows?

[Mr Bone]

I do not understand why we have suddenly created a post for the Government in the running of Members’ pensions.

[Mr Donohoe]

I will explain. That individual would be responsible only for representing the Ministers’ section of the pension fund. A former Minister would have a different contribution rate. I see the Leader of the House agreeing with me on this. The pension fund administers that at present and will continue to do so, but by virtue of the contribution, it will come from the Department that the person was in or from the civil service. The Government are not going to start playing a part in the Members’ pension fund. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman’s question.

There was originally a proposal in the Bill that members of the board of trustees could be removed by IPSA. That has now been forgotten, and the eight members of the board will continue to be appointed by this House and no one else. They will continue to be elected or selected from this place or from among former Members. At our trustees’ meeting on Thursday, we thought it sensible to determine that we would lose two members at this stage so that this whole process could be carried out smoothly. Otherwise, all sorts of complications could have arisen. As a consequence, I would like to put on record my appreciation—and that of the other members of the board—for my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Jim Dowd) and the hon. Member for Watford (Richard Harrington), both of whom have now withdrawn as trustees.

The increase in contributions is the main point of any argument on this matter. I have already argued, and I want to reinforce the point, that IPSA must be seen in every respect as independent. I see no reason why the House should indicate that it would like our pension contributions to be treated in the same way as those of other public service workers. IPSA has a statutory duty to act independently of Parliament, and by giving such an indication, the House is putting undue pressure on IPSA. It should not be influencing IPSA in that way. IPSA must undertake its role as laid down in statute, and in no other way.

[Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

Surely it is important, however, for the House to make it clear that MPs should not be treated differently from other public sector workers. In particular, we should try to avoid a repeat of the bizarre situation earlier this year in which we had to take back powers to set our own pay because the Senior Salaries Review Body had recommended a pay rise for MPs in a year when the rest of the public sector faced a pay freeze. Any such pay rise would have been entirely inappropriate.

[Mr Donohoe]

I have to disagree with the hon. Lady, and I will tell her why. If we put things out to independent arbiters such as the Senior Salaries Review Body, and they make recommendations after consultation with all sorts of bodies, I would argue that the Government should not intervene. In that case in particular, we should not have overturned that decision. This is where we have gone wrong so many times in the past. In the great number of years that I have been a Member of Parliament, I have seen this happen time and again, and my research leads me to believe that every Prime Minister since 1945 with the exception of John Major has interfered in the conditions of service of Members of Parliament to the detriment of those conditions.

I feel strongly about this—so strongly that, as the arch-enemy of IPSA, I argue on the basis of what I have seen that it is far better for it to have that independence, which is clearly documented in legislation, than to have this constant interference in the conditions of service of Members of Parliament. There has not been a great understanding by the Government of some of the elements of the arguments with IPSA.

Given that pay and pensions are linked, it is only sensible for IPSA to take stock not only of all elements of conditions of service, but of the whole question of pensions, which I have always believed to be deferred income for any individual in employment who has a pension fund.

Other considerations relating to IPSA in consultation with trustees include the fact that it has to wait for a valuation. Here, as I say, the Government have not fully understood the position on Members’ pensions or the calculations of where they should go in respect of any increase in contributions, any increase in the age of retirement or any other element affecting those pensions. Clearly, the results of the 2011 valuation of the scheme will shortly be finalised, which I take as a very strong argument for leaving the decision about increases in contributions, if there are to be increases, to IPSA itself. As far as we are concerned, we are in a cost-sharing scheme, as a result of which we must see what the actuary says about any changes to contribution rates before taking a decision that puts us in line with anybody else. As Members will know, there have been increases to pension contributions over a relatively recent period, which I do not think any other members of the public sector have had to face. I suggest that it is important to take that into account, as we are told it will be by IPSA.

I suggest that trustees would also recommend giving further thought to other cost-saving measures in the scheme to make it simpler and to make the benefits clear in a way that everybody understands. From the discussions I have had with Members of Parliament over the last few weeks, I believe that there has been a misunderstanding of many aspects of the scheme. That needs to be taken into account. We also need to consider, if possible, as a means of getting away from increases in contributions, the whole question of increasing the pension or retirement age. It could be part of the answer to some of the problems we face.

Another misunderstanding is the view that this scheme is expensively funded in itself. Schemes like this should be treated differently from unfunded or notionally funded schemes, as assessing changes to member contribution rates should take into account any excess returns generated by funded schemes from the investment strategy. I understand that the London Pension Fund Authority scheme, which is a funded scheme, might not be subject to the general contribution increase that the Government hope to implement. If there are exceptions there, they can be made anywhere else. I am convinced that an awful lot of negotiations are still to take place, and these will bring to the fore some of the elements of the pension fund that are not best understood.

[Mr Anderson]

Is there not a big problem with this whole debate in that we talk about these things as if they are a matter of negotiation, but in fact what we are really talking about is the fact that the Government are imposing a stealth tax on all public sector workers? They are not having negotiations about that, and they are not taking actuarial advice or the effect of the schemes into account. All they are saying is, “There will be an increase on public sector workers’ pensions” as a matter of fact—without allowing negotiations about any scheme to be taken into account.

[Mr Donohoe]

I am not in a position to answer that, as it is for the Leader of the House to do so, although I certainly have some sympathy with what my hon. Friend says.

Some of the closest comparators to Members are senior civil servants. Members of the civil service pension scheme and other schemes such as the scheme for staff of the House of Commons and the House of Lords pay either 3.5% or 1.5% contributions, depending on when they joined the civil service. For that contribution, they either build up a pension at the rate of one sixtieth, or one eightieth plus tax-free cash sum—which equates to one sixty-fourth—with a retirement age of 60, or they build up a pension at the rate of one forty-third with a retirement age of 65. That must be taken into account along with everything else in which we will be involved between now and 2015. It is clear from the discussions that have taken place that consideration must be given to all elements of Members’ contributions.

People may think that I only represent the House in this regard, but I have constituents who are aggrieved by what is happening to their pension funds, and I have every sympathy with them. However, I am here almost as a shop steward—I am not sure that that expression is much liked on the Government Benches—to represent Members in the context of their conditions of service. People describe this as a gold-plated scheme, but although it is a good scheme—indeed, I would argue that it is a brilliant scheme—what is not understood is that only a few Members of Parliament retire from this place with a full pension. Of the 650 serving Members of Parliament, only 35 would leave with one today. Another thing that is not understood is that most Members pay for the rate of one fortieth, which means paying 11.9%. So the scheme cannot really be described as gold-plated.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that Members may have already contributed to pension schemes before being elected to the House? They do not generally come here at the age of 21.

[Mr Donohoe]

The regulations restrict the level of pension that can be paid on retirement. The limit is generally two thirds of pay inclusive of pensions that people have built up before becoming Members of Parliament. I think that that answers the hon. Lady’s question. As most MPs have other pension entitlements, the restriction means that a number of them are not paid the pension of one fortieth for each year of their parliamentary service. Worse, a small number of MPs who have not transferred their pensions to the fund end up subsidising the Exchequer by continuing to make contributions for a period for which they will receive no pension. That, too, is not best understood by those who criticise us.

I understand that the legislation allows Members to opt out. If there were an increase in the level of the contribution and if I were 45, I should find things very difficult. Given domestic circumstances, not every Member of Parliament is rich, and those who are not would find it difficult to continue to make their contributions. I understand that that also applies to many members of the fire service, for instance. There will be a drift, and if that gathers pace—as it could—the pension fund will suffer and the Exchequer will eventually have to fund more than it does at present. That must be factored into the equation before any change is made.

Our discussions with IPSA suggest—and Sir Ian Kennedy himself has stated—that it has determined that MPs’ conditions of service will be dealt with fairly, that it will work closely with the trustees once the powers are transferred, and that it would welcome proposals from the trustees on how the relationship should work. I have put that on record because it was said. At the trustee meeting Sir Ian attended, he went on to say that IPSA’s statutory independent role will be maintained. Importantly, that includes independence in respect of public perception. I think the public realise that, and I know the trustees will hold them to that point.

17:00

[Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

My perception of IPSA over the past 18 months is such that I have zero confidence in it. Although the amendment’s wording is not perfect, it offers me the only opportunity I will have to put that perception on the record, which I can do by voting against the motion. I fear that in the fullness of time Members will rue the day they handed their pensions to IPSA.

However, if it were not for my experience of the last 18 months, which the vast majority of Members share, I would be voting for the motion, as I recognise the importance of our pension scheme and salaries being independent. My reason for not voting for the motion is purely lack of faith in the competence of IPSA. I want to stress, however, that I am not talking about its hard-working staff. They are up the same creek as us; they are in a different canoe, as it were, but, in common with us, they have no paddle.

My criticism is entirely of the IPSA board. One only has to read the minutes of its meetings to realise that it has in mind not user-friendliness in respect of Members of Parliament but, rather, hostility. I serve on the Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority and, interestingly, in the 18 months since it was established we have yet to meet the full IPSA board. That is astonishing.

I have concerns about the part of the motion that the amendment would delete. The motion says that following on from the work of the Independent Public Service Pensions Commission, IPSA will draw up a new scheme

“which is informed by the Commission’s findings and their subsequent application to other public service pension schemes”.

I venture that we could latch on to some such schemes without IPSA being involved in any shape or form.

I appreciate that many other Members wish to speak. I have put my concerns on the record and stressed that I am not criticising IPSA staff. My criticisms are purely of the policies of the IPSA board. I conclude by noting that the National Audit Office has issued a report that is not exactly flattering to IPSA. It says it does not represent value for money and that it has brought in a scheme in which 38% of all claims cost more to administer than the claim itself. It has also found that 91% of Members of this House are now subsidising their work and that a large part of the reason for that is the systems introduced by IPSA.

17:03

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

It would be hard to argue with what the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) has just said if we had not already agreed to do this. We are halfway down the line, and we have been since before the last general election when we said we would give IPSA this responsibility. The debate should have stopped then. We should have said, “Right, we agree today that we’re going to do something we should have been doing over the last 16 months. We’re going to tell IPSA to get on with it by sitting down with our trustees and negotiating a settlement based on the way pension schemes across the world operate.”

Why are we having this debate tonight on a lengthy motion that pulls in public sector pensions? I take the Leader of the House at his word of course, but I am convinced that other people will use this debate as a stick to beat public sector workers over the head with. They will say, “MPs have agreed to have their pensions changed, so why don’t you?” That is the wrong way to deal with something as integral to someone’s terms and conditions as their pension. The terms and conditions of public sector workers, or of any other worker in this country, should be based on a genuine debate between the employer representative for the pension scheme—IPSA in our case—and the trustees. They should come together to weigh up the evidence about what the scheme does, what it is there for, whether it is sustainable and whether there is evidence to back changes.

This country faces a situation in which the Treasury is telling us that a levy must be imposed on those in the public sector, which in some cases will be 3% and for us could well be 5%, without any account having been taken of whether it is legitimate, whether it makes schemes affordable or whether, as has been said, it makes them less sustainable. A survey carried out by YouGov for the Fire Brigades Union suggested that 27% of its members could opt out and 12% would be very likely to opt out of their scheme if these changes go through. Unison has suggested that 350,000 people could opt out of these schemes. These schemes are good for the people in them. They are not gold-plated, but they are probably as good as most people in work can get. If people opt out, that will affect not just those individuals but will have a huge effect on the investment potential of this country, because those pension schemes invest heavily in the stock market.

[Mr Bone]

The hon. Gentleman is putting his point fairly. I might well agree with the Government’s approach to pension reforms, but I am surprised that the motion states that “this House” supports it. This is the wrong debate in which to make that statement.

[Mr Anderson]

I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. This debate should be about the processes of this House—House business is about that, not the politics of this House. It should be about whether we agree that this is the right way for Members of this House, and whoever comes after us, to be treated. This should not be about whether this suits someone’s political agenda and allows them to go outside and say, “Look, MPs think it’s legitimate to have a 5% or 3% levy. Why won’t you do the same?”, but my worry is that that is what this is about.

Let us not forget that we had a debate that concluded three years ago about public sector pensions, including our own. That resulted in big changes to public sector pensions. As has been suggested by our trustee colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr Donohoe), a cut-off was introduced: people would retain the benefits if they joined before a certain date, but for those who joined after and for new members the pension contributions would be more and their benefits would be less. Public sector workers agreed to that three years ago on the basis that it would make their pensions sustainable for the future. Nothing has changed since then, except for the fact that the Government want to impose a levy on public sector workers to try to dig themselves out of the hole created by the collapse of the global financial system. That approach is clearly wrong. Public sector workers should not have to carry the can for the failure of the banks, and that is clearly the message being given throughout the world.

My worry is that if we tell people that they should start paying 50% more for their pensions at a time when they face pay freezes, freezes of increments, a tax on shift payments, potential redundancies and so on, they will walk away from these pension schemes, as I said earlier. That will be to the detriment of the schemes, investment and the welfare system, because as people reach retirement age there will be a bigger drain on the welfare state than there would have been had they been able to provide for themselves.

This approach is a con trick. It is not about pensions’ stabilisation; it is about taking money out of the pockets of nurses, firefighters, street cleaners, social workers and home care workers to pay for the failures of capitalism. The truth is that we should stand together with those workers, as public sector workers, in a debate that is about our terms and conditions. They have a similar debate about their terms and conditions and we should say, “We stand in solidarity with you. It’s wrong that the Government are robbing you for your pension and taking money out of your pockets.”

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and I should declare an interest as the chairman of the all-party group on occupational pensions. I am puzzled by where the hon. Gentleman is going on this, because the motion is surely all about the parliamentary pension fund rather than about those of trade union members in general.

[Mr Anderson]

If the hon. Gentleman had been here from the start of the debate, he would realise that it has expanded into a discussion about public sector pensions because they are included in the motion, in which the Leader of the House has clearly linked this scheme with other applicable schemes. Some of us who signed the amendment want to remove that link so that we can have a debate about when and whether we will give IPSA the right that it should have had since last May. If we had had that debate, we would not be sitting here now and we could have talked about the issue that most people in the House today want to talk about.

Ultimately, we are showing support for other public sector workers and we are not saying that we are a special case. We are saying that the Government should not make any public sector worker a special case by making them pay a levy to subsidise the failure of the banking system.

17:10

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

I rise to support the motion, and although I appreciate the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), I think his amendment is unnecessary.

I must admit that I never thought I would be talking about my pension. Perhaps because I do not have dependants, I did not immediately rush to the pension scheme booklet to have a look at what I should or should not do, but just went for the default—as most new Members probably did—of 11.9% of my pay. However, I want to ask a few questions that I would like IPSA to bear in mind, and perhaps the Government might respond to them later.

Will the scheme to which we contribute be wound up or frozen? There is a difference, in that the Government might be expected to continue with contributions for the closed scheme in the future depending on its status. As regards any deficit or surplus—I do not know the latest on that—will the Government confirm that any future contributions will not be used to top up any deficit, but that the Treasury will make good the scheme as and when it is closed to new members and fresh contributions from members?

I encourage IPSA to consider schemes that are permanently funded, not unfunded, as it were; what other quasi-public organisations have done; and whether they have used salary sacrifice or similar schemes to ensure—how can I put this?—that the scheme still represents good value for us all. I hope that IPSA will also consider how Members can vary their contribution. I was interested to hear what the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr Donohoe), the chairman of the trustees, said about how people might unwittingly end up subsidising other Members or, indeed, the Treasury. Some education on that would be helpful. Will the Government also make a statement about bringing forward proposals on the ministerial pension fund and whether any changes will be made to that on the basis of career average earnings or salary at the time of being a Minister? Some parity would be helpful.

I would say to the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) that I do not see the motion as one that beats up public sector workers. I understand his honourable perspective, which leads him to say that we should not accept this if we are not prepared to accept it for the people we represent. I, like other Members on both sides of the House, believe that we cannot make proposals, which were suggested by Lord Hutton, if we are not prepared to follow them ourselves. If we are asking other people to make a sacrifice—I recognise that the hon. Gentleman is not, but those on the Front Benches agree in this instance—it is paramount that we should be prepared to, too.

I appreciate that other Members wish to speak and that there is a very important debate to come, so my final point is that nobody should be surprised by this, either on the Government Benches or elsewhere. If I heard correctly, the Treasury is contributing 28% and our contributions are roughly 12%, and a 40% contribution towards a pension scheme is not sustainable for any organisation. My former employer used to offer contributions into the high 30s and took the decision to close the scheme. We need to ensure that what we do acts as a role model for companies and for the public sector.

17:14

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) who, as usual, made a number of good points. I think it would be wrong if I did not mention the speech of the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr Donohoe), which I thought was the most reasoned and sensible speech of the whole debate. Uncharacteristically, the Leader of the House was not on his best form and did not show his usual charitable nature. I think that when he reads Hansard tomorrow, he will regret the remarks he made about the implied position of Members who signed the amendment, which was quite wrong. I really think that, on reflection, he will regret saying that.

The emoluments of Members should be a matter for the House and Members should have a free vote and be allowed to make their own minds up—this should not be party whipped. That is where a lot of the problems with our pensions and salaries have occurred in the past, with every party leader trying to bid lower to attract what they thought was the best press coverage on the issue. I do not think that a single Member has said that our pension scheme should not go to IPSA. What I am concerned about is our sending it to IPSA, and then the Executive—the very Government who say they want there to be an independent look at how our pensions are run—telling that independent scheme what to do. That is the whole problem.

The amendment is very simple. It simply takes out all the garbage, goes to the heart of the matter and transfers our pension scheme to IPSA for IPSA to make up its own mind. I am quite sure that Sir Ian Kennedy will ignore the rest of the motion anyway, saying that it is just a representation and that IPSA will make its own mind up. It seems to me that the Government can quite properly make their own submission but that they cannot tie it to the House. Members should be able to make their own submissions and it is wrong to try to force this through. This is what every single Executive have done since I have been here. I say to the Government, “You really have to butt out; you have to leave the pay, conditions and expenses to IPSA.” With all due respect to the Leader of the House, I will have a 10p bet with him that we will be back here again voting on our salaries, because the Government at some stage will not like something that IPSA has recommended.

Let me address the comments of the shadow Leader of the House. I am amazed that the Opposition are going to vote for a motion that states that the House

“supports the approach to public service pension reform set out in the Final Report of the Independent Public Service Pensions Commission chaired by Lord Hutton of Furness”.

I might think that is a good idea, but I did not think that was the Opposition’s view. If they vote for this motion, they are voting for that. They cannot argue about it because it is on the Order Paper.

[Ms Angela Eagle]

I spent a little time talking about some aspects of the Hutton report that we did support, and I also made observations on some aspects of the Hutton report to which I thought the Government should pay more attention. I think my speech was entirely in keeping with our response to the Hutton report to date—as the hon. Gentleman will see if he reads it in Hansard tomorrow.

[Mr Bone]

I listened very carefully to the hon. Lady. If this motion goes through, the Government will quite rightly be able to say that the official Opposition support the wording because they voted for it in the House of Commons. That may well be her position—I am happy to accept that—but this is not the right place to be debating this issue.

[Mr Chope]

Does my hon. Friend share my disappointment at the obvious lack of intellectual rigour being applied to this issue by those on the Opposition Front Bench?

[Mr Bone]

That is tempting, but I do not think it is that. I think that the Opposition are between a rock and a hard place. They do not want to support that particular point, but, equally, they do not want to be spun against by the Government who will say, “There we are, the official Opposition didn’t want to restrict our pensions.” That is what they are really scared of. They have decided that they would rather put the perception in the papers above taking a principled stand. Time and again we do that in the House, and I think it is a huge mistake.

[Richard Graham]

How would my hon. Friend answer his constituents in the public services whose pensions are about to be significantly downgraded when they ask him why the parliamentary pension scheme remains the most generous of all and whether he missed the opportunity to amend it?

[Mr Bone]

That is simple to answer in the way that I hope that my hon. Friend would answer it: the House believes that our pensions, expenses and salaries must be determined independently, so they should be determined by the independent body, not by him or me. That is how we got into this mess in the first place. I hope that he and all other Members would make that point.

I came to the House expecting the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) to be a probing amendment, because we thought that the Government would say that this was up to IPSA, that this was just their view and that it was an independent matter. Unfortunately, the remarks of the Leader of the House have so incensed me that, if my hon. Friend wishes to put the amendment to the vote, I shall support him.

17:20

[Mr Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

Although I do not agree with the final few words of my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), I agree with much of the rest of what he said. If this was genuinely the last time that the House would ever consider these issues, I would be rejoicing and might even be entirely persuaded by what the Leader of the House said. He knows as well as I do that, if IPSA recommends a significant salary increase in advance of April 2013, the Government—perhaps even a Government with him still as Leader of the House—will introduce a two-line Bill to ensure that we do not vote on the proposal.

This is a crying shame: we got into this mess, going back 25 or 30 years, because Executives repeatedly interfered with salaries, general remuneration, pensions and expenses, and there seems to be no end in sight. I have not been reassured by what has been said. I have quite a lot of sympathy with what the Government are trying to achieve, but I would have even more sympathy if they had said, “This is IPSA’s responsibility. Let IPSA get on with it.” That was the position as we understood it when the bomb went off less than three years ago over the expenses row.

At the beginning of 2009—a somewhat different time—I wrote an article for the Daily Mail arguing that the disparity between public sector and private sector funded pensions had the makings of an enormous political controversy. I recognised that MPs would have to take a lead and that the public sector, which includes us, had to wake up to the reality of higher life expectancy and the unchallenged cost of unfunded pensions.

We must place on record some commonly misunderstood facts about our so-called brilliant pension scheme. We have quite a generous pension scheme, about which the hon. Members for Central Ayrshire (Mr Donohoe) and for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) made important contributions. Compared with many other pension schemes, ours is well funded, but those who are on the one fortieth scheme already pay a 11.9% contribution, which is considerably higher than the norm for other public sector pensions. Those facts never seem to be mentioned by hon. Members or the press when the issues are discussed.

I very much agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough about the lesson to be learned from recent months: we might have hoped that the Executive would stop trying to pander to every whim of the press. Unfortunately, the motion seems to be a little more governed by tomorrow’s headlines than by the justice of the case. I say that with some regret, because I broadly agree that Members of Parliament should take a lead on the issue but should not pre-empt other discussions—that would be wrong, too, given the great difficulties the country will face.

I regret that, once again, the Government, like so many before them, have failed to grasp the nettle on MPs’ remuneration and to consider our salaries, expenses and pensions in the round, rather than disjointedly holding a debate every six or nine months and reducing our total remuneration at the margins.

Above all, the lesson that we ought to have learned from recent times is that we should leave this to an independent body. IPSA now, rightly, sets our rules. I understand some of the concerns about IPSA’s operation expressed by the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell). I have had some of my own concerns about it, as I am sure many hon. Members have, but it would be far better to leave IPSA to recommend an appropriate contribution, rather than have the sense of interference.

I go along with the motion. I understand from my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) that the amendment will not necessarily be pressed to a vote. We have a very important debate to follow, so I am glad to hear that, and I praise the Leader of the House for ensuring that we have a fairly full debate on Hillsborough. That debate is not just for Members of Parliament from Merseyside or south Yorkshire, where the terrible events took place; as a keen football fan, and the vice-chairman of the all-party football group, I think it very important that we hold that debate, and I sincerely hope that, after quick winding-up speeches, we can move on to it and put the issue we are discussing to one side. I hope—I speak more in hope than in expectation—that I shall never again have to speak in the House on any matters to do with MPs’ pensions, pay or expenses.

17:25

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

I will be brief because, as the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr Field) pointed out, we are due to start a debate that is 22 years overdue, and many family members of those who died are here to listen to it.

Three basic principles underlie the topic under discussion. The first and most important is that Members should never again vote on pay and pensions issues. Independent determination of our remuneration and expenses is critical to the integrity of the House. I have always believed that it is invidious that Members are asked to determine their pay and pensions. The same rules should apply to local government and the devolved Assemblies. I absolutely, wholeheartedly agree with the motion, in the sense that it should stop, once and for all, any votes on such issues, although I understand that on at least three occasions we determined never again to vote on them yet have always ended up coming back to them. Let us hope that this is the last time.

The second principle is related and is very much about public confidence in Parliament and its Members. Labour Front Benchers believe that taking the matters we are discussing out of the hands of Members will do a great deal to help restore that confidence, as outlined in the 2009 report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. We voted on that principle in the previous Parliament, and it would be absolutely consistent with that vote to support the motion on passing responsibility for our pension scheme to IPSA.

The third principle is that of parity. It is absolutely critical that Members understand that we are no different from other public sector workers and that we should be no better or worse off than public sector workers when it comes to our pension scheme. The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) referred to that point.

We will support the motion and oppose the amendment, because we believe that the principle of parity with public sector workers is of the utmost importance, but it must be understood that we may not entirely support the Government’s approach to implementation of the Hutton report. We believe that some of the statements made in the Hutton report are absolutely right, but we do not necessarily support everything the Government are doing to implement it. That is an important distinction to make.

It is also important to re-emphasise the point made by my hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House: there has already been a 1.9% increase in Members’ contributions, which was agreed in 2009 as a cost-saving measure. IPSA should also take account of the fact that a Member serves for an average of just 15 years.

I reiterate the importance of consultation. The motion correctly secures the ongoing involvement of the trustees in consultations on changes to the operation of the scheme.

The shadow Leader of the House successfully deconstructed the myth of public sector gold-plated pensions. She restated the often overlooked fact that the average public sector pension is less than £5,600 a year and reminded us of the importance of the Government committing to meaningful negotiations with public sector unions, not going to the negotiating table with predetermined outcomes. I re-emphasise my hon. Friend’s point about the Government’s use of language, which sometimes seems designed to inflame the situation rather than to resolve the outstanding issues.

Our support for the motion does not in any way stand as an endorsement of the Government’s approach to public sector pensions, but because of the principles it outlines we believe that it deserves the support of the House.

17:31

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)]

I thank the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) for what she said in support of the motion. She set out the Opposition’s position clearly and we are grateful for her comments.

The hon. Lady is right. We ought to emphasise very clearly, first, that MPs’ pay, remuneration and pensions should be determined independently—we should not vote on the money we get. I agree with her and with the principles of the legislation, the final part of which we are putting in place today. Secondly, we should say explicitly—this is the crux of the debate—that on pensions MPs should not be in a different position from others in the public sector. We should be treated no better or worse than those whose interests we will be considering and have considered in the past. The public will take a very dim view indeed if, as a parting shot, we try to claim that we are a special case, although there have been some indications, however well wrapped up, that some feel we are a special case.

Intrinsic to that is something that we need to understand across the public sector, which is that these prospective changes do not change accrued benefits: they are not retrospective. In the case of the Members’ pension scheme, they cannot be retrospective by statute.

I must pick up one point made by the hon. Lady, which was echoed elsewhere in the Chamber. She said that Members have a relatively limited period of employment in the House, about 15 years, which is reflected in pension contributions. We should recognise that that is slightly longer than the average length of service in the civil service, which is 13.5 years, so our tenure is not below average across the working population. However precarious we might think our position is, there are precarious positions out there as well.

The main argument that we have had this evening is on the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) and supported by the hon. Members for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) and for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) and partially by the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr Field), who expressed some sympathy but felt he would support the motion.

The key point is that they do not wish us to express an opinion on the form in which the independent scheme will be worked out. They feel that that should be left alone entirely and that for the House to express an opinion on the matter pre-empts the decision. I do not think that it pre-empts the decision. I think that it is perfectly proper for the House to take a view. We are statutory consultees on the final schemes that will be independently worked out by IPSA if the motion is passed. Although I think that it is important that we have an opinion, that opinion, which must have some value, will not dictate the final result. I repeat that I do not believe that we should be in a different position from other people in the public sector. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Blaydon nods in support of that contention.

Others fear that we are arguing for exceptionalism. The general secretary of Unite, Len McCluskey, today commented on the amendment:

“We’re not all in this together… While they bay for cuts to public sector pensions, they act to feather their own nests. This will appal ordinary people”.

I do not propose to base everything I say on the opinions of Len McCluskey, but I think that many people who do not take an extreme view would nevertheless be very concerned if it appeared that MPs, of their own volition, are to be treated differently from those in other public sector schemes. That is why I am particularly grateful for the support of the shadow Leader of the House for the basic contention.

[Mr Chope]

Does the Minister trust IPSA? If so, why does he find it necessary to add other words to the motion?

[Mr Heath]

I trust IPSA to carry out its statutory functions and give an independent assessment, but I think that there is no harm whatsoever in inviting the House to agree that we should not claim an exception for MPs. We claim no such thing and therefore expect IPSA to have regard to Lord Hutton’s review and the policy consequences that flow from it.

[Mr Anderson]

Will the Minister make it very clear for the House, the public and, in particular, Len McCluskey that no Member has argued that MPs should be a special case? Everyone has argued that all public sector workers should be treated equally—that they should also be treated properly.

[Mr Heath]

I hope that no hon. Member believes that they are a special case and that, if the House divides this evening, they will bear that in mind when casting their votes. I am simply talking about the perceptions that those outside the Chamber might have. I am very clear about what the perceptions would be if Members supported the amendment, which is why I hope it will not be pressed to a Division. That would only divide the House on something on which we ought to be united.

[Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)]

The House seems pretty much united behind the principle of the motion, but a little concerned about the wording. That leads to the following question: if IPSA were significantly to improve the benefits to Members, would the Government step in to prevent that?

[Mr Heath]

We would have no power to do so. It is an independent process. If there was any notion that should be done, it would require changes to primary legislation, which would be a matter for the House, not the Government. We can be assured that that is the case.

I wish to put on the record my appreciation of the work that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr Donohoe), who chairs the trustees of the parliamentary pension scheme, and his colleagues have done. We are particularly grateful to the hon. Members for Lewisham West and Penge (Jim Dowd) and for Watford (Richard Harrington) for stepping down in order to facilitate the transfer. I know that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire takes an active interest and has been engaged in discussions throughout the process. I am particularly grateful for his letter, rather than his comments today, in which he stated: “Overall the trustees are of the view that the transfer of powers to IPSA will give the trustees the opportunity to contribute to the review of your pension scheme that we all know is inevitable in a constructive way.” Hear, hear to that. Everyone needs to take account of the caveats he offered, but I do not think that that obstructs the thrust of the motion. My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) will not agree with that point, because he does not like IPSA, he does not like all its works and he does not believe that he can trust it. I understand his position, but I invite him to look back at the legislation, which we passed, and accept it.

[Mr Donohoe]

One very important question has not been answered: when will the order be signed transferring to IPSA the powers to undertake the pension scheme?

[Mr Heath]

First, we have to accept the result of any vote this evening, but if the motion goes through the order will be made shortly, and the hon. Gentleman should know that that really does mean shortly; it will be not one of those that lasts several months.

I reconfirm for the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) that the Government propose to increase contributions to the ministerial scheme, with staged increases being applied from 1 April 2012, and that we will consult on the proposal, as required by the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act. For the avoidance of doubt, I should point out that I do not receive a ministerial salary or pension, so I will not be affected—[Interruption.] As the hon. Member for Wallasey says, I do the job for nothing—for my love of the job. I am glad that that is appreciated—[Interruption.] She does, too.

On that note of happy consensus, I hope the House will agree the motion and pass the matter to the independent body with the very clear indication that, no, we do not expect to be treated differently simply because we are Members of this House and have the opportunity to express our opinions here in the Chamber.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Does Mr Chope wish to move his amendment?

[Mr Chope]

With the leave of the House, I will not seek to move my amendment, because the Government have said that they agree with everything that I and the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) have said, so it seems sensible to move on to the next business as soon as possible.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

The question is as on the Order Paper. As many as are of that opinion say Aye—[Hon. Members: “Aye”]—to the contrary No—

[Bob Russell]

Not content.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

The Ayes have it, the Ayes have it.

Resolved,

That this House reasserts its view that the salaries, pensions and expenses scheme for hon. Members ought to be determined independently of this House; accordingly invites the Leader of the House to make an order commencing those provisions of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 which transfer responsibility for the 5 pensions of hon. Members to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA); supports the approach to public service pension reform set out in the Final Report of the Independent Public Service Pensions Commission chaired by Lord Hutton of Furness; believes that IPSA should introduce, by 2015, a new pension scheme for hon. Members which is informed by the Commission’s findings and their 10 subsequent application to other public service pension schemes; recognises the case for an increase in pension contributions made in Lord Hutton’s interim report; and accordingly invites IPSA to increase contribution rates for hon. Members from 1 April 2012 in line with changes in pension contribution rates for other public service schemes.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

We now come to the important Back-Bench business on the Hillsborough disaster.

Backbench Business

Monday 17th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Half Day]

Hillsborough Disaster

Monday 17th October 2011 Commons Chamber

17:42

[Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House calls for the full disclosure of all Government-related documents, including Cabinet minutes, relating to the 1989 Hillsborough disaster; requires that such documentation be uncensored and without redaction; and further calls for the families of the 96 and the Hillsborough Independent Panel to have unrestricted access to that information.

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting today’s debate, following the incredible response to the Government online petition, which attracted 140,000 signatures in just a couple of weeks. It is because those people took the time to push the Government for the release of the Hillsborough documents that today we have the first ever parliamentary debate resulting from an e-petition—although, after a fight for justice which has lasted 22 years, even that minor concession was called into question following last week’s shenanigans in the Chamber.

I also thank colleagues for their fantastic support and response: almost 100 MPs from nine separate political parties supported our application to the Backbench Business Committee. This is a victory for democracy and a victory for people power, but it remains to be seen whether it will be a victory for the families. They have been let down so many times that they will not be surprised if there are those who would prefer for this simply to go away. For those who foolishly believe that that might be the outcome of today’s debate, let me make it absolutely clear: this issue will never just go away—not until there is justice for the 96.

During this debate, I will set out why I believe it is an important issue for this House to consider, albeit a bit late in the day, and outline why it is essential to press the Government on their commitment to release all papers relating to the Hillsborough disaster. All parts of the House should agree to the terms of the motion, but if they do not I intend to press the House to a vote. My hope is that common sense, and ultimately justice, will prevail.

I want to begin by setting out the context to the disaster, as there is a fundamental misunderstanding of what happened on 15 April 1989 and in the dark days, weeks, years and, ashamedly, decades that followed. There have been only a few occasions in my life when I have been completely overwhelmed by the emotion of the event that I was witnessing—the birth of my three wonderful children, the death of my beloved mum, and the loss of close friends and relatives. However, there is one other event that will live with me for the rest of my life, and that is the tragedy at Sheffield on that beautiful spring day 22 years, six months and two days ago.

Before 1989, Hillsborough was just the name of one of England’s famous old football grounds, but for the past two decades the word “Hillsborough” has evoked memories of Britain’s worst ever sporting disaster. It was a day when I helplessly watched frantic scenes as people who had travelled to see a football match, some mere children, lay injured and dying as they were pulled from the terraces. I was one of the lucky ones that day, and all my close friends and members of my family returned home, although for one—our Lisa—it was touch and go whether she would survive. Thankfully, she did. This, unfortunately, was not the case for 96 men, women and children who were killed, and for hundreds of others injured and left permanently traumatised. The loss of 96 innocent lives was bad enough, but the tragic nature of their deaths was exacerbated by what happened next. Instead of those at fault taking responsibility for their actions, a co-ordinated campaign began to shift the blame and look for scapegoats. To this day, nobody has been held to account for Hillsborough.

A half-day debate, though welcomed, is not long enough to go into all the details of this gross 22-year injustice, so I will concentrate on the three main pillars of the accusations against Liverpool fans—namely, that thousands turned up late and ticketless, were drunk and aggressive, and broke down a gate, causing a catastrophic crush. Is it any wonder that some people have doubtful and distorted views as to the exact cause of the disaster when misinformation began almost immediately after the players were led off the pitch at 3.6 pm? The BBC and ITV news, that very afternoon, misreported what had occurred, and it is important to understand the effect that this had, as it formed the immediate public perception of Hillsborough. To understand fully what I mean, people will need to suspend their predisposition to believe the Hillsborough myths and listen to tonight’s debate with an open mind before jumping to conclusions. However, the faux pas committed in the immediate aftermath, when there was much uncertainty and a degree of confusion, pales into insignificance when one considers the malicious manner in which some sections of the press reported things, which still clouds thinking today.

At 3.15 pm, Graham Kelly, the then chief executive of the Football Association, went to the police control box, where he was told by the now-discredited match commander that Liverpool fans had rushed the gate into the ground, creating the fatal crush in the central pens. This was cowardice and deceit of the highest order, as the fact was that no gate had been rushed and that Duckenfield, the match commander, himself had personally ordered the gate to be opened. That disgraceful lie set the tone for all that came later. At 4.15 pm, Kelly was interviewed by the BBC, and he told them that the police had implied to him that the gate had been broken down by fans to gain access. Notwithstanding the fact that there was absolutely no basis to these lies, Kelly allowed himself to be embroiled in this treachery, although he may simply have wished this version of events to be true, as by then he probably realised that the dysfunctional organisation that he headed up would, quite rightly, be criticised for its part in the unfolding disaster. Why did the FA not listen? I suppose we will never know. Without any evidence to back them up, those lies were reported by some news organisations and the story was flashed across the world as fact, repeating the line that drunken Liverpool fans had forced the gate open.

Just a few days later, before people had even had time to arrange funerals for their loved ones, The Sun newspaper infamously printed the banner headline, “The Truth”, on the personal instruction of its editor, Kelvin MacKenzie. It claimed that drunken fans had forced the gates open because they did not have match tickets, stolen from the corpses lying around the pitch, assaulted police officers and the emergency services, robbed cameras and other equipment from press photographers, and urinated on police officers who were helping the victims. That was one of the cruellest blows.

It beggars belief that certain sections of the media still give air time to this most despicable man to vent his bile and mendacity. Given what he said about the Prime Minister the other day, even some Tories may now agree that this man is a pariah, as we on Merseyside know him to be. This is a man who preaches about free speech, but who dehumanised the deaths of 96 people for a cheap headline—what an absolute hypocrite!

Months later, the rag that that man edited admitted that the allegations it had made were totally false, but the damage had been done. To this day, the people of Merseyside do not buy that paper. It has taken the hackgate allegations about Murdoch’s News International for people at long last to sit up and take notice of the claims that we made 22 years ago and to think that there may be some truth to our allegations of collusion between the press, certain politicians and the police.

The actual loss of life from Hillsborough will never be known. Yes, we know that 96 people died as a direct result of the injuries that they sustained at the stadium, but many have died subsequently. Some have died, tragically, by committing suicide and others have simply died of a broken heart at the loss of their loved ones. However, I have been careful not to base my account of events on emotion. I have ensured that I have clear and referenced evidence to support all my contentions.

It is claimed that truth is the first casualty of war; the same can be said of Hillsborough. Misdirection, obfuscation and damned lies were all used as smokescreens to deflect attention away from the guilty. Institutional complacency and gross negligence, coupled with an establishment cover-up, have added to the sense that there was an orchestrated campaign to shift blame from those who were really responsible on to the shoulders of Liverpool fans. Many myths have been perpetrated about the events of 15 April 1989. Perhaps those will be addressed only when the Hillsborough independent panel, set up by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), concludes its deliberations and reports back next year. It is important to give the panel all the pieces of the jigsaw so that it can complete a full and accurate picture of events.

So what are the facts about the Hillsborough disaster? I say to those who believe that it was simply caused by fans turning up late, you are wrong. You are wrong. In spite of a misprint on tickets requesting that fans turn up at 2.45 and despite the fact that Liverpool fans had only 23 dilapidated turnstiles through which to enter the ground, while Forest fans had access through 60, half of the 10,100 supporters were already in the ground before 2.30. There was congestion outside and with 5,000 supporters still to enter the ground at 2.30, it was obvious that the kick-off needed to be delayed. Anyone who has ever been to a match knows that there is always a higher entry rate as kick-off time approaches. Two years previously, there had been a delayed kick-off to allow fans to get into the ground, but not this time.

Instead, the response to the build-up in congestion outside was to open a gate and allow fans on to the concourse. That had disastrous consequences as there were no stewards or police officers inside to direct supporters into the half-empty pens and away from the packed central pens. Signage was poor and the design of the Leppings Lane end meant that about 2,000 of that group made their way into the ground and headed straight for a tunnel marked “Standing”, which led directly to pens 3 and 4. That influx caused severe crushing and some fans began climbing over the lateral fences into the half-empty pens on either side to escape. It was later estimated that more than 3,000 supporters were admitted to the central pens—almost double the safe capacity. At five minutes past 3, a crash barrier gave way in pen 3, causing people to fall on top of each other. Cries to the police for help were audible, but they went unheard.

Another falsehood is the claim that these were ticketless fans. Even officers at the turnstiles rejected that. The Health and Safety Executive, which later analysed the evidence of everyone who entered at that end, concluded that the total number was between 9,373 and 10,124. The capacity was 10,100. The myth of ticketless fans can therefore also be dispelled. To confirm that and to leave no doubt, the Taylor report stated that there was no substance to the allegation that ticketless fans caused the disaster. Unfortunately, that smear still impairs and prejudices the thinking of some, because they have heard the apocryphal tale of ticketless fans so many times that they believe it to be true. Not only is it untrue; it is total rubbish. It is the sort of nonsense bandied around by those who are desperate to protect their own skins.

And how about the outrageous claims by Bernard Ingham, Mrs Thatcher’s press secretary? While the death toll was still rising, he stated that the cause was drunken fans and that Hillsborough would not have happened

“if a mob, clearly tanked up, had not tried to force their way in”.

I know that there are people, perhaps even some on the Government Benches, who actually believe that drivel because they have been fed it for two decades. I simply ask people to read the Taylor report. Alcohol was absolutely rejected as the cause of the disaster. Once again, it was a convenient excuse—an expedient opportunity to smear the fans and abrogate responsibility. The Liverpool supporters were no better or worse than any other football fans of the day. The fans of other teams should be saying, “There but for the grace of God go we,” because a similar tragedy could have befallen anyone at that time, particularly at that stadium, which did not even have a valid safety certificate. The Taylor report concluded that the great majority of fans

“were not drunk or even the worse for drink”.

However, Ingham’s view obviously influenced the Sheffield coroner, who inexplicably took blood alcohol levels from every victim, including Jon-Paul Gilhooley. Jon-Paul was 10 years of age—just a child. Drink was not the cause, but it was used to accuse and condemn, to impugn and reproach. It was, quite frankly, a con.

The cause of the Hillsborough disaster is there for all to see in the Taylor report, which concluded that the police fundamentally lost control of the situation and did not demonstrate the leadership expected of senior officers; that the failure to cut off access to pens 3 and 4 was a blunder of the first order; that safety procedures were inadequate and the ground was badly maintained and dangerous; that the fans were routinely treated with contempt by football; and that Liverpool fans had been the victims rather than the guilty party.

Lord Taylor’s reports, published in August 1989 and January 1990, dismissed the allegations against Liverpool supporters in relation to the disaster. Twenty-two years on, it is difficult to comprehend the enormity of the complete and utter breakdown of communication, or the inaction, by those charged with our safety. It is impossible to understand at a human level why those in authority simply stood idly by while ordinary football fans, without any emergency or medical training, organised themselves into stretcher-bearing squads to ferry stricken fans on advertising hoardings ripped from around the pitch and tried to give CPR to the stricken.

This was not a war zone. No battle had been fought, but we would not have guessed it from the scenes on the pitch. It was due to the Herculean efforts of ordinary fans—these same fans later besmirched by scandalous tabloid headlines—that the death toll was not even higher.

On the 20th anniversary of the disaster, I put on record my thanks to the ordinary people of Sheffield who opened their doors, in the days before mobile phones, to let fans call home to tell loved ones that they were safe. Tonight, both the leader and chief executive of Liverpool city council send messages of support from the people of Liverpool to those in Sheffield who helped on that dreadful day.

I am proud to be a Liverpudlian. In the 22 years for which the families have fought their dignified campaign, I and the rest of Britain have watched as my great city has come together on this issue. Out of the darkness of the Hillsborough tragedy, an eternal flame of unity has emerged and means that Liverpool is now synonymous with a unique kind of solidarity. Whether red or blue, we are Scousers all. To those who attempt to perpetrate the myth that it was the fault of the fans, I say that I will never tire of reminding them that the ordinary fans were the real heroes on the day, not the villains. They reacted while those in authority froze.

My granddad used to regale me with vivid accounts of the two world wars that he fought in, and while he never glorified in war itself he would explain to us children his sense of loss for fallen comrades, nearly half a century later. I did not really understand that when I was growing up, but I do now. It does not matter how long it takes, we will never stop fighting for justice for the 96.

A botched inquest, a flawed inquiry, a farcical review of evidence and a system that worked against, instead of for, the families, have left a bitter taste. An unsympathetic Government, an unsatisfactory judicial process and an unforgiving press have led observers to believe that an organised conspiracy was acting against the best interests of natural justice. We need the Government to act, and we need this House to support the motion, to ensure that there is no further backsliding on this issue.

The Prime Minister quite rightly apologised for a previous Government’s mishandling of events when he responded to the findings of the Saville report. Today, I call on the Prime Minister to make a statement in this House and apologise for the mistakes that were made and the mishandling of this whole tragedy on behalf of a previous Government. I also ask him to join me in pushing for the full disclosure of the senior police officer and the Conservative MP who allegedly leaked the story to the press, and in pressing for a front-page banner headline in The Sun newspaper admitting that it lied in April 1989, just as Kenny Dalglish demanded two decades ago.

We in Liverpool refer collectively to those lost at Hillsborough simply as “the 96”, but each of the 96 was an individual—a father, sister, brother, daughter, son; an irreplaceable person loved by others and with their own unique life story. “The 96” trips off the tongue far too easily. It is not until we read out each individual name on the Hillsborough memorial at Anfield that we realise just how long the list is. Parliament has never recorded their names in Hansard for posterity. Well, tonight, I can at least put one wrong right.

John Alfred Anderson, 62. Colin Mark Ashcroft, 19. James Gary Aspinall, 18. Kester Roger Marcus Ball, 16. Gerard Bernard Patrick Baron, 67. Simon Bell, 17. Barry Sidney Bennett, 26. David John Benson, 22. David William Birtle, 22. Tony Bland, 22. Paul David Brady, 21. Andrew Mark Brookes, 26. Carl Brown, 18. David Steven Brown, 25. Henry Thomas Burke, 47. Peter Andrew Burkett, 24. Paul William Carlile, 19. Raymond Thomas Chapman, 50. Gary Christopher Church, 19. Joseph Clark, 29. Paul Clark, 18. Gary Collins, 22. Stephen Paul Copoc, 20. Tracey Elizabeth Cox, 23. James Philip Delaney, 19. Christopher Barry Devonside, 18. Christopher Edwards, 29. Vincent Michael Fitzsimmons, 34. Thomas Steven Fox, 21. Jon-Paul Gilhooley, 10. Barry Glover, 27. Ian Thomas Glover, 20. Derrick George Godwin, 24. Roy Harry Hamilton, 34. Philip Hammond, 14. Eric Hankin, 33. Gary Harrison, 27. Stephen Francis Harrison, 31. Peter Andrew Harrison, 15. David Hawley, 39. James Robert Hennessy, 29. Paul Anthony Hewitson, 26. Carl Darren Hewitt, 17. Nicholas Michael Hewitt, 16. Sarah Louise Hicks, 19. Victoria Jane Hicks, 15. Gordon Rodney Horn, 20. Arthur Horrocks, 41. Thomas Howard, 39. Thomas Anthony Howard, 14. Eric George Hughes, 42. Alan Johnston, 29. Christine Anne Jones, 27. Gary Philip Jones, 18. Richard Jones, 25. Nicholas Peter Joynes, 27. Anthony Peter Kelly, 29. Michael David Kelly, 38. Carl David Lewis, 18. David William Mather, 19. Brian Christopher Mathews, 38. Francis Joseph McAllister, 27. John McBrien, 18. Marion Hazel McCabe, 21. Joseph Daniel McCarthy, 21. Peter McDonnell, 21. Alan McGlone, 28. Keith McGrath, 17. Paul Brian Murray, 14. Lee Nicol, 14. Stephen Francis O’Neill, 17. Jonathon Owens, 18. William Roy Pemberton, 23. Carl William Rimmer, 21. David George Rimmer, 38. Graham John Roberts, 24. Steven Joseph Robinson, 17. Henry Charles Rogers, 17. Colin Andrew Hugh William Sefton, 23. Inger Shah, 38. Paula Ann Smith, 26. Adam Edward Spearritt, 14. Philip John Steele, 15. David Leonard Thomas, 23. Patrik John Thompson, 35. Peter Reuben Thompson, 30. Stuart Paul William Thompson, 17. Peter Francis Tootle, 21. Christopher James Traynor, 26. Martin Kevin Traynor, 16. Kevin Tyrrell, 15. Colin Wafer, 19. Ian David Whelan, 19. Martin Kenneth Wild, 29. Kevin Daniel Williams, 15. Graham John Wright, 17.

Rest in peace. Justice for the 96. [Applause.]

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. May we have brevity from those on the Front Benches? A lot of Back Benchers want to contribute. This is a very important debate and we have a lot of people in the Gallery who wish to hear it.

18:10

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

May I first commend the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram), who movingly marked the memory of the 96 who lost their lives in the Hillsborough disaster? He has brought to this House not just the voice of the families of those who were lost on that fateful day, but his personal experience, which I am sure will have an impact on the whole House.

Going to watch a football match is something that brings great joy to hundreds of thousands of British people every weekend, but on that fateful April day in 1989, it brought not joy, but tragedy. Parents and children and brothers and sisters who left their homes that day to watch a football match were never to return.

I have met some of the families of the 96 and heard directly from them about the impact of that terrible day. They have shown nothing but dignity; they have asked for nothing but the truth.

I also want to pay tribute to the support that the whole of the Merseyside community has given in the campaign for the truth. No words from the Government can ever even begin to make up for the loss of 96 cherished lives, but I want to send my deepest condolences to all those affected by the national tragedy of Hillsborough.

Let me say here and now, in this House and on the record, that as Home Secretary, I will do everything in my power to ensure that the families and the public get the truth. As a Government, we fully support the Hillsborough independent panel and the process that the panel is leading to disclose the documents telling the whole story. No Government papers will be withheld from the panel. No attempts to suppress publication will be made. No stone will be left unturned.

The previous Government were right to establish a disclosure process overseen and driven not by the Government, but by an independent panel chaired by the Bishop of Liverpool. I pay tribute to the work of the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton for the work they did to secure the establishment of that panel.

Following my appointment as Home Secretary, I announced the coalition Government’s full support for the process. I met the Bishop of Liverpool soon after coming to office so that he could give me an update on progress and so that I could give him my assurance of our support. I have also met the bishop subsequently so that he could keep me informed about the panel’s work.

The Hillsborough independent panel has three principal tasks: to oversee the disclosure of the documents to the maximum possible degree, which will initially be to the families; to report on its work, outlining the ways in which the information disclosed adds to the public understanding of the tragedy; and to make recommendations as to a permanent Hillsborough archive.

The principle underlying the process is that of maximum possible disclosure, and of disclosure to the families first and then to the wider public. This is difficult, sensitive and lengthy work, and it cannot be rushed. However, the aims of the process are, I believe, aims we can all agree on, and we should continue to uphold them.

As the Bishop of Liverpool has said, the dignity of the families should be matched by the dignity of this process. The families deserve to be treated with dignity and respect in the way they receive the information, which brings me on to the reason for this debate.

The reason for this debate and for the motion behind it concerns the Cabinet Office’s decision not to disclose papers relating to the disaster in response to a freedom of information request from a BBC reporter. I want to state very clearly that the Government’s position has absolutely nothing to do with attempting to suppress the release of those papers or somehow to hide the truth. I am sorry that the way the Government responded to the FOI request caused anxiety among the families and concern on Merseyside and beyond.

The Government firmly believe that the right way to release the papers is through the Hillsborough independent panel—to the families first and then to the public. The families should have the papers, and they should not have them filtered through politicians or the media. We therefore support the Hillsborough independent panel and today’s motion. We want full disclosure to the panel of all documents relating to Hillsborough, including Cabinet minutes. Those documents should be uncensored and unredacted. Indeed, the full unredacted Cabinet Office papers on Hillsborough have already been made available to the panel. That includes minutes of the meetings of the Cabinet immediately following the disaster.

As the Prime Minister said in the letter that he sent to the right hon. Member for Leigh:

“Please let me reassure you that the Government is wholly committed to full disclosure of the Hillsborough information that it holds…As you will be aware, Cabinet papers, along with other relevant government papers, have been released to the Hillsborough independent panel. I am keen to ensure that the panel and indeed the families were treated with the utmost respect in this process. We have therefore proposed that the panel will ensure that disclosure takes place initially to the Hillsborough families, prior to wider publication.”

The Government are not seeking to avoid the publication of Cabinet minutes or any other Hillsborough papers. The Cabinet papers on Hillsborough can be published, and the Government will do nothing to prevent the panel from publishing them or indeed whatever it so decides. The panel will release the full picture of what happened at Hillsborough, but in a way that is respectful of the families.

The panel’s terms of reference envisage minimal redaction to avoid junior officials’ names and addresses being published; to avoid signatures being available for copying; and to ensure that the Data Protection Act is not breached. It might also be necessary to redact sensitive private and personal information specific to the victims. However, it will be the role of the panel to ensure that any redactions are kept to a minimum.

The principle is clear: full publication and minimal redaction, and the panel seeing all of the papers, uncensored and unredacted—as the families have rightly demanded: the whole loaf, not snippets. I stand ready to do anything I can to aid the independent panel in completing its task.

Hillsborough was a terrible tragedy—a tragedy that must never be repeated. As the Bishop of Liverpool has said, the disaster and its aftermath inflicted a deep wound in the body of the Merseyside community which remains to this day. The families of the 96 deserve the truth. That is why we fully support the Hillsborough independent panel; why all Government papers, including Cabinet minutes, have been made available to the panel with no restrictions on access; and why the Government support this motion.

18:18

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

We are here tonight because 139,815 people have asked this House to revisit events 22 years old. They are right, because those events concern one of the biggest injustices of the 20th century. For 22 years, the Hillsborough families faced insults and had obstacles placed in their way at every step as they pursued their dignified campaign for truth and justice.

Recognising that, a call for full disclosure was made on the 20th anniversary. That has gathered momentum ever since, and this summer it was supported by people from all over the country and supporters of all football clubs. That was an incredible statement of solidarity with those families, who have faced a hard and, at times, lonely struggle. However, it did something else: it sent the clearest of messages to everyone in a position of authority that the families have suffered far too much, and that the whole truth about Hillsborough must finally be told.

Tonight, the Home Secretary has made an unequivocal commitment to full disclosure, echoing the words of the Prime Minister in his letter to me. We thank her for that. The fact that there is now agreement between all parties across the House shows the watching world that this is not about party politics but about the fundamental rights of victims and their families. I should also like to thank the Home Secretary for leading the Government’s response to the debate tonight. That sends an important signal to the families who have travelled to be here, and to the thousands of others watching closely at home who have been deeply affected by the tragedy. The right hon. Lady might have expected to see my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) opposite her tonight, but my right hon. Friend has graciously allowed me to respond for the Opposition, given my personal involvement in these matters. I thank her for that.

I want to begin by addressing this simple question: why are almost 140,000 people asking us to do more? There have certainly been other disasters in which concerns have remained long after the event. As with other disasters, there are things about Hillsborough that people will find shocking, such as the fact that the ground did not have a valid safety certificate, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) mentioned. But something else makes Hillsborough stand apart. Has there ever been, and will there ever be, another tragedy at which, within minutes, an orchestrated campaign began to blame the victims, their families, friends and fellow supporters? That is precisely what happened there. It is unprecedented in the recent history of our country, and an unbelievable act of brutality against 96 families already suffering unbearable grief. As one bereaved mother said:

“We soon realised that we weren’t only in a fight for justice for those who died but also to clear their names and the names of the fans who lived”.

Those are words that no mother in her position should ever have had to say.

The first damaging lie about Hillsborough came even as people lay dying, not long after 3.15, from a senior public servant, the officer in charge on that day. Chief Superintendent Duckenfield told the then chief executive of the Football Association that Liverpool fans had forced gate C, as my hon. Friend said. That was not true; he had given permission for the gate to be opened. Professor Phil Scraton wrote in his brilliant book, “Hillsborough—the Truth”:

“Graham Kelly unwittingly…repeated Duckenfield’s lie to the waiting media. Within minutes, it was broadcast to the world: an appalling disaster was happening, and Liverpool fans were to blame.”

Sadly for the families, that set the level for what was to follow. Blood alcohol levels were taken from the victims, including children, as they lay dead in the gymnasium at Hillsborough. By today’s standards, that is an unthinkable intrusion into the private grief of the families. As the families arrived at Hillsborough later that day to identify loved ones, they were subjected to police questioning as though they, and the deceased, were suspects. In the ’80s, the authorities could get away with that type of behaviour—people just had to put up with it—but by today’s standards, it is truly shocking.

There was much worse to come, however. Days later, the most sickening lies imaginable were briefed by public servants to newspapers throughout the land. It was a brutal campaign to set public opinion against the supporters and to pre-empt the public inquiry that was to be carried out by Lord Justice Taylor. Let me remind the House that Taylor found that hooliganism played no part in the Hillsborough disaster, and that the main reason for it was the “failure of police control”. Yet even today, people talk about Hillsborough in the context of hooliganism. Casual allegations are still made about drunkenness and disorder. The fact that this still happens, 22 years on, is testimony to the power of the poison in those police briefings to the media. It is also clear that efforts were made not only to shape public opinion but to shape the way in which evidence was presented to the inquiries that would follow.

We hope that the House will tonight give the Hillsborough independent panel the full power and authority to tell the whole truth about Hillsborough, but there are already documents in the public domain that provide clear evidence of the efforts that went on to present events in a certain way. I want to share some of them with the House tonight, as they will help to explain to people who perhaps have not followed every detail down the years why so many people still feel so strongly about this, as we do.

In the House of Lords, there are files containing the original personal statements of police officers who witnessed these terrible events at first hand. They are hard to read, so distressing are the scenes they describe. One in particular stands out, and I have it with me this evening. It is the handwritten statement of police constable No. 227 from Woodseats police station. These are his recollections of the crucial moments just after 3 pm on 15 April 15 1989:

“I realised at that time that a great tragedy had occurred. I began to feel myself being overcome with emotion, but soon realised that I would be of no use to anyone if I felt sorry for myself. I was assisted out of the terracing and onto the pitch. I saw several officers wandering about in a dazed and confused state. Some were crying and some simply sat on the grass. Members of the public were running about with boarding ferrying people from the pitch to the far end of the ground.”

PC 227’s words evoke the haunting TV images that people were later to see replayed time and again. There can be little doubt of their sincerity, but they are not the only words on the page. Attached to the top right corner of the statement is a note from a senior officer. It reads:

“Last 2 pages require amending. These are his own feelings. He also states that PCs were sat down crying when the fans were carrying the dead and injured. This shows they were organised and we were not. Have the PC re-write the last 2 pages excluding the points mentioned.”

In the cold light of 2011, those are truly shocking words. They go to the heart of the untold story of Hillsborough. The unforgettable words

“they were organised and we were not”

transport us straight back to a very different time: an era of “them and us”, when football supporters were considered to be the “enemy within”. It is as though the officer was describing a battle for supremacy between two sides rather than the immediate aftermath of a terrible tragedy.

I do not think that it is widely understood that the personal statements of police officers were collected and amended in that way, outside the normal procedures. That is why the panel’s work and its report are so important. They will mean that the rest of the country will finally see what the Hillsborough families were up against, and what they have known for years. PC 227’s statement was not the only one that was amended. Many more were, in order to portray events in a certain way, removing references to police failure on the day such as the lack of proper radio communications.

Hillsborough belonged to an entirely different era, predating the Freedom of Information Act, when public bodies held all the power. As a result, it is still not known who was responsible for the efforts to amend statements, the level at which that was endorsed in the South Yorkshire police, and the extent to which the then Government supported the police strategy of blaming the supporters. I say this not to make a political point. This is crucial to understanding how and why the police case against the supporters came to gather such potency, pre-empting the public inquiry.

Another area that I hope will be illuminated by the disclosure process is the 3.15 cut-off imposed by the coroner, and the way in which the inquests were subsequently organised. It is impossible to overstate the significance of this to the families, as the effect of it was to compound earlier injustices that they had faced. It means that they have never had the opportunity properly to test all the evidence and information about their loved ones, or to find out if any more could have been done for them. One of the individuals admitted to hospital recovered, challenging the theory that irreparable damage was done in all cases by 3.15. Indeed, there is medical evidence from one of the doctors who treated victims on that day which was never properly heard. The 3.15 cut-off was cruel. It was also crucial, because it denied the families the right properly to challenge the inaccurate claims that had been put around about their loved ones.

I am setting out these issues this evening because many of them will not be widely known around the country. They explain why the sense of injustice about Hillsborough and its aftermath on Merseyside has never diminished. They were the reason that, together with my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) I made the first call for full public disclosure in April 2009, days before the memorial service on the 20th anniversary.

As the Home Secretary said, this led to the establishment of the Hillsborough independent panel, and I appreciate the continued support that she and her Government have provided to that panel’s work. At the time it was established there was an unresolved debate within government about whether or not Cabinet minutes and other documents should be published. I have always been of the firm opinion that they should, but because there was no agreement, the terms of reference allow the panel only to view rather than publish the material.

I knew we would have to come back to this issue; that duly happened in the summer when the Information Commissioner ruled on the BBC’s freedom of information request. I said then that I believed the commissioner’s ruling should have been immediately accepted by the Government and proposals developed to fulfil it, working through the panel with disclosure to families first. I have no doubt that the Government were acting to protect the integrity of the panel and the interests of the families and not—the Home Secretary made this point—to prevent disclosure. As I said in my letter to the Prime Minister, however, the Government’s handling of their response to the commissioner risked undermining public trust in the panel and the disclosure process.

The Home Secretary has this evening removed any lingering doubt and put the Government’s commitment to full disclosure firmly on the record. We thank her for the clarity of her words, but for the avoidance of doubt, does she agree that there might be a case for issuing the Hillsborough independent panel with updated terms of reference, reflecting the clear will of this House tonight? That might also present an opportunity to set out the Government’s position on any redactions to disclosed material. I believe that there should be a clear presumption of no redactions to any material. I am told, and the Home Secretary repeated it, that there might be highly personal medical information that it would be illegal to put in the public domain under the Data Protection Act. If that is the case, may I ask her to ensure that any redactions have the full support of the panel and may I suggest that they be made to any documents only with the agreement and support of the Hillsborough families?

I would like to assure the Home Secretary that the Opposition fully support the Government’s policy of handling all disclosures through the panel and making them available to the families first. The Opposition urge both the Information Commissioner and the BBC to accept that as fulfilment of the ruling. Disclosure is important, but it is only part of the panel’s crucial work. It has also been asked to make sense of it all, producing a report on how what is disclosed adds to public understanding of the tragedy and its aftermath. That is hugely important. It means that the whole story and its full impact will finally be told. That is why I support the Government’s position to release documents not now in a haphazard and unco-ordinated way, but when the whole picture is put together and all the pieces are in place.

I wish to deal now with material held by private bodies and its potential disclosure. It is possible that there are documents and material held by private organisations that will be highly relevant to the work of the Hillsborough independent panel. I understand that Sheffield Wednesday football club and the Football Association have both co-operated with the panel, and I thank them for that.

Clearly, however, there are other private organisations that will have material that might help the panel’s work. The first is Hammond Suddards, the solicitors for the South Yorkshire police. It was involved in the preparation of police officers’ statements, and, indeed, the amendment of them, and the handling of the inquest. The second is News International. In The Guardian today, Margaret Aspinall, chair of the Hillsborough family support group, has called on the company to reveal the sources of the deeply hurtful front page of Wednesday 19 April. It was claimed that Liverpool supporters—my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton mentioned this—pick-pocketed victims, urinated on police officers and attacked an officer giving the kiss of life.

It is important to say that The Sun was not the only newspaper to carry inaccurate and deeply hurtful lies. Allegations on the same theme were reported by the Daily Star, Daily Express, Daily Mail and Yorkshire Post, all using unattributed quotes from police and Police Federation sources. Lord Justice Taylor commented in his report on how they were not substantiated by a single witness. For people in public positions to disseminate such offensive untruths certainly breaks professional ethics and is possibly a criminal act. It might have happened 22 years ago, but the pain caused by those lies is still felt today.

Does the Home Secretary share my view that Margaret Aspinall is right to assert the families’ right to know who gave those briefings and with what authorisation? I hope she will agree with me that media organisations, and particularly News International, should be approached by the panel and encouraged to hand over any material that might reveal who made these claims. It is my belief that the British public, following the revelations about phone hacking, will see Hillsborough in a new light. That, too, is a story of unacceptable collusion between police and the press, working against the wider public interest, and it, too, must be fully exposed, with those responsible held to account.

In conclusion, 140,000 voices have swept Hillsborough back to the Floor of this House tonight, but we would not be here if it were not for the courage and determination of the families. Soon, they will be able to rest, knowing that they could not possibly have done more for their loved ones. I pay tribute to the Hillsborough family support group—to Trevor Hicks, Phil Hammond and Margaret Aspinall; to Hope for Hillsborough, and to the Hillsborough justice campaign for keeping the flame alive for the 96.

I have not seen the files. I do not know what they will reveal, but I am already clear about one thing—that, after a tragedy on this scale, the denial of families’ rights and the denigration of their friends and fellow supporters is a national scandal. When the panel reports, it will require an appropriate national response.

I can remember 15 April 1989 as if it were yesterday. I was at Villa Park for the other FA cup semi-final. Many of my friends were at Hillsborough. Twenty years later, I agonised about whether to attend the memorial service as a Government representative. No issue matters more to me, and I was worried that I would not be able to keep my composure before the Kop, but I also had my own private disappointments that my own Government had not done enough to help those families. I look back on my decision to go as the best decision I have made in my life because the reaction of people on the Kop that day told the rest of the country that there was a deep and unresolved injustice.

That night, I met the families at Liverpool town hall. I promised them full disclosure, that the whole truth would be told. Tonight, to have the entire House united behind them in that call and behind those families is a huge moment. Part of the painful truth of Hillsborough is that none of us, no political party, did enough to help. This time, we must not let them down.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I remind the House that we have an eight-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches. I want to ensure that everyone who wants to participate gets in, so any additional brevity during speeches will be welcome.

18:37

[Esther McVey (Wirral West) (Con)]

This debate has been a long time coming. The journey to get here has been a long, painful fight led by the families of the 96 victims, the people of Liverpool, the local papers—the Liverpool Daily Post and the Liverpool Echo—and football supporters. The support and the quest for answers have not diminished. Instead, they have gathered momentum over time. The family voices have stayed firm; the commitment to loved ones has been unshakeable. Finally, the families are here today to see this debate, so let us make sure that every politician of every party does right by them, allowing them complete access to all material—unedited and unredacted—so that they can understand what happened, and have answers and closure, perhaps a little peace, but most of all so that they can have some truth about what happened on 15 April 1989.

People say Liverpool is a close-knit community, but it is so much more than that. It is an extended family, and it is the compassion and the passion of the people of Liverpool that have supported the families in striving for the truth. When people talk of Hillsborough, they speak as though everyone from the city knew somebody there that day, and in a way they did. My cousins were there—safe, yes, but when a call came to the crowd, asking whether any police, medical staff or officers could come and help, my cousin stepped forward. He was one of those people, one of the fans asked to help the injured and to identify people. It was that help that was so cruelly and inaccurately misrepresented in the tabloids.

The Prime Minister accepted that the Hillsborough tragedy and its aftermath has left a deep wound on Merseyside. He has given an unqualified commitment to full disclosure of files relating to what happened. He agreed to this before today’s debate, but I still believe it is important that we are all here today, that this tragedy is given the importance it deserves and that voice is given to the 145,000 e-petitioners who voted in favour of today’s debate in the House. They want full disclosure, and they want all the families to have the final, ultimate say in what happens to the information.

An independent panel of experts, academics and archivists, headed by the Right Rev. James Jones, Bishop of Liverpool, has been appointed to oversee and make sense of the volume of documents. The families—those who have suffered most—must now be supported by the panel and by Government.

The political journey has come full circle. In too many instances, questions have been ducked. It has taken 22 years, and I want to be part of a Parliament and a Government who do right by the families who have carried so much pain for so long.

Let me close my speech by saying that it is time for words to come to an end. It is time for action. It is time to release all those documents in their entirety.

18:40

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

Let me first say a big thank you to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham). I was at the 20th anniversary commemoration service at Anfield, and I know that that was a very emotional occasion for my right hon. Friend. I think that he felt the rawness tenfold—knowing how the families, Liverpool fans and others felt about an injustice that has continued for over 22 years—and I think that he did well to get through his speech and deliver his message on that day. I want to record my thanks for what he did, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle). As I have said, it was an emotional occasion. There were 30,000 people in the stadium that day. I have been going to such commemoration services for many years, but that occasion demonstrated the depth of support for the families, and for the securing of the truth and justice that we all seek.

I was present at the Hillsborough disaster. I drove to the ground that day with three friends. As was recalled by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram), it was a beautiful sunny day, and we were looking forward to a good match—one of many good matches that we had seen as Liverpool supporters. One could never have imagined how the event would end. As we approached the stadium we sensed that something was wrong, and indeed the chaos had already started outside the Leppings Lane end. We witnessed mounting chaos around the turnstiles. When we eventually managed to pass through them, our tickets were not checked. There was no organisation and no policing. As I have said, it was complete chaos.

I watched the disaster. I was in the north stand, and my three friends were at the Leppings Lane end. I felt somewhat let down because I did not have a ticket for Leppings Lane. I would normally stand up in the Liverpool Kop, but for some reason I had ended up with a stand ticket, which meant sitting down, and I felt that I had lost out. Of course I did not know what was about to happen, and I did not know what had happened to my three friends in Leppings Lane until some time later.

As I have said, I watched the whole horror of the disaster unfold in front of me. It was obvious well before 3 pm that pens 3 and 4, the middle pens, were full, but on either side of them the stand was empty. I will not go into the details, because we have been through them back in 1998 and since, but it beggars belief that the police and those responsible could not see what was happening. It had to be seen to be believed. Then, of course, we saw the disaster unfold.

The horror of that day will always live with me, but I did not lose my life, and nor did anyone personally known to me. The families, however, are in a completely different position. I recognise the dignified and determined way in which they have pursued their fight for justice, in spite of the terrible slur perpetrated by the police, with the help of certain sections of the press, in blaming Liverpool supporters for the disaster. Those families have my deepest respect. It is their love for their loved ones, and their burning desire to put a wrong right, that have kept them going for 22 years. Imagine 22 years of fighting this! It is quite unbelievable—but they still have the energy and drive to see this through. One person could not be here tonight. He said that he was tired and would not be here: he wanted to save his energy, so that he could see the conclusion of the campaign and see that justice was done.

Imagine finding out that your loved one had died in that terrible disaster, or been badly injured, and reading or hearing shortly afterwards that that person and his fellow supporters were being blamed for it. It is almost unimaginable that, notwithstanding the grief and trauma that those families were going through, those reports should unfold in the next few days. As has been said, several newspapers were involved, but I think that a headline in The Sun caused the most distress and upset. It is difficult for those who were not personally affected to appreciate the impact of that headline. The fact that police officers were involved as well was disgraceful. The distress caused by all that cannot be overstated.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh said, the 3.15 pm cut-off point is crucial, because nothing that happened after that time was taken into consideration. We know that people were alive then, and, as my right hon. Friend made clear, that is an issue for some of the families. It was an unbelievable decision. Dozens of ambulances were not allowed into the stadium, and it was also unbelievable that that was allowed to happen. As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton pointed out, it was Liverpool supporters who led the rescue mission, if I can call it that, carrying bodies and injured people away from Leppings Lane outside the ground.

I welcomed the Home Secretary’s statement about the independent panel. There was some discussion about the establishment of the panel, and there was a good deal of mistrust among the families because of all that had happened previously, but they went along with the process and became involved in detailed negotiations with the Government. I was asked by Liverpool and Merseyside Members of Parliament to represent them in those negotiations, which required considerable hard work. The panel’s primary aim is to ensure the recording and orderly release of the documents, which—this is crucial—must be shown to the families first. However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh knows, we managed to ensure that the production of a report was included in the agreement. That report will be crucial to the process of putting the truth in the public domain, and enhancing our understanding of the events and information relating to the disaster.

I welcome the Prime Minister’s unequivocal commitment to full disclosure, but will the Minister confirm that it will include the advice on which the Director of Public Prosecutions based his decision not to prosecute any senior police officers? Will it also include the reasons for moving an experienced match commander, Chief Superintendent Mole, a few weeks before the semi-final and replacing him with Chief Superintendent David Duckenfield, who was relatively inexperienced in the policing of football matches?

I think it important for Ministers, and the Government generally, to tread carefully, because there have been some problems. I know that what the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport said about hooliganism was taken out of context, but the fact remains that it caused a great deal of distress to the families. Moreover, last week’s debacle involving the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) almost scuppered tonight’s debate. We need careful planning and thinking about how this matter should be dealt with from now on.

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Jeremy Hunt)]

As the hon. Gentleman has referred to comments that I made, may I take this opportunity to apologise to the House—as I have to the families—for those comments? What I said was sloppily worded, it caused great offence, and I hugely regret it. The families were incredibly generous in accepting the apology that I made to them.

[Derek Twigg]

I know that the Secretary of State did not mean his remarks in the sense in which they were portrayed. I gave that example, along with last week’s, to emphasise that all this must be dealt with sensitively. The families have been through so much, and sometimes things have been wrongly said, have not been done or have been glibly avoided.

I want to put on record my thanks to the people of Sheffield. What lives with me is the memory of queues of supporters outside residents’ houses—and I mean queues: not two or three people, but 10, 20 or 30—who were allowed to use those residents’ telephones to let their families know that they were OK, and were given cups of tea. That was tremendous. The contribution and support of the people of Sheffield should be on record, and is one of the images that live with me to this day as I recall walking back from the ground. We want justice for the 96, and we want to make sure that all this information is released and that the families can see it first; that is crucial. We also want the Government to consider very carefully the report that will be produced, and to respond in a positive way that ensures that the families know both that everything possible has been done to get the information out and that their fight has not been in vain.

18:50

[John Pugh (Southport) (LD)]

I begin by congratulating, on behalf of, I think, all of us here today, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram). None of us can hope to match his eloquence, passion, persistence and, frankly, the raw emotion he has displayed today. I first knew him as a very effective mayor of Liverpool city council, and he has today proved to be a very effective champion of his area and of Merseyside as a whole. I want to thank him for associating me with his efforts in making the all-party applications; this has been an all-party endeavour. I also want to mention the hon. Gentleman’s predecessor, Peter Kilfoyle. Even though he was a lifelong Evertonian, he did a lot of work for this cause in the House.

I should declare an interest. I am a Liverpool FC supporter. My entire family came from Liverpool, and I grew up there, although I had the misfortune originally, as a child in a city that was oozing football success, to be taken every Saturday to Knotty Ash to watch our one and only rugby league team get beaten repeatedly week after week—thereby amply preparing me for life as a Liberal.

I think I understand the Liverpool character as well as most. A history that has often been quite brutal has endowed that character with two marked traits. The first is a profound emphasis on social solidarity. People have learned to depend on each other—on family and neighbourhood. That was beautifully summed up by Bill Shankly in the following quote, of which I have a copy in my office:

“the only way to live and to be truly successful is by collective effort, with everyone working for each other, everyone helping each other, and everyone having a share of the rewards at the end of the day.”

The second major trait has also been forged by a hard history. It is a lack of reverence—a suspicion and questioning of authority and all the pomposity and cant that often underpins it. That is the reason why Liverpool produces so many comedians. It is a feeling that the world is not necessarily on our side—and, indeed, often it is not, especially for those who spend their time questioning authority, and the pomposity and the cant underpinning it.

Hillsborough was a terrible tragedy for Liverpool. At the time I was a councillor in Sefton, and we outside the immediate Liverpool area lost many people. Afterwards, there was an opportunity to show that things could be different, but what happened? As expected, there was a massive, deeply impressive show of solidarity, and it continues, confirming that this is the city where the way forward is not “walking alone” and where social solidarity is important. The people were, however, let down by the powers that be: the national media, including The Sun, about which much has been said today; those in the legal system, about which we have not said as much as we ought to have done; and the police—we have mentioned Duckenfield—who tried to shift blame. Some—but not all—of them perpetuated, relied on or were diverted by prejudices, not just about football supporters but specifically about Liverpool football supporters. That was the case both knowingly and, sometimes, unknowingly, and explicitly and implicitly. Unsurprisingly therefore, there has been no closure. Not only the narrative of what happened but of how different people told—or tried to tell in order to fix—that narrative has never been fully before us.

I genuinely believe that we get better inquiries and inquests if the people running them are prepared to look at their limitations and flaws. We get better reporting if the media at least acknowledge their failings. We also get better policing if the police openly account for their wrongdoing and the error in their own ranks. Truthfulness at all levels is the path to improvement.

[Mr Dave Watts (St Helens North) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman may be aware that I lost a close friend, David Hawley, in the Hillsborough tragedy. I have something to say about the fact that someone in the media, Kelvin MacKenzie, said what he said and then repeated it. The general public have severe doubts about whether the press should allow such people to continue to follow their profession. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that special attention should be given to dealing with journalists who do these sorts of things?

[John Pugh]

I am aware from books written on this topic that certain people in the offices of The Sun questioned Kelvin MacKenzie about his decision on that day.

Liverpool people are not stupid; they know there are good and, sometimes, not so good men in all uniforms. They know that judges are likely to spend more time at Twickenham than on the football terraces so do not necessarily have adequate knowledge of the latter. They know that lawyers can be, and have been, both cynical and noble in addressing this issue. They know that football supporters also come in all shapes and sizes, and that everyone has their prejudices. The antidote to all that, however, is not reports and procedures; rather, it is a single-minded pursuit of the truth. The antidote is not a narrative that suits one or another group or institution, or even one that allows all interests to make peace.

Liverpudlian John Lennon’s song “Gimme some Truth” puts this point most simply. One verse—I am unsure whether it applies to any Member who is present—states:

“I’m sick and tired of hearing things

From uptight, short-sighted, narrow-minded hypocrites

All I want is the truth

Just gimme some truth”.

The full truth will not necessarily make everything right again. The horror that was Hillsborough will recede in time, even though for some it is, of course, relived every day. However, we owe it to them and the victims to ensure that what passes into history is not a myth or a convenient narrative, but is, so far as is humanly possible, the true and full account of the events.

18:56

[Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) on securing, along with others, this debate and on the manner in which he opened it. It is an important part of the long and determined campaign to secure truth and justice for the 96, and it is a crucial step in the effort to secure the release of further important information. From the beginning, when this horrendous tragedy occurred, truth has been withheld. Tonight, we have heard that there was a police briefing to mislead the public by deliberately distorting the facts, and to do so by promulgating the grotesque untruth that Liverpool fans were responsible for the tragedy on that dreadful day.

Lord Taylor’s report was a full judicial inquiry into what happened and it made it clear that the major cause was police failure on the day and that that should be considered against the backdrop of the failure to deal with public safety—there was the astonishing discovery that no safety certificate had been issued at Hillsborough—and the failure to have and implement an emergency plan to deal with any public disaster. As we have heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), evidence has also come to light—from documents revealed as a consequence of the scrutiny undertaken by Lord Justice Stuart-Smith—that the original police eyewitness statements describing what they saw at the time were later changed by their seniors.

There have been further disclosures showing further withholding of essential information. The coroner’s decision to have a 3.15 pm cut-off on the assumption that all deaths would have occurred by then resulted in vital information being withheld, and major concerns were raised about the conduct of the inquest and mini-inquests.

When discussing this issue, it should always be remembered that nobody has been brought to account. The Director of Public Prosecutions in 1990 decided that the tragedies arose from “accidental” deaths and he stated that there was no evidence to prosecute any corporate body and insufficient evidence to prosecute individuals. Two police officers were named as culpable, but they both retired before any disciplinary action could be taken.

Recognition of the need for urgent disclosure lay behind the important decision of December 2009 to set up the independent panel chaired by the highly respected and trusted Bishop of Liverpool, the Right Rev. James Jones. The fundamental principle of that panel was the

“full disclosure of documentation and no redaction of content, except in the limited legal and other circumstances outlined in”

a full terms of reference and

“disclosure protocol.”

Today’s debate goes a little further than that. It seeks full disclosure, including of what specific briefing might have been given to the then Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, when she visited Hillsborough the day after the disaster. The motion also calls for the release of Cabinet papers that discussed the tragedy. I fully support the primacy of the panel and the families, which has been mentioned by the Home Secretary tonight. However, I would like to know how she views the importance of that primacy in relation to the terms of reference already stated and to her commitment that there would be full disclosure and that the Government would not attempt to prevent the publication of anything that the panel and the families wanted to be disclosed.

The Hillsborough tragedy killed 96 people and has had a profound effect on families and on the community. Lost lives cannot be regained, but the bereaved families have waited too long for the full truth. They deserve no less than the truth, and the correct decision today, together with the Home Secretary’s statement, can take us all a lot nearer to achieving that.

19:01

[Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)]

For the families of all those who tragically lost their lives on 15 April 1989 and all those still traumatised by the events that unfolded before them that day, today is another milestone in their arduous pursuit of justice. I commend the solidarity shown by all who have enabled this debate to take place. Their quest for truth must not be hindered any longer.

As the Member of Parliament for the City of Chester, a city with close ties to our neighbours on Merseyside, I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak on behalf of the residents of my constituency whose lives were irreversibly changed by the tragic events in Sheffield 22 years ago. Many people from Chester were at Hillsborough that day and there are many heartbreaking stories and memories. One of the stories is that of the Rogers family. Seventeen-year-old Henry Rogers and his 19-year-old brother Adam were both at Hillsborough. Henry died in the disaster and Adam, who survived the crush, died just six months later after falling into a hyperglycaemic coma as a result of diabetes. Their parents, Steve and Ronnie, whom I have known for about 10 years due to their tireless involvement in the local community in Chester, recall how Adam was unable to talk about what happened in the months following his brother’s death. Although it was diabetes that took their eldest son from them, Steve and Ronnie maintain that Adam died of a broken heart. For the Rogers family, who are members of the Hillsborough family support group, and the hundreds more affected by Hillsborough, questions surrounding the deaths of their loved ones have remained unanswered for 22 years.

A second constituent, Mrs Ann Williams, who is watching this debate from the Gallery, lost her 15-year-old son, Kevin. Mrs Williams has campaigned tirelessly to discover the truth surrounding her son’s death and is patron of the Hope For Hillsborough charity and campaign group. Like those of many others, Mrs Williams’ campaigns have centred on the decision taken by the coroner, Dr Stefan Popper, to pronounce that all the victims of the disaster had died by 3.15 pm from compressive asphyxia. However, witness statements at the time highlighted the fact that Kevin was still showing signs of life at 3.55 pm, calling out for his mother. Many families of the victims are still angry at the 3.15 pm cut-off point, which meant that the inquest was unable to consider the response of the police and the other emergency services after that time. Having had three requests to the Attorney-General for a new inquest into Kevin’s death refused, Mrs Williams submitted her case to the European Court of Human Rights, but in 2009 that attempt was scuppered by the Court, which declared that her application should have been lodged within six months of Lord Justice Stuart-Smith’s scrutiny in 1997. Like so many others, Mrs Williams hopes that the release of the papers will cast new light on the events that truly occurred before, during, and after Kevin’s death.

This is not the first time Kevin Williams has been mentioned in the House; an Adjournment debate entitled simply “Kevin Williams” was held on 26 October 1994, in which the former Member for Crosby, Sir Malcolm Thornton, said:

“It was inevitable that judgments would be made on the spot which perhaps, with the benefit of hindsight and of considering the matter after some years had passed, should not and certainly would not have been made. But what is there to hide?”—[Official Report, 26 October 1994; Vol. 248, c. 978.]

Seventeen years after Sir Malcolm asked that question, and 22 years after Kevin’s death, we still do not know the answer. What is there to hide? It is now time for that question to be answered.

We are united in this House in recognising that all the papers must be released, but the manner in which they are released is of equal importance. A drip-drip release of information is dreaded by many of the victims’ families, who fear that snippets of selected information will hit the headlines, creating a feeding frenzy in the press and potentially distorting the overall picture that the release of papers is intended to piece together. The Hillsborough independent panel, chaired by the Bishop of Liverpool, James Jones, is the only legitimate vehicle through which this information should be initially released. A large quantity of the information will be extremely sensitive, as it details the deaths of many families’ loved ones, so the families must be allowed to make sense of the information before it is released to the general public. Furthermore, a conscious effort must be made by the independent panel to include all the families in the process. With a number of different groups supporting the families of those affected, including the Hillsborough family support group, the Hillsborough justice campaign, and Hope for Hillsborough, I would like to stress the importance of ensuring that all the families are kept informed of the progress of the independent panel and of the disclosure of the panel’s findings. We must not allow the families to experience any more unnecessary anguish, and we must grant them the dignity that they so rightly deserve.

To that end, I support the Government’s position on the BBC’s freedom of information request, which could lead to the Cabinet papers bypassing the independent panel and being released immediately. The BBC submitted the FOI request with the best of intentions, but now that the Cabinet Office has recognised the overriding public interest in releasing all the papers to the panel, the BBC should recognise that its FOI request has achieved its objective and that the documents should be released only through the independent panel.

As I have said, the events of that fateful day in the spring of 1989 have lived long in the memories of those who so sadly lost their loved ones—they will never be forgotten. Although the release of the information contained among the mountain of unpublished papers is undoubtedly in the public interest, the interests of the families and survivors of Hillsborough are now the most pressing concern. For their sake alone, clarity is of the utmost importance. I believe that that can be achieved only by allowing the Hillsborough independent panel to conduct its investigation. Once the families have been given the opportunity to digest the panel’s final report, and only then, the documents must be widely and publicly disclosed.

19:08

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) on his superb effort in securing this debate and on his incredibly powerful opening speech. I also wish to thank the 140,000 people who signed the e-petition, which so strengthened my hon. Friend’s hand when he attended the Backbench Business Committee to argue for time to have this debate on the Floor of the House.

This subject is of massive importance to my constituents, to Liverpool football fans, to football fans generally, to the city of Liverpool and to Merseyside as a whole, as shown by the fact that all the Merseyside MPs supported my hon. Friend’s proposal that time be found, on a votable motion on the Floor of the House, to consider the full disclosure to Hillsborough families, unredacted and uncensored, of all Government-related documents, including Cabinet minutes. The release is a matter of enormous importance to the bereaved families of the 96 people whose deaths were caused on that day and to the survivors of the disaster.

I was one of two Ministers who called for full disclosure and publication of all existing documentation relating to the Hillsborough disaster on the 20th anniversary of the tragedy in 2009, along with my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham). The incredible show of solidarity and dignity at the Anfield memorial, which I also attended that year, as well as the chants for justice that interrupted my right hon. Friend’s speech on that occasion, led to the establishment of the Hillsborough independent panel. To achieve that, my right hon. Friend and I were able to push behind the scenes in government to overcome some obstacles in Whitehall, although in my view the terms of reference leave a little to be desired. I hope the process, ably led by the Bishop of Liverpool, who knows what a dark shadow the tragedy still casts across the city, will finally bring everything that can now be known and every document that now exists, 22 years after the event, into the public domain, unredacted by officialdom.

I thank the Home Secretary for her positive and clear commitment to full disclosure this evening. The Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister have agreed to the release of all documents and it is of enormous importance that Parliament should vote to call for unredacted and uncensored release and publication of all Government papers, including Cabinet minutes and papers.

I believe that the Hillsborough disaster and the circumstances surrounding it are a unique case that justifies unique action. Let me briefly set out why. The Hillsborough disaster was not an accident. It could and should have been avoided. It was caused by a failure of police control: that was the finding of Lord Justice Taylor in his interim report just four months after the disaster. Why, then, do so many people still talk of hooliganism?

South Yorkshire police failed spectacularly in their duty on 15 April 1989, but rather than admit it they spent years trying to blame the Liverpool fans who attended the match and the victims for what had happened. That was an orchestrated, sustained and deliberate campaign to blacken the names of the victims and of Liverpool supporters who attended on that day to enable South Yorkshire police to evade their responsibility. As a consequence, the Hillsborough families have had to endure one of the most disgraceful campaigns of official skulduggery, hostility and lies of any victims’ families whom I know. It began on the day of the tragedy and continued for years and even now it has left families feeling understandably distrustful and suspicious of officialdom.

South Yorkshire police’s failure to accept responsibility and their ongoing efforts to deflect blame, which lasted for years after Taylor’s verdict, mean that there are huge amounts of misinformation, which the families keep having to correct. Twenty-two years after the event, the families should not still be having to defend their relatives who died from the lies and innuendo that appear every time the disaster is discussed in the public arena. It is as well to remember that one of the first things that senior officers in charge on that day did was lie about why the gates at Leppings Lane were opened, in order to cover up their culpability.

Inexcusable police behaviour continued on that day. Police refused to allow ambulances that might have saved lives into the ground because they were treating it like a riot, not a disaster. They treated families who arrived on the scene to look for missing relatives as if they were criminals. They blood-tested the dead for alcohol—even children—but there was worse to come. South Yorkshire police briefed The Sun that the victims had caused the crush and that fans who merely sought to assist the injured and dying were stealing from them and urinating on them—vile and untrue smears that heaped appalling distress on top of unbearable sudden bereavement. It is about time we knew who gave those stories to The Sun and I join the families today in calling on News International to tell us.

As if that were not enough, South Yorkshire police quickly established what I referred to in a debate in this House in 1998 as a “black propaganda” unit, which systematically set about altering police statements in an attempt to influence Lord Justice Taylor’s inquiry into the causes of the disaster. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh read from one of them; I have read them all. This was no less than a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. One cannot read all the statements, amended, unamended and annotated by police lawyers and police, and come to any other conclusion. It failed mainly—and really only—because they did not have time to complete the job and unamended statements were sent to Taylor. Taylor then gave his finding, but instead of taking notice of Lord Justice Taylor’s clear finding and his equally clear rebuke, South Yorkshire police kept the black propaganda unit in place and simply set about persuading the South Yorkshire coroner of their story, preferring to try to engineer historical revisionism rather than to face up to the fact that they were at fault and found to be at fault by the Taylor inquiry.

Despite all that disgraceful behaviour, the chief constable did not resign. The two senior officers in charge on that day were retired on medical grounds and with large pensions to avoid their having to face disciplinary action. No one responsible has ever had to account for the loss of control on that day or for the extended quite despicable behaviour that followed for years thereafter. Indeed, one member of that black propaganda unit, responsible for the smears, is a serving chief constable to this day: Sir Norman Bettison. No wonder the families are suspicious of officialdom, no wonder they do not ever quite believe that what they are told will happen will happen and no wonder they want Parliament to support them by voting for them to see all documents unredacted and uncensored. I believe that a vote in this House for full publication will strengthen the hand of the Hillsborough independent panel in any discussions that it might need to hold with the Government about ultimate publication of all the material produced to it.

Although prompted by the Government’s reaction to the Information Commissioner’s ruling that Cabinet minutes should be produced, this important debate will allow Parliament to make its views clear, on a votable motion, about what it expects to be disclosed. Parliamentarians should take the chance to say clearly: we are with the families, who must see everything, and there must be no more suspicions of sinister official manoeuvring to prevent the full truth of the disaster from coming out, as there has been too much of that. That is all the families want and we must help them to get it by voting in favour of this motion.

19:16

[Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)]

I congratulate those who have campaigned so effectively to secure this debate. Specifically, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram), who has been a feisty campaigner on this issue. I know that many of my constituents are grateful for his efforts, as am I. I also pay tribute to the families of the 96 who have made the journey down today.

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate and I am particularly anxious to do so for several reasons. First, I am a passionate football fan. I am a lifelong Manchester United supporter and a former season ticket holder, and I have gone to watch a huge number of games in my lifetime. I have stood on windswept terraces, inside the so-called “cages”, and I have seen at first hand some of the appalling crowd management by both police and ground staff at stadiums. To my mind, this really was the definition of a disaster waiting to happen. As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton said, there but for the grace of God go I.

Since the tragedy at Hillsborough, we have come a long way, with all-seater stadiums, greater police planning and much smarter ground management and layout. Clubs have also taken on much more responsibility and have recognised their duty to improve safety. It is vital, however, that we learn all the lessons and get all the facts so that we avoid such appalling tragedies happening again. I still go to watch Manchester United as often as I can and now my children are starting to get old enough to come with me. I want to ensure that we have learned the lessons of Hillsborough so that my children will be able to enjoy the unique magic of match day in the safest possible environment.

The second reason I am so keen to speak is that I have been contacted by a large number of constituents who have urged me to support the campaign to release all documents. I am the only Member of either coalition party to represent a seat on the Mersey estuary. A substantial proportion of my constituents, especially those living in Runcorn, are originally from Liverpool, or, at the very least, their parents are from Liverpool. Many are die-hard Liverpool fans. Many have friends or family who were affected by the tragedy and they want to make certain that the full facts are made available so that bereaved families get the full picture and we can fully understand what happened.

I share the wishes of my constituents and I want to see the papers released. I am pleased that the Government have restated their commitment to full transparency and are happy for the papers to be released as soon as the Hillsborough independent panel decides to do so in consultation with the bereaved families. Given that Cabinet records are normally withheld for 30 years, I think that shows the Government’s real dedication to openness in this case and their willingness to help resolve any unanswered questions. I also agree with Margaret Aspinall, chairman of the Hillsborough family support group, that it is right that the papers are shared first with the families before being released to the wider public.

Although it is important that the documents are released, they are only a small part of the truth about Hillsborough. It is essential that the Hillsborough independent panel, which is expected to examine up to 2 million documents as part of its extremely important work, considers all the facts. We must recognise that that is no easy task and we should be patient, but we need to have the truth. I look forward to the panel’s eventual report and to the release of the Cabinet papers. I remember that fateful day in April 1989 as though it were yesterday and I hope that I never see such a tragedy again.

19:19

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

Every weekend, hundreds of thousands of people attend public events, including many sporting events. They leave their homes in the not-unreasonable expectation that those who are responsible for the management and safety of those events will do their jobs professionally, thoroughly and properly, and that all the experience available will be brought to bear in those situations. What they do not expect is that if something does go wrong, as things do occasionally at events, any victims will be turned into villains. At the heart of the continuing problem that the families, I and many Members have about what happened at Hillsborough is that that is exactly what happened—there was an attempt to turn the people who were victims, in the ways described by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram), into villains.

My hon. Friend spoke movingly and eloquently, and I think that he spoke for the whole House. His speech was thorough and covered all the events, problems and things that have gone wrong since, but what he did by reading out the names of the victims was to bring things back to the human scale. I want to do that now by mentioning two people who were constituents of mine at the time—they have since moved—Mr and Mrs Joynes. They lost a son, Nicholas, who has been named by my hon. Friend, and I had a lot to do with them in the early years after the tragedy occurred. They would not want to be seen as being any different from any of the other families concerned, but I single them out because they typify the dignity with which people have responded to the loss of loved ones.

I mention Mr and Mrs Joynes because it was at their request that I attended a day of the inquest hearings, at which I was appalled. It was clear from the way those mini inquests were handled that the whole event seemed to be geared up to proving how much or little alcohol was in the blood of those who had been killed in that tragic and awful disaster. I note that there is a whole debate to be had about mini inquests, but it might be best to have that debate on another occasion. Is it any surprise that those people who had lost loved members of their families at Hillsborough were offended when, on top of the attempts to turn the victims into villains, they found that the inquest, which was supposed to be about establishing cause of death—nothing more than that—seemed to be a perpetuation of that calumny?

[Maria Eagle]

It was.

[Mr Howarth]

Indeed—it was.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) and my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) on the role they have played in bringing about the release of all these documents, and I welcome, I think, the statement that the Home Secretary made today. As I understand it, she has said that all documents, including Cabinet minutes, will be made available and that nothing will be withheld from the glare of public scrutiny. If that is what she was saying, I very much welcome that. I followed her comments carefully and that appears to be what she said.

I want to make a slight qualification about the process of redaction. The Home Secretary will be aware that, wearing another hat, I sit on the Intelligence and Security Committee. When we produce annual reports or any other kind of report we use the process of redaction, which is necessary because issues of national security are sometimes involved. However, I am aware that redaction causes suspicion. What is left out gives the media vent to speculate about what might have been in there. In this particular case, the families who want to know everything, and rightly so, might feel that something has been excluded. The point I want to make to the Home Secretary is that more thought needs to be given to how that process is to be conducted, who is to be involved in it and who will have the final veto. The default position should be to have no use of redaction unless there are issues of personal medical evidence or of data protection to consider. Data protection should not be used to protect those who may have been culpable of failing in their duties, but other issues of data protection, including in relation to the families themselves, might be relevant. There should be redaction only in those circumstances, and even then each decision should be open to question by the families and the independent panel.

[Mrs May]

It might be helpful if I clarify these issues and respond to the points that the right hon. Gentleman has made. As far as Government papers are concerned, there will be no redaction by Government. Those papers will be available to the independent panel and it will be up to the panel to decide whether there should be any redaction. Having spoken to the panel I know that its view is that redaction should be minimal, but it will wish to discuss with the families the possible redaction of some personal information relating to the victims. I hope that everybody making papers available to the panel will follow the Government’s lead in ensuring that there is no redaction in those papers.

[Mr Howarth]

I am very grateful to the Home Secretary for that clarification, but I still make the point on redaction that there needs to be some thought about how those three different groups, including the Government, will handle that process. I welcome the fact that she said, I think, that the default position should be to publish rather than redact and I hope that that process prevails.

I shall conclude now because I know that many others want to speak. The most important thing for those who have lost loved ones is that light should be shone into all the dark corners that so far have not been revealed, and I hope that the process will do that. I know that nothing can bring comfort in bereavement, particularly given that so many of those who died were so young, but I hope that families will at least feel vindicated in having defended the reputation of their family members and of those who were, collectively, so badly smeared at the time.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. Given the time we have for this debate and the number of Members who have indicated that they wish to speak, I am going to change the time limit on Back-Bench contributions to 12 minutes, starting with the next speaker. I think that will balance the debate for us.

19:29

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

I rise to speak in this debate with a heavy heart but delighted that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) was able to secure it. I was proud to put my name to support the Backbench Business Committee and to the motion today.

The hon. Gentleman’s was a very moving and powerful speech. I am sure that I am not the only one who felt myself go, and I commend him for his composure when he bravely delivered the names of the 96 people who died either on that day or later. He voiced the anger, the frustration and perhaps the hope as well of many Liverpool fans and families, not just the fans from Liverpool and Merseyside, but those from across the country and, indeed, from around the world.

We all know that warm words will never bring back those 96 people. However, I hope that warm words and the clear actions that will result from the motion today will bring some comfort to those people who agonised on 15 April 1989. It was not one of those things where someone had to be there to understand how it affected people, particularly in Liverpool. We have heard compelling eye-witness commentaries today from the hon. Members for Halton (Derek Twigg) and, indeed, for Liverpool, Walton. I remember that it hit home at the school assembly on the Monday morning, when we were asked to pray for someone who had died who was a pupil at our school. That, again, twisted the knife ever further, and I did not even particularly know that person.

I intend to try to keep my comments short, so I will not mention all the contributions that have been made, but I thank the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), who spoke so eloquently as well. I am unusual perhaps in being a red in the Coffey family—the rest of them are blues—but we are nevertheless united in our determination to see that justice is done today and in the future.

The right hon. Gentleman was eloquent in referring to the fact that there were deficiencies in the terms of reference set out in the 2009 report. I am delighted that he was gracious to have mentioned that, great achievement though it was, it is good to bring this back to the House today. Indeed, I am sure that there might have been nervousness when the motion was tabled. Officials and Cabinet Ministers, as perhaps happened back in 2009, may have fed one another’s anxiety that releasing Cabinet minutes and documents before the end of the time limit under the 30-year rule might not allow free discussion in future.

Perhaps that nervousness was triggered by the advice given and discussions that took place on the Iraq war—indeed, there is perhaps anxiety about information yet to be fully disclosed—but I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I was pleased to hear her words today that no stone will be left unturned and that full, unredacted papers will be provided to the panel. That is really important because, as has been eloquently described today, there is still a feeling of cover-up—the feeling that people are willing to make smears to cover up their own failings at the time. I am reassured by the determination of the House and the Government to ensure that the Hillsborough independent panel and the families have access to the information that they deserve.

I have a question that I appreciate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary cannot answer now. I encourage her to ensure that the panel has the full time to be able to do its work. The Bishop of Liverpool has recently recovered from illness, but he is also leading another panel that is due to report to Parliament within the next six months, so I should like to encourage my right hon. Friend to make certain that the secretariat is appropriately staffed to make sure that there is no delay in ensuring that the more than 2 million documents are gone through at a good pace, so that people hear the truth as quickly as possible.

I support what my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley) said earlier about the BBC. It was kind of someone from the BBC to phone me to talk about why the BBC is continuing to press the Government on the appeal. I agree with my hon. Friend, and I say to them now that they should ensure that the process can go ahead unhindered, but it should wait its turn until the families have seen what information is held.

I have a final plea to football fans everywhere. It is not often that I support Sir Alex Ferguson, especially as people will realise the rivalry between Liverpool and Manchester United, but I really do support what he said the other day: the time has come to end the vile chants about Hillsborough and—dare I say it the other way?—about Munich. I call upon premier league clubs to ensure that they do everything that they can to show that those vile chants should be treated as though they were racist chants. The clubs should hunt down the people doing these vile things—they might not realise how much it turns the knife again and again in the families and fans of our club—and ensure that those people are kicked out of football for good.

Madam Deputy Speaker, 15 April 1989 will never be forgotten in Liverpool. It will never be forgotten in people’s hearts. That will continue, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton said—so it should—but with the disclosure of information and the publication that will finally come, I hope that we can at least show people that the truth will be outed and that there is nothing to hide from the truth. We must ensure that those people who walked along the Leppings Lane will never be forgotten, and they never will be in the House.

19:34

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

First, I apologise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) for being late to the debate. I am sorry that I did not hear his introductory speech. I was chairing a Select Committee meeting, which I could not get out of. I came in for the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg). I thank him for what he said about the people of Sheffield and how they responded to people who were leaving the ground on that day. We have to remember that it was an era before mobile phones. People were desperate to make contact with families and friends. Houses were opened up; people were welcomed in; phones were used and cups of tea were made. That was felt by the people, and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton has expressed similar feelings to me in the past about that.

I was at the game on that day. I was leader of Sheffield city council. Normally, when I went to matches at Hillsborough, I was on the Kop. That day, I was in the directors’ box, at the invitation of the club to go to a semi-final; I had been to a number over the years. I remember when things started to happen that, initially, there was a feeling that there might be a bit of disturbance in the crowd. We could see people start some movement. People were trying to clamber over the fences. Eventually, it became apparent that something more serious had happened—an accident of some kind. The thought was that people had been crushed and perhaps fainted. It took an awful, long time for even people sitting there watching the events to realise the horror of what had actually happened. Initially, we were told that 60-odd people had died. Then it became more, of course, as the events unfolded.

I remember simply going back to the directors’ box, being kept abreast of events and just simply sitting with the directors and one or two friends who were there and crying. What else could we do? This was in our city, in my football ground: 96 people had died before our eyes. What else could we do? Next morning, I went back to the ground, after the Prime Minister had been there, with representatives of the three councils—Liverpool, Nottingham and Sheffield—and the clubs to look at the scene where things had happened, and people simply stood and cried again.

This was a tragedy, of course, above all else for the people who died, for their families, for the people who were injured, for Liverpool as a football club and for Liverpool as a city, but it was also a tragedy for Sheffield and Sheffield Wednesday as well. We went a few days later outside the ground to see the scarves, the flowers and the messages from football fans all over the country. This was a tragedy for football and football fans, and it could have happened to any club and many grounds up and down the country, but it happened there on that day. Therefore, although the tragedy is with Liverpool, there is also a desire in Sheffield to have all this information come out in the open. We want to see it out in the open. We want to see as much information as possible out there, so that people can really believe that the cover-ups are at an end and they can reach their own decisions about that information. There are real concerns about the coroner’s inquiry and the artificial cut-off point. In my view, that should never have happened. I hope that this might let some light fall on that.

I was a member of the police authority as well. I will not go into all the details about the police’s actions. That has been covered already. All that I have to say is that, the previous year, I went round when the same two clubs were to play a semi-final at Hillsborough with a senior police officer and looked at the arrangements. My understanding is that they were somewhat different on the day of the disaster than they had been in the previous year.

So, in the end, it is incumbent on us all to make sure that this information is available, particularly for the families and friends and those who were injured to get the certainty that they have lacked all this long time—certainty, when they have not known whether something is there, hidden away, that has not been brought out into the light of day that might better explain exactly what happened, why it happened and whether it could have been avoided and their loved ones could still be alive today if other action had been taken.

I am doing my small part. I have already been approached by the panel. I have papers in the Sheffield archives that I understand are classified as my personal papers, but they relate to my responsibilities as leader of the council. Some of them relate to Hillsborough, and I have indicated that I am quite prepared to have all that information in the public domain. It is incumbent on us all to do our small bit to make sure that the information gets out into the open.

19:40

[Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)]

May I say how humbling was the address by the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts)? I know that he is a football fan to his very core, and the emotion with which he spoke touched Members on both sides of the House. I congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) on a job well done so far; he has represented his constituency fantastically well, and the people of Liverpool brilliantly, and he deserves great commendation for that.

Like many other Members, I would like to thank the 140,000 people who signed the petition. I very much like this new type of democracy that we are bringing to this place. Democracy evolves, and the fact that this debate is taking place is possibly the best testament to the new process. Obviously, I pay tribute to the families of the 96.

I also want to pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham). The passion in his words spoke volumes, and all the work that he, with other colleagues, has put into instigating the Hillsborough independent panel is very much appreciated. I hope that he is satisfied with the words that he heard from the Home Secretary, and with the tone in which they were uttered.

Like everyone in this debate, I can remember exactly what I was doing on 15 April 1989. I was starting a business, and I was in the John Lewis store in Oxford Circus, trying to foist some of my new business’s produce on to the customers going by. I knew that some fantastic games of football were about to start, and I kept trying to steal away from what I was hoping to be my new career to catch a few tiny moments of each game. The match should have been, as most other FA cup semi-finals are, a fantastic game of football, with controversy and memorable incidents on the football pitch, but they should have had to do with football, not what we now remember that date and game for. Twenty-two years later, people really should not still be unable to get the complete truth. How can one learn from the lessons of the past if one is not presented with all the information?

I read the Taylor report, and it is obvious from what many Members have said that there was a complete breakdown in communication in the police. Liverpool fans were magnificent in the way they helped each other on that day, after the tragedy. It is unbelievable that the emergency services were so slow in responding, and that ambulances were kept outside the stadium. Hooliganism played no part whatever; police failure was the cause. Police practice was to blame.

I do not want to reiterate everything that has been said; I want to give a slightly different perspective. The first is from someone I do not know: the Liverpool goal-keeper at the time, Bruce Grobbelaar. I remember reading an interview with him in which he said:

“Two minutes into the game, I was aware of a surge behind me. I saw the movement out of the corner of my eye, and I heard a lot of shouting, a lot of noise.

The ball went into that section soon after, and as it was returned, there were voices coming from below me.

As I looked down into the front of those pens, I could see people pressed up against the mesh. The wire was digging into their faces, and people were shouting: ‘Bruce, can you help us, please? We can’t breathe.’

What was I to do? I’m about to take a goalkick in this massive game, but all I could think of was those contorted faces and people crying for help. After clearing the ball, I remember shouting to a steward to do something.

The ball went out and I started bellowing at a policeman standing by a gate to open it. He said he couldn’t and would have to liaise with his colleagues. There was a sense of panic.

When the ball sailed into the crowd for a third time, I could see people being lifted out of those terraces. There were screams and cries all around which I’ll never forget, and I shouted to the policeman: ‘Please open that gate, before it’s too late. Please.’

When the ball went out again I made a bee-line for the ref. I pointed to the scenes behind my goal, and he only needed to look once.

The gate had been opened, and people were beginning to pour onto the pitch. We were six minutes into the game, and he turned to all the players, and said: ‘Right, we’ve got to get off.’”

Members of the House probably do not know that I have been a qualified, active football referee since the age of 12. I was signed up to do that by my dad’s best friend, a football referee of the highest quality. His name was Ray Lewis, and he was the referee at Hillsborough on that day. He is very much on the record about what, in his view, happened behind the scenes. He said that when he attended the police briefing 90 minutes before the game, there was nothing to suggest that there would be problems at the game. There was no reason to believe that there was a problem leading up to the kick-off. When the game got under way, he could see the beginnings of problems at the Leppings Lane end, but there had been problems at that end in previous games—lessons that had not been learned.

When Mr Lewis was eventually told by South Yorkshire police at 3.6 pm to stop the game, the full gravity of the situation simply was not clear, as the hon. Member for Sheffield South East has said. Minute by minute, hour by hour, the horror of what had happened in front of Mr Lewis began to unfold. He was told of the first fatality at 3.40 pm. He said:

“To a certain extent you are shocked and numbed.”

He had gone to referee one of the biggest games of football in his life, and he came away having experienced one of the worst possible situations that can be put before anybody. The corridors and the referee’s office were used for first aid, and the majority of people who came into that area were suffering from shock, rather than life-threatening injuries. People simply were not aware, until 3.40 pm, of the extent of the problem outside.

Like many in the House who were present, Mr Lewis called it the blackest day of his life. Twenty years on, like many in this place, he went to the memorial service at Anfield, Liverpool’s home ground, and experienced the unbelievably magnificent show of support that probably only the city of Liverpool can generate for its football fans. He completely understands the continuing passion of the families of the 96, and what they have been fighting for.

Like many in this House, I love the city of Liverpool. It brings so much to our wonderful country. When one tries to put oneself in the position of the parents and relatives of the people who passed away on that day, it can only lead to demanding the full disclosure of every document, in the method described by Members on both sides of the House. Allow the families of the 96 finally to come to terms with these tragic events.

19:49

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

May I add my tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) and commend the families of the 96 for their dignified fight for justice and truth? The families that I have spoken to simply want to know the truth behind what happened that day. I want to tell the story of one family in their own words and raise some of the questions that need to be answered.

My constituent Barry Devonside was at the match. His son Chris was 18 and he died that day. I shall continue in Barry’s own words:

“Having left the ground at around 3.45 I made my way to the Halifax road and hopefully on to the point where we had arranged to meet following the game. I was halfway up the Halifax road when I met up with Chris’s friend and two others who had travelled with us, asking where Chris was. Jason, Chris’s friend, told me I should expect the worst. He said Chris had been killed. I turned around and made my way towards the ground. As I passed a telephone box, there were about 100 people wanting to use the phone. I suppose they were wanting to ring home to let their family know that they were safe or to give bad news.

I spoke with a female constable and said to her that I had just been told that our son had been killed in the ground, and she said I should go to the gym which was being used as a temporary mortuary. I made my way there in total fear that what Jason had said to me was true. Arriving at the gym, I asked a lady where is the temporary mortuary. She pointed me in the direction, which was a few yards away. I knocked on the door and it seemed a lifetime for someone to answer.

It was a policeman who answered. He must have been the biggest policeman that I have ever seen. I realised why he was there: the police must have been expecting trouble. I gave him my name and that of our son Christopher and our address. He said, ‘Stand there.’ He went in. He must have been away 10 or 12 minutes. On his return he told me that there was nobody of Christopher’s description, which I could not understand as Jason had told me that he had gone into the temporary mortuary and given Chris’s full details to the police, his name, address and the name of his father, and stated that I was at the game.

I also gave the police officer a description of Chris. He was wearing a Welsh international rugby shirt but I was told no, he was not there. I wanted to call my wife but I could not remember our telephone number. A police sergeant offered to help. He spoke on my behalf but was told that we were ex-directory.”

Mr Devonside said that his number had never been ex-directory, but he was refused the opportunity to be put through to his wife. He went on:

“It was at this point that a lady a resident of Sheffield, Betty Thorp, kindly offered me help. She offered to drive me around a number of hospitals, looking in hope that Jason was wrong and Chris might be in one of the hospitals. I think we visited three hospitals, including a mortuary where we saw a number of police officers sitting on the floor looking shocked, and in the middle of the floor was a pile of clothes about 3 ft high.

Having been looking for Chris for about 5 or more hours, I was told to go a police station where they may have some information. This I did and waited for my brother and brother-in-law to arrive. Following this, around 11pm, we were told to go to the temporary mortuary, where Chris was all the time. Having identified Chris, the police wanted certain information from me. Apart from the relevant information, the only interest they had was about alcohol and had we consumed any. I can only think the police needed time to get their story right, though why they would need that time to keep a father away from his dead son I don’t know.

On leaving the gym with Betty Thorp and leaving the ground to look for Chris, there were a large number of press. They were shouting over to me, ‘Do you have any comment to make about Liverpool supporters urinating on the dead and stealing from the dead?’”

Those are Barry’s own words.

Let us hope that tonight we are a step closer to the full disclosure of the documents that the families need. I have been asked to raise some questions. The families need to be satisfied that they have all the information, otherwise many will wonder whether they know the truth or not. Why did certain things happen? Who took the decisions? What was discussed by police officers? Why were changes made to the notes of junior officers? What discussions took place between politicians? What influence did the culture of the time have? Why were the ambulances not allowed on the pitch? Why were fans pushed back into the enclosure as they tried to escape?

Some of these questions were answered in Lord Justice Taylor’s inquiry, but other answers are still needed, and the truth may be different from what was said at the time, and the truth may be different from what is in the Cabinet papers. Did police officers agree a line? Why did the press say that Liverpool fans stole from the dead and urinated on the bodies? Why did The Sun vilify the dead and show them and their families such disrespect?

Why was the most experienced senior police officer in South Yorkshire removed from his duties, yet not replaced with someone who understood how to balance safety with control? That person who knew in 1987 to delay the start of the same game was not there in 1989. I attended that game in 1987 and I remember how dangerous it could have been on that occasion. The same thing could have happened that year, but the police preparation was different.

The culture at football matches in the 1970s and 1980s was a disgrace. There was no balance between dealing with football-related violence and antisocial behaviour on the one hand, and public safety on the other. Anyone who watched football at that time experienced the ill-treatment of fans. The vast majority of us who watched football went to watch football, not to engage in violence, but the culture was such that safety was of no interest to those in charge of policing football, so people were pushed back into the central pen as they tried to escape, ambulances were prevented from coming on to the pitch, and the worst of the media lied about the dead and their grieving families.

The families of the 96 need the truth. They need to believe that they have all the facts. If the Government release their papers, they need to release all the papers once and for all. I heard the explanation from the Home Secretary about why the Government will withhold some personal details, but I caution her. The families and the wider community have faced countless obstacles, insults and setbacks—

[Mrs May]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and enabling me to clarify the point. The Government will not withhold any details. Any decision about redaction—and it should be minimal redaction—will be taken by the panel. The hon. Gentleman referred to personal details. It will be for the panel to discuss with the families whether personal details should be redacted, and that decision will be taken jointly. The Government will not redact anything in the papers that they release.

[Bill Esterson]

I am grateful to the Home Secretary for that clarification. She has made that point three times now, and it is extremely important that she is firm about it. It is the families’ perception that matters. They need to have total confidence. That is the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth). The families need to have every confidence that the information released is all the information. That is what I am trying to achieve by pushing that point with the Home Secretary.

The families have faced countless obstacles, insults and setbacks as they have pursued their campaign for justice and for the truth, so we need to be very sure that all the information is released and nothing is hidden. Full disclosure must mean full disclosure.

19:58

[Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)]

I have been a Member of Parliament since 1979 and I do not think I have witnessed another debate of the quality of tonight’s. That says something to the families that were partially destroyed by the events we are recalling, and to the wider community that has kept a constant interest in the issue.

This event has affected my constituency, the town of Birkenhead, more than any other single event that I can recall, so the thanks that Members have registered tonight to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) come not only from the families—obviously from the families—but from practically the whole of the Birkenhead constituency which, as I said, has been affected by these events and continues to be affected as by no other events that I can recall.

Back in 1963 I was sitting with my grandmother as she died. She was grieving the loss of two of her children 70 years previously. She was of course looking back to a time when it was more common for children to die, and yet she said that she could not bear people trying to cheer her up by saying that she would get over it. She did not want to get over it. It seemed that getting over it would be a denial of the existence and celebration of her children’s lives. However, she did know what had happened to her children and so was able quickly to put closure on their deaths.

The families I represent in Birkenhead, and those represented by other Members who have spoken today, have been denied that closure by two indescribable acts of horror that have been inflicted upon them. The first act was the press campaign. To have to cope with members of one’s family going off to a football match and coming back from the undertakers is an event that most of us—thank God—will never have to deal with. Trying to grapple with the immensity of what has happened to one’s family while constantly having to read attacks in the press almost on them, and certainly on their mates and more widely on their mates in the football club, is an unspeakable horror.

Although the House has at long last come to a mind on what we and the Government should be doing, we do not have the power to compel one of the other big players in the event similarly to make a public apology for what has happened. I hope that one of the messages we send out tonight will be a clear one to News International that it too has a part to play if we are to draw a line in the sand for those families. That seems to me to be the first indescribable horror that was inflicted upon those families.

The second horror has been referred to by other Members. It is 22 years since the events, but only now are we in the position, I hope, to bring closure through complete revelation about what actually happened, if that is what the panel decides. I have attended only one other debate in which those on the Front Benches have stayed for the duration, and that was the Falklands debate. Those who are unfamiliar with our procedures might not understand the significance of that, but it is remarkable not only that the Home Secretary is here but that the Culture Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), to whom people have rightly given credit, and my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), are also present. I thank my right hon. and hon. Friends for the role they have played in reaching the stage we are at tonight.

I thank the Home Secretary, as many have done, for the diligence she has shown and is showing tonight. My plea to her is that she will keep up that diligence to ensure that all the evidence is made available and that no piece of paper is withheld from the inquiry panel so that no one can whip up any debates in future and claim that we do not know what actually took place. That must include the papers and briefing that were given to Margaret Thatcher when she was Prime Minister, before she made the trip to which my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) referred.

None of us can undo those events. None of us can undo the injustice that the families in Birkenhead, in Merseyside and beyond have suffered, but News International can help to draw a line under these events and we, in support of the Home Secretary, can ensure that this is the last inquiry, the last panel and the last effort to put into the public domain all the information so that the families can, like my grandmother, know what happened and can, even if it is 22 years late, begin to grow the scar tissue that will allow them better to face the world, while obviously never forgetting what they have lost.

20:04

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)]

May I begin by paying tribute to the dignity of the families of the 96 and to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) for securing today’s debate? May I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) and many other colleagues for their tenacious pursuit of the release of these files over many years? I know that the people of Liverpool and also the people of south Yorkshire and Nottingham, where I grew up, are proud of the work they have done to secure today’s debate. I think I speak on behalf of hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the House when I say that, having heard their passionate and moving speeches, even more people across the country will be just as proud tonight.

I take this opportunity to congratulate the Government on the introduction of the e-petitions scheme over the summer. I believe that this debate is evidence that we should see petitions not as a gimmick, but as a tool for informing debate on what the public want us to think and talk about. I commend the Backbench Business Committee, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), for its determination that the debate should take place.

I would like to say clearly from the outset that no one in this place should be in any doubt whatever that today’s debate is about reconciling a major injustice. What happened at Hillsborough was a tragedy first and foremost for the families, but also for the great city of Liverpool, a city that has come together and shown a unique solidarity over the past two decades that we should all recognise. It was also a tragedy for our police, our politicians and our media, because the myths that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton has described were allowed to surface, fester and, for many, become ingrained as the truth. Today, in this House, we have a chance to put that right. In order for that to happen, we need to know beyond a shadow of a doubt what the Government documents say. Cabinet minutes to briefing papers, speeches and drafts—all need to be given to the independent panel and all must be uncensored and without redactions. Only then can the panel make a full assessment of what happened, who knew what and why they chose to do what they did. I very much welcome the statement that the Home Secretary made tonight.

Fifteen years in the British Army means that I am, sadly, no stranger to the loss of close friends and colleagues. If I learned anything from those difficult times, it is that part of the grieving process for the families involves getting to the truth and knowing all the facts that surround the deaths of loved ones. Although I support the release of any uncensored Government documentation from 1989 to the present day, I wish to make it clear that I believe that it is right, as the Home Secretary and other Members have said, to allow the families to see that information first. It should be the job of the independent panel, in conjunction with the families, to use its discretion over what files should be released into the public domain. I am of the opinion that the release of distressing images of those who tragically died and personal information, such as contact details and medical records, is clearly not in the public interest and would serve only to inflict greater distress on the families.

Sadly, for over two decades we have allowed the families’ questions to go unanswered. For over two decades we have allowed them to suffer. I believe that that is unacceptable and falls short of the standards that we in Britain should expect from the police, our media and, yes, our politicians. I was delighted that nearly 100 MPs from nine political parties signed the petition requesting a debate on this issue. It showed the public that we understood the depth of feeling, and my hope is that it shows the families that we as a Parliament are finally serious about securing justice and clearing the names of those who tragically died.

Back in April 1989, I was a Nottingham Forest Junior Red, a devoted supporter of Brian Clough and a great admirer of Kenny Dalglish. I tried my best to get a ticket for the semi-final but I was not able to, so my family and I were spared the ordeal of being present on that fateful day, but the horrors that the fans who were there felt, and the anguish that their families have suffered since, have resonated with people throughout the country.

I believe now that the people have spoken: in just three short weeks over the summer, 140,000 mobilised and signed the petition. The depth of feeling is overwhelmingly clear, and now we have not only the chance but, more important, the responsibility to act. The time has come for the families to have their most agonising questions answered. The time has come for full disclosure. Put simply, the time has come for justice for the 96. I very much hope that the whole House will support this motion.

20:11

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

I contribute to this debate today as a season ticket holder at Hillsborough stadium. Every time I attend a match, I walk in through the Leppings Lane entrance to the stadium, to the South stand, and, every time I walk under the shadow of what is now known as the West stand, the Leppings Lane stand, I remember and think about the 96 who died. It is impossible not to. Every time one visits that ground, one finds it impossible not to think of what happened there that fateful day.

I also live in Hillsborough so the stadium is very much a part of every day life, and anybody who knows the area knows that the stadium is at the heart of Hillsborough and impossible to avoid. Every time I drive past the stadium into town, I pass the memorial to the 96, and every time one passes the memorial, even to this day one finds it covered with red and white scarves and flowers, as a tribute to those who died. I, as a citizen of Hillsborough, am therefore constantly reminded of the pain and suffering that must be felt by the families and loved ones of those who died.

Sheffield Wednesday fans and the people of Hillsborough will never, ever escape the memory of what happened that day, or the events and their consequences. Nor would they want to, and I want to put on the record tonight the fact that the people of Sheffield and, in particular, Hillsborough stand in solidarity with the people of Liverpool over what happened that day.

My old constituency office was the next to the walled garden in Hillsborough park which stands as a further memorial to the 96. It is a lovely, tranquil place, and walking through the entrance one is told, “You’ll Never Walk Alone”. That, more than anything else, stands as a tribute to the dignity and enduring determination of the families of the 96 to secure justice and accountability for what happened that awful day.

Although I, like many right hon. and hon. Members, was not at the stadium that day, I can still vividly remember watching the television and witnessing the unfolding of a tragedy, the like of which had not been seen before at an English football stadium. At the time it seemed unbelievable that it could be happening at not only one of the most important matches of the season, an FA cup semi-final, but importantly at what was seen at the time as one of the best stadiums in the country.

The stadium was also at the time one of the largest in the country and could at that point hold about 55,000 fans. It had been used on numerous occasions by the FA to host major matches, including many previous semi-finals, and reference has already been made to the previous semi-final, involving Liverpool and Nottingham Forest, at Hillsborough, when Liverpool emerged 2-1 winners.

The ground had also been used during the World cup of 1966, when a number of group matches as well as a quarter-final were held there, and it was for that tournament that much of the ground was redeveloped, with the Leppings Lane end, where the Liverpool fans were located on that fateful day in 1989, gaining a new stand and terrace, with a capacity of about 14,000.

To the north end, the revolutionary 10,000-seat cantilever stand had been erected, and a further development in the mid-1980s was a roof on the massive Spion Kop, on the east side of the ground, which at the time could house up to 21,000 fans standing. The importance of that point is that Liverpool FC, given that it had a far greater proportion of fans wanting to attend the match that day, had objected quite vociferously to their not being allocated the Spion Kop at the match.

In nature, the stadium was typical of many major English football grounds at the time, and indeed its layout was similar to that of Aston Villa’s Villa Park and Manchester United’s Old Trafford. My point is that, given that the stadium was one of those with the highest standards in the country, it is absolutely unbelievable that Sheffield Wednesday did not have a safety certificate for it. That alone tells us a great deal about the standards in football at the time, and we should never forget that.

In this contribution, I do not want to go into the detail of the events that day, because my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) and for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) told us what happened that day in incredibly moving and, in fact, heartbreaking detail. We do not therefore need to go over that ground again, but, as many other hon. Members have said, after 22 years the families of the 96 who died that day need to know the full story.

Now it is right that all the papers relating to the events before, during and after the tragedy are released, and I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement to that effect. Tonight, my hon. Friend—my friend both inside and outside the Chamber—the Member for Sheffield South East has set a very good example by stating that he will release any documents in which he was involved as leader of the city council at the time, and I hope that the other individuals and agencies involved will do the same.

Within days of the disaster, Lord Justice Taylor was appointed to conduct an inquiry, which sat for 31 days and published two reports: an interim report, which laid out the events of the day and offered immediate conclusions; and a final report, which made general recommendations on football-ground safety.

Taylor’s immediate conclusions laid the blame on two main things, and I make no apology for going over this again because we need to nail once and for all the lies that have been told about what happened that day. The report noted that, although Hillsborough was considered one of the best grounds in the country, the small number of turnstiles at the Leppings Lane end—anybody who knows the area will know that access to the ground is fairly restricted—and the poor quality of the crush barriers on the terraces were a contributing factor to the tragedy, but Taylor also stated clearly that the official cause of the disaster was a failure of police control.

Owing to the small number of turnstiles, it has been estimated that it would have taken until 3.40 pm to get all ticket holders—that is the key point: all ticket holders—on to the Leppings Lane terrace, so a decision was taken to open an exit gate. It is important to recall, too, the report’s conclusion that the total number of fans entering the terrace was no more than the total capacity of the standing area, but because fans entering the terraces headed for the central pens, 3 and 4, as directed by the large notice pointing them that way above the tunnel underneath the Leppings Lane stand, those pens became seriously overcrowded.

Normally, a police officer or steward would have directed fans away from stands 3 and 4 because they were full, but on that day this did not happen; there were no stewards in the area. The official capacity of pens 3 and 4 was about 2,000, but the report estimated that over 3,000 people were in these pens shortly after kick-off at 3 pm. It was this overcrowding that caused the fatal crush.

However, it was the process of the inquests into the deaths of those who died that has proved most controversial to the families of the bereaved. For some reason that we have yet to discover, the coroner, Dr Stefan Popper, decided to limit the main inquest to events up until 3.15 pm on the day of the disaster, his rationale being that all the victims were dead by that time. This decision has, quite rightly, angered the families of the victims, many of whom felt that this meant the inquest was not able to consider the response of the police and the other emergency services after that time. The inquest returned the well-known verdicts of accidental death on the victims.

The lack of rigour at the original inquest, coupled with the appalling attack on Liverpool fans by The Sun, means that the appalling loss suffered that day has been made immeasurably more difficult to deal with for the families of those who died. It is little to be wondered at that so many members of the families affected are here today, for they feel that justice has not been done, in the sense that those responsible for what happened that day have still not been held to account. That is why we must have full and unredacted disclosure of all the documents held by the Government relating to the tragedy. We must know what briefings were prepared and delivered to Margaret Thatcher and her Government at that time, and we must know precisely who briefed The Sun with information that was not only grossly inaccurate and untrue but deeply damaging and offensive to the families of the 96 who died.

[Mr Jamie Reed (Copeland) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an incredibly powerful case. I rise to ask this question precisely because she is not a Liverpool MP. Throughout the 1980s, the city of Liverpool and the people of Liverpool were demonised and mischaracterised with an almost McCarthyist fervour, not only by News International but by the media across the board. Does she think, as I do, that that deliberate, ugly, grotesque mischaracterisation led to the attitudes that informed not only the media coverage but a lot of the other actions surrounding these events?

[Angela Smith]

I absolutely concur with my hon. Friend. Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton said, the Liverpool fans were no better and no worse than any other fans up and down the English football league. There was no reason to single out Liverpool fans as being particularly prone to hooliganism or violence of any kind; they are the same as any other fans in the country.

I finish by referring to the one positive legacy of the Hillsborough tragedy: the implementation of the Taylor recommendations relating to all-seated stadiums at the top levels of English football. This development has benefited the game enormously, making it much more attractive for spectators, as far as women and children are concerned. It has made the experience of watching football much safer all round. There are some out there who would bring back so-called limited standing. To that suggestion, we need to deliver a resounding no. We must never forget the 96 who died, and we must deliver accountability for the actions of those who were primarily responsible for the disaster, but we must also respect the memory of what happened, and one of the best ways of doing that is to ensure that it never happens again.

20:23

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

We have already heard, in the eloquent speeches made by many hon. Friends, moving tributes to the families of the 96 victims. I want to recognise the tireless work that so many have done to get us to where we are today. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) for the work that he did as Culture Secretary to secure the release of documents and to establish the independent panel; to my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) for her role in calling for the release of the documents; and to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram), who, since being elected to this House, as he did before, has relentlessly pressed and campaigned for the publication of all documents. To the 140,000 people who signed the petition, I say thank you for ensuring that we are having this debate today—but it should not have taken so long.

None of us needs reminding of the events of that dark, dark day 22 years ago. Those dreadful scenes from Hillsborough will never be forgotten in Liverpool; they cast a permanent scar across the city and on Merseyside. What happened on that fateful afternoon was a tragedy not just for the people of Liverpool but for our whole country.

Growing up in Wembley, north-west London, I commemorated the disaster every year. Two of the 96 people who lost their lives were Sarah and Victoria Hicks, sisters aged just 15 and 19, Sarah studying chemistry at Liverpool university, Victoria still at school—the same school I went to. I and many others spent hours on a bench dedicated to their memory in the rose garden at our school. I met Jenny Hicks, Sarah and Victoria’s mother, at the 21st anniversary memorial service at Anfield. She is so brave. Jenny Hicks, her family, and all the families are so brave, and they have suffered enough. Their dignified and unwavering campaign for justice is an inspiration to us all.

I want to read a few words from a moving letter sent to me by one of my constituents:

“Everyone in the House of Commons has known private grief and experienced the same patterns of raw emotion. It is incumbent on all of you to recover from your memories those feelings which possessed you at the time of your grief and loss, and project yourselves into the unimaginable torment of living, in that condition, not for twenty-two days, or twenty-two weeks, or twenty-two months, but for twenty-two-years; in an unrelieved cloud of unknowing, tormented by the sure and certain knowledge that the facts, which alone, can end their private agony, have been sealed up against them, locked away by an indifferent and heedless power, that refuses to discuss the motives and purposes which drives its actions.

For twenty-two years, the immediate and extended families of the ninety-six victims of the Hillsborough disaster have endured the unendurable. With no comfort but their inmost resources and the solidarity of their friends, who, as the petition has shown, are no longer counted in handfuls but in Legions.”

For too long, these families have suffered without the truth. The actions taken by a few during and after that day have made their burdens even more difficult to bear. From the attempts at a cover-up to the desire to depict fans as the authors of their own disaster, so many scandals have been perpetrated against them. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh wrote, an orchestrated campaign was conducted to place the blame for what happened on the victims rather than the authorities. Senior police officers lied about why the gates at the Leppings Lane terrace were opened, blaming Liverpool fans for forcing through them when in fact it was the authorities who had opened them. Ambulances which could have saved lives were refused entry into the ground. Police officers were ordered to change their accounts of what had occurred to cover up mistakes. A national newspaper printed lies about fans who were trying to save lives, disgracefully accusing them of stealing from victims and attacking police. Despite the Taylor inquiry finding that the police were at fault, not a single officer responsible for the conduct of the police that day has been disciplined. It simply is not right.

Twenty-two years later, it is hard to believe that so many questions remain unanswered. That is why it is imperative that all documentation is released, first to the independent panel and the families, and then what is appropriate to the public. I am grateful that the Home Secretary has clarified that the Government will not hold back any documents, because the independent panel and the families need everything—including all the Cabinet minutes, documents and papers relating to the Hillsborough disaster, right through to the present day. There is much speculation about what may have been said, done or written, including in correspondence between Douglas Hurd and Margaret Thatcher. The families will continue to be haunted by the speculation until everything is released. I echo the request of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh that the release of all information from private companies, specifically from News International, be included.

Today, all of us in this place owe it to every family who are suffering to put right what was done wrong and to ensure that the unredacted truth is unequivocally released, so that we can finally see what has taken far too long: justice for the 96.

20:29

[Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to follow my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger), who has made one of a number of extremely powerful speeches in tonight’s debate. May I apologise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to the House that I had to leave the Chamber for about half an hour earlier in the debate, as a result of which I missed the closing parts of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram), including the citation of the names of the 96, and the opening of the Home Secretary’s speech?

I join this debate with humility, because so many colleagues from both sides who have spoken were present at Hillsborough in 1989, lost friends who died and were among the 96, or have been involved in campaigning on this injustice for all or most of the past 22 years. My qualification is none of those things, but I speak on behalf of constituents in my Liverpool, West Derby constituency, some of whom are here in the Gallery. I welcome them to the House and pay tribute to all the campaigners and family members in the Gallery who have waited a very long time for this debate.

May I join those who have remarked upon how this debate came about? More than 100,000 ordinary people up and down the country asserted people power. I agree with the hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) that this is a good way for this House to practise democracy. It gives citizens a greater opportunity to have a direct input into the issues. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) said, it is an indictment of all of us from all parts of the House that it has taken such a long time for this important debate to happen, but happening it is.

I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh, as everyone else has done, for the crucial role he played in the Cabinet and now in opposition. In his powerful speech, he made a profound point about the different way in which victims are seen today, compared with 22 years ago, when victims were scapegoated by large sections of the media and in public discourse. As others have said more eloquently and powerfully than I can, people who were living with bereavement and had lost loved ones in recent hours and days had not only to grieve, but to face ludicrous and vile suggestions that their loved ones were somehow responsible for what had happened.

I know that those who are here today from Merseyside will really appreciate the speeches that were made by my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) and for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) and the profound sense of solidarity that they expressed on behalf of the people of Sheffield. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East in particular made an incredibly powerful speech reflecting on his presence on the day and the role that he had at the time. He gave an important commitment at the end about his own papers from his time as leader of Sheffield city council. On behalf of my constituents and, I am sure, of other people who signed the petition that secured this debate, we are very grateful that he has given that important commitment.

This has been a highly dignified, persistent and long 22-year campaign for truth and justice. Like everyone else in this debate, I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton, who has been dogged in his persistence, ever since he was elected to this place less than 18 months ago, in seeking this important debate and in giving voice to the feelings of the people of Liverpool in general and of his constituency in particular. He took us to the Backbench Business Committee and mobilised 100 MPs from nine different parties, and it is down to him that we have secured the debate. I pay tribute to him for achieving that.

I also join in the tributes to my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) who, alongside my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh, secured in government the setting up of the independent panel.

I do not wish simply to repeat what others have said, but I want to reaffirm some key points that have been made. As others have said, we know that the Taylor report made it clear that the major cause of what happened on that day was a failure on the part of the police, and that hooliganism played no part. I echo what my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) said in issuing a challenge to News International, The Sun and Kelvin MacKenzie, which I hope will come from all parties. We want to see a real, credible apology for what they and other newspapers said and did at the time. Having to endure truly appalling and vile coverage in The Sun and some other newspapers made the tragedy so much worse for the bereaved and the people who were suffering.

As has been said, in 2009 the Labour Government established the independent panel. I join others in thanking the Bishop of Liverpool, the Right Rev. James Jones. I know that Bishop Jones and other members of the panel have served diligently in pursuing justice for the 96 and their families.

Right hon. and hon. Members have referred to the many questions that remain unanswered. The 3.15 pm cut-off, ambulances not being allowed in, the decision to change the match commander, the farce of the inquests, police accounts being changed after the event—those are just some of the unanswered questions, to which the families rightly expect to have answers.

As everyone else has said, we warmly welcome what the Home Secretary has said today, particularly her reassurances about redactions. It is only right that full disclosure is made. She gave us the assurance that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh sought that such decisions are not for the Government but for the panel and the families. I know that the families and campaigners will also be very pleased that that assurance has been given. As others have said, it is vital that we have that full disclosure, and that we are sensitive to the needs and wishes of the families. As well as the panel having all the documents, it is therefore vital that the families see them before they become available to the wider general public.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

A number of Members who have spoken tonight have insisted that documentation from the time of the Hillsborough incident should be released. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is also documentation from before then that should be available? I was personally involved in an incident in exactly the place where the Liverpool supporters were on that day, at a game between Newcastle United and Sheffield Wednesday. I was traumatised by the event. A lot of Newcastle supporters were evicted. They were supposed to have been protesting, but they were fighting for their lives. I lost my shoes and got pushed to the back of the stand—I was lifted off my feet.

It is very important that the police learn from their mistakes, and that they come forward with information that they had previous to the Hillsborough disaster, because it could have been prevented.

[Stephen Twigg]

I thank my hon. Friend for that, and I am very happy to concur with what he says. He has made his case very powerfully, and there may be an opportunity for others to respond to his points later in the debate.

I hope that tonight’s debate will mark an important milestone in the 22-year struggle for truth and justice. Many people have contributed to that progress, but like Members on both sides of the House, I want to finish by paying tribute to the families and those who have campaigned. It has taken a long time to get to this stage, but their diligence and persistence is now paying off. From the debate, let us see the progress that enables that campaigning to bear fruit, so that people get the answers to the questions for which they have been waiting for a very long time.

20:40

[Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)]

I thank and congratulate my fellow former lord mayor of Liverpool, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram), on such a powerful and emotional speech. I also thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) and the 139,000 who signed the petition, who all helped to secure this debate.

The Hillsborough Family Support Group—the families of the 96—along with Liverpool fans and players, and everyone associated with the football club, deserve recognition for never giving up in their search for the truth of what happened on 15 April 1989. They have shown such solidarity and dignity in their fight for only one thing: the truth.

As a Liverpudlian who proudly represented my city for 27 years, I now have the great privilege to represent West Lancashire. The Hillsborough disaster is just one of many bonds between my home town and my constituency. Too many people and their families and friends—entire communities—have had to live every single day with the terrible pain of the devastating events of that day. We remember the 96 who lost their lives at Hillsborough and we remember their families, but we also remember those who later took their lives because of what happened, and we remember the survivors, who are grateful to be back with their families, but who live with the emotional and physical scars. Their stories—truly heart-rending accounts—of the day’s events are told with such lucidity, emotion and vivid imagery. It is as if it were yesterday rather than 22 years ago. That is probably the most important reason why I support the motion.

Many in the House and in the wider public debate will talk of the failure to heed warnings, of the ground’s inadequacies in previous years, of the disgusting and disrespectful media coverage, and of the failure of the police operation on match day. Not just people in Liverpool will closely watch this debate and the Government’s subsequent action, and nor is it just a national issue. As Damian Kavanagh reminds us,

“there are many people in far-off places around the world who know the name of Liverpool because of our team.”

The sense of injustice is felt around the world.

I very much welcome the commitment the Prime Minister made in his letter to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh, and the commitment given by the Home Secretary today, that the families will see the unredacted papers. That is an appropriate and welcome response. I reiterate the call of my right hon. and hon. Friends for full public disclosure, and I look forward to the House supporting the motion later tonight. A wider community was deeply affected by the Hillsborough disaster. Only through full public disclosure of Government- related papers can we begin to address their sense of injustice.

Many people have contacted me about Hillsborough, and I wanted to give the House just a few examples of the stories that have been told to me. Kevin Wilkie, a constituent, was at the time a 15-year-old boy. He went off to the game with his father and his best friend, like so many others that day. Echoing the story from Bruce Grobbelaar, Kevin recalls that

“a man…was squashed against the crash barrier behind me. He was grabbing me, begging me to help him. I still see his face. The colour in it changes. There was nothing I could do for him.”

Kevin also lost sight of his best friend in the melee. He had become unconscious in the crush but, fortunately, he had been passed over the crowd and out over the fence to safety. He was one of the lucky ones.

Damian Kavanagh, who has written his story for the Hillsborough justice campaign, tells of how he was able to escape from the Leppings Lane end. He tells of how he had cuts on his hands from ripping down the advertising hoardings to create makeshift stretchers. His only other physical injury was a bruise on his back in the shape of a hand—the result of the pressure building up in the Liverpool end of the ground.

Families had a sense of guilt that their loved ones had returned from the game while their neighbours grieved for a husband, father, brother, sister or daughter. In an e-mail sent to me, one constituent said:

“I didn’t lose any relatives or friends on that day but I did lose 96 close friends that I didn’t realise I had.”

What happened in Sheffield on that day in April had implications that went well beyond Yorkshire. To quote a fan who was present:

“Everybody was affected, everybody knew somebody who had been to the match. This disaster struck at the very heart of our community.”

Let us remember that those people did not go off to war. They did not go out with the intention of rioting or fighting, and what happened was not an unforeseen natural disaster. They went as fathers, sons, brothers, sisters and mates to watch a football match—an afternoon of escapism and entertainment at the end of a working week. They were met by an absolutely disastrous failure on the part of officials and the police, followed by malicious stories and lies promulgated by the press. No one has yet been held to account, and no charges have been brought.

I cannot begin to imagine what anyone affected by Hillsborough has felt or experienced in the years since 1989. Loss and grief suffered privately are tough enough, but in this case, the events and the lies have been played out publicly. Their sense of grief and loss has been compounded by a deep and strong feeling of injustice. By any measure of fairness, humanity, justice and truth, the full disclosure of these documents would be demanded. We can never do anything to take away the pain of the families’ loss, but, with the publication of all the documents, the Government can begin to heal the pain of injustice. It is long overdue, but it is time for the truth.

20:48

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

Let me begin my contribution today by thanking all those Members of Parliament who supported the call for this debate. The Hillsborough disaster occurred when I was eight, but few other events have had such an impact on my life, or that of my community. It is a true honour to represent my home town, and I am thinking today especially of all those who have been affected. I pay tribute to those who have travelled here today to listen to us. My only hope is that we can do justice to their commitment, and live up to their example.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) on leading the debate today. On the 20th anniversary of Hillsborough, I sat with my family in the Lower Centenary stand at a packed Anfield, and I listened to him lead our mourning as the lord mayor of Liverpool. I was taken aback then at his bravery in describing the impact of Hillsborough on his life, and I was deeply proud of him, although I did not know him. Little did I know that, just over a year later, we would both join this place and become friends—and I am really glad we have.

I also place on record the thanks that many of my constituents have asked me to bring to my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham). Their leadership in government led the way to the Hillsborough independent panel being brought into existence, and their support has meant a great deal. I thank the Home Secretary for her words today, which have demonstrated her encouragement of today’s motion and full transparency, which is what we want. I thank Members, particularly those from Sheffield, for their contributions today and for their solidarity.

The motion we are debating today is essentially about the truth. That is what we want. For all those affected by events on 15 April 1989, we want to get to the truth—the truth uncensored, the truth without redaction, the truth with no questions left to answer. I want to say on behalf of my constituents why the truth matters so very much. To answer that question, I need to go back to the day itself.

As I said earlier, I was an eight-year-old girl at the time. It was about then that I started to go to football matches and, like many young children, I learned about the wonder of football—the atmosphere, the beauty, the skill on display—and I learned to stay close to my family and not get lost. On the occasion of the FA cup semi-final at Sheffield Wednesday that April, I was at home. Luckily, I was sat in our front room in our house in Bromborough with my dad—and I can still see the look on his face now, because he knew what was happening. Football fans all over Britain knew. They were watching on TV, listening on radios from other football grounds. Thousands and thousands were gripped with horror as bodies were pulled out of the pens in the Leppings Lane end of the Hillsborough ground, and thousands prayed for the safety of those being carried across the pitch on cheap advertising hoardings for stretchers.

The awfulness of that day sunk in over the weeks and months afterwards. It was the worst possible shock. As Alan Hansen, on the pitch playing for Liverpool that day, has said of the disaster,

“the number of broken hearts is incalculable”.

Sadly, for many I have spoken to over the years, there has been a grim recognition of how this could have happened. In the 1980s, football fans were broadly deemed by some to be scum. The relationship between supporters and the police was frequently poisonous. There was a culture of disrespect for fans.

As the interim Taylor report itself pointed out:

“Over the last few years, hooliganism at and associated with football matches has strongly influenced the strategy of the police. In their plans and management they have concentrated on averting or containing threats to public order...it has led to an imbalance between the need to quell a minority of troublemakers and the need to secure the safety and comfort of the majority.”

Yet this was something new in the scale of the horror. In the weeks that followed, people poured into Anfield to show their respects, and everyone wanted answers. Everyone wanted to know how on earth this could have happened.

Well, from a practical perspective, we do know why 96 people died and hundreds and hundreds suffered. We know it because Members have said it, but I want to say it again for clarity. The interim report of the Taylor inquiry, immediately after the disaster, found that police error allowed too many fans into too small an area of the ground, and an absence of effective leadership exacerbated the suffering caused. Despite problems of ground safety, different decisions could have been taken on that day.

As my neighbour and right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) commented, because of two terrible processes that happened straight away, both in the immediate aftermath and in the years that followed, we are still frozen in those early stages of grief in the awful horror of it all, unable to come to terms with it. That is why we need the truth now. The first awful process was the appearance of stories in newspapers which took the good names of fans who were at Hillsborough on that day and threw them in the mud. One newspaper in particular made untrue allegations of specific behaviour by fans that had simply never happened. Those newspapers took people who were suffering in a manner that few of us here can imagine, let alone have experienced, and ripped apart their dignity. Not only did those affected have to suffer physical and mental injury; they had to witness their honour being attacked as though they were the lowest of the low.

People may recall the pictures of newspapers being burnt in Liverpool at the time, but what they may not know is how those lies have echoed down through the years, and how they continue to be spread. I moved to London in 1999, fully 10 years after the disaster, and I was shocked then by how many people still believed the lies told about Hillsborough. They did not believe those lies out of malice, but because no one had ever corrected them before. On many occasions I have had to explain what actually happened at Hillsborough, why the calls for justice still ring out, and why people will not “just let go”. Even today, we still see horrible claims repeated online, on websites. Those awful lies, which have been corrected any number of times, are still perpetuated. Often the people whom we correct are quite shocked, having simply assumed that football supporters were to blame.

I join those who support Sir Alex Ferguson’s call for the Hillsborough chants to end, which was highlighted by the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey). It is hugely important, and has emphasised the fact that the lies told about Hillsborough still have traction. However, given that not one person has ever paid a significant price for their dereliction of duty on that day—only the fans and the victims have paid that price —why would people think that anyone else was to blame?

That brings me to the second awful process that has brought us here today. Our justice system did not deliver, and has not been seen to provide a just account, for the families of those who died at or because of the disaster. No prosecutions have been brought against those who were responsible, despite the conclusions of the Taylor inquiry. The inquest process was flawed by the provision of insubstantial representation for families, and by a large number of other factors that undermine the authority of the verdict. Most seriously, as others have said, no evidence was considered about events after 3.15 pm on the day, so the actions of the police in the rescue operation, and numerous other crucial details that should have featured in a proper account, were not examined. The scrutiny of the evidence which took place in 1998 was likewise flawed, and private prosecutions did not provide conclusive verdicts.

The truth about Hillsborough has never been fully acknowledged. The truth about the causes of those deaths has not been put fully on the record in the way for which our legal system should allow. That is why, for 22 years, we have stood at Anfield and shouted for justice. It is why this campaign is supported by football fans from all teams, from all parts of Britain—as has been clear from what Members have said today—and indeed across the world. It is why I am trying to explain today why the full truth is so important to so many.

One of the most moving sights at the memorial service is the people who come wearing the colours of teams from far and wide to show their support. In every year that has gone by, our voices calling for justice have become louder. Each year, the numbers attending Anfield on the anniversary are larger. If there is anyone left in the country who thinks that the campaign for justice will just fade away over time, let me tell them that they are very wrong.

In my constituency, Unilever installed a permanent memorial to all victims of the disaster. It sits in a beautiful and peaceful part of Port Sunlight Village, providing another space for reflection and a marker of the indelible effects of 15 April 1989 on our community. The strength of our community, and our commitment to justice, will not fade.

The motion calls for full access to Government papers, unredacted and uncensored. Release of the Cabinet papers—which, thankfully, we have heard the Government support today—is an important step on the road towards a full account, bearing witness to a heartbreaking disaster. No evidence should be kept hidden, even that from the highest levels of Government. What we have asked for today—and, thankfully, succeeded in gaining—is the support of parliamentarians for a full and unrestricted account. Parliament should back this motion because general Government policy has already been changed in that Cabinet papers are kept private for 20, rather than 30, years. We have already waited 22 years for the truth about Hillsborough, and we cannot wait any longer. This is a straightforward matter of letting those affected know precisely what happened—of telling in respect of every locus where decisions were taken, what happened and why. Only then, when we know the truth, can we have justice, and can we hold up an account and say, “This is the truth. This is how our loved ones died. May such a thing never happen again. Their memory will never leave our hearts.”

21:00

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

Members often have the privilege of visiting schools, and we are always asked why we wanted to become an MP. I wanted to become one because of nights like tonight, when we have the chance to bring justice and right a real wrong. Another question we are asked is why MPs are called “honourable”. After tonight, I shall always refer people to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram)—who has been in the Chamber for the past five hours but has just now disappeared. He gave a tremendous speech on a very important subject. One of the points he made was that this could have happened at any football ground in the country. He is right, and I want to refer to some of the things I have seen—my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) mentioned many such things in his speech earlier.

On Boxing day, it will be 49 years since I first walked into a football ground. Boxing day 1962 was when I saw my first game, and, sadly, it was the last game that Brian Clough played. About 30 minutes into the game, he was injured very badly. Even though that happened 49 years ago, the memory is still burned into my mind, because football has that effect on us; it hooks us in a way no other game in the world does. It becomes an obsession.

For football supporters, things were very different back in those days. We stood in a huge concrete stand that took 21,000 people. It was uncovered, and the day was freezing cold. The pitch had been covered in straw, and the straw had been pulled back. That was probably one reason why Clough’s injury was so severe. There were at least 50,000 people in the ground for what was a second division match. They were united in wanting to see their team do well. Sadly, as has happened far too often, we got beaten 1-0. I have been a Sunderland fan for many years, and that is a common theme.

Such results do not dampen the passion people feel, however. Regardless of whether they support Liverpool, Everton or any other team in the league, it is their team and their town, and they want to support and get behind them. That passion was there no matter how badly we were tret—and some of the grounds were unsanitary or unsafe, and no other sport would have taken place in them.

If that was the situation back in the early ’60s, how did 96 people get killed so much later on, in one of the grounds that was improved for the 1966 World cup? There is absolutely no doubt that the hooliganism of the ’70s and ’80s influenced the mindset of the people in authority in this country. Their attitude towards the fans was much harder back then. The police in particular believed that their job was to control crowds by getting the retaliation in first. In saying that, I do not in any way excuse the crass and disgraceful behaviour of some people—they besmirched the names of good football clubs—but football was not immune to what was happening outside in those days.

The police were strongly politicised in the 1980s. We had seen riots on the streets of Brixton, Toxteth and Tottenham. We had also seen the dispute at Wapping and the miners’ strike, when ordinary working men, many of them football fans, were declared to be “the enemy within”—a phrase that was mentioned earlier in our debate in relation to the people of Liverpool. Crucially, just four years earlier, we had seen the disaster at the Heysel stadium, as a result of which we ended up with fans literally penned in cages. Was that seen as an overreaction at the time? It was not. People said, “Its all they deserve. If they are going to behave like animals, let’s treat them like animals.”

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

I do not want to move away from the issue of the day, but I wish to make a point about what led to that penning in. What was done by people such as Ken Bates, who put up electrified fences at Stamford Bridge, led to disasters such as this and it is why every football fan in this country sympathises with this issue today.

[Mr Anderson]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend, because he raises exactly the point I am trying to make. Sadly, it was the Liverpool fans who suffered that day but it could have been any of us, because the authorities took an attitude that said, “These people are out of control. We will treat them like animals.” How did they do that? It was okay to herd people into a clearly overcrowded area. It was okay to keep forcing more and more people into confined spaces, despite their objections. My hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck mentioned what happened to him and I experienced a similar event at the Leppings Lane end in Sheffield in 1968. We could not even get near the turnstiles, but the design of the ground funnelled people into an area. So we were pushed up against police horses and they could not move, let alone the crowd. What stays in my mind from that day was a policeman on horseback flailing with his baton, but he could not move—none of us could move. That took place 21 years before Hillsborough, so a catalogue of events led up to what happened on that day in 1989.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

Sadly, I was at the Heysel stadium. Very few people misbehaved and the resulting problem occurred mainly because most of the Liverpool fans had been crushed together; there were far too many in a small pen. It is a tragedy that the lessons were not learned.

[Mr Anderson]

Again, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. This was about how we treated football fans, which was different from how any other sports fans were treated in this country or across Europe. That was shown by the fact that when people were trying to escape from these cages, they were penned in—they were actually forced back. They were knocked back by the police, because the police thought that they were trying to invade the pitch for some reason other than to try to save their lives. That would not have happened in any other scenario.

As we have heard so often today, although all of that was a real scandal, just as bad, after the devastation to so many lives, is the way in which this issue has been covered up for two decades and more. It was covered up by the authorities and it was disgracefully covered up by some of the media in this country. The behaviour of The Sun has been highlighted today. As a former coal miner, I am not surprised that The Sun turns against working people—it has done that for decades and I do not see how it will ever stop doing it. But that does not stop us, and others in this House and this country, from saying that that was out of order, particularly as there was an attempt to sway the conscience and belief of people in this country against ordinary people who were just having a day out supporting their football team.

As far back as 1999, I was working in Liverpool with some social workers, and in the days leading up to the 10th anniversary they were saying to me, “We’ve got to get justice for these people.” I was working with the trade union movement and we tried to move that forward. We had discussions with the then Government but, sadly, despite all our best efforts, nothing happened. We have heard about how the courageous attempts of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) and my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) started to bring some pressure to bear and we did then see movement from the Government some 10 years later.

We are still discussing this issue here today, 22 years down the line, and we hope that we are going to see justice done. We need everything out in the open and we need it now. We do not need some more vague promises of, “Somewhere down the line.” We need to act when the information comes out. It is no good just saying, “This was wrong. That was wrong.” We need to bring people to justice in this country. If it was wrong for them to have done this in 1989, it is right for them to face punishment in 2011, or whenever we can bring them to book. We need to make sure that we do so because we owe it to the 96. We owe it to the families who lost loved ones and we owe it to all the folks who will go to football games this weekend, because it is about them as well as about the people who went before them.

As has been rightly said, this is about every football fan in this country, because the truth is that football is still the beautiful game. It is a hugely emotive event, a game that does away with any sense of rationality. A person can believe that their team is the best team in the world when, quite frankly, it is not and probably never will be—[Hon. Members: “Speak for yourself.”] Look, I have to get votes in Newcastle. Football is a game that sometimes brings out the best and the worst in all of us who are obsessed by it. The feeling is never less than great and I hope that it never loses that feeling, that passion and that bond between people from all walks of life.

Football brings people together and one of the great experiences of my life is when Liverpool fans come to Sunderland and then come to the village in which I have spent most of my adult life to go to the memorial for Bob Paisley, the most successful Liverpool manager of all time, who was born and bred in the village that I am proud to come from. Bob Paisley’s brother worked with my dad. There is a bond between people who can say that for the next 90 minutes they will shout at each other, saying that they hate one another—that they hate the very life of one another—but can come out and be the best of friends. There is nothing wrong with that and we should be proud of the culture that this country brought to the sporting world 150 years ago. That is something about which we should all be passionate and proud.

That is the real joy of football. It is miles away from the world of Sky, from the superstars who cannot even be bothered to come on to the pitch when some of us would give our left arm to play once for our team and from the agents who will destroy football if they can get away with it. We owe it to the 96 to ensure that justice is done today. We need to see justice. Failure to do so diminishes our game and our nation and it will diminish this House. We need to get on with it.

21:11

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is great to follow such an impassioned account of football fans’ experience and the beautiful game from my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson). May I also say what an honour it is to sit next to my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern), who made a truly extraordinary speech? I know that we are resolutely not to pay any attention or refer to anything that happens in the Gallery, Mr Speaker—I do not know whether you will strike me down or whether this will merely be struck from the record—but seeing the families and friends of the 96 break into spontaneous applause was quite something. She is a true red and a credit to Merseyside and her team.

It is an honour to be in the House for this debate. It feels like the House of Commons truly has risen to the occasion, bearing in mind the gravity of the responsibility placed on us by the amazing, tenacious and indefatigable campaign from so many seeking justice for the 96 and the truth about what happened on that awful day. I did not intend to speak in this debate, but my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South suggested that I did. Like many football fans who are Members of Parliament, I look at the tragedy and the way in which the people of Liverpool and the families affected have struggled with this day after day for 22 years and think that it is not my place to speak. My hon. Friend said, and I hope she is right, that football fans across the country should say how solidly we stand behind the people of Liverpool and Liverpool fans in demanding justice and full disclosure after so long.

This is not just about football fans. What happened is an injustice and anybody who wants to see serious injustices exposed, whether they are football fans or not, is behind the call for full disclosure. I know how welcome that is. As has been made clear in the many extraordinary contributions today, the fact that the Home Secretary has come to the House to confirm that she will make the Government documents available to the panel in their entirety and unredacted is very welcome.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

My hon. Friend has rightly said that this campaign touches everyone who seeks justice. A group of my constituents have a particular sense of empathy and solidarity with the families of the 96—the Bloody Sunday families, who have developed a very strong bond with those families. In a different way, they can empathise with exactly what families suffer whenever they have to struggle against indifference, injustice and insult and whenever survivors have to endure calumny and are asked by the powers that be, in the media and elsewhere, to carry some of the blame of that day. This issue touches many people, and the families of the 96 have all our hearts.

[John Woodcock]

My hon. Friend speaks eloquently and his words will resonate with the families and the many thousands who are watching the debate. The kind of resolution that came after so long in the Bloody Sunday inquiry is what everyone here in the House and the many people watching want to see. They want similar closure through access to the full documentation about what happened on the day of the Hillsborough tragedy.

As has been heard today, every football fan knows where they were on that fateful day. I think I am the third Sheffield Wednesday fan among Members to speak today, and I am delighted to follow such excellent and moving contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) and for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts). I was a 10-year-old boy at the time of that semi-final, and I note that my dad was serving on Sheffield city council with my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East. On that day I was playing football in the garden of my friend who was a Liverpool fan, and I remember the opening reports talking of a riot having occurred. Quite quickly, we got a different picture, but it was striking and it has stayed with me all this time that there was talk about a riot because that was the assumption—that that was what must have happened and caused the disturbance and the spilling over of people.

One of the most powerful speeches I have heard in this place or elsewhere was that of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram), who put so well how that initial misunderstanding was immediately followed by a campaign of mistruths and lies. Even now, we are still seeking the full truth and the documents that will set out why ambulances were refused entry to the ground. We want to find out what happened with the failings in safety procedures and why Hillsborough did not have a safety certificate. It is good to hear that my club, Sheffield Wednesday, is co-operating fully and I hope that it operates a policy of full disclosure—as should all relevant organisations, whether or not they are covered by the Freedom of Information Act. I hope that all concerned will make available absolutely everything that is required to allow the panel and the families to see exactly what happened.

As 10-year-olds, we are mad about our teams. We are proud of anything that our teams do; it does not matter whether they are any good, which, increasingly, with the fate of Sheffield Wednesday, is probably a good thing. A generation of Wednesday fans and I have grown up with the ground that they love being infamous around the world as a symbol of tragedy. That is a strange thing for any football fan to come to terms with. As young boys, we tried to understand and assimilate the grief that we saw from the football fans around us.

I grew up as a season-ticket holder on the south stand for most of the time and, latterly, on the Kop, sitting next to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East. I hope that the annual visit of Liverpool FC, which, obviously, does not happen any more, will return one day. Annual tributes were paid at the Leppings Lane end. The fact that part of the ground will always be synonymous with tragedy is absolutely right, given the gravity of what happened there, which profoundly affected a generation of fans.

It is worth briefly reflecting on the change that has happened in football, largely as a result of the tragedy. Let us remember that the Football Spectators Act 1989 would have required compulsory identity cards and was only repealed as a result of Hillsborough. There have been so many vivid recollections of the horror of that day, which people who were there experienced and others saw on their TV screens. We remember the spikes at Hillsborough in the Leppings Lane end and across the country. It is worth reflecting on just how different the game is now, the improvements that have been made and the change in attitude, which so many hon. Members have talked about today and which was abhorrent at the time. It is absolutely right that we have been able to move on from those days.

Liverpool FC is important in Barrow and Furness, the constituency that I represent. In Barrow, everyone is a Barrow soccer fan. We are in the conference. People tend to have a second team as well, and there are loads of scousers who go down to Anfield nearly every other week—nearly as many reds as go down to Old Trafford, but that is the case wherever we go. One of Liverpool’s greatest captains, Emlyn Hughes, was a Barrow lad. He was eventually signed in 1964 by Blackpool, Barrow having passed up the chance to sign him. There is a statue of him in pride of place in Barrow, and he was, of course, at the game in 1989, so I want to end with a simple tribute that was left, along with red roses, at the Emlyn Hughes statue in Barrow on the occasion of the 20th anniversary of the tragedy. Two people who did not give their names wrote a simple note saying:

“In memory of the 96 who lost their lives at Hillsborough on 15 April 1989 from two who were spared that day in the Leppings Lane End. You’ll never walk alone.”

21:24

[Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in the debate, and I start with a confession: I was one of those—there were close to 140,000 of us—who signed the e-petition. I was not sure whether we were supposed to be able to petition ourselves, but I did it, and I hope that it does not get me into too much trouble.

I want to place on record my appreciation, which I know is shared by many others—everyone in the Chamber and, I am sure, all those listening and watching at home and in the Gallery—for the unstinting dedication and commitment to the issue displayed by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram). He spoke with great feeling and passion in opening the debate, having over the past 22 years been involved in a long campaign for justice for the 96 victims of the events of April 1989.

Many others have expressed their views as fans of Liverpool, as people present at the game on that day, or as people who represent communities and individuals personally affected by the disaster, and we have heard the power of their testimony this evening. We have heard of the impact not only on Liverpool and the surrounding area, but on Sheffield, and one particular part of it that will, as my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) said, for ever be associated with the most senseless, tragic and unforgivable loss of life, when people left their home that afternoon to watch a football match and never returned.

As others have said, in debating this issue we should not forget the context of the time. Football had been scarred by trouble in and around grounds for close to 20 years. Facilities were often poor, owners were often disinterested in their clubs and, I have to say, Government at the time saw football as some sort of national disease, rather than a sport. It is sometimes easy to be nostalgic for football in the pre-premiership era, especially when that coincides with one’s formative years, but football in the 1980s was alien to many people. It was often unloved, unappreciated and unwelcome.

Thousands of people in this country watch football matches at weekends. They did in the 1980s, too. On 15 April 1989, I was among those who did. Like those at Hillsborough, that afternoon I stood on a concrete terrace, largely unchanged since it was opened decades earlier, with metal crash barriers and high, angled fences between the pitch and the crowd. It was my good fortune that, unlike those people at Hillsborough, I was standing on a terrace that was largely empty. There were 4,949 other people on that day in grounds that were licensed to hold 30,000-odd. All 4,950 people who arrived at Craven Cottage that day left for home alive; that is how it should be at every football match, but that afternoon for 96 people it was not.

Many of us who were at the football on that day left knowing that something had gone terribly, badly wrong in south Yorkshire that afternoon. We were soon to find that football was about to change for ever. I will never forget the sense of emptiness, and of the irrelevance of the spectacle of the match that I was watching, as we stood on the terrace and heard—in those days, it was from people with radios—first that there was a pitch invasion at the FA cup semi-final; then that the game had been held up; then that people were spilling on to the pitch; then that there was a riot; then that people were injured; and then that advertising hoardings were being used as stretchers. It was only over the course of the evening and the next day that the scale of what had happened in Sheffield became apparent. Even then, reports—media reports, briefings from the police, statements from football authorities—all to a greater or lesser extent suggested that the deaths were precipitated by drunken fans, supporters arriving late, or spectators without tickets, or with the wrong tickets.

The undercurrent was obvious: it was the fault of fans—violent thugs who knew no better. The most infamous manifestation of that was the disgraceful reporting in The Sun that week, which we have heard about. As others have said, there were made-up quotes, invented incidents and fictional accounts designed to blacken the name of people who were in Sheffield to watch a football match. That is absolutely disgraceful.

Given that background, it is little wonder that the terminology of injustice is used because it is unjust for people to be condemned without evidence. It is unjust to be publicly blamed as culpable of the deaths of those one stood with watching a sporting fixture. It is unjust to be written off by authorities seeking to avoid responsibility. That sense of injustice needs to be addressed today.

As we all know, although Lord Justice Taylor dismissed many of these stories out of hand as baseless, and firmly established the culpability of South Yorkshire police in his report, that sense of injustice remains today. It remains because of the claim by the match commander David Duckenfield that fans forced open the exit gate that led to the crush in the central pen, when that was his own terrible decision. It remains because of the disappearance of CCTV tapes from the control room—tapes showing what happened in the Leppings Lane end of the ground. It remains because of the verdict of accidental death rather than unlawful killing.

Many others have spoken of various inadequacies and the fact that the police fixation with alcohol seemed to have the upper hand. A sense of injustice remains because of the statement by the then Prime Minister’s press spokesman that he had “learned on the day” that the cause was “a tanked-up mob” of Liverpool fans. It remains because of the records of police officers’ statements having been doctored by senior officers of South Yorkshire police. It remains because the documents placed in this House seem incomplete—there are no memos between senior police officers, or the police and their solicitors, for example. It remains because of the Government’s discussions during those days still not having been released.

That sense of injustice can be righted only by the full and complete disclosure of documents held by the Government, South Yorkshire police and the other relevant authorities. Where doubt remains, that disclosure can help to bring clarity. Where suspicion lingers, that disclosure can help to bring confirmation. Where there is still grief—I know there is still grief—that disclosure can help people to move towards resolution.

One of the great privileges of being a Member of this House is the opportunity to stand in the Chamber and speak up for what is right. There are countless examples of Members of this Chamber doing that in our history and helping to right historic wrongs. This evening, it is important that the House speaks with one clear and consistent voice. Those who should have been given answers 22 years ago, who feel the pain every day of their lives, who are here today and watching the debate in such numbers deserve the truth. They deserve the full truth and they deserve it now.

21:32

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

I have been listening in appropriate awe to the brilliance of the speeches, particularly from the Members from Sheffield, Liverpool and around Merseyside, which is highly appropriate to the subject. They have delivered in terms of the quality of the argument and the eloquence with which they have put it. I trust that those who edit and those who own The Sun will be listening in to the debate and will be preparing their front pages in anticipation.

I am one of those who, for the past 25 years and more, has never allowed a copy of The Sun into my house. Whether I will again or not I do not know, so perhaps I will not see the apology that is due, but it is due because the evil committed by that newspaper shocked any decent person in this country.

I was asked to speak in this debate by one of my constituents, who pressed me repeatedly. One could hear the trauma in the e-mails that she sent me, repeatedly demanding, first, that I sign in support. I told her that I already had done so and had done in the previous Parliament. Then she said, “I need you to be there. I need you to be representing me at the debate.” I said I would be there. Then she said, “I need you to speak in the debate.” I represent the nearest Nottinghamshire constituency to Hillsborough and have many Sheffield Wednesday and Nottingham Forest supporters and a handful of Liverpool supporters in it. I have no idea which team she went to support that day.

I remember listening on my little radio to what was going on that day and recalling the only time I had stood in the Leppings Lane end for a semi-final, which had been a few years before. When I listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram), I remembered going through that tunnel. I cannot remember whether we were in section 3 or 4, but I remember more and more people coming in until we could scarcely move or breathe. Then, all the little kids, including my brother, who was tiny at the time—I was not much bigger—had to be lifted up, passed on hundreds of people’s hands and put down to the front because there were no crash barriers then. Probably thousands of people had to be moved on to the side of the pitch that day. That was some years before, so the lessons had not been learned.

I can think of other stadiums, not only in Sheffield, where I have been in similar situations. As a kid I used to be put on a stool; I started on a stool that was bigger than I was and then moved to one that was a bit smaller. I have been in stadiums where I stood on my stool, lost it in the first few minutes and did not get it back until after full time, but I went backwards and forwards and my feet never touched the ground.

I recall going to places like Chelsea in the ’80s and seeing the venom directed against ordinary football supporters, particularly visiting supporters, as though they were some sort of scum who should not be there. That was the climate that existed at the time and that was how football fans on all sides would have been seen there. There are many members and supporters of Nottingham Forest in my constituency, and every one of them stands alongside the supporters of Liverpool football club, as do all other supporters across the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton said, “There but for the grace of God go we.” Was it the toss of a coin that decided who went in one end and who went in the other, because it will have been no more scientific than that? Every time I have been to semi-finals at the same ground I have ended up in different ends each time. There is no science to it; it is luck. It is only a matter of luck that it was not Nottingham Forest supporters in the Leppings Lane end that day. That is the point.

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[John Mann]

My hon. Friend wants to join me in making this point on behalf of football supporters across Nottinghamshire. It could have been our supporters who were there.

[Vernon Coaker]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is really important that the people of Sheffield and, above all, the people of Liverpool, the families of the 96, the supporters of Liverpool football club and all decent people across the country know that the people of Nottinghamshire and Nottingham and the fans of Nottingham Forest stand absolutely with them today in their horror at what happened on that awful day and in their support for the motion before the House?

[John Mann]

There is not a supporter of any football club anywhere in the country, and certainly not a supporter of Nottingham Forest, who does not stand shoulder to shoulder with the fans and the people of Liverpool in demanding the truth and demanding justice, because it could easily have been on the toss of a coin that Nottingham Forest supporters were in the Leppings Lane end on that fateful day, and exactly the same thing would have happened. That tragedy was nothing whatever to do with the fans and supporters of Liverpool football club—nothing whatever. They just happened to be the unlucky ones—the ones in the wrong place at the wrong time, when the wrong decisions were made by people in authority. Any of us who went to football matches could have been there.

I have seen a vast amount of football. I have seen Liverpool football club, up at Anfield and elsewhere, and I have never once wanted them to win a game when I have been there, and to be honest I never will, but there is no finer set of football fans—football supporters—in this country or anywhere else in the world. That is the quality of the people of Liverpool, that is the quality of the people who support Liverpool football club, and that is why all the football world, not least the supporters of Nottingham Forest, stands alongside them.

We have had progress. We want to see full justice. These people deserve justice, and it is about time it happened.

21:40

[Mr Dave Watts (St Helens North) (Lab)]

I did not intend to take part in the debate, but I am very grateful for the opportunity to do so.

I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) on, and acknowledge his role in, securing this debate. He has been a Member for only a short period, but he has already proved himself a champion not only of this issue but of the whole city of Liverpool.

I also thank and am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), who has demonstrated that principles still stand in politics. He was prepared to put his neck on the line to make sure that the 96 received justice, so he should be praised for his actions when he was a member of the previous Government.

I acknowledge the role of my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), who has been an active campaigner on the issue, and my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg), who has not been named so far but who played an important role in negotiations between the families and the then Government to set up the original inquiry.

It is important that we do not just pat ourselves on the back, however, and I know that this debate would not have happened without the active campaigning of the families of the 96 or, indeed, the Liverpool fans themselves. Liverpool fans not just in the UK but throughout the world have taken part in the campaign, and the families would also like us to put on record their thanks to the club and to the manager, who have steadfastly supported the campaign from day one. The club has given them great assistance over a long period.

I have a personal interest, which I spoke about earlier in the debate, because unfortunately I lost one of my good pals, David Hawley, in the tragedy. We grew up together. We went to pubs, clubs and regularly to the match, but I lost contact with Davey for many years, and I did not make contact with him until a couple of weeks before the Hillsborough tragedy. I had not seen him for some years, but he walked up to me, we recognised each other—surprisingly!—and we arranged to meet.

Unfortunately, I never had the opportunity to meet David Hawley, have a social drink with him and remember the old days, because the next time I had any contact with him was when his funeral was held, and I know from that funeral the devastating effect of the tragedy on his direct family and his friends, who were all in the church. I remember seeing a packed church and representatives of Liverpool football club, all there paying tribute to a man for whom I had a great deal of admiration, and I was sorry that I did not have a chance to have that last drink with him.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern). Her speech was both passionate and from the heart, and I am not surprised that the families identified with it. It demonstrates that there are still people in the House who do things with a passion and from the heart, and I congratulate her on an outstanding speech.

This debate has already achieved something. It has proved that there was responsibility for the problems that arose. The mistakes were made by a range of different groups of people—the police, the emergency services, the football authorities, and many others—but no one can identify that it was the fault of football fans or the result of Liverpool fans’ actions. If the debate does nothing else, it will give wide media coverage to the fact that this had nothing to do with Liverpool fans.

A number of people are responsible for the view that Liverpool fans were responsible for the disaster, and that issue would be covered by the release of information from the Government. However, we also need all the media outlets to reveal the source of the information that they used in the days after the tragedy. It is crucial that the information is put on the public record so that we know why they wrote such terrible stories about Liverpool fans and about the disaster. Nearly all the media outlets now accept that their stories were irresponsible and untrue, but there is one man who still has not made that apology: Kelvin MacKenzie. Quite frankly, he should make that apology tomorrow, publicly, and if he does not every media outlet in this country should ban him completely and never give him time again.

I congratulate everyone in the House on the debate. I also congratulate the Government. They came under a great deal of pressure from this House and beyond to publish the full details, and I am very pleased that they are now going to do that. The whole House is united about getting all the information and all the documents out as quickly as possible so that we can draw a line under this issue.

21:46

[Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

I will be very brief because I want to leave time for my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) to wind up, but there are a few things that I would like to put on record. First, the whole House will congratulate my hon. Friend on an amazingly powerful and emotional speech. I do not think there have been many speeches in my 19 years here when there were so many damp eyes in the Chamber, and that is understandable given the circumstances.

When I moved to the north-west from Portsmouth in 1977, Liverpool supporters told me, “You’ll now learn about football”, and to a certain extent that was very true. However, it was my late neighbour, the late Cliff Lloyd, a one-time secretary of the Professional Footballers Association who was on Liverpool’s books as a schoolboy before the second world war, who told me about the stools that my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) mentioned. That is intriguing. In both the houses I have lived in during that time, a little stool was there, and it was for Dad to take along with him for his lad so that he could see the match. Those stools were used on the terraces in Liverpool by families who went for a family occasion and enjoyed their game.

I want to contrast that—the truth of the sport of football and the passion there is on the terraces—with what was said by the police, by The Sun, and by several other commentators. The contrast is so stark that we need to sit back, reflect and ask ourselves what drove the police leadership to get things so wrong—to encourage people to amend their statements. These are very serious issues. I am delighted that the Home Secretary has given such a positive response and that, I hope, we are going to get to the bottom of those issues.

We should contrast that with the way in which newspapers such as The Sun got it so wrong. What gave them the right to publish such disgusting filth when people had died? That is no way for responsible media to operate. Whatever happens at the end of Bishop James Jones’s inquiry, we have to reflect on this matter as a House. How can we ensure that the media take a more responsible view when they report on tragedies?

As has been said, we have given Bishop James Jones rather a lot to do given the responsibilities of the inquiries he is chairing. I hope that the Home Secretary will confirm that the Government want him to give this task the highest priority among the inquiries he is conducting into forestry and other issues. This matter is of such importance that we should encourage him to give it the highest possible priority.

I want to put on record my thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), who has been unstinting in raising this issue before public audiences. He spoke in my constituency a couple of months ago. In very emotional terms, he described what he saw as the roles of Parliament and Government in addressing this terrible tragedy and injustice. I hope that his role will not be forgotten, nor that of my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle). The two of them have been extraordinary.

I also want to comment on my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) who, as has been said, was at the tragic game. He is always an unassuming individual. He has taught me a lot about the events of the day. I congratulate him on being persistent in pressing this case.

We face a set of circumstances that require total openness. Today we have discussed the issues of data protection and redaction. The Home Secretary has been very positive. Many Members will know that I was quite heavily involved in bringing the Data Protection Act 1998 together from the Data Protection Act 1984 and the European directive. Unless, as the Home Secretary said, family members have specific reasons to request that the bishop does not publish certain things, there is no reason under the 1998 Act why anything other than minor details, such as signatures, should be withheld from the public gaze. We need to ensure that if anything is done beyond those reasons, it is annotated to record why it has been done. I would ask the bishop to think about how he could do that, so that anyone who has the slightest suspicion about any redaction can be comfortable about why it has occurred.

The list read out by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton was powerful and emotional. On that point, I think it is appropriate for the House to give the last few minutes to him, because he has done the House a tremendous service by raising this case today.

[Hon. Members]

Hear! Hear!

21:59

[Steve Rotheram]

I thank all colleagues who have taken part in tonight’s debate. I said at the start of my speech, three and a bit hours ago, that the issue of Hillsborough would not go away, and Members can see for themselves what it means to the families who have joined us in the House tonight. Members from across the country have most eloquently articulated their constituents’ thoughts on the disaster.

Today has been the most emotional and most rewarding day of my short parliamentary career. You, Mr Speaker, said on the day you were elected Speaker of this great House that you believed Members were, by and large, “upright, decent, honourable people”, looking to improve the lives and change the lot of their fellow citizens in this country. Tonight, I hope I speak on behalf of all the family members present, and the millions of people across Merseyside and much further afield who support them, when I say that Members in all parts of the House—those who signed the petition, those who will support the motion and those who have spoken in the debate—have made a difference to those families’ lives. For that, I will be for ever grateful.

I am grateful also to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), an Evertonian who has pursued the cause of justice over the past few years with the tenacity that only he could have brought to the job.

I spoke earlier of the eternal flame of solidarity among the people of Liverpool, but tonight I was moved by the contributions of my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) and for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith). It is clear that they are Sheffield through and through, and that, like ours, their city continues to live under the dark cloud of the events of April 1989.

I am grateful to Members who have contributed. I have already received texts from many people, including Jamie Carragher and Kenny Dalglish, praising the House. I was also pleased to see Joey Barton, who did so much to promote the e-petition, join us in the Public Gallery tonight, as well as Andy Gray and Richard Keys of talkSPORT, who have promoted the issues that we have raised in the House tonight on their radio show in the build-up to the debate. I would also like to thank successive managers of Liverpool and Everton football clubs, who have so effectively used their profiles over the years to support and promote the cause, especially David Moyes, who attended the 20th anniversary service. The players who played on that fateful day also felt the effect of the tragedy, none more so than John Aldridge, who has been unstinting in his support for the families.

I want to give special thanks, of course, to the families and to all the Merseyside MPs—my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), the hon. Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey), my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson), my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), my hon. Friends the Members for Halton (Derek Twigg), for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger), for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), and for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth), my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper), the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern), whose contribution was brilliantly moving. They know more than most the depth of feeling in our region about the fateful day, and they will be grateful for the giant strides that the fight for justice has taken tonight. I thank the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), for her indulgence and advice throughout the process.

Some 100 MPs signed the petition that triggered tonight’s debate. Successive Governments made terrible mistakes. Tonight, this Parliament, when given the chance, got it right. When I began the fight for this debate, the families told me that all they had ever wanted was the truth. Tonight we moved a step closer to fulfilling their wish, and I hope that 96 souls will be resting a little easier.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House calls for the full disclosure of all government-related documents, including Cabinet minutes, relating to the 1989 Hillsborough disaster; requires that such documentation be uncensored and without redaction; and further calls for the families of the 96 and the Hillsborough Independent Panel to have unrestricted access to that information.

[Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. We have heard a lot tonight about the conduct of News International in 1989. In the light of its recent conduct and its coming in front of a Select Committee, would it be in order for that Select Committee to ask News International to come before it to answer questions about its activities back in 1989?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. The short answer is that Select Committees are at liberty to ask witnesses to appear before them in relation to inquiries upon which they have decided. I hope that that answer is instructive to him and to the House. They can do as they wish, and people are morally obliged and expected to co-operate with parliamentary Committees that are going about public business as they see fit.

Business without Debate

Monday 17th October 2011 Commons Chamber

Adjournment (November 2011, Christmas and February 2012)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 25),

That this House, at its rising on Tuesday 15 November 2011, do adjourn till Monday 21 November 2011; at its rising on Tuesday 20 December 2011, do adjourn till Tuesday 10 January 2012; and at its rising on Thursday 9 February 2012, do adjourn till Monday 20 February 2012.—(Stephen Crabb.)

The Speaker’s opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until Wednesday 19 October (Standing Order No. 41A).

Delegated Legislation (Committees)

Ordered,

That the Motion in the name of Sir George Young relating to the Electoral Commission shall be treated as if it related to an instrument subject to the provisions of Standing Order No. 118 (Delegated Legislation Committees) in respect of which notice has been given that the instrument be approved.—(Stephen Crabb.)

Tower Hamlets (City Status)

Monday 17th October 2011 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Stephen Crabb.)

22:01

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the Tower Hamlets city status bid, and I welcome the Minister. I know that his reaction must be neutral, so in reality, this will not be much of a debate. It is none the less good to see him—he is highly regarded on both sides of the House.

It is also good to see the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr Field) in the Chamber. He represents London’s two existing cities. My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) and I—she cannot be with us tonight—would be very happy were Her Majesty to allow us to represent just one city between us. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can offer us some advice and assistance on how to get there.

The east end has always been special in many ways. Today, however, Tower Hamlets is a reflection of Britain and the Commonwealth—a centre for global business and multiculturalism. The borough has come a long way since the blitz. Tower Hamlets has been transformed during the decades of Her Majesty’s reign, adapting from the industry of the docks and the merchant navy to become an internationally recognised world centre for trading, business and banking, and a celebrated tourism hub.

We have over two millennia of history and share more than a thousand years with royalty. Now as before, but in a different way, we are a powerhouse for the United Kingdom’s well-being. We are the third central business district for the heart of London, alongside London’s west end and the Corporation of London, both cities of which are represented by the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster, as I have said.

Our new economy creates an economic surplus that contributes through Government tax distribution to many of the poorer parts of Britain. We are proud to be able to make that contribution, having experienced hard times ourselves in the past—we still have deprived areas today.

On the history of our part of east London, the iconic Tower of London symbolises our strong and enduring links with the monarchy. Founded by William the Conqueror, it is the country’s oldest royal palace. The constable of the tower has the right of direct access to the sovereign, and of course it is home to the Crown jewels.

Tower Hamlets locations feature in royal and maritime chronology. The first ships to establish English-speaking settlements in north America left Blackwall stairs in 1606, 13 years before the pilgrim fathers left the south-west. Four hundred years later, almost symmetrically, the major US banks, with others, now occupy Canary Wharf. Famous navigators and explorers such as Sir Martin Frobisher sailed from Blackwall and the Ratcliff highway—now the King Edward VII memorial park—to advance British trade and fight on behalf of the Crown. The Royal Naval Reserve’s “stone frigate”, HMS President, was commissioned in November 1903, and is now at St Katharine’s way, close to Tower bridge. The Isle of Dogs was home to the royal stables for King Charles II’s Greenwich palace. Victoria park was established as London’s first public park in 1850, and named after Queen Victoria. A petition signed by 30,000 residents requested a royal park in the area because of the lack of green space in the east end.

In world war two, east-enders endured the terrible onslaught of Hitler’s blitz. The bombing was more painful as it followed the poverty of the economic depressions in the 1920s and 1930s. The people were fortified by the royal family’s visits, and by the shared experience of their suffering. Her Majesty’s mother, Queen Elizabeth, almost perversely, commented positively after Buckingham palace itself was bombed, saying:

“I am glad…now we can look the East End in the eye”.

In 1945, during two days of joy following VE day, the royal family celebrated with Poplar and Limehouse.

The royal family has maintained its links with the east end, and family members have taken an active interest in the area’s regeneration. The Prince’s Trust has been an assiduous partner in local initiatives, and Her Majesty herself opened the first stage of the Docklands light railway in 1987, and Poplar marina a decade later. She and His Royal Highness Prince Philip have also visited on other occasions. The ecumenical priorities of the royal family are a basis of staunch support from Tower Hamlets, as a multi-faith community. This was demonstrated at the recent royal wedding celebrations, which were organised and attended by people from all religions and backgrounds.

Our prosperity as London’s engine room has always been linked with London’s priorities as the nation’s primary trading centre, and now as a world city. We have moved from physical trade to international banking, creative industries, media, pharmaceuticals and company headquarters, and Tower Hamlets is now a leading world centre, with the City Fringe and Canary Wharf. Our economic turnover is now over £6 billion annually. Small and medium-sized enterprises on, and servicing, Canary Wharf, as well as traditional businesses, provide employment for thousands of people. Our inward-commuting population is more than 120,000 daily, and will rise to more than 200,000 by 2020. There will be 300,000 jobs in Tower Hamlets by then. Already, Tower Hamlets offers the largest number of jobs in the United Kingdom outside the cities of Birmingham, Leeds, Manchester and Sheffield, and London’s two other cities.

The Thames and Lea rivers, and the legacy of the Roman roads, were our early business arteries and our communities’ raison d’être. We still have the largest “blue network” of any London borough. The upper docks were a vital part of Britain’s maritime trade from the 1800s to the 1970s. London’s first canal—the Regent’s canal or Prince Regent’s canal—and early railways such as the London and Blackwall were built to serve the docks and carry national, imperial and international trade. Our markets, including Spitalfields, were the centrepiece of the capital’s provisioning. In 1982, Billingsgate fish market relocated to Tower Hamlets.

For international air and rail connections, we are neighbours to London City airport and Stratford International, and we will be only 40 minutes from Heathrow airport when Crossrail opens. All built-up areas in Tower Hamlets are within walking distance of a railway, a Docklands light railway, a tube or an overground station, and the Mayor of London’s cycle scheme is following. We can therefore support major growth environmentally in the decades to follow, and 170 million passenger journeys start or finish at our 30 stations yearly.

Tower Hamlets has a fascinating social, cultural and political history. A core test of strong community leadership is an enduring concern for the well-being of its citizens of all ages. Trade and social cohesion do not always rub shoulders comfortably in a major urban area. Poverty, slum housing, poor health and crime have all been present locally and, sadly, some aspects are still evident. Tower Hamlets council and its predecessors have a distinguished and continuing tradition of increasing democracy and rights for working people, including the Poplar rebels of the 1920s. The roll call locally is packed with social reform, equality, emancipation and self-improvement of communities, transforming them into our 21st-century society.

In the middle ages, Wat Tyler met King Richard II at Mile End during the peasants’ revolt, where the king acceded to a petition for better payments and social conditions. In Victorian times, the Chartists and local dockers, campaigning to improve industrial and social conditions, met at Victoria park. The Toynbee Hall organisation has worked on social and welfare reform since the end of the 19th century. Clement Attlee MP, one of my predecessors, was MP for Limehouse and became Prime Minister, championing welfare reform. In early 2011, the current Prime Minister announced the coalition Government’s plans for welfare reform at Toynbee Hall.

The Boundary estate in Bethnal Green opened in 1900 and was the world’s first council housing, built on the site of one of the capital’s most notorious slums, the Old Nichol. The Peabody estate in Commercial street was the first social housing, while the Lansbury estate in Poplar was a post-war prototype and is still going strong.

Sylvia Pankhurst settled in Bow at the beginning of world war one. With suffragette colleagues, she set up a cut-price restaurant, a milk centre, a toy factory and a nursery school. This provided local women and children with what they needed; the women worked in the munitions factories and on public transport, as their husbands and men-folk went to war. In other examples, the first women to form a trade union did so at Bryant and May’s match factory in Bow; the Salvation Army was founded by Charles Booth in the east end; and Mahatma Gandhi stayed in Kingsley hall in Bow in 1930s—a place that now houses the Gandhi Foundation.

New communities have always shaped Tower Hamlets. The east end has had a wide impact on British national identity through the archetypal cheeky Cockney and the resourceful, never-give-up, east-ender attitude. However, this is just its starting point. At the trading crossroads for the oceans, we have led the proud tradition of integrating migrants. Spitalfields’ origins were the migrants during Roman times, and I mentioned the Normans and William the Conqueror’s Tower of London. Through the centuries, our arrivals have included many thousands from across the British empire and the Commonwealth. The original London Chinatown was in Limehouse. Religious persecutions caused others to seek refuge with us: French Huguenots at the end of the 17th century and east European Jews in the 19th century. Economic needs and famine stimulated the arrival of many Catholics from Ireland and, more recently, we have seen the arrival of Bangladeshi Muslims. These new communities, defined by their faith and ethnicity, have created strong infrastructures around family and work—firm foundations for our city. The diverse population, cultures and identities reflect those of the wider 21st-century Britain. We now have the youngest population of any London local authority.

That rich background has stimulated a shining example of Tower Hamlets’ distinctiveness. One building that best tells the diverse religious history of Tower Hamlets, is the “Brick Lane mosque”, which was originally founded as a church for the Huguenots, but later used by Methodists. In the late 19th century, it was converted into the Machzikei Adass, also known as the Spitalfields Great synagogue, but as the Jewish community moved out to be replaced by Bengali immigrants, it became the Jamme Masjid or the Great London mosque in 1976. We also have the east London mosque in Whitechapel and no fewer than three Hawksmoor churches in the borough. Royal ensigns have permission to fly—the white ensign at St Anne’s in Limehouse, the red ensign at St Dunstan’s in Stepney, as well as the blue ensign at the floating church of St Peter’s in the docks.

Most recently, the regeneration of the area, overseen by the London Docklands Development Corporation, has caused the riverside populations to be reborn, with renovations and adaptation of older buildings and the construction of new homes, bringing many thousands of new residents to the area. That stimulation and new investment has extended inland to centres such as Spitalfields, Whitechapel, Bow and Victoria park—and, of course, Tower Hamlets is one of London’s Olympic boroughs.

Tower Hamlets’ experiences with community activism in past times are paying dividends as we look to the future. At the 1936 battle of Cable street, 300,000 people blocked Oswald Mosley’s fascists from marching on the local Jewish community. Today there are some 2,500 community groups working within Tower Hamlets, delivering a vast range of services to local people, ranging from small self-help groups run by volunteers, to larger organisations delivering public sector contracts. Our thriving third sector is a reflection of our vitality and community spirit, which is inspired by our origins. There was stability in Tower Hamlets during the riots that took place elsewhere in the United Kingdom during the 1980s and 1990s, and most recently we were pretty much spared the violence seen in so many parts of the UK.

The sustaining core of the east end’s future will be our young people, and ensuring that they are educated, skilled, experienced and adaptable. Our secondary schools are benefiting from a £290 million investment to create world-class learning environments for our children. Our schools have moved in the last 15 years, and are now among the highest-performing in Britain. Education and training-related courses can be taken in the borough’s idea stores—formerly libraries—and higher educational opportunities are available in Tower Hamlets at Queen Mary and Westfield college, part of the University of London, at London Metropolitan university, and at Tower Hamlets college.

We are profoundly keen for our new generations to be politically articulate, and the council has organised and held annual elections for a “Young Mayor” since 2008. The most recent election, in January 2011, saw a record turnout of 52.4% of young people, a higher turnout than those in some recent mainstream elections. We have a directly elected executive mayoral system of local government.

Tower Hamlets has always had a high-profile artistic identity. Among our residents are Dame Helen Mirren, Sir Ian McKellen, Tracey Emin and Gilbert and George, and 3 Mills Studios in Bromley-by-Bow are London’s largest film and television studios. The Old Truman Brewery is now host to many creative businesses, and we have a number of artists’ colonies including Trinity Buoy Wharf, where Faraday experimented with electricity. For over a century the Whitechapel gallery has showcased the work of world-renowned artists such as Picasso, Jackson Pollock and Lucian Freud. The Museum of London Docklands is considered to be one of London’s hidden treasures, and addresses the history of the capital as a port. Children locally are encouraged to visit the V&A Museum of Childhood, which was opened by the Prince of Wales in 1872, to see its collection of childhood-related objects dating back to the 1600s. Wilton’s Music Hall, which opened in 1858 in Wapping, is the oldest surviving Grand Music Hall in the world, and is Grade II listed. However, the jewel of all our buildings is the one that I mentioned at the start, which is home to the Crown Jewels.

One of Britain’s most striking and famous historical landmarks, the Tower of London, is now a world heritage site attracting more than 2 million visitors a year. Other high-profile buildings include the Canary Wharf skyscrapers, the Old Truman Brewery, the old and new parts of the Royal London hospital, the northern half of Tower Bridge—I would not want to claim Southwark’s southern half—and the Whitechapel Bell Foundry, which cast the Big Ben bell, as well as the bells of many cathedrals and parish churches and others further afield. I am told that it also cast the Liberty Bell, which, as we know, is famously cracked. During the American quadricentennial celebrations, a stunt was organised by Americans who handed out leaflets outside the foundry asking for their money back. The foundry showed its sense of humour: they were told that they could certainly have their money back provided that the goods were returned in the original packaging.

Some of our street markets are known worldwide and are major destinations for residents, Londoners and tourists alike, such as the Columbia Road flower market and the Whitechapel, Petticoat Lane, Spitalfields and Billingsgate markets. The Roman Road, Watney and Chrisp Street markets are well known throughout the east end. Food is a symbol of Tower Hamlets’ many cultures, whether it is sold in the local pie and mash shops, at Tubby Isaac’s jellied eel stall, in the bagel bakeries or in the curry houses. The Olympic organisers have just named Brick lane as Curry Capital 2012.

Events take place in Tower Hamlets throughout the year. The Baishakhi Mela, a festival to celebrate the Bengali new year, is the largest carnival in the UK after the Notting Hill carnival, and more than 100,000 people turned up in 2010. Lovebox, a music festival held in Victoria park, attracts star performers and plays to over 100,000 people, and Canary Wharf sponsors a year-round arts and events programme encompassing music, sport, visual art, food, fashion and dance.

Many excellent towns and boroughs are seeking Her Majesty’s pleasure and approval to be named a city in 2012, her diamond jubilee year. As the Minister knows, Tower Hamlets is in very good company, and whichever area Her Majesty chooses will be worthy of the title. My speech is intended to draw attention to some of the stronger reasons for the view held by many of us that Tower Hamlets has an excellent case to make. Our bid has the support of all our major political parties.

A city is defined through its deeds, its concern for citizens and its central roles. We have a powerful track record of managing and behaving as a city, with national and world impacts in business, and a profound and strong cultural and social record at a human level.

We hope that Her Majesty will choose Tower Hamlets because we foresee more investment and economic growth coming from city status with its new united identity. These gains will be re-invested back into our communities and our people, and towards the wider London and national well-being. Our vision is built on our multicultural, multi-faith approach to social development, and our aim to be the leading example of how Britain can best influence the dynamics of the world in the 21st century, and I am grateful to have had the chance to make these remarks.

22:20

[Mr Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) on introducing this important debate. As he pointed out, I, rather greedily, have two cities in my constituency just to the west of his own. They are also rich in history, and I suspect I could bore Members for some hours by going into the details of that history. It was a great pleasure to listen to the hon. Gentleman’s speech, in which he described, with understandable pride, the great achievements of Tower Hamlets. Although he spoke about its great history, he also had a firm eye on the future.

In light of the previous debate, it might be relevant to mention that one thing Tower Hamlets lacks is a league football club. We might, perhaps, hope that returns to its historical roots at some point by crossing the river again—although I suspect the local constabulary might not be too keen on that idea, particularly on derby days when Millwall plays West Ham United.

However, although the hon. Gentleman made relevant points about Tower Hamlets, I hope we will consider granting city status to other candidates too, so that we do not give the nod to just one new city next year. Reading is my home town, and that is one of the other places in the running, and I also think there is a strong case for Croydon. If it were a self-standing entity rather than a London borough, it would be the ninth largest settlement in the UK.

The case for Tower Hamlets is strong. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, the financial district that has grown up from nothing over the past 20 years makes a great case for its having city status, and so does its great history. For those purists who want there to be a cathedral, there are the three Hawksmoor churches. St George-in-the-East and the others would all happily fit the bill.

However, the hon. Gentleman’s most important statement in promoting Tower Hamlets was that we should look to the future. The great multicultural, multi-ethnic and multi-racial mix that is Tower Hamlets, with the great change we are seeing in that part of our capital city, deserves to be recognised as an example of how our cities should be.

The hon. Gentleman referred to some of the political controversies and difficulties of the 1920s and 1930s, when Poplar was one of the constituent borough councils of Tower Hamlets. Tower Hamlets has also had more recent political problems, and I hope that the prospect of city status will unite all political people in Tower Hamlets over the next year or so. I hope they will focus on that, rather than on some of the high profile difficulties of the recent past.

I wish the hon. Gentleman Godspeed with his campaign and look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to what has been an excellent short debate.

22:23

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Mark Harper)]

As well as the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), whom I congratulate on securing this debate, and my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr Field), two other Members are present, both of whom have an interest in that their own areas are bidding for city status. They will have listened with great interest to the hon. Gentleman’s case.

The hon. Gentleman follows my hon. Friends the Members for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell), for Reading West (Alok Sharma), for Southend West (Mr Amess) and for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) in securing a debate on his area’s hopes for winning city status in the diamond jubilee competition for civic honours. I have learned many new things in the course of this debate, as I did in those previous debates. I think I am right in saying that this is the first such debate for which you, Mr Speaker, have been in the Chair. You will be pleased to know that there are 25 entries seeking city status. This is the fifth debate, so there are a further 20 debates to go if Members are as assiduous as those whom I have mentioned in seeking to make the case for their areas. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to learn that I can confirm that Tower Hamlets’ entry into the diamond jubilee competition for civic honours has been safely received. As I said, it is one of 25 entries seeking city status and there are 12 entries seeking lord mayoralty status for existing cities. That shows a tremendous amount of enthusiasm and interest in the competition, and demonstrates how attractive such civic honours are to local communities.

The hon. Gentleman recognised at the beginning of his remarks that I can no more endorse the aspirations of Tower Hamlets than I could those of any of the other entrants in the competition. Ministers must remain impartial, as we must ensure that bestowing city status remains a real honour, fairly bestowed and that this remains a real competition. The reason why fairness is so important is that there are no hard and fast criteria for becoming a city. It is an honour granted by the sovereign, nowadays following a competition, as a rare mark of distinction. So reasons for success or failure in these competitions are never given, and city status is not something that towns can achieve just by ticking off a list of hard and fast criteria.

We see why that is when we consider the list of existing cities. Any attempt to draw up a list of hard and fast criteria would run into problems. Some cities in the UK are large and some are small. Some have conspicuously attractive and well-laid-out city centres, whereas that is less true of others. Some have wonderful cathedrals, universities, airports, underground systems or trams, whereas some may lack those physical features but boast a vibrant cultural life.

The Government have, however, set out some of the qualities that we would expect a new city to have, and the assessment will be made in the round, looking at those qualities. We would expect a new city to have a vibrant, welcoming community with an interesting history and a distinct identity. The hon. Gentleman eloquently set out Tower Hamlets’ claim in those and other respects, and I can assure him and his constituents that their entry will receive a thorough and impartial appraisal of its merits, alongside the other entries in the competition. The assessment process is under way and the plan is to announce the results early in 2012, at the beginning of the diamond jubilee year. With that, this short debate—it was not much of a “debate”, in the sense that there was not a huge difference of opinion—comes to an end. I again congratulate the hon. Gentleman for setting out very forcefully the case for his constituency.

Question put and agreed to.

22:27

House adjourned.

Petition

Monday 17th October 2011 Petitions

Monday 17 October 2011

Lauderdale Avenue Tram Crossing (Blackpool)

Monday 17th October 2011 Petitions

The Petition of the people of Blackpool and Cleveleys,

Declares that the Petitioners are opposed to the permanent closure of the Lauderdale Avenue/Blandford Avenue crossing to traffic and pedestrians.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage Blackpool Council to ensure that the Lauderdale Avenue/Blandford Avenue crossing remains open.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Paul Maynard, Official Report, 13 September 2011; Vol. 532, c. 1008.]

[P000959]

Observations from the Secretary of State for Transport:

The Blackpool tramway is currently being upgraded. The works include provision of new trams and upgrades to many of the junctions with the road network to allow faster tram services. This includes the closure of some existing crossing points for vehicles and pedestrians.

It is for the highway authorities concerned to decide on the detailed design of the scheme. In the case of the Lauderdale Avenue/Blandford Avenue crossing, this is Blackpool council. While every effort should be made to accommodate the needs of all road users, it is sometimes necessary to make changes to facilities as part of a major upgrade.

Local authorities are free to make their own decisions about the design of the streets under their care, provided they take account of the relevant legislation. It would be inappropriate for the Government to seek to intervene in the process of local democratic accountability.

Written Ministerial Statements

Monday 17th October 2011 Written Statements

Monday 17 October 2011

ECOFIN 4 October 2011

Monday 17th October 2011 Written Statements

[The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne)]

The Economic and Financial Affairs Council was held in Luxembourg on 4 October 2011. The Financial Secretary and I represented the UK. The following items were discussed:

Regulation on over-the-counter derivatives, central counterparties and trade repositories (EMIR)

Prior to the meeting, the Government were clear that the regulation as it stood was unacceptable. In line with concerns raised previously by the European Union Committee, I therefore made it clear that a number of changes to the text were needed, including:

in order for the college to block an authorisation of a central counterparty (CCP), all members of the college, excluding the relevant National Competent Authority (NCA), must vote against it;

wording in an article that would forbid any decisions on CCPs being made on a basis that would discriminate against any member state as a venue for clearing services in any currency;

in order to foster competition, provisions requiring open access to CCPs and trading venues for over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives, as well as a public statement from the Commission that full fair and open access would be dealt with properly in forthcoming legislation;

a public declaration that the issue of scope and adequate coverage to meet the G20 agreement would be dealt with in upcoming legislation; and

a clear statement that the drafting of third country provisions required further work, which will be completed in the context of negotiations with the European Parliament.

With these conditions met, the Council agreed a general approach. The presidency, on behalf of the Council, will now start negotiations with the European Parliament, with a view to reaching agreement at First Reading.

Legislative proposals on economic governance

The Council agreed to a compromise text on the package of six legislative proposals. The Government are content with the package, which will strengthen economic governance in the EU, while respecting the UK’s fiscal sovereignty. The Council will formally adopt the proposals without further discussion once the texts have been finalised in all official languages.

European Central Bank (ECB): nomination of an executive board member

The Council adopted a recommendation on the nomination of Jörg Asmussen to the executive board of the ECB, to succeed Jürgen Stark, who announced his resignation on 9 September. The Government are content with this recommendation; matters related to the ECB are for euro area member states to decide. The Council’s recommendation will be submitted for a decision to the European Council, after consulting the European Parliament and the ECB’s governing council.

Information on the informal ECOFIN meeting

The presidency gave a de-brief of the September informal ECOFIN, and presented a proposal for the ECOFIN Council to assess the impact of new EU legislation on growth and jobs. This was then discussed over lunch, with the Government offering support. Officials will now produce a formal proposal, which will be discussed at a future ECOFIN.

Review of the fiscal exit strategy

Finance Ministers agreed Council conclusions on the implications of lower growth on excessive deficit procedure and stability and growth pact targets. The Government support these conclusions, which are in line with domestic fiscal policy and the emerging international debate on differentiating fiscal strategies between countries. The conclusions will feed into the European Council debate on EU growth on 23 October.

Implementation of the Excessive Deficit Procedure (EDP)

ECOFIN held an exchange of views on implementation of the EDP following recent developments. The Government welcome the emphasis on ensuring that all member states fully implement budgetary strategies for timely meeting of fiscal targets. The Commission will provide a more comprehensive analysis in their autumn forecast.

Follow-up to the IMF Annual Meetings on 24 September 2011, and the G20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors’ meeting on 22 September 2011

The Council was informed by the presidency and the French delegation, in its capacity as G20 presidency, of the outcome of the meetings.

Preparation of G20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors’ meeting on 14-15 October

The Council endorsed the EU terms of reference, which will form the basis of the EU’s contribution to the meeting of G20 Finance Ministers on 14-15 October. The Government are content with the terms of reference, which emphasise the need for determined action to maintain financial stability, restore confidence, and support growth. The G20 meeting is expected to cover the following issues: responding effectively to the current challenges in the global economy through the G20 framework for growth; financial regulation; commodities; reform of the international monetary system; and climate change financing and development.

Preparation of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Durban

Finance Ministers adopted conclusions on climate finance ahead of the Durban conference of the parties to be held 28 November to 9 December, 2011. The Government support these conclusions which reflect our position on climate finance.

Economic situation

Over breakfast, Finance Ministers received a de-brief of the previous evening’s Eurogroup meeting, and held an exchange of views on the economic situation. I emphasised the importance of the euro area delivering a truly comprehensive solution to the situation in the euro area, which ring-fences vulnerable euro area countries, recapitalises Europe’s banks and resolves uncertainty about Greece, ahead of the G20 summit in Cannes on 3-4 November.

Financial Assistance (Ireland)

Monday 17th October 2011 Written Statements

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Mark Hoban)]

I would like to update Parliament on the loan to Ireland.

Ireland completed the third quarterly review of its International Monetary Fund and European Union programme of financial assistance on 2 September 2011, at which point the first instalment of the UK bilateral loan became available for drawdown.

Upon request, the Treasury has disbursed the first instalment of £403.37 million on 14 October 2011, with a maturity date of 15 April 2019.

HM Treasury will provide a further report to Parliament, as required under the Loans to Ireland Act 2010, at the end of this reporting period.

The Government believe that it is in our national interest that the Irish economy is successful and its banking system is stable. The Government continue to support Ireland’s efforts to improve its economic situation.

Community Budgets

Monday 17th October 2011 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles)]

I have today published a community budget prospectus which invites areas to express an interest in participating in two new pilot programmes. The first tests how local places can make best use of all the money that is spent in their area on public services on a wide range of problems. The second tests how this approach might be adapted to give neighbourhoods more control over the services that matter most to them.

I have placed a copy of the prospectus in the Library of the House.

General Affairs Council and Foreign Affairs Council, 10-11 October 2011

Monday 17th October 2011 Written Statements

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

The Foreign Affairs Council and General Affairs Council were held on 10-11 October in Luxembourg. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I represented the UK.

The agenda items covered were as follows:

Foreign Affairs Council (FAC)

The FAC was chaired by Baroness Ashton. A provisional report of the meeting, and all conclusions adopted, can be found at:

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/125028.pdf

Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH)

Although BiH was not a formal agenda item, Ministers agreed conclusions which reaffirmed the EU’s support for the continuation of the EU’s military force’s (EUFOR Althea) executive mandate. The conclusions also included a reference to “looking forward to discussions” on the future of the Office of the High Representative (OHR).

Belarus

Ministers agreed to renew the EU’s restrictive measures against Belarus, and added 16 new names to the travel ban and assets-freeze list. There was broad agreement that the EU should not consider renewing a dialogue with the Belarusian authorities until all political prisoners have been released and rehabilitated. Ministers also endorsed ongoing work by Commissioner Stefan Fule on engaging civil society in Belarus.

Ukraine

Ministers expressed concern about the trial and upcoming verdict on Yulia Tymoshenko. There was a discussion about the impact the verdict might have on finalising the EU’s association agreement with Ukraine.

The day after the FAC, Yulia Tymoshenko was sentenced to seven years in prison. Speaking after the verdict the Foreign Secretary said:

“The conviction of the Ukrainian opposition politician, Yulia Tymoshenko, by a court in Kyiv is deeply concerning. Independent legal experts including the Danish Helsinki Committee have concluded that Ms Tymoshenko’s trial was subject to numerous and serious violations of fundamental legal principles, in direct contradiction of common European values.

“Ukraine says it wants to join the EU one day. The UK supports that objective. But that cannot happen until Ukraine can show that it adheres to the highest democratic standards, including respect for human rights, the rule of law and an independent, transparent and fair judicial process. The conviction of Ms Tymoshenko and the ongoing cases against other former Members of the Government call into question Ukraine’s commitment to these values. This could pose a major obstacle to the signature and ratification of the association agreement and deep and comprehensive free trade agreement with the EU”.

EU-China Summit

Ministers reviewed preparations for the 14th EU-China summit, which takes place in China on 25 October. The Foreign Secretary stressed the need for the EU to focus on increased market access for EU businesses. He also urged the EU to continue to raise human rights issues at the highest level, and underlined the importance of global co-operation on cyber security.

Southern Neighbourhood

Baroness Ashton set out the results of the Tunisian taskforce meeting of 28-29 September. She had co-chaired the meeting with the Prime Minister of Tunisia, which had also been attended by member states, European institutions, the European Investment Bank, the EBRD, the World Bank, the Africa Bank and representatives from the private sector. Around €4 billion was pledged to Tunisia over the next three years.

On Egypt, concern was expressed by many Ministers about the recent outbreaks of violence. There was broad agreement on the importance of protecting freedom of religion and belief.

Ministers agreed conclusions on Libya which:

Reaffirmed the EU’s support for the National Transition Council.

Welcomed the continuation of the operation to enforce UNSCR 1973 and ensure the protection of the Libyan population.

Welcomed the adoption of UNSCR 2009 and the return of Libya to the UN as represented by the National Transitional Council.

Stressed the need for all in Libya to respect all international obligations and the rule of law.

Expressed concern about the dissemination of conventional weapons in Libya.

Set out the EU’s willingness to work under UN co-ordination to consider Libyan needs in the fields of democratisation, rule of law, institution-building, security sector reform and police training.

Ministers agreed conclusions on Syria which condemned the ongoing brutal repression by the Syrian regime. Ministers expressed disappointment with the failure of the UN Security Council to adopt a resolution against Syria. They reiterated their determination to continue with targeted sanctions against the Syrian regime.

On Yemen, Ministers agreed conclusions which stressed concern about the situation in the country. They called for President Saleh to sign and implement the Gulf Co-operation Council initiative. And they welcomed the report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, and urged the authorities in Yemen to act on its recommendations.

On the European neighbourhood policy, the Foreign Secretary and others stressed the need to hold out the possibility of meaningful market access to the neighbourhood, in exchange for real political and democratic reforms.

Middle East Peace Process

Ministers agreed conclusions which reiterated their support for Baroness Ashton’s efforts on behalf of the EU to re-launch the peace process. There was an appeal for both parties to resume negotiations under the terms set out in the quartet statement of 23 September.

Ministers expressed their disappointment with the recent settlement expansion in the East Jerusalem settlement of Gilo. Baroness Ashton briefed Ministers on the Quartet envoys’ meeting of 9 October in Brussels and plans to invite the parties to meet in the coming days. The Foreign Secretary emphasised the need for continued EU unity in response to any resolutions proposed at the United Nations in New York.

Iran

The discussion on Iran focused on two areas: the EU’s growing concern over human rights, and Iran’s nuclear programme. On human rights. Ministers agreed to add 29 names to its sanctions list, in addition to the 32 officials previously agreed in April. On the nuclear issue, Baroness Ashton briefed Ministers on E3+3 talks in New York in the margin of the UN General Assembly and her meeting with the Iranian Foreign Minister. She also outlined plans for taking forward talks with Iran. The Foreign Secretary made the following statement:

“I welcome the EU’s agreement today to impose restrictive measures on a further 29 Iranians responsible for grave human rights abuses. Those targeted include Government Ministers, members of the security forces, prison staff and judiciary responsible for serious human rights violations.

“In recent months the human rights situation in Iran has continued to deteriorate. As we mark world day against the death penalty we should recall that Iran has now executed over 500 people this year, including a 17-year-old boy. The Government have violently suppressed protests over the mismanagement of a lake in north-west Iran, and families of a number of journalists have been arrested and harassed. We will continue to identify and list those who seriously violate the human rights of the Iranian people.

“Today’s decision sends a clear message to every individual on this list, and others in the Iranian regime, that we will not stand by. They will be held to account for their actions and should not involve themselves in the appalling abuses we continue to witness”.

EU External Representation

Ministers had a brief informal exchange on EU external representation in international organisations. The Foreign Secretary said we supported effective external action by the EU, in accordance with the treaties. But we needed to ensure that this did not affect the balance of competences between the EU and member states; and that member states remained free to act where they had the right to do so. He agreed that the EAS should propose effective arrangements in line with these principles.

General Affairs Council (GAC)

The GAC was chaired by the Polish EU presidency (Mikolaj Dowgielewicz, State Secretary for European Affairs). A draft record of the meeting can be found at:

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/genaff/125036.pdf

Cohesion Policy

Ministers heard a presentation by Commissioner Hahn (regional policy) of proposals for rules on implementing the EU’s policy on economic and social cohesion in 2012-2020.

Growth-Enhancing Measures

The presidency presented its report “Towards a European consensus on growth” (see link below).

http://pl2011.eu/sites/default/files/users/shared/spotkania_i_ wydarzenia/presidency_report_on_growth.pdf

The report identifies potential growth-enhancing measures which might help the EU overcome the current economic crisis.

G20 Summit in Cannes

Ministers discussed with Commissioner Sefcovic (inter-institutional relations and administration) preparations for the G20 summit in Cannes on 3-4 November. The Commissioner set out proposed EU priorities: the eurozone and the global economic recovery; the resilience of the international monetary system; tackling commodity prices; providing a way forward for Doha and the WTO; development; food security; a strong message on climate change and Durban; and the proposed Financial Transaction Tax (FTT). I stressed that the UK was firmly against promoting a FTT at the G20 summit.

Preparation of the October European Council

Ahead of the GAC, the President of the Council, Van Rompuy, joined Ministers by video link to discuss preparations for the Council. He explained that the Council had been pushed back to Sunday 23 October to allow Heads of State and Government to consider issues relating to Greece, the European banks and the eurozone governance more comprehensively as a package. I argued that any future institutional changes to governance in the eurozone had to protect fully the interests of all 27 member states, and there had to be clear language to that effect in the European Council conclusions.

I also stressed the need for the Council conclusions to address some significant foreign policy developments, particularly Libya.

I will deposit copies of this note in the Libraries of both Houses. And I will also continue to update Parliament on future Foreign and General Affairs Councils.

Strategic Vision for Volunteering

Monday 17th October 2011 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department of Health (Paul Burstow)]

The Government have today announced the launch of a strategic vision for volunteering for health and care. “Social action for health and well-being: building co-operative communities” has been placed in the Library. Copies are available for hon. Members from the Vote Office and to noble Lords from the Printed Paper Office.

The Government recognise that volunteers already make a tremendous contribution towards the health and care services and support within their communities, improving the quality and choice of services available in our country. We want to ensure that this wealth of activity is recognised, celebrated and strengthened and that we nurture and release the capability and capacity that exists within our communities.

This strategic vision for volunteering sets out the Government’s long-term vision for social action, and in particular volunteering, in support of health and well-being. It replaces “Volunteering: involving people and communities in delivering and developing health and social care services”, published in March 2010 and refreshes it to reflect health, public health and social care reforms and the coalition Government’s big society agenda.

The vision highlights the valuable contribution volunteering and wider social action makes to every sphere of health, public health and social care, including prevention, the creation of people-centred and relationship-based services and improved patient and service user experience. It demonstrates how greater involvement of members of the public can help to develop support mechanisms and services that genuinely meet people’s needs, are more personal, strength-based and community-owned.

The strategic vision aims to:

embed a deeper understanding, genuine appreciation and awareness of volunteering and its benefits across all of health, public health and social care;

recognise the enormous voluntary effort that contributes to health and well-being and to health, public health and care services in this country and ensure that this is recognised, celebrated and strengthened in the process of system and service reform;

ensure that services are built around the strengths and assets that people (including those with health and care needs, carers and communities) can bring to them, through volunteering as well as co-production and shared decision making; and

encourage the various parts of the health, public health and social care systems to recognise the value of volunteering in relation to their respective priorities and consider, from a more informed stance, where a more strategic approach and coherent investment in volunteering would lead to improved quality, equity and outcomes.

As part of the overarching approach of Government outlined in the “Giving” White Paper, Cm 8084 the Department will take a facilitative and enabling role in pursuing this vision, working with partners inside and outside Government to: raise awareness of the potential and added value of volunteering in health and care; improve the evidence base for investment in volunteering in this field; and improve access to best practice and opportunities for shared learning.

Crimestoppers Initiative (Prisons)

Monday 17th October 2011 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)]

Today, I am advising the House that on 22 September, we announced the launch of an enhanced Crimestoppers initiative in prisons. Crimestoppers will now report direct to the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) all prison-related matters, enabling a faster response. The launch was accompanied by a poster and leaflet campaign advertising the new arrangements and this will be followed by other campaigns on key issues that effect security in prisons. All printing is being undertaken through a contract with prison industries, providing useful employment for prisoners.

NOMS is determined to disrupt the criminal behaviour of prisoners. A key element is the ability to gather good quality intelligence and act quickly on information received. The Crimestoppers initiative provides a valuable source of intelligence with a particular focus on drugs and mobile phones. This will enhance NOMS’ ability to address these threats.

This initiative is a very good example of the invaluable work that the third sector can undertake in prisons.

Grand Committee

Monday 17th October 2011 Grand Committee

Monday, 17 October 2011.

Arrangement of Business

Monday 17th October 2011 Grand Committee

Announcement

15:33

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall)]

Before the Minister moves that the first statutory instrument be considered, I remind noble Lords that in the case of each statutory instrument, the Motion before the Committee is that the Committee do consider the statutory instrument in question. The Motions to approve the statutory instruments will subsequently be moved in the Chamber in the usual way. As usual, if there is a Division in the Chamber while the Committee is sitting, the Committee will adjourn from the sound of the Division Bell and resume 10 minutes thereafter.

15:34

Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Exemption) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2011

Monday 17th October 2011 Grand Committee

Considered in Grand Committee

[Lord Eatwell]

With the leave of the Committee, I wonder whether I might make a statement before the Minister rises and request that he withdraw this order on the following grounds. First, much of the relevant material of this order is still under consultation by the Financial Services Authority. The consultation concludes on 31 October and today is 17 October. Secondly, I draw the Minister’s attention to the report of the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee, which, on 13 October, wrote to the Treasury with a reminder of the need to make summaries of consultation responses available at the time an instrument is laid and to ensure that the summary for this draft instrument is available before the debate in this House.

Thirdly, a lot of the scrutiny of this order is dependent on the Opposition and other noble Lords having access to the results of the consultation so that they can properly and fully scrutinise the consequences of the order. The results of the consultation are not available and it is therefore not possible for noble Lords to effectively scrutinise this legislation. If we proceed, it would be the sort of action that brings Parliament into disrepute.

[The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Sassoon)]

My Lords, there is perhaps some confusion about what we are doing here today and what else needs to be done in connection with this order from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

Let me start by explaining the situation we are in, because it is complicated. The previous Government in March 2010 made a decision—a joint decision of Treasury Ministers and Ministers of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment in Northern Ireland—that credit unions in Northern Ireland should no longer be exempt from regulation under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and that responsibility for their regulation should transfer from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment to the Financial Services Authority. That decision was taken by the previous Government and we are considering the order today. As the Deputy Chairman reminded us, the formal business is moved on the Floor of the House. We are considering the statutory instrument that puts into place a decision by the previous Government.

The running consultation is about consequential provisions relating to the details of the transfer, the transitional arrangements, grandfathering, temporary powers for the FSA, how information will transfer between the department and the FSA, and consequential issues to do with money laundering and terrorist financing. Those will all be dealt with—to the extent they need to be—in the appropriate way through instruments or regulation. Therefore, what is being consulted at the moment is nothing that should detain us from putting in place a decision by the previous Government with which this Government completely agree. In our view, it is about time that we got on with the enabling instrument and there is no reason not to allow the consultation on the “how” of the transfer to carry on in the normal way.

The Treasury is publishing today responses to the original policy proposals in principle. However, the decision was originally taken and announced in a joint document by the UK Government and the Northern Ireland department in March 2010. I think we should turn to the substance of the order.

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, but given my noble friend Lord Eatwell’s comments and the confusion that the Minister alleges my noble friend had, would it not have been easier to wait? Is there any reason why the Minister wants to move this Motion now, given that it would have been easier to consider the two orders together for the sake of clarity?

[Lord Sassoon]

I am not alleging any confusion other than that this is a complicated series of manoeuvres that has to be gone through to effect the transfer. It is quite right that we should consult on the how. It is for this Committee to decide the simple and important issue of principle as to whether the people of Northern Ireland, 50 per cent of whose population have their money invested in credit unions, are given the proper and full protection which FSA regulation would give them. Of course it is important that the how of the transfer is properly considered, which is what the current consultation is all about, but it might be sensible if we considered the arguments—which I think are extremely clear cut; there is nothing between the previous Government and the present Government on this—that we need to get on and give those in Northern Ireland, a very significant number of people, the protection afforded to those who put deposits in banks in the whole of the United Kingdom and currently put deposits in credit unions in Great Britain.

[Lord Eatwell]

Perhaps, if the Minister would allow me, we can clarify this matter. In the consultation document on the FSA website, the first question is:

“Do you agree with the proposed legislative measures outlined in chapter 3?”.

The order before us today is included in Chapter 3. Does the Minister know the answer to that question from the people of Northern Ireland?

[Lord Newby]

My Lords—

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall)]

My Lords, I believe that the Minister has not yet finished the speech he wishes to make in order to put the Motion. We must first put the Motion before it can be discussed, so we must wait until he is ready to say that he wishes to put it.

[Lord Sassoon]

My Lords, credit unions operate throughout the United Kingdom, providing savings and loans services, mostly in their local communities. Although the credit union sector in Great Britain is relatively small, it makes a large contribution to the financial inclusion agenda by operating in areas of poverty where local communities often lack access to affordable credit. In contrast, the credit union sector in Northern Ireland is extremely significant within the financial services landscape. Approximately 50 per cent of the adult population of Northern Ireland are members of their local credit union.

That is why, quite properly, the previous Government decided that that situation needed to be looked at and resolved. It was the belief of the previous Government, confirmed by the present Government, that credit unions in Northern Ireland should be brought under the Financial Services and Markets Act. That is for three main reasons.

The first is for reasons of financial stability. Given the significance of credit unions in Northern Ireland, the collapse of the sector would have a devastating impact on entire communities’ access to financial services and credit facilities.

Secondly, the order will ensure that the deposits of each Northern Ireland credit union member will be protected by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, the FSCS. This will guarantee each deposit up to the £85,000 limit, in line with credit union members in Great Britain. The current legislation exempts these credit unions from this guarantee. As a result, there is a distortion in the level of consumer protection provided for credit unions across the United Kingdom. Removing the current exemption from the Financial Services and Markets Act will address this distortion and prevent members from relying on untested depositor protection schemes run by the various trade bodies across Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Those credit unions that are unaffiliated with one of those trade bodies currently have no depositor protection. That is wrong. Northern Irish credit union depositors should be put on the same footing as those elsewhere in the United Kingdom; and as with bank depositors.

Thirdly, by removing the exemption from the Financial Services and Markets Act, the members of each Northern Ireland credit union will have recourse to the Financial Ombudsman Service if they encounter any dispute with their credit union. Again, this is an aspect of consumer protection not currently afforded to members in Northern Ireland and is another positive aspect of the proposed legislative changes.

15:45

The proposed changes will, of course, entail the industry bearing some additional costs. These costs are largely with respect to training staff on the new regulatory demands, amending computer systems and contributing to the FSCS levy. However, it is the Government’s view that these mostly upfront costs are a relatively small price for the sector to pay for increased consumer protection and financial stability. Moreover, the increased confidence in the sector that will result has the potential to have a positive impact to the extent that the Northern Ireland credit unions will be better placed to attract additional deposits. This uplift in confidence was seen in the Great Britain credit union sector after it was brought under the Financial Services and Markets Act in 2002. While the initial impact on UK financial services may have gone unnoticed, the growth of the Great Britain credit union sector has been extremely strong since the transfer.

The Government strongly believe, as did the previous Government, that Northern Irish depositors should not be treated any differently from depositors in Great Britain. These proposals go a long way to levelling the playing field in depositor protection across the United Kingdom and are eagerly awaited by those seeking peace of mind about their family finances. They also support the Government’s aim of promoting the mutuals sector in the United Kingdom as a whole, and in doing so have a positive impact on the diversity of financial services. For example, Northern Ireland credit unions will, subject to normal FSA approval, be free to offer basic products such as ISAs and mortgages. This can only be good for consumers and the mutuals sector.

While I look forward to hearing your Lordships’ views on these proposals, I believe that they are uncontroversial and have the support of both the current and previous Government. A decision on them was announced by the previous Government in March 2010. The consultation responses to the original question have been published. The consultation on the “how” of the transfer will, as the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, says, carry on until 31 October, but today we are considering a very simple order that agrees the principle of the transfer. The details of how the transfer will be effected will, as I said at the outset, be the subject of either further orders or regulation in the normal course. I hope that the proposals will not be too long detained by procedural wrangling, which might get in the way of the Northern Irish people getting the protection that they deserve. I hope the Committee will offer its support to the order.

Motion

Moved by

[Lord Sassoon]

That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Exemption) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2011.

Relevant document: 28th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments

[Lord Eatwell]

My Lords, I put a question to the noble Lord, which he has not answered, regarding the response of the people of Northern Ireland to the question about whether they agree with the order. On this side of the Committee we are entirely supportive of the objectives of the order. That is not the point that I am raising. My point is that the Merits Committee wrote to the Treasury on 13 October, reminding it to ensure that the summary of this draft instrument was available before the debate in the House. I have not been able to find a summary of the consultation on this draft instrument. Without the reactions of the people of Northern Ireland, who are closely and greatly involved in credit unions, as the Minister pointed out, it is very difficult to offer the order proper scrutiny. Therefore, I cannot continue, other than to say that it would be appropriate for the Treasury to ensure that relevant consultation material is published, as the Merits Committee requires, prior to consideration of draft legislation by the Committee.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, there seems to be a muddle over the consultation. The Explanatory Memorandum said that the summary of responses to the March 2010 consultation will be published shortly. I think the Minister said that it was published today. I do not know when the March 2010 consultation formally finished, but it was presumably quite a long time ago. It is indeed unsatisfactory that we do not have the results of that consultation.

However, I think it is appropriate to look at what the order says. It is an extraordinarily short order, and it says nothing, as the Minister said, about the detail of how this change will be effected. All it says is that the change will be effected and that Northern Irish credit unions will be brought under the ambit of the FSA. I do not know, but I would be surprised if there was a single, solitary soul in Northern Ireland who would oppose that change, particularly if they look at what has been happening south of the border in recent weeks. Only a couple of weeks ago, the Irish Finance Minister was called upon to inject €1 billion into the credit union sector south of the border, because many of those credit unions—and we are talking about a sector that is as predominant as it is north of the border—found themselves, as a result of rising unemployment and declining income, in some difficulties. Of the 407 credit unions in the Republic of Ireland, some 79 are now in need of this injection of capital. It seems likely not only that that will need to happen but that there will have to be some consolidation in the sector and smaller credit unions will need to merge.

My question to the Minister is, in a completely different sense to that of the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, why it has taken the Government so long to bring this legislation forward, given that the majority of the population of Northern Ireland would be affected if their credit union got into difficulty. Even if we approve this order in due course, it does not come into effect until 31 March next year. My question to the Minister was going to be, and remains, whether he has any evidence that the travails that afflict the Republic of Ireland credit union sector are spreading north. Does he envisage that any individual credit unions north of the border will get into difficulties over the coming weeks and months? In the absence of any covering FSA jurisdiction, what would the Government’s response be were they to find themselves in the same position of the Government south of the border, where a significant number—in their case about 15 per cent of credit unions—required short-term capital support?

[Lord Myners]

My Lords, I broadly welcome the intention of this order, but I find myself wanting to ask the Minister why it has taken such a long time to bring it forward when it was self-evident that it was necessary and had been agreed by the previous Government and endorsed by the coalition parties when previously discussed. It seems lamentable that the Government have allowed the situation to go on for as long as it has without taking any necessary action.

When it comes to this particular order, we do not have sight of the evidence that we were assured would be available to us in informing our discussion and agreement. What harm would be done if the Government withdrew the order and brought it back after we have had an opportunity to consider the evidence that is so clearly necessary to inform our decision on this matter? It simply cannot be acceptable that the evidence has been published only this morning. As far as I am aware, no effort has been made to make it available to those who are likely to attend this session and discuss this matter. That is an inexcusable failure by the Minister and the Treasury, for which the Minister owes us a full and proper account. The right approach would be to withdraw this order until we have had adequate opportunity to discuss the evidence.

In the mean time, I support the question that the noble Lord, Lord Newby, asked. Can the Minister give us clarity, given that the Government have been so slow in bringing this matter forward, as to the position of people with accounts and business relationships with Northern Ireland credit unions that have experienced difficulty? Do the Government stand behind them until such time as the Financial Services Compensation Scheme becomes an eligible right of those with relationships with credit unions? Will the Minister also assure us that to the best of the knowledge of the Treasury and the FSA credit unions are not currently offering products in Northern Ireland to which they are not entitled by virtue of their authorities? The Minister at the end of his speech listed some of the products that credit unions would be able to offer once this order was implemented, but which they are not currently able to.

Finally—I ask this having dealt with these matters myself—can the Minister tell us whether any further action is intended with respect of the failure of the Presbyterian Mutual Society, and in particular the directors?

[Lord Sassoon]

My Lords, notwithstanding the welcome rare appearance of the noble Lord, Lord Myners, as a former Treasury Minister in this Committee, it is a bit rich of the Opposition to talk about delay in this order. The Northern Ireland credit unions were left out of FSA regulation from the time that the Financial Services and Markets Act was enacted in 2000 until the previous Government left office 18 months ago. So for members of the Opposition to talk about the delay of this Government in not getting the order through earlier while on the other hand asking for evidence of a decision that they had taken before the election—seemingly without waiting for the evidence that they are now asking for—is indeed a bit rich. If noble Lords on the other side really want to persist with this line, this order will not get through, as it has to in the next few days and weeks, in order to give the people of Northern Ireland proper protection of their money in mutuals from the proposed transfer date to FSA regulation of March 2012.

What does the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, who has come along with all kinds of clever procedural tricks this afternoon, have to say to the people of Northern Ireland if he is to deprive them yet further of proper protection under the Financial Services Compensation scheme? We need to get this order through if the people of Northern Ireland are to be protected from March of next year.

[Lord Eatwell]

My Lords, to refer to the fact that the Government have apparently published only this morning the evidence of the consultation and the raising of the objection of not having had access to it as a clever procedural trick is an abuse of language.

The point we are making is that the Government should take seriously the consultation with the people of Northern Ireland and make the results of the consultation available to the Opposition so that they can properly scrutinise and assess the impacts of the change. That is all that I asked for. I also pointed out that on 13 October the Merits Committee wrote to the Treasury requesting that the material be published, and it was not published until this morning.

As my noble friends and I have made clear, we are entirely supportive of this legislation. We want to get it through as soon as possible, but we want proper due process. This is an abuse of due process. I think it would be best if we let the Minister proceed with his Motion, because he is not interested in actually debating the issues.

[Lord Myners]

I would always defer to the advice and conclusion of my noble friend Lord Eatwell, but the petulant language used by the Minister is a sign of how rattled he is by this subject. I invite the Minister to clarify. He has said that if this order is not approved today it would deny the people of Northern Ireland certainty and protection in due course, with effect from the end of March next year. Can the Minister confirm that delaying the approval of this order for another week so that the necessary information can be reviewed by Parliament would mean that that certainty could not be delivered and that this is, therefore, the last chance for us to discuss it? In the absence of a clear answer I think that the should withdraw this order and re-present it to the Committee in a week or so.

16:00

[Lord Sassoon]

My Lords, the situation is that we need to have the process complete, as I said, within the next days and weeks. There are a number of orders that need to be laid. In particular, four orders will need to be laid containing the transitional and consequential provisions, because those follow the negative procedure and they can only be made and laid after this affirmative order. So there must be a sequencing here, which we are starting today. All the information that has been requested will be available for the consequential technical provisions, which formed the main substance of the consultation. If we do not get on and lay today’s order, with the four that follow, in the time that is available, there is a very serious risk that transfer to FSA control will be delayed by approximately six months. It could be longer, as the FSA would need to restart the clock on its transfer process.

I am sorry if noble Lords do not like my language, but for those who are looking at this from Northern Ireland and who thought that the previous Government had made a clear decision, I quote from paragraph 1.1 of the March 2010 document, which says:

“Following the decision that credit unions in Northern Ireland should no longer be exempt from regulation under the Financial Services and Markets Act”.

We are today discussing the order which, if formally made, will enact that decision, made by the previous Government last year. The four enabling orders, for which the evidence must, of course, be considered, will be put through by the appropriate negative procedure. However, they cannot be laid until after this affirmative order has gone through. I hope that that explains matters.

In response to the question from my noble friend Lord Newby and the noble Lord, Lord Myners, I accept that there has been delay in this process, although not the 10-year delay of the previous Administration. There has been some delay because this is a matter not just for Her Majesty’s Treasury, but also for the Northern Ireland department. There have also been elections in Northern Ireland. I would have preferred things to have been tidied up a little earlier, but I really do not think that this should prevent us making the critical decision which Northern Ireland is waiting for.

On the responses to the decision in principle, it is, indeed, supported by the Northern Irish public. The published responses are positive. I apologise if the document arrived rather late, but nobody approached us and asked to see it until five minutes before we started. Responses were, on the whole, in favour of the transfer. The concerns expressed, such as they were, were over the nature of the transfer, which is precisely why an FSA consultation is taking place, relating to the four subsequent orders which will come forward and be considered in due course.

The other substantive issues which have been raised in this short debate are important. My noble friend Lord Newby asked about the difficulties in the Republic of Ireland, the consequences of their spreading north and so on. Clearly, the credit union sector in Northern Ireland has been affected by the financial crisis but not to the same extent as institutions in the Republic of Ireland. There remains a divide in the business operations from those institutions over the border as credit union membership is usually limited to a local geographical common bond. There is some crossover with the Republic in the membership of trade bodies and their respective depositor protection schemes, which is another reason that supports getting on with this. However, it is something that we need to get on with as fast as we can anyway.

In answer not only to that question but the related question of the noble Lord, Lord Myners, until we get this new arrangement in place, credit union deposits will remain the responsibility of the devolved Administration, as they have been since the settlement with Northern Ireland some 15 years ago. That could have been cleared up by the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 but it was not. This reinforces why it is right to get on with this, since the whole Committee seems to agree on the principle.

The noble Lord, Lord Myners, also asked for an assurance that credit unions are not offering products that they are not entitled to offer. That remains the responsibility of the Northern Irish department until 31 March 2012 and I cannot speak for the department. After that date, credit unions will fall within FSA regulation in the normal way. The noble Lord also referred to the Presbyterian Mutual Society, which was a sorry saga. The present Government stepped in and helped with the clearing up of it. However, the Presbyterian Mutual Society is not a credit union under the terms of the order and is therefore not directly relevant to this afternoon’s discussion. However, it points out in a different way the importance of seeing that Northern Ireland gets a fair deal across the whole spectrum of financial services.

In summary, these measures are positive for credit unions and their current and future members. The transfer is important for the long-term security of and confidence in a very important financial services sector for Northern Ireland. While there are some upfront costs, they are relatively modest in relation to what we are putting in place. This is positive not only for consumers of financial services in Northern Ireland but should enable the credit unions themselves to develop their business in a positive way by offering further products.

I can only apologise to the Committee for the fact that we did not have the responses out earlier. I believed that they were not a matter of significance in relation to the basic decision, in principle, that was taken in March 2010. If we had received requests for them earlier, we would of course have seen what we could do to have a discussion and go through what was available. However, I was not aware until shortly before the start of this Committee that there were such concerns. I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, tried to get hold of my office but was not able to get through this morning. I say again that the evidence relates in particular to the four negative orders which necessarily follow and could never be laid at the same time as this order. I hope that this Committee will give its support to something which all speakers have said they approve of in principle.

[Lord Myners]

My Lords, it is an extraordinary protocol whereby the evidence will be given only if we ask for it, otherwise it will not be volunteered, which is what the Minister appears to be saying. However, I shall support the order on the basis of the assurances that the Minister has given that the evidence is strongly in support of it. I shall support the order also on the basis that the Minister has assured us that failure to approve it would therefore slow the four consequential negative orders and could lead to the FSA delaying by up to six months taking on the responsibilities contemplated by this order. If the Minister’s assurances on that point are not as clear as I interpret them, I would continue to be of the view that the right and proper process is for Parliament to have examined the evidence before reaching a decision. However, I believe that the Minister has given us a very clear indication that it is absolutely critical that the order be approved in the next few days or weeks—I hope that by “weeks” he does not mean several weeks, but a week or two at the maximum.

Motion agreed.

Medicines Act 1968 (Pharmacy) Order 2011

Monday 17th October 2011 Grand Committee

Considered in Grand Committee

16:13

Moved By

[Earl Howe]

That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Medicines Act 1968 (Pharmacy) Order 2011.

Relevant document: 28th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)]

My Lords, the Medicines Act 1968 (Pharmacy) Order, being debated today, will remove the restriction placed upon pharmacists registered in Britain by virtue of a pharmacy qualification awarded by a relevant European state that prevents them being in charge of a newly established pharmacy. This refers to any pharmacy that has been registered for less than three years and is commonly known as “the three-year rule”.

The relevant European states referred to are Iceland, Norway, Liechtenstein, Switzerland and the European Union (EU) member states. It is not relevant to pharmacists who qualified in the United Kingdom.

I should first give the Grand Committee some background. All pharmacists practising in Britain must be registered by the General Pharmaceutical Council, as must all pharmacy premises. Some pharmacists are registered to practise in Britain under arrangements for the mutual recognition of pharmacist qualifications awarded by EU member states or other relevant European states.

EU Directive 85/433—now 2005/36/EC—includes provision for member states to place restrictions on the recognition of the qualifications of such pharmacists in the case of pharmacy premises registered for a period of less than three years. In Britain, the restriction applies to the pharmacist in charge of such pharmacies, known as the “responsible pharmacist”. In other words, while all pharmacists registered in Britain under the mutual recognition arrangements may work in any British pharmacy, however long it has been registered, such pharmacists cannot hold the position of responsible pharmacist in a pharmacy that has been registered for less than three years. The current restrictions on visiting pharmacists owning pharmacy businesses or acting as superintendents are not affected by this order.

The derogation in the directive was originally put in place in the mid-1980s for economic reasons, following concerns by UK MEPs. They believed that, given the UK’s comparatively open arrangements in relation to pharmacy ownership, there was a risk that the mutual recognition arrangements would put existing UK pharmacies at a disadvantage. Since then, however, much has changed both in terms of pharmacy arrangements in other EU member states and the evolution of domestic policy in Britain.

We have conducted a full public consultation on removing the restriction, both for established pharmacists—those fully registered with the General Pharmaceutical Council in part 1 of the register—and for visiting pharmacists—those temporarily practising in the UK and registered in part 4 of the register. However, the restriction has not affected any visiting pharmacists as, to date, none has been registered.

The response to the public consultation has been very much in favour of removing the restriction. The proposal has support from the General Pharmaceutical Council, the pharmacy regulator, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, the professional body for pharmacists, as well as all the main pharmacy representative organisations, including the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee, Community Pharmacy Scotland, the Company Chemists Association and the devolved Administrations.

The proposal will encourage flexibility, efficiency and continuity of care within pharmacy. It will end the situation where a responsible pharmacist, registered here by virtue of the mutual recognition arrangements, can no longer continue in that role if their pharmacy relocates, even if it only moves next door, and therefore becomes a newly registered pharmacy. Removing this restriction will mean that patients can enjoy greater continuity of care in such circumstances; that all registered pharmacists will be placed on a level footing in terms of their employment prospects; and that employers will have a deeper pool of potential employees to draw upon and less bureaucracy to deal with when filling vacancies.

I should now explain the revision of the draft Explanatory Memorandum laid before your Lordships today and the change required to the final version of the Explanatory Note on the order. In undertaking preparatory work for this debate on the draft order, officials in the Department of Health realised that, contrary to previous understanding, “visiting pharmacists”, a sub-category of registrants from relevant European states who do not go through the full registration procedure, are covered by the removal of restrictions that the draft order would achieve. It will not, therefore, require a separate legal instrument to remove the restriction upon their acting as “responsible pharmacist” at new pharmacies. Up to this point, it had been thought that a separate legislative instrument would be required to achieve this. The confusion appears to have arisen in the understanding of the differences between the restrictions applying to those who either may own, or carry on, a pharmacy business or act as superintendent, on the one hand, and the provisions relating to the responsible pharmacist on the other. A superintendent manages a pharmacy on behalf of a company. A responsible pharmacist is in charge of a pharmacy at a given time, and takes on responsibility for the effective management of pharmacy law and practice within a single branch at a particular time. If the draft order is approved, it will still not be possible for a visiting pharmacist to carry on—that is, to own a new pharmacy—or act as a superintendent in relation to a new pharmacy.

However, a visiting pharmacist, and any other pharmacist registered by virtue of the mutual recognition arrangements, would, upon the coming into force of the order, be entitled to be the responsible pharmacist in charge of a newly registered pharmacy in Britain. It is the similarity between the different concepts of control that appears to have led to the confusion. The intention has always been to remove the restriction on responsible pharmacists for all those registered to practise in Great Britain under the EU mutual recognition arrangements, whether visiting or not. The consultation reflected this and the order as currently drafted would achieve this.

Because of the misunderstanding, the earlier version of the accompanying draft Explanatory Memorandum, and the Explanatory Note on the order itself, suggested that the order did not remove the restriction in relation to visiting pharmacists. In fact, the substantive provisions of the order achieve the intention and a further instrument is not, therefore, required. However, the text in the Explanatory Note that refers to the register was incorrect, and the reference to part 1 of the register will not appear in the final version. I apologise for any confusion caused by this late change. I commend this order to the Committee.

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

As the noble Earl stated, a lot has changed since the derogation in the directive was put in place. Much has changed in pharmacy arrangements in other EU member states and in the evolution of domestic policy. The reasons, as the Minister stated, were commercial.

In England, for example, there has been a welcome change over the past few years making it easier for people to get to a chemist, given that there are new pharmacies with longer opening hours. Clearly, such market restrictions are not appropriate today, and their removal will assist by increasing the pool of available pharmacists and ensure improved continuity of service delivery. I note that the change has also been welcomed by the key representative bodies of pharmacies.

I of course recognise that the restriction affects a relatively small number of pharmacies—just over 10 per cent, and just over 5 per cent of all pharmacists registered to practise in Great Britain. I also understand and accept the reasons for the change in the Explanatory Memorandum. However, these changes in the legislation raise broader issues relating to the competencies of the pharmacist and the person’s ability to manage a pharmacy. For example, the report on the consultation noted that concerns were expressed by respondents on competency in English. The Department of Health in its response stated that in the UK a check on the language knowledge of a pharmacist from outside the UK who is seeking work within the NHS is applied by the prospective employer, but that there is no check made at the point of registration.

This leads to three specific questions to the Minister. First, are there plans to introduce a standardised competency test to ensure that any pharmacists from the countries mentioned in the order who are in charge of a new pharmacy have all the required skills and competences? Secondly, are there plans to ensure that those in charge of a pharmacy will have a sufficiently high standard of English to avoid all risk of a patient misunderstanding any advice given? Thirdly, how can an employer determine whether the pharmacist in question is qualified in their own country and has no pending fitness-to-practise cases to answer?

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of the council of the School of Pharmacy of the University of London. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for a crystal clear explanation. I suppose, perforce, it had to be crystal clear to clear up some confusion arising from the Explanatory Memorandum. This is precisely the kind of uncontroversial deregulation that is important in the context. From both professional and consumer perspectives one could say that it is a perfectly formed small regulation. It affects a limited number of people who could not be responsible pharmacists in certain circumstances, but will now be able to be so where there are no significant safety implications from deregulating in the way that this order does.

I want to raise the issue of reciprocity. The noble Earl mentioned that the reason for deregulation is that circumstances have changed. The noble Lord, Lord Collins, also referred to that. I am sure that in broad terms that is the case, but I should be extremely grateful to hear what the noble Earl believes the level of that deregulation would be. I remember doing a study of several EU countries, looking into what was permissible in pharmacy ownership and the level of regulation. That was about five years ago, when the level of regulation was extremely high—not just pharmacy regulation but the kind of licensing required to run a retail outlet, and so on. We have some extremely well run chains in this country, which would like to expand their offer in the EU more broadly. They have been largely frustrated from doing so by some of the regulation that applies. Therefore, reciprocity in these circumstances is extremely important. I am interested to hear just what the Minister believes to be the level of significant deregulation that has taken place.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their support for the order. The noble Lord, Lord Collins, asked me three questions. The first was about whether there are any plans to introduce a standardised competency test to make sure that pharmacists from the various countries mentioned have all the required skills to do their job. Under directive 2005/36/EC on the recognition of professional qualifications, which I mentioned, a pharmacist who holds a recognised qualification issued by one member state is entitled to recognition of that qualification in another member state, and would therefore be entitled to registration with a competent authority, such as the General Pharmaceutical Council.

However, employers of pharmacists should ensure that anybody they employ has the skills required to undertake the specific post. The General Pharmaceutical Council’s standards of conduct, ethics and performance, among other things, require the pharmacist to recognise the limits of their professional competence and practise in only those areas in which they are competent. Their continued registration is subject to adherence to the council’s requirement for continuing professional development—CPD—and standards of conduct, ethics and performance.

Secondly, the noble Lord asked whether there are plans to make sure that those in charge of a pharmacy have a high enough standard of English. The UK Government’s response to the European Commission’s consultation on the review of the directive on the recognition of professional qualifications clearly sets out the view that in the healthcare professions the ability to communicate with patients and service users is vital.

16:30

The Government also said in their response that it is vital that employers and organisations contracting with healthcare professionals undertake effective checks on language and communication competence. The management of the NHS is devolved, but in England I can say that there are statutory requirements relating to applicants wishing to provide NHS services as a pharmacy contractor; that means that their applications must be refused if they do not satisfy the local primary care trust that they have the knowledge of English necessary for the provision of pharmaceutical services in their area.

We expect and encourage those carrying on pharmacy businesses to engage staff, including those who may serve as responsible pharmacists, with a knowledge of English which is appropriate for the role that they will be undertaking. In addition, the General Pharmaceutical Council—the regulator for pharmacists and pharmacy technicians in Great Britain—requires as part of its standards of conduct, ethics and performance, that pharmacy professionals must be able to communicate effectively with patients and the public, and take reasonable steps to meet their communication needs.

The noble Lord’s third question was how an employer is supposed to determine whether a pharmacist from overseas is qualified in their own country and has no pending fitness-to-practise cases to answer. Any pharmacist wishing to register in Great Britain with the regulator, including those wishing to register under the EC mutual recognition provisions, must at the point of registration make declarations about any criminal convictions as well as ongoing criminal investigations.

In addition, the General Pharmaceutical Council also requires what is called a “letter of good standing”, or a certificate from the relevant competent authority— that is, the relevant regulatory or government body responsible in the country concerned, which is equivalent to the General Pharmaceutical Council. This is the mechanism by which any fitness-to-practise issues in the home member state are brought to the attention of the General Pharmaceutical Council.

The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked a broader question about deregulation and reciprocity in our partner countries. At the time when the directive was made, most member states had greater restrictions on pharmacy ownership than the UK. That point in particular caught the attention of UK MEPs at the time. The UK has had the least restricted system for many years, with pharmacies owned by pharmacists and non-pharmacists—for instance pharmacy chains—but in some other member states, pharmacies have to be owned by pharmacists and they can only own one pharmacy, and not a chain of pharmacies.

That was the situation as it used to obtain. It is now a number of years since the directive was first cast, and some other European states allow ownership of pharmacies by non-pharmacists, enabling ownership by UK pharmacy chains. The level of reciprocity on pharmacy ownership, including for pharmacy chains, is very much improved.

As regards any restrictions which may apply to pharmacists who have qualified in Great Britain practising in other EU member states—which I think is part of the question my noble friend asked—our information is that only one other member state apart from Great Britain now operates a restriction under the derogation permitted by directive 2005/36.

Motion agreed.

Freedom of Information (Designation as Public Authorities) Order 2011

Monday 17th October 2011 Grand Committee

Considered in Grand Committee

16:35

Moved By

[Lord McNally]

That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Freedom of Information (Designation as Public Authorities) Order 2011.

Relevant document: 28th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)]

My Lords, the purpose of this draft order is to bring the Association of Chief Police Officers, or ACPO, the Financial Ombudsman Service, or FOS, and the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service, or UCAS, within the scope of the Freedom of Information Act. The effect of the order is to apply the Freedom of Information Act to those functions of each body which appear to the Secretary of State to be of a public nature. That amounts to all the functions of ACPO and FOS and the applications and admissions functions of UCAS.

This Government are committed to ensuring greater openness and transparency in order to enable the public to hold to account those who deliver the services affecting their day-to-day lives. The coalition agreement set out this intention, stating that the Government would,

“extend the scope of the Freedom of Information Act to provide greater transparency”.

This order is part of our work to meet this commitment.

The Freedom of Information Act gives any person the legal right to request access to recorded information held by a public authority. It applies to more than 100,000 public authorities, including central government, schools, the NHS, local authorities and some publicly owned companies.

This order designates three additional bodies as public authorities for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act, using the powers contained in Section 5 of the Act. Section 5 enables the Secretary of State to designate a person as a public authority either if they appear to the Secretary of State to exercise functions of a public nature or if they provide, under contract made with a public authority, any service whose provision is a function of that authority. The order covers bodies falling within the first limb: bodies which appear to exercise functions of a public nature.

Where a body is designated as a public authority under this limb, it is also necessary, under Section 7(5) of the Act, for the order to specify each of the body’s functions which appear to the Secretary of State to be of a public nature. Only those functions specified in the order will be subject to the Act. So an order under Section 5 can bring all or just some of a body’s functions within the scope of the Freedom of Information Act. Therefore, to understand how the order extends the Freedom of Information Act, it is important to look not just at which bodies the order designates but at which of their functions the order specifies.

With that background in mind, I turn to the detail of the order before us today. The order designates both ACPO and the Financial Ombudsman Service for all of their functions, and UCAS for its main functions, as public authorities for the purposes of the FOI Act. Before making the order, all three bodies were consulted and their functions analysed to determine which of them appeared to be of a public nature.

I turn first to ACPO, which provides leadership for the police force, aims to improve policing, acts as a voice for the force and provides the strategic police response in times of national need. By way of background, it is worth noting that the individual chief police officers who comprise ACPO are already subject to the Freedom of Information Act.

The draft order lists each of ACPO’s functions. These functions are derived from ACPO’s objects as listed in its memorandum and articles of association. Each function makes a fundamental contribution to the policing of the state, both individually and collectively. On this basis, the Secretary of State has concluded that all of ACPO’s functions appear to be functions of a public nature and this order will bring them all within the scope of the Freedom of Information Act.

The Financial Ombudsman Service administers an ombudsman scheme in the financial services sector under which certain disputes can be resolved quickly and informally by an independent person. The Financial Ombudsman Service’s functions are set out in statute. It provides an alternative, impartial dispute resolution process to the courts. There is a strong public interest and benefit in the provision of impartial, non-profit-making regulation of financial services. As all of the Financial Ombudsman Service’s functions are directed towards the provision of this service, this order will bring them all within the scope of the Freedom of Information Act.

UCAS’s main function is to provide and maintain a central application and admissions services for higher education and certain further education establishments. It also provides other, more commercially based functions, such as the provision of marketing services. The majority of bodies for which UCAS provides and maintains a central applications and admissions service are already subject to freedom of information legislation. There is clearly a strong public interest and benefit in the provision of an efficient and fair means of applying for entry to such bodies. Indeed, if these services were not provided by UCAS, it would fall to those educational bodies that are already subject to the Freedom of Information Act to provide them instead. This provides a clear basis for concluding that the applications and admissions function appears to be public in nature. However, UCAS’s other commercial functions can be seen as distinct from the central applications services that it provides and are not considered to be functions of a public nature. This order therefore includes only UCAS within the scope of the FOI Act for the purposes of providing a central applications and admissions service to bodies already subject to Freedom of Information legislation.

As I have outlined, the Secretary of State concluded that the three bodies subject to the order appear to varying degrees to exercise functions of a public nature. As a result, it is appropriate that these bodies be subject to the same scrutiny as other public authorities, so that they become more open, transparent and accountable. This order will achieve that aim for three bodies, but this is just the start. The Government are currently consulting more than 200 further bodies about their inclusion in future orders, alongside pursing primary legislation to extend the scope of the Freedom of Information Act to more publicly owned companies.

I hope noble Lords will agree with me that this order is an important step towards greater transparency, and I commend it to the Committee.

[Lord Dixon-Smith]

My Lords, I wonder if the Minister would just answer a simple question. I used to have some relationship with the police service. It is not at all unusual for police services from time to time to get caught up in security matters. It follows from that equally that the subject occasionally occurs in ACPO matters. The Minister said that all activities would be subject to the Freedom of Information Act. How will we resolve that particular dilemma if ACPO finds itself discussing security concerns?

[Lord McAvoy]

My Lords, the Minister mentioned the discussion that took place within the coalition Government that brought these particular organisations forward. He also mentioned that there was an intention further to widen the scope of the Freedom of Information Act. Under one of those headings, could he tell us why there is an official at Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs who claims that he cannot give information as to why he signed off a particular deal, which resulted in a big financial company being excused millions of pounds in disputed tax? He has pleaded confidentiality and I understand that he is appearing before the Public Accounts Committee in the other place to answer for that. The Minister knows that I do not like springing things on him, but will he answer two questions? First, why was it not brought forward or was it considered? Secondly, will he, in future, look into the scope of the so-called confidentiality clauses quoted by this officer to justify not giving the full details of why he allowed the appeal from that financial company?

16:45

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart]

The order before us is welcome, in general terms. As the extension of the operation of the Freedom of Information Act to the three bodies concerned was first raised as long ago as 2007, there has been plenty of time for grave, or even limited, concerns to be raised about the matter. There are, consequently, only some quite small matters that spring to my mind as being worthy of inquiry. These arise not so much from the propositions themselves as from the impact assessment, which was published in June of this year, and the very helpful Explanatory Memorandum.

This memorandum describes ACPO as being a professional body, not a staff association. I find that concept a little hard to come to terms with because there seem to be occasions when ACPO does, to some extent, consider matters that are peculiar to the police and may not have a direct public impact. I am thinking, for example, of whether it would be desirable for their reactions to a proposed restructuring of the police to be identified as the views of individuals participating in a debate on the subject. It is clear that the views of ACPO as a whole on such a restructuring should be engaged, but it cannot be entirely desirable for the way that debate took place to be made public. I know that individual members of ACPO are already subject to inquiry under the Freedom of Information Act, so perhaps I am splitting hairs. However, there must be matters that it is appropriate for professional associations not to disclose because they apply to them and not necessarily to the public.

The more important issue arises from the indication that the Government are continuing the process of scrutiny of the consequences of the Freedom of Information Act, although this may be just a failure of understanding on my part. The Explanatory Memorandum that we have been given indicates that that is an ongoing process, but that the results might be known by the end of this month. That is referred to in paragraph 12, “Monitoring & review”. It states that any changes to be made to the FOI Act as a whole will be contained in a memorandum to be submitted to the Justice Committee later this calendar year. How extensive and deep will the inquiry be? Are all the departments and all the many bodies covered being asked to make a submission? That must create a very considerable body of work.

That should be viewed in conjunction with what was stated in the impact assessment of the policy review; namely, that there will be no arrangements in place that will allow a systematic collection of monitoring information for future policy review. To invite all the bodies covered by FOI to make submissions once as a kind of big research exercise is perfectly sensible and reasonable, and was envisaged when the Act was brought forward. However, if we are to maintain proper parliamentary oversight of the effectiveness of this scrutiny, this openness and the purposes of the Act, it would make sense if problems that arose in the administration of the Act were noted and tabulated so that it was relatively easy for the bodies, where there is a conflict, to produce that information without going into the difficult process of historical digging, which would take far longer and require more public funding. I rather question the wisdom of not having a systematic collection of monitoring information for future policy reviews if that is the case.

Apart from that relatively minor matter, I endorse the intentions of the Government and am glad that these provisions have been brought forward.

[Lord Bach]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the order so clearly and other noble Lords who have asked questions of some importance, particularly the final question, which the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, majored on, which was around the Government’s plans for reviewing the Freedom of Information Act.

I know that the Minister is giving what they nowadays describe as a keynote address this Thursday at the Westminster Legal Policy Forum on the very topical subject of:

“The future of Freedom of Information—challenges for expansion”.

I, alas, cannot be present because of duties in the House. If this sounds like an advertisement to go and hear the noble Lord, that is exactly what it is. However, I hope that he may be able to say something both this afternoon, in response to his noble friend Lord Maclennan, and on Thursday, because I know that he has particular duties in ministerial terms as far as this Act is concerned. I hope that he can perhaps unveil slightly today what he may say to his other audience on Thursday.

We support the order. The Freedom of Information Act was one of the substantial achievements of the previous Government. It will be long-standing and of substantial value to our freedoms. It does not always seem that way if you are sitting in a ministerial chair or even in a senior civil servant’s chair. It can be awkward, difficult and seem sometimes almost impossible, but that is precisely why it is in existence. So we support both the Act and this minor order—minor not for the three bodies involved but in the great scheme of things. It was in March 2010, as paragraph 8.4 of the Explanatory Memorandum tells us, that the decision to bring these bodies within the Act under Section 5 was made and communicated to each body. We are delighted to see the order before the Committee today.

My only question to the Minister is one that I mentioned to him briefly earlier. We read in paragraph 8.4 that two of the bodies “welcomed publicly” the fact that an order such as this one was to be made, bringing them within the scope of the Act. It does not say anything about the response of the third body, UCAS. Can the Minister help the Committee with how UCAS responded?

As I said at the start of my few remarks, we support what the Government are doing on this occasion.

[Lord Martin of Springburn]

My Lords, first, I apologise for being slightly late. I was listening to the debate on the Floor of the House and noticed that this subject had come up. I thought that I would come up and listen to the Minister.

I can well understand that we are talking about the chief police officers of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Of course, we have a devolved Parliament for Scotland, and there are several police forces in Scotland. Will the Minister consult the Scottish Parliament to see that freedom of information will be available in this respect for police authorities north of the border?

The Minister has said that he, on behalf of his party, welcomes freedom of information. It did not stop those who were in an executive position complaining about freedom of information after it was pushed through Parliament. Many officials and Cabinet Ministers sleepwalked through that particular incident. I make no complaint about the legislation; I simply ask the Minister a question. Many journalists use freedom of information so that they can get what is best described as an angle for their particular story. When they ask the question and there follows a period of, let us say, 27 days—although I may be contradicted on that—I have known it to be the case with matters of the House that they have complained bitterly that the freedom of information was given to them and to the general public. They have complained bitterly that it spoiled their story that everybody else should get the information. Freedom of information is about everybody getting that information. They are on record as complaining; they are using it as a device to get a scoop, or whatever they call it.

I feel strongly that once the information is issued to the applicant for that freedom of information, it should be put in the public domain immediately afterwards. In other words, if the information is given to the applicant at 2 pm on a given day, by one minute past two everyone should be able to get that information. I know that some people say that the identity of an applicant should not matter and that you should not know who they are. However, it is a bit rich if an application is made by someone sitting in garret in Toronto, asking for information, which takes a considerable amount of public funding. We should at least know whether a taxpayer of this country is making that application. Can the Minister mention that? It is not fair that someone who has nothing else to do with their time in another country can make an application and no one has to say where they come from. That is very important.

17:00

I understand that in the Republic of Ireland, where an applicant seeks information from every local authority in that country and submits an identical question to each of them, the legislation of the Republic says, “Wait a minute. Let’s hold it there. This means that an official is working on it in every local authority”. Time is time. If an official is drawing this information together, it can cost a substantial amount. I hope that we look out for such situations when someone is seeking information just for the sake of gathering it and having officials in an authority running around.

In the same way, if a ministerial Question is submitted by a Member of this House or the other place and an identical Question is tabled by another noble Lord or elected Member, the Minister would say, “I refer to the reply I have given to the noble Lord on such and such a date”. That means that there is no duplication. I hope that due concern is given to the fact that we should not have duplication.

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, I am very grateful for all the contributions, which have been extremely helpful in putting this order in perspective.

Let me deal first with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. If it was thought that a matter discussed by ACPO was should properly be protected for reasons of national security, the Act contains the capacity to claim exemptions for that information. That can, of course, be challenged through the Information Commissioner, The noble Lord is right to say that ACPO could sometimes discuss security matters but the Act makes provisions for the protection of national security in those circumstances.

The noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, raised a specific case in relation to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. I cannot comment on individual cases. HMRC can protect commercial confidentiality in its dealings. I will be as interested as the noble Lord is to discover what the Public Accounts Committee finds out but it is a matter for that committee, rather than for us.

My noble friend Lord Maclennan, pointed out that the matter of those three bodies was first raised in 2007 and 2009. I am surprised not to see the noble Lord, Lord Wills, here, who turns up at these debates like Banquo’s ghost to point out that he was about to do X or Y on freedom of information, or that the noble Lord, Lord Bach, was. I acknowledge that this is part of a process started under the previous Administration. Indeed, I consider the Freedom of Information Act to be one of their great successes. The noble Lord, Lord Bach, is quite right: the fact that Ministers and public officials are sometimes discomfited by the Act has always been proof positive that it was a good piece of legislation.

My noble friend Lord Maclennan, asked how ACPO can have free and open discussions before ACPO policy is decided. We understand that bodies need a space in which to work out their policy but, as I recall, that was the great argument about Cabinet discussions as well. There is always a tension between having the right to know what has gone on in an organisation and protecting free discussion before a collective decision is made. ACPO welcomed its inclusion, and I am quite sure that it will manage to work out how to operate under the Act.

I understand the concern of my noble friend Lord Maclennan that we seem to be engaging in a one-off exercise, but that is not true; we will continue to monitor the working of the Act. I am very pleased that we have moved more quickly than we needed to post-legislative scrutiny; that is entirely healthy. The document to which the noble Lord referred is being prepared by my department as part of the process of post-legislative scrutiny. It will be an assessment of the working of the Act, which will provide a basic working document to the Justice Committee to allow it to start its work of post-legislative scrutiny.

That process will go in parallel with the exercise being carried out by my right honourable friend Francis Maude on the right to data, in which we will also try to push the boundaries of the citizen’s right to know about information. I understand where my noble friend is coming from in asking where all this fits. We are perhaps not moving in straight order on this, but we are getting the job done. By the end of this process many more organisations will be covered by freedom of information. We will have a lot more information proactively coming from government through the right to data process. As a result, we will have much more open government, with all the benefits that come from it.

I turn to points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Martin, a number of which I thoroughly agree with. There have been journalists who have turned freedom of information into a kind of cottage industry. I again hope that the transparency agenda will make this less necessary, and that people will get the information that they want. I take his point about immediate publication. In pushing forward the agenda we press organisations to publish immediately or as soon as possible. In certain circumstances there may be a reason to consult and delay, but in the main I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Martin, said. This is not information for an individual journalist; this is public information, and should be made public as quickly as possible.

I was interested in his points about the Republic of Ireland. I was on the pre-legislative committee that looked at freedom of information. The noble Lord, Lord Bach, is nodding; he will recall that one of the most enthusiastic pieces of evidence we received about freedom of information was from the Irish freedom of information director.

[Lord Bach]

It was the Minister, I think.

[Lord McNally]

Was it the Minister who came before us? The interesting thing about that was that the Irish have had post-legislative scrutiny of their own legislation and have brought in a number of restrictions, such as the one that the noble Lord, Lord Martin, referred to. They have brought in charges for some aspects of freedom of information.

The critics of freedom of information say that it puts unfair burdens and great costs on departments, as referred to before by the noble Lord, Lord Martin. I hope that the Justice Committee will take a good look at how the Act is working, take evidence from its critics and supporters, and then take us forward as we have indicated.

On the question that the noble Lord, Lord Martin, raised about ACPO Scotland, freedom of information is a devolved matter, and the inclusion of ACPO Scotland is a matter for the Scottish Government. I hope I have covered the issues raised—

[Lord Bach]

What about UCAS?

[Lord McNally]

I do apologise. The noble Lord, Lord Bach, raised that and I found the answer, which is twofold. Of the three, it was UCAS which raised some concerns when discussions began. Its concerns were the costs it would face in complying with the FOI Act, how it would protect sensitive information, and other costs outlined in the impact assessment. During consultation it was satisfied that the FOI Act exemptions could protect this information, and since those consultations it has been happy to see itself included within the ambit of the Act. I apologise that I got carried away with the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Martin. Does he have another?

[Lord Martin of Springburn]

If the Minister is getting carried away, I will perhaps push my luck. I noted that the Minister stated in his reply that he would encourage these organisations to put the information out to the applicant and the general public almost simultaneously. Encourage is not quite the word I was looking for. There should be a commitment to do this. For example, if an applicant asked a police authority for a piece of information then it could, by all means, give that information out at 2 pm on a specific day, but by 2.01 pm the rest of the world should know about it.

[Lord McNally]

So far as I understand at the moment, what we can do is urge best practice by the wide range of bodies that deal with a very wide range of requests. I recently went to Northampton to congratulate the local authority on setting standards for devolving freedom of information which we thought were best practice. It is very difficult to have a single diktat for such a wide range of bodies, but the Justice Committee, when it does its post-legislative scrutiny, can perhaps look at this, and consider whether the Act should be given more teeth to have a one-size-fits-all approach.

There would be counterarguments that small bodies have more difficulty in managing freedom of information. However, the point that the noble Lord, Lord Martin, is pressing is very valid. Except in matters of national security, or if there are specific matters that argue against immediate publication, freedom of information is not in the ownership of the requester but in the ownership of the public at large. Freedom of information is the right to know of the public at large. I also take the point—if it is not already doing so I urge the Justice Committee to look at this—that it seems a bit rum for someone to be in favour of freedom of information but want anonymity when asking for it. I would be very interested to see what is considered best practice here. I would have thought there was considerable argument to say that if somebody asks for freedom of information they should not be worried that somebody else knows they have asked for it. That is another matter which will be given thorough consideration. In the mean time, I commend this order.

Motion agreed.

European Union (Definition of Treaties) (Second Agreement amending the Cotonou Agreement) Order 2011

Monday 17th October 2011 Grand Committee

Considered in Grand Committee

17:20

Moved By

[Baroness Northover]

That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the European Union (Definition of Treaties) (Second Agreement amending the Cotonou Agreement) Order 2011.

Relevant document: 28th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

[Baroness Northover]

My Lords, despite significant progress in recent years, considerable challenges remain in the efforts to eradicate global poverty. The European Union—which represents the world’s largest provider of official development assistance, the largest single market and the main trading partner for most developing countries—can potentially make a huge contribution.

The Cotonou agreement is the guiding framework for the EU’s engagement with some 79 African, Caribbean and Pacific—ACP—states. Signed in 2000, it has evolved to reflect the changing relationships between the EU and ACP countries, while retaining its overall objective of poverty eradication, sustainable development and the integration of ACP states into the world economy. Cotonou provides the framework for programming the European Development Fund and channelling money to some of the poorest countries in the world—importantly including countries where UK bilateral programmes are not present and where DfID does not have a presence on the ground.

The Government’s review of multilateral aid judged the EDF to be among the most effective, flexible and poverty-focused of all our multilateral aid instruments. It is closely aligned to UK priorities and provides significant assistance to Commonwealth countries and several of the UK’s overseas territories.

Negotiations on the second revision to the Cotonou agreement were completed in June 2010 in Burkina Faso. All parties have signed the agreement and the changes are being implemented under transitional arrangements until ratification procedures are complete. The revisions aim to improve the implementation of the agreement and to ensure that it reflects changes in the international environment. The revisions fall into three categories—political, trade and development—and I shall highlight several of the important changes.

On political relations, the revised text provides for greater coherence between regional initiatives, such as the Africa-EU strategy and Cotonou. The role of ACP Parliaments and non-state actors has gained enhanced recognition and the African Union is confirmed as a key interlocutor in peace and stability matters. The importance of tackling changing security threats, ranging from piracy to exogenous shocks, is stressed. The provisions concerning political dialogue have been updated with new language on non-discrimination and the inclusion of regional and continental integration, and global and sectoral policies impacting development objectives among the issues that can be discussed. Improved exchange of information between the ACP secretariat and the EU in Article 96 processes, concerned with remedying breaches of Cotonou’s essential elements, are now envisaged.

There are important new references to key global challenges such as climate change, HIV/AIDS, and recognition of the 2008 food crisis through stronger provisions on food security and agriculture. The key role played by fisheries and aquaculture in ACP countries is included, reflecting a desire to enhance coherence between fisheries policies and development.

Cotonou’s trade provisions have been updated to reflect the introduction of economic partnership agreements supporting deeper trade relations between the ACP and the EU, and bringing these into line with the rules of the World Trade Organisation. Language on regional co-operation and integration has been strengthened in recognition of the increased regional differentiation among ACP states.

Changes aimed at improving the programming and implementation of EDF assistance have been included with, for example, the creation of a role for ACP national Parliaments and the introduction of increased flexibility in responding to unforeseen needs and crises.

Her Majesty’s Government fully support all these changes. We firmly believe that they will help to enhance and strengthen the long-standing partnership between the EU and ACP states. I commend the order to the Committee.

[Lord Chidgey]

My Lords, there is no doubt that the Cotonou agreement is a valuable instrument, aimed at preserving the relevance and character of the partnership between the ACP and EU states. As the Minister has mentioned, the order adapts the agreement to reflect the major changes in international and ACP-EU relationships by further clarifying the political dimension and creating space for a more productive political dialogue and clearer, more effective action. Here, I refer particularly to Article 8.7. The revision seeks to strengthen economic co-operation, regional integration and trade. Particularly important is the move towards extending humanitarian and emergency assistance, and providing new thinking on aid programming and management. This assistance and support is vitally important to many ACP states.

Equally important are the provisions that point to the interdependence between development, poverty reduction and peace and security. We should acknowledge that, increasingly, security threats—both man-made and from natural disasters—must be addressed in a co-ordinated manner, engaging not only the European Union but other regional organisations, including the African Union. With the AU acknowledged, as it is in the order, as a key interlocutor in matters related to peace and security, we can expect increased consistency and convergence of the Cotonou agreement with the strategic Africa-EU partnership. We should look forward to that.

The need for regional co-operation and integration has been recognised in amendments set out in the revised agreement to Articles 11, 23, 23a, 28, 29 and 30. Regional co-operation and integration are key to combating the threats of climate change and food security, and to promoting advancement and sustainability in agriculture and fisheries. I am glad to see that the Government welcome that.

The ACP states face major challenges if they are to meet the millennium development goals, and deal with food security, HIV/AIDS and sustainable agriculture and fisheries. The importance of each of these areas for effective development, growth and poverty reduction is underlined in these amendments, together with the joint approaches over which to co-operate.

The proposed revisions also recognise the impact of the fragility of and lack of security in some states, and the negative effect of that on development. A comprehensive approach, which combines diplomacy, security and development co-operation, encompassing political, developmental, human rights and security dimensions, is enshrined in this second revision of the Cotonou agreement, which can only be welcomed. Therefore, we welcome the revision and the attention that it gives to political dialogue in Article 8 and to climate change, human rights, gender, migration, discrimination and the resolution of violent conflicts. We particularly welcome the emphasis on good governance.

However, the order raises several comments and questions that I should like to put to the Minister. Article 8 refers to dialogue on issues such as “discrimination of any kind”. I understand that this formula was intended to embrace sexual orientation. How will this be pursued? Article 8 rightly emphasises the need for civil society organisations and national Parliaments to be associated with the dialogue. What efforts are being made to bolster the capacity of civil society organisations so that they can make a significant contribution?

The new Article 32a recognises climate change as a serious global and environmental challenge. How will co-operation in that area be taken forward? Are any further initiatives planned?

Article 33 recognises the importance of domestic revenue management and international tax co-operation. Maximising domestic revenue plays an important role in ensuring financial stability and reducing dependence on aid. What steps is DfID taking to support these efforts?

Article 34 refers to the need for ACP countries to participate actively in international trade negotiations. How can we best encourage the ACP countries to push for a successful conclusion to the Doha round?

Finally, Article 36 includes reference to the economic partnership agreements being negotiated between the EU and ACP countries. How will the Government assess their progress and the possible benefits?

17:30

[Lord Teverson]

My Lords, I should like to raise a couple of issues that have arisen from this. First, fishing has been mentioned a couple of times. One of the worst things to be inflicted on the developing world, particularly littoral states, has been the taking out of their fish stocks through EU agreements. Although this has improved over the years, given the complete lack of coastal protection for these nations and the voracious appetite of certain European fleets for those stocks, I wonder whether the Government will make sure through this agreement that the attempt to improve the situation continues.

Secondly, on aid, I am sure that the Minister will be well aware that there is a major aid effectiveness conference taking place in Busan, in Korea, next month. Are the Government encouraging parliamentarians to be present at the conference? There is a lot to be learnt not only by governments but by parliamentarians. Does she have any expectation for outcomes from that conference?

Lastly, it always seemed to me that the Cotonou agreement and its predecessors were made on a very imperialist-based system in terms of how the EU looks at the rest of the world. There is a division between those nation states who were the French and British empires and those who are not. I would like to think that at some point we can end that discrimination and look at the rest of the world in terms of its needs rather than in its imperial past. Do the Government share that view?

[Lord Triesman]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the order. I should say at the outset that we support it. The changes and the coherence to be added are welcome; trade arrangements will improve; all of that is positive territory.

The Cotonou agreement as a whole has proved, as it was always intended to, an essential framework, fostering development, co-operation, economic and trade integration and security of political institutions in the ACP countries. It makes complete sense for the EU to have embarked on this course, not only because of our long-term economic and political interests in the ACP countries but also because it reflects the colonial past, the legacy of that past and the obligations that we plainly face in dealing with it.

It is encouraging that when the predecessors of the EU in the European Coal and Steel Community forged those institutions in 1951, many of them were still colonial powers in the very countries in which these arrangements are now in place as a result of the Cotonou agreement. That is positive in many ways.

The continued mutual obligations plainly mean that we continue to have a shared EU-ACP interest in co-operation. In many respects, this has matured from simple co-operation into interdependency. Those interdependencies are created for pragmatic, economic and moral considerations. It is encouraging to be able to talk about the work of the EU in such a positive way; we do not always seem to do that in our House; so I am a little encouraged to have had the opportunity to look at that without people snarling about it.

The renewal of Cotonou comes at a critical juncture. Last year, the World Bank estimated that 64 million people had been pushed into extreme poverty by the financial crisis. Of course, most of those were in countries in the developing world. Noble Lords have already mentioned the impact of climate change and famine, which have had an amplified effect because of the financial challenges in the international community, especially in those countries where we are still slipping backwards on the millennium development goals. Those tasks demand a multifaceted response, and that is what the Cotonou agreement and the changes and revisions now help us to produce.

There is a good deal of independent research in Australian universities and universities across Europe that demonstrates that it is the interpenetration of democracy and institution-building with economic progress which gives economic progress the greatest prospect of success. Much of that research also shows that in those countries where you do not have those institutional and democratic opportunities, economic development is tried to the greatest extent.

It is not a perfect agreement. The point has already been made that, even with the new language on non-discriminatory practices, one area has still not been resolved in any way that I think we would regard as satisfactory in Europe. The democratic, economic and civil rights that have been extended in so many ways seem still to exclude those who are in same-sex relationships. That is a great pity. I know that people in the EU have attempted to see these issues raised in the European Parliament and elsewhere but have not perhaps made the progress with the countries on the other side of the agreement that they would have wished for. I just hope that we will not say, “Well, we are where we are”, but take every opportunity that we have in all the revisions that still lie ahead over the 20 years that the agreement will be in place to see whether greater progress can be made.

The Cotonou agreement has carried forward the EU’s 1992 human rights and democratisation policy. We supported it at that time; we have supported it on all occasions since, from its inauguration through its revisions; and we support it today.

[Baroness Northover]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for the all points that have been raised and for the general welcome for this move forward. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, is quite right that the agreement came about as a result of countries moving into the EU wanting to make sure that what had been part of their former empire was not disadvantaged. So it is a historic agreement looking after those countries and does not necessarily make best sense as we move forward. Looking at the current revisions to the Cotonou agreement, one is struck by the fact that it is moving towards looking at the regional dimension that may be more relevant for some ACP countries in the future. In the mean time, it is extremely important that those countries have access to the EU markets, which has benefited them enormously.

A number of points have been raised in the debate, and I welcome the Committee’s continued interest in the EU’s relationship with ACP countries and the Cotonou agreement. Europe is playing a major role in supporting developing countries, particularly in Africa, to meet the many challenges that they face. The second amendment to the Cotonou agreement is an important development in this regard.

Europe is not only a significant provider of development assistance but also an important global actor. The impact on poor countries of its policies in areas such as trade and the environment can be significant. We will continue to work with the Commission and other EU member states to call for further improvements in the effectiveness, results focus and transparency of EU aid, including the EDF.

The noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, is absolutely right that regional co-operation will be extremely important. It is excellent to see the emphasis being put on the African Union and its further development. He noted the fragility of some of these states; others are less fragile. Therefore, we agree that the emphasis on good governance is extremely important.

The noble Lords, Lord Chidgey and Lord Triesman, asked about discrimination. As we know, discrimination over sexual preferences remains a serious problem in many African states—there have been various pointers towards that recently. In effect, noble Lords are asking why we do not insist on the inclusion of a clause on non-discrimination. Article 8 clearly gives the EU a mandate to raise issues of discrimination of any kind in ACP countries, and the ability to have a dialogue to make progress on all issues of discrimination. It is a very important factor. The Cotonou revision gives the EU that mandate, but we realise that that is not, perhaps, as far as some might wish to go. However, this is a collective agreement, and at least it has that mandate in it. I expect we will find that that is taken further forward in the future.

My noble friend Lord Chidgey mentioned climate change, and its significance. We welcome the stronger statement on the global challenge of climate change in the agreement. The references give the EDF a clearer mandate to spend on these priorities. It is clearly recognised now that the mitigation of climate change—ensuring that we are not making things even worse, because it hits the poorest hardest and first—is extremely important to factor in when we look at development policy. The agreement acknowledges that that has to be integrated with development strategies.

My noble friend Lord Chidgey also emphasised the importance of civil society organisations, as well as governance. The EU certainly attaches great importance to the role of civil society organisations, and provides significant support to help them engage effectively on issues such as governance, democracy and human rights, across the ACP.

Looking at taxation, the importance of domestic revenue management is rightly something people are very concerned about. Many DfID country offices work with partner governments to strengthen tax policy and tax administration. That is certainly seen as important. For example, TradeMark East Africa, funded by DfID, has helped the newly established Burundi Revenue Authority to increase the country’s tax income by 30 per cent—which I am sure would be welcome in this country—from the first quarter of 2010 to the same period in 2011.

Then there is the question about Busan and whether parliamentarians will be present at the conference on aid effectiveness. I know that my noble friend Lord Chidgey is attending.

[Lord Teverson]

My noble friend Lord Chidgey is actually going to Busan as a parliamentarian, and I was delighted to hear that.

[Baroness Northover]

I know that he is going, and am extremely pleased. There will be other parliamentarians present, and I understand that the Secretary of State for International Development will be there.

[Lord Chidgey]

Could the Minister clarify an issue regarding Busan? I am delighted that noble Lords are all pleased that I am going to the farthest part of the world.

One of the problems we have faced in attempts to improve aid effectiveness by better scrutiny and better involvement and engagement of parliamentarians in the process of holding their Executives to account, is that while the parliamentarians from the recipient countries are getting quite a lot of help from the OECD, to get as many of them as possible to attend Busan, there is very little support for parliamentarians from the donor countries. I suggest to the Minister—and she may agree—that scrutiny and aid effectiveness is a two-way thing. Not just the recipients but also the donor countries should have a say in how well taxpayers’ money is being used to provide aid to developing countries.

[Baroness Northover]

My noble friend Lord Chidgey knows that very well from his experience serving on various boards of AWEPA, which tries to link European parliamentarians with those in Africa. From my own experience it does a very good job. I am glad that my noble friend is going, though not because he will therefore be unable to put questions to me.

I hope that I have covered most issues. I believe my noble friend Lord Teverson wanted some answers on fisheries. Article 23 and new Article 23a recognise the importance of fisheries and agriculture, as I mentioned in my introduction to ACP countries. Depletion of stock is clearly a key issue, and we are hoping that some of these issues will be addressed, presumably at the Busan meeting on aid effectiveness. No, I am told that that is not right. I am afraid that I cannot quite make out what it is that came from the sky, but I should like to write, if necessary, to the noble Lord to clarify where Cotonou stands on this.

I hope that I have covered most issues that noble Lords have raised—and if I have not I will write to them. I conclude by assuring noble Lords that the Government believe that Europe has a significant role to play in the international community’s efforts to eradicate global poverty. The updated Cotonou agreement continues to provide a valuable framework for the EU’s relations with ACP states.

Motion agreed.

Public Services Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 (Consequential Modifications of Enactments) Order 2011

Monday 17th October 2011 Grand Committee

Considered in Grand Committee

17:46

Moved By

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 (Consequential Modifications of Enactments) Order 2011.

Relevant document: 28th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness)]

My Lords, the draft order was laid before the House on 14 July 2011. Perhaps I may provide a brief explanation of what the order seeks to achieve.

The order is made under Section 104 of the Scotland Act 1998—with which Members of the Grand Committee have become familiar—and allows for necessary or expedient changes to UK legislation in consequence of an Act of the Scottish Parliament. This order is made in consequence of the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Act 2010—which I shall refer to as the 2010 Act—and secondary legislation made under it.

The Merits Committee of your Lordships’ House reviewed this order and has not noted it as being of special interest. The 2010 Act made provision for the reduction and simplification of public bodies in Scotland. The overarching purpose of the Act was to simplify and streamline the public bodies landscape in Scotland with the aim of delivering improved public services and better outcomes for the people of Scotland.

The 2010 Act dissolved the Deer Commission for Scotland and transferred its functions to Scottish Natural Heritage. It also dissolved the Scottish Arts Council, transferring its functions, and those of Scottish Screen, to a new public body called Creative Scotland. The Act dissolved the Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care. Its functions in care service scrutiny, the functions of the Social Work Inspection Agency, and the child protection functions of Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Education in Scotland were transferred to a new public body called Social Care and Social Work Improvement Scotland.

The functions of the Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care concerning independent health care scrutiny and NHS scrutiny functions that were previously exercised by the special health board, Quality Improvement Scotland, were transferred to a new public body called Healthcare Improvement Scotland.

The 2010 Act also made provision to dissolve the water customer consultation panels and abolish the position of convener of those panels. This order will ensure that United Kingdom legislation is updated to reflect the changes made in the 2010 Act. It will ensure that United Kingdom legislation can continue to operate when it interacts with the new devolved legislation and makes provision, as necessary, in relative enactments for the newly established bodies and procedures. For example, the order ensures that the Health and Social Care Act 2008 is updated to ensure that obligations on care home providers to comply with certain provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 continue to apply where the care home is in Scotland. The order also ensures that the Representation of the People (Scotland) Regulations 2001 are updated so that a care home manager who is providing care to a resident in respect of that resident’s disability can continue to attest to and sign that resident’s application to vote by proxy.

The modifications made to existing legislation by the order are of a technical nature. However, by the very fact that they are United Kingdom pieces of legislation, it is not within the competence of the Scottish Parliament to amend them. The modifications are required to ensure that existing legislation continues to operate effectively, by recognising the modifications that have been made to various pieces of legislation by the 2010 Act and subordinate legislation made under it. The order demonstrates this Government’s commitment to working with the Scottish Government to make the devolution settlement work. I hope the Grand Committee will agree that this order is a sensible use of the powers in the Scotland Act and that the practical result is to be welcomed. I commend the order to the Committee.

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart]

My Lords, this order appears to be uncontroversial and is before this Committee only because it is required to have an affirmative resolution. The only question I wish to ask is whether in the case of orders of this kind, which are not designed to amend the legislation, save—as my noble friend, the Minister, has said—to reflect, in a technical sense, the consequences of legislation by the Scottish Parliament, it might make sense, for reasons of expedition, to amend the Scotland Act to enable the measures to be incorporated in negative resolutions rather than affirmative resolutions. The Minister clearly explained that there is no issue of policy at stake here other than the maintenance of the status quo. As the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has not raised any matter about drafting or anything else, there is every reason to believe that this is an acceptable instrument. We now frequently see consequential legislation brought forward for extensive debates and this does not seem to be strictly necessary, bearing in mind the pressures on the United Kingdom Parliament.

[Lord McAvoy]

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, for his clear exposition of what is in the order. This will save some time. I will start by disagreeing totally with the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan of Rogart, about helping Governments to be expeditious in getting legislation through. There is always somebody paranoid, suspicious and hostile to government—probably me—and I like to see things coming in front of me. I also thank the office staff of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, for offering assistance and guidance, as usual. This is extremely helpful for those such as me who are still adjusting to this place. The noble Lord, Lord Maclennan of Rogart, also says that the measure is uncontroversial. I take the view that very little is uncontroversial in Scottish politics at the moment that cannot be made controversial by the behaviour of the First Minister, Alex Salmond.

On the extension of the Scottish Executive over those bodies included in the order, I wonder whether they will be exhorted by the leader of the Civil Service in Scotland to go to watch “Braveheart” so that the Scottish public can see how Scotland lived under English occupation 700 or 800 years ago. That is the sort of nonsense we are getting in Scotland at the moment, so I do not accept that there is anything uncontroversial in Scotland. Everything will be seized on as we lead up at some point to a Scottish independence referendum.

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart]

For the avoidance of doubt, I would not say that there was nothing uncontroversial in the Scottish legislation of 2010. What I see as uncontroversial is the response of the United Kingdom Government, which is that this is a devolved matter and not a matter over which we have control. Nothing that has been done has, as I see it, required the United Kingdom Government to do more than preserve those things that have not been affected by the Scottish legislation.

[Lord McAvoy]

My response to that would be: not yet, because you never know what will happen. I am not called Thomas for nothing. What raises my suspicion is reading the words Representation of the People Act—although I know that this order is about care homes and such things.

The serious question I have for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, in agreeing to these bodies understandably and logically coming under the remit of the Scottish Executive, is: are any of them in any way involved with elections or referendums? I know that this might seem wild, but you never know. In the order is a whole host of regulations, so I want to clarify just to make sure. Are any of them involved in the staffing of stations, administration or anything to do with the practical running of referendums? I should like to know to be sure that that is not the case.

In addition, the memorandum states:

“Part 1 makes provision for the purpose of simplifying public bodies”,

but ends up by stating,

“and provision in relation to the regulation of officers of court”.

Again, would any of those officers of the court be involved in ruling on disputes about referendums or voting in any way?

I have no intention of repeating the explanation of the order by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, which was absolutely fine. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan of Rogart, for getting involved. Those are my only serious questions. I know that folk may dismiss them as scaremongering or fantasising, but in Scotland at the moment we need to keep a very firm check on everything that comes through.

[The Duke of Montrose]

My Lords, can my noble friend clarify a couple of points? I listened to him but did not catch the fact that a couple of Welsh measures have wandered into the Bill. It is very interesting to see them in there. Can he reassure us that the Welsh paragraphs are an exact translation of the previous ones, because my Welsh is not up to understanding them? How many times has this Parliament passed measures in Welsh?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I thank my noble friends Lord Maclennan of Rogart and the Duke of Montrose, and the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, for their contributions to this debate. Although technical, the points they raised are important. Perhaps I may say to my noble friend Lord Maclennan that a similar thought crossed my mind as to the necessity for this. The truth of the matter is that it is specified by the Scotland Act that some orders under it can be approved by way of negative procedure, but when dealing with amendments to primary legislation, Parliament in its wisdom in 1998 thought that that should be done by affirmative order. Indeed, it would be invidious to decide which ones were or were not controversial. On the previous order we considered there was agreement on all sides that it nevertheless related to changing the powers of officers of the UK Border Agency and HMRC with regard to periods of detention, which is a substantive matter. It might be invidious to try to make judgments as to which orders are controversial and which are not when they all come under the same Section 104.

On the points made by the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, it is perfectly proper that he should be aware and alert—as he said, he was not called Thomas for nothing. I can assure him that as far as I am aware, and as far as we could trace, no body involved in this order would be involved in elections or referendums. One could perhaps use one’s imagination as to how Creative Scotland could be creative. However, strictly speaking, no body would have responsibility for the running of a referendum or election—subject to the example I gave in respect of care home managers. However, the important point is that the order updates the situation that already existed. The noble Lord’s other point was about court officers. I am advised that under the order, none of them would have a role to play in election work.

My noble friend the Duke of Montrose raised a question about Welsh measures. I am assured that it is an exact translation—although I have to say that I have to take it on assurance because I do not speak Welsh. It is probably a Measure of the Welsh National Assembly that is referred to here. Regarding some of the reciprocal arrangements between Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland, what has been done in Scotland has implications in Wales. If the Welsh legislation is in Welsh, the amendment to it has to be in Welsh also. That is the explanation. As I said, I take that on trust because, regrettably, although I speak in this House for the Wales Office, I do not have Welsh.

I hope that with those explanations the order will commend itself to the Committee.

Motion agreed.

Incidental Flooding and Coastal Erosion (England) Order 2011

Monday 17th October 2011 Grand Committee

Considered in Grand Committee

18:03

Moved by

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Incidental Flooding and Coastal Erosion (England) Order 2011.

Relevant document: 28th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Taylor of Holbeach)]

My Lords, Sections 38 and 39 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 allow the Environment Agency, local authorities and internal drainage boards to carry out works to manage flooding; coastal erosion or water levels for the benefit of nature conservation, including the conservation of the landscape); and the preservation of cultural heritage or peoples’ enjoyment of the environment or cultural heritage.

These powers were required because the definition of flood and coastal erosion risk management in Part 1 of the Act empowers authorities only to undertake measures to reduce the harmful effects of flooding or erosion; whereas some of the work that is required for environmental and recreational purposes involves the management of flooding, water levels and erosion to gain the beneficial effects of those processes.

Sections 38(8) and 39(12), commenced on 18 January this year, require the Minister to make an order applying the provisions of compensation, powers of entry and compulsory purchase in the Water Resources Act 1991 to Sections 38 and 39 of the Flood and Water Management Act, with or without modifications.

The purpose of the order is twofold: first, to protect the rights of occupiers and property owners who could be affected; and, secondly, to ensure that authorities have the necessary ancillary provisions. The order works by applying relevant provisions in the Water Resources Act 1991 with appropriate textual modifications to Sections 38 and 39 of the Flood and Water Management Act. However, it is important to understand that the provisions of the Water Resources Act are not amended by this order. I will now outline how each of the provisions will work and why they are necessary.

First, the order applies the compensation provisions in the Water Resources Act so that if any loss is suffered as a result of the use of powers under Sections 38 or 39, the relevant authority would be liable fully to compensate the injured party. This is necessary to protect the interests of landowners and occupiers. Before any work was undertaken, all necessary permissions and consents, such as planning permission, would need to be secured. Compensation would then be paid for any loss caused in the course of carrying out the work. Sums would be calculated on a case-by-case basis. If the person affected was not satisfied with the compensation offered, they could appeal to the Upper Tribunal.

Secondly, powers of entry are necessary to provide safeguards for landowners and occupier as well as for the authority, when an operator needs to undertake work on a third party’s land. The local authority or Environment Agency would write to the landowner or occupier notifying him of its intention to enter land. The notification would explain the nature and timing of the works and the entitlement to compensation in the event that any loss is suffered. The order requires a minimum notice period of seven days before entering agricultural land. This is a modification of how provisions in the Water Resources Act apply to Sections 38 and 39 of the Flood and Water Management Act. It makes the minimum notice period for agricultural land the same as that required for residential premises.

Compulsory purchase powers are needed so that an authority can, when necessary, obtain proprietary interests in land in order to protect its investment and ensure that works can be maintained. Powers of compulsory purchase can be exercised only with the express authority of the Minister. In all cases, the authority or agency would try to purchase by agreement before seeking ministerial authority to exercise its powers. The Environment Agency’s powers of compulsory purchase are limited in this order to purchases necessary for the purpose of enabling the United Kingdom to comply with its obligations under specified European directives—the water framework directive, the habitats directive or the wild birds directive.

Landowners and occupiers have rights under the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 to oppose the compulsory purchase. This includes provision for a public local inquiry, which may decide whether or not to allow the purchase or modify any particulars. If a landowner is still not satisfied, he may challenge the decision in the High Court.

I commend the draft regulations to the Grand Committee.

[Lord Teverson]

My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on his appointment. I know that that has been done on the Floor of the House by the various Benches, but I wanted to add my personal congratulations. It was an excellent appointment. I am sure that the good work that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, has done will continue.

The Explanatory Memorandum refers to the Pitt review. Given that this is a short session, it would be useful to hear just of couple of headlines on how the Government view the Pitt review and whether they foresee any primary legislation coming forward in that area in due course.

The order makes a lot of sense, because it is clear that certain flooding is good for the environment. If flooding was prevented, there would be environmental and ecological degradation. Given that Sections 38 and 39 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 can be implemented only in relation to the powers of compensation, access and compulsory purchase, is the Minister satisfied that the right balance has been struck between there being a heavy responsibility on the authorities to undertake this work and the power of the landowner?

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, for the clarity with which he set out the order. That was most helpful given that it is very difficult to get any clarity from reading it. That is why we have an Explanatory Memorandum—I thank the Minister’s officials for the clarity with which that has been set out. I also congratulate the Government on listening to the concerns expressed by the National Farmers Union and the Country Landowners Association in bringing forward the order, which I certainly support.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, I was interested in paragraph 7.6, on consolidation, in the Explanatory Memorandum. I would be interested in any news on when that consolidation of the Act might happen in response to the Pitt review.

I tried to work out the taxpayer liability from the impact assessment. I understand that a notional 100 hectares is being discussed in the Explanatory Memorandum because it is difficult to predict how much land will be affected by erosion. Am I right in calculating that 100 hectares—the equivalent of one square kilometre—would generate a cost of £2,000 per annum, or have I misread the way the sums work? With that question, I am very happy for the order to go forward.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I thank noble Lords for their comments. I thank in particular the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for his pleasant greetings. He asked how the legislation related to the Pitt review. He and I were both around when the Act on which the statutory instrument is based went through this House. He will know that it was a foreshortened Bill; the water provisions were relatively limited within it. The Government, however, have made it quite clear that there will be a water White Paper shortly—it is likely to be published within the next six months. We will bring forward a Bill, probably within this Parliament, to legislate in the whole area of water and water management. It is important not just for issues raised by Pitt but also for the consumer interest in water.

The noble Lord, Lord Knight, asked me about the cost of the provision. I can assure him that his estimate of £2,500 per annum is about right. He also asked whether the whole business of consolidation might be considered. The Government are still committed to this, but he will know how difficult it is to get legislative time. However, this is something the Government will seek to do, if at all possible, within this Parliament.

The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, asked me if the balance was about right. He would expect me to say, and I do, that I think the balance is about right. This is a question of a balance of differing interests, and the statutory instrument has got it about right. It does contain the necessary provisions to protect the interests of those who would be affected, and the minimum required to allow local authorities, internal drainage boards and the Environment Agency to use, where appropriate, the powers provided by Sections 38 and 39 of the Water Management Act.

I hope that I have managed to cover all the points raised. I am particularly happy to present this order. I beg to move.

Motion agreed.

Electricity and Gas (Internal Markets) Regulations 2011

Monday 17th October 2011 Grand Committee

Considered in Grand Committee

18:17

Moved By Lord Marland

That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Electricity and Gas (Internal Markets) Regulations 2011.

Relevant document: 28th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Lord Marland): My Lords, the regulations under consideration implement the EU third energy package in Britain. This is a significant tranche of EU legislation, consisting of two directives on gas and electricity and three regulations. This legislation makes progress in enhancing consumer protection, promoting competitive energy markets, and increasing security of supply. It is a welcome step for the EU and the UK, where we will see many benefits for consumers and businesses alike. The regulations introduce new consumer protection measures to ensure that British consumers get the most out of a competitive market. Furthermore, the regulations focus on breaking down barriers to entry and enhancing competition in our energy markets. Northern Ireland has introduced its own regulations, and will be consulting on further implementation measures to complete UK transposition.

In July of last year the Government issued a consultation on proposals to implement the third package’s requirements. This was followed, in the autumn, by two more detailed consultations on areas of particular interest to industry: the amended licence modification process and the need for owners to license exempt networks to provide third-party access. In our approach to implementation we have tried to take on industry concerns and minimise uncertainty as far as possible. However, it has been important to try to strike the right balance between the interests of consumers and industry, while ensuring that we fully implement the requirements of the third package.

The implementing regulations before us today cover four main areas: consumer protection measures; measures which encourage competition by imposing minimum separation and independence requirements when companies or their associates have control of key infrastructure and carry out certain energy activities, such as supply; the extension of third-party access requirements to licence-exempt undertakings; and changes to the duties and powers of the regulatory authority, including a new licence modification procedure.

I shall give a brief summary of some of the key measures included under each of these headings. Consumer protection is covered in part 2 of the regulations and in the changes to supply licences made by Schedules 7 and 8, introduced by part 10. Primary changes include a requirement for customers to be switched within three weeks of expressing a wish to do so, from the end of any cooling-off period. Suppliers will also have a new obligation to improve the switching process. In addition, there are new requirements for energy suppliers to provide customers with more information, to ensure that customers are aware of their rights and enable them to make informed decisions. A consumer checklist of information is to be provided and will be produced by Consumer Focus to this end.

Changes are being made to ensure that certain activities are carried out independently of other energy activities; such separation is referred to as unbundling. This will increase security of supply by promoting fair access to infrastructure, with resulting benefits to competition. Furthermore, these measures promote unbiased investment decisions by large players in the market, and create a fairer playing field for smaller companies and new entrants.

Part 3 of the regulations requires the ownership of transmission systems and interconnectors to be completely separated from interests in those of supply and production, unless an exemption is held or the operator satisfies the requirements of one of the alternative models being made available. It will be for Ofgem to decide whether companies qualify for these alternatives when individual applications are made. The alternative models to ownership unbundling have been made available to provide British businesses with as much flexibility as possible.

Part 4 of the regulations prevents owners of gas storage facilities producing or supplying gas, and requires facilities to be operated independently of such interests, unless the storage facility is not considered to be technically or economically necessary for the operation of an efficient gas market. Part 5 prevents distribution system operators producing gas or generating electricity, though an exception is being made for businesses with less than 100,000 customers. This is to avoid conflicts of interest in investment decisions and promote transparency.

Another significant change introduced by the regulations is the requirement for licence-exempt owners of distribution networks to grant unrelated—that is, third-party suppliers—access to their systems, as established in part 6 of the regulations. This will benefit consumers connected to these networks, who as a result of this change will be able to choose their energy supplier and receive the advantages of competition.

Some industry parties have expressed concerns regarding the burdens that this will place on small businesses. As a result, we have tried to impose the lowest burden possible on these networks within the EU requirements, and will produce guidance to provide as much clarity as possible for affected businesses.

Of the changes relating to Ofgem, which part 7 of the regulations designates as the regulatory authority for Great Britain, the most noteworthy is the alteration to the licence modification procedure, as set out in part 9 of the regulations. Under the third package, the regulatory authority must be able to take autonomous decisions and implement binding decisions by the European Commission and the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators. In parallel, parties affected by those decisions must have access to suitable mechanisms of appeal.

Under the current system Ofgem’s proposals for licence modifications can be blocked by 20 per cent of relevant licence holders based on market share or number of licence holders. Besides disadvantaging small players in the market, this can hardly be described as autonomous decision-making. We are therefore introducing a new licence modification process that allows Ofgem to make decisions and act on them autonomously, but gives those affected by the decision the right to appeal.

I am aware that some market participants do not welcome these changes and believe that by applying this system to all licence modifications, rather than simply those resulting directly from European obligations, we have gone further than is strictly necessary in our implementation. However, in many instances modifications may relate to both an EU obligation and a domestic matter, rendering a dual system impractical, if not impossible, to operate. Instead, we are proposing a robust, transparent and coherent decision-making framework, with an appropriate appeals mechanism.

I hope that the Committee will agree that these regulations represent a sensible transposition of the third package requirements. They will improve the functioning of our energy markets and bring real benefits to consumers while improving our long-term security of supply. I therefore commend them to the Committee.

[Lord Dixon-Smith]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation, which means that I now understand a very small part of these regulations a bit better than I did. I found it infinitely depressing when I went to the Printed Paper Office and suddenly found myself presented with 197 pages of regulation and 184 pages of Explanatory Notes. If anybody in this Room is familiar with the content of all of them, I would be very surprised. I do not doubt that there are plenty of people who know how to reference every little last word, but do not think that it is possible for anybody to put their hand on their heart and say that they are familiar with it all.

I am really interested only in part 9. I will admit that I had representations made to me by one of the electricity companies, which was concerned about it for two or three reasons. First, although some might argue that the previous arrangements were a bit cosy, the licensees have to work very closely with Ofgem in forming any regulation. The result is that on the whole there is a great degree of agreement between the two when the regulations come out. Of course, the right to appeal to the Competition Commission is always there in the background.

Part 9 introduces this new body, the European Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators. I really wonder how that was written into the European treaty. I assume that it must be a treaty matter; otherwise, how do we come to have a European body that can tell national Governments what to do? However, the Northern Irish can apparently get away with it, because they are only a devolved authority, but they have the power to say that this provision does not apply to them, as I understand it. The Minister may be able to explain that.

What concerns me is that we still have the appeals process to the Competition Commission, which is fine—but what is the relationship between the commission and ACER? If there is an appeal, which is upheld and is against what might be described as a binding decision of the new regulatory body, what happens? Do we have a power over it? I find a bit of confusion in the first paragraph, where it says why DECC is proposing these regulations, stating:

“The Third Package requires Member States to ensure that national regulatory authorities are able to take autonomous decisions”—

that is fine—

“and implement any binding decisions”.

Okay, but binding decisions are certainly not autonomous. Then we have an appeal mechanism, which can set the whole lot aside. I would be very grateful if the Minister could explain to me rather better how that relationship will actually work in practice. At the moment it looks a bit like a recipe for finishing up in the divorce courts.

18:30

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, I apologise to the Committee for not getting here at the start of these proceedings. It is a terrible thing to say, but I went to the wrong room and got lost.

My interest in this issue stems from talking to many ports and airports around the country. I recall having correspondence with Ministers a few years ago on one issue in particular. Ports and airports which already had a network might have tendered out the supply of electricity to get the best deal for their various tenants, but if one tenant decided to go to another supplier then, in order to comply with the directive and the Citiworks judgment, the port could not stop them. This may be fair enough but the port might then be saddled with the very high cost of upgrading its internal electricity network to grid standards. I know that Ministers at the time—I think it was before the election—understood the problem, but it has not gone away. It seems that there is something of a rush about getting this through, which I cannot believe is happening in any other member state. Can the noble Lord tell me whether any other member states are implementing these regulations at the same speed as we are?

The costs of doing this, whether capital cost or anything else, and the pricing methodology for assessing the charges, worry me and this needs further discussion. It is good that, at the seminar on 9 May, Ofgem announced a helpful concession to allow a higher capital cost figure to be taken into account in assessing the charges. However, these additional costs cannot be taken into account in the case of the input of the opt-out on existing bulk purchase contracts, where the local network provider has committed to a minimum threshold. This seems rather unfair. If a port has put in a network and negotiated a bulk electricity deal, then half its tenants decide to go somewhere else—which they can do—it is left holding the baby with quite a big loss. One port told me that if all this went ahead and it was forced to implement it, it could lose in the region of £10 million a year. That seems a very high figure. There is clearly no way to stop this and it is probably right that tenants should be able to choose to buy power where they want. However, the cost of such a change should be borne by the tenant who wants to make the change, rather than by the landlord losing out.

Ports and the port businesses are also being hit by the carbon reduction commitment, which, as we know, is a tax on energy used by businesses. CRC is currently payable in respect of all business electricity users on port estates, even when they are below the minimum usage threshold for paying it. This may encourage more tenants to opt for third-party suppliers, which also puts more pressure on the port. Could the Minister see whether these effects can be mitigated, either through further discussion with Ofgem or further meetings with airports and port operators, to try to redress some of the adverse effects that are perceived at the moment?

[Lord Whitty]

My Lords, I broadly support the second package and the transposition of it. However, it leaves a few loose ends, and I want to raise three points, one of which relates very much to what my noble friend Lord Berkeley just mentioned: inclusion in the need to provide access for consumers and businesses those who are licensed for local networks.

I am in a dilemma here—no doubt, so are the Government—in that if you are locked into a local network and there is no alternative supplier, choice does not apply. On the other hand, if you open it up to choice, as the noble Lord explained in relation to ports, the economics of the local network change. There is a real problem here. I ask whether that would apply, for example, to a relatively small CHP system on an industrial estate where all the other units on the estate had agreed to sign up and the economics had been worked out on that basis; or indeed a residential district heating system—I am very much in favour of both such developments of localised and decentralised energy. Opening that up to competition or to the secondary user's choice of supplier makes the economics much more difficult. That is a dilemma. Two principles clash here: one of encouraging decentralised energy and the other of consumer choice. Simply including them under the same obligation as the big network suppliers does not resolve that. I am no closer than the regulations—or, probably, the department—to supplying a solution, but it is not supplied by the regulations.

My second point relates to the reference to consumer protection and Consumer Focus. I declare my past allegiance as former chair of Consumer Focus and—although this applies more to my third point—as currently undertaking some work for the Consumer Council for Northern Ireland. The requirement for Consumer Focus in part 2 to provide a consumer checklist is an extension to what is provided in the Consumers, Estate Agents and Redress Act 2007. It is a more prescriptive requirement on Consumer Focus—the National Consumer Council, in legal terms—than exists under that Act. Even in its current form, one could say that it is an incursion on its independence. The organisation already supplies significant guidance and information available to consumers. However, on balance, I do not object to the current setup.

As the Minister will be aware, under the Public Bodies Bill it is intended to move the role of Consumer Focus on energy either to a third-sector organisation, Citizens Advice or—another proposition currently in play—to Which?, which is, for these purposes, a private sector non-profit-making organisation. Is not the requirement for it to do the job in a certain way an even greater imposition on an independent organisation than it is on a quango? Is the Minister clear that such a requirement would survive a transfer of those functions to organisations that have not been in this game before and that have their own charitable and, in the case of Which?, slightly different structure of obligations and priorities?

Clearly, it is a bit of a problem to get the current powers of what was Energywatch and then Consumer Focus into a completely non-governmental organisation in the first place, but the more prescriptive that that becomes the more difficult it is to ensure that the provision in these regulations survives such a transfer.

My final point relates to Northern Ireland, to which the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, already referred. He seems to think that this lets Northern Ireland and the separate system of regulation off the hook. I am sure that in Northern Ireland he would be relatively happy for that to be the case, but my understanding is that there is concern about this over there because Northern Ireland organisations are not party to the ACER set-up. There can be only one regulator there, and the energy market there is very different to ours. The gas side is on an all-Ireland basis or is pretty much moving towards that. The Irish regulator would be there but not the Northern Ireland regulator. There are different structures of competition and supply. The regulations are not necessarily appropriate to a very different sort of market with a different sort of fuel supply. I should like the situation on Northern Ireland to be clarified—if not today, then at some point in the near future—because there seems to be a bit of a lacuna in the set-up.

[Lord Teverson]

My Lords, I should like to raise a couple of points—again, primarily on the consumer side, which I suppose is appropriate, given that it is a topical subject in government. I hope that the Official Opposition Front Bench do not take half an hour on the various provisions relating to competition and energy. However, that is entirely up to them.

The only issue that I wanted to raise was that a lot of this relates to competition and openness of markets. I want to understand where the Government are in terms of their recent announcements and the particular Ofgem proposal that 20 per cent of energy production be auctioned, which would at least start to open up the market.

The niche area that interested me is the one that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, mentioned at some length—the energy consumer checklist. On page 19 of the annexe to the Explanatory Memorandum it is stated that the European legislation,

“Requires Member States to ensure consumers are provided with the Energy Consumer Checklist and that it is made publicly available”.

I understand how that started to work from reading the third column on that page. However, I draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that I tried to find out from a European Commission website and the DECC website what the energy consumer checklist was—particularly as the proposal is to have it printed on all bills. There nothing definitive whatever on the European Commission’s website. It was completely vague and the Commission had obviously decided that this was a good idea, had delegated and had then done not a lot else. On the DECC website there was a copy of a letter from the Directorate-General Energy and Transport to Kim Darroch, the UK’s permanent representative. Some 78 questions were listed on all the things that consumers ought to be able to ask about. My understanding from this—I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, already knows the answers, but forgive me if I pursue the issue—is that the National Consumer Council boils those down and makes them work. I am interested in how we make that obligation relate in a useful way to consumers, so that they can actually make real decisions. That is obviously tied up with all the issues around the swapping of accounts and everything else that has been high on the agenda in recent times. However, I should like to understand how the energy consumer checklist will be effective.

Perhaps the Minister can give us an insight into how other European member states are approaching this. I am particularly interested in the auctioning activity and whether the Government feel that other EU member states are starting to move out of the ice age and into global warming in terms of making sure that some of this deregulation and more market competition in terms of unbundling, or whatever, actually happens as regards those other European markets where, historically, we have been well ahead of the rest of the pack.

18:45

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I agree—perhaps unusually—with the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. When I first picked up the package of papers I saw that it was, as he said, nearly 200 pages on the order itself, and the Explanatory Memorandum. If we look further to the impact assessment and the implementation and consultation, it is quite a hefty range of documents, and I am not sure that this Committee could do justice to those documents if we stayed here until tomorrow.

It is long, detailed and fairly complex. I am grateful to the Minister for trying to bring some order to it in the comments he made, and I think there is much in here with which we are quite happy. There are some errors and disappointments, and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, expressed some concerns, as has the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. I was struck by one comment he made when he said that on licensing the Government felt able to go further than was in the directives, which I understand and am not unhappy about.

However, it seems to me that the area in which the Government might have wanted to go further is consumer protection and the issue around switching and information for customers. I cannot see why, or how, switching can be effective for the consumer or the customer unless they have the information and are able to understand it and make use of it. The noble Lord will recall the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, who spoke for many of us last week when her frustrations boiled over into anger as she spoke of her experience in trying to switch energy companies.

Certainly, what is here today can make it easier. But, again, at the summit today at Downing Street, Chris Huhne made a comment about making switching easier. If we are going to put so much emphasis on the ability of the consumer to save money by switching energy companies, there is far more we need to do than what is in singular. Therefore, I welcome it, as far it it goes.

I have some questions that might help me assuage my disappointment and help me understand some of the issues. I am sure the noble Lord shares my disappointment at the response to the consultation from the energy industry. I would have liked it to be a bit more positive.

We have heard comments from the energy industry that it wants to help people reduce their bills, but its response to the consultation was a bit disappointing. On the issue of switching within three weeks—which is exactly the right thing to do in that area—while their IT companies were saying it could be done, the companies themselves were expressing concern and were, I think it is fair to say, less than enthusiastic.

I would like to ask the noble Lord a few questions on consumer protection, as I am not entirely clear about the effects of implementation. Is the three-week period from the end of the cooling-off period for the customer, or from when the customer first signs the documentation required to say that they want to switch? We have had two conflicting responses on that, so it would be helpful if the noble Lord could clarify that.

Also, I noted in the consultation document that the energy companies raised concerns about making it a legal right for customers to expect their supplier to be changed within three weeks. What was the outcome of that? I have been through the Explanatory Memorandum and the order itself. I may be missing something, but if an energy company fails to meet the 21 days for switching the customer, what action can the customer or the regulator take? What are the practical implications of it?

If the only action open to the consumer is to take action against the supplier then the company will have nothing to fear. I am also unsure as to how the customer will know which is at fault: the company they are switching to or the one they are switching from. Could the Minister outline the consequences of a company failing to meet the 21 days, particularly if it is a regular failure, rather than an occasional mistake?

The ability to switch depends on having the time, the capacity, ability and information to do so. The Select Committee in the other place has drawn attention to this issue. I have seen the new regulations and I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, about the checklist. What will be in it and will it be in a format that is clear, understandable and concise? A list of 58 questions and answers will not be satisfactory for any consumer. The Explanatory Memorandum states that the information will be put on the internet. If consumers have to go to the internet and wade through 58 questions and answers, it might be a week or so before they decide that they want to switch. Are the Government satisfied that the information available to the consumer will allow them to make an informed decision about their bills and supplier?

In a recent survey, Which? called the six major energy suppliers 12 times in a week and asked about the cheapest deal for the consumer. In most cases, the energy company got it wrong and failed to offer the cheapest deal. I think that EDF performed best, offering the cheapest deal in five of the 12 calls. One company said that the cheapest tariffs were available only online. Exit fees were not mentioned in a third of all cases. If the energy companies themselves are unable to give to the customer correct and accurate information about the cheapest deal, how can the consumer, who is not an expert, be expected to find them out for themselves?

It would also be helpful if the consumer was advised not to switch on the doorstep. Forty per cent of those who switch as a result of doorstep selling find that they have got not a better deal but something that is worse or no better than they have already. I would like energy companies to offer every customer the best deal available—I have never understood why there are so many different tariffs anyway.

Annex 1 to the Explanatory Memorandum outlines directive 2—the electricity directive. I am not sure why directive 1 is not there. It sets out the articles of the directive and what has to be done to comply with them. Why under Article 3(7), which requires member states to introduce a number of measures to protect vulnerable customers, is Warm Front listed as something that the Government are doing, when that programme is being phased out, indeed abolished? I am unclear why that is still in the transposition notes on action being taken by the Government. It seems unusual to refer to something that is being phased out. I appreciate that, when the consultation was undertaken, there was no intention on the part of the previous Government to get rid of Warm Front, but now that it has gone, I do not understand why it is still in the document. Since that programme is being phased out, do we have to go back to the EU and say what else we are doing?

The document also mentions the Green Deal as helping vulnerable customers. It does not say that it is a very limited measure that does not help those in the private rented sector as Warm Front did. There is a gap, because that help will take some time to come in. Can the Minister explain why that information is being given?

A further issue brings us back to Consumer Focus. Consumer Focus is going; the Government are getting rid of it. The legislation, the Explanatory Memorandum and the accompanying documents refer to the successor body. Which successor body will that be? Will it be Citizens Advice, which was mentioned during the passage of the Public Bodies Bill, or will responsibility come back to the department? I am not clear who will undertake that role and what funding will be available to ensure that it is properly undertaken.

The Minister mentioned networks, access and storage facilities. All those are referred to in the impact assessment as ensuring greater competition and falling bills. Does the Minister understand a slight scepticism being felt about that? Very few customers see their bills coming down; they may see a smaller increase. Can he give us more information on how this will impact on the consumer and assure us that the cost savings will return to the customer and not just mean larger profits for the energy companies?

The final part is on the regulatory framework. There has been a reprieve for Ofgem in the Public Bodies Bill. Is the Minister satisfied that it has the resources to undertake the additional regulatory functions it is taking on? I endorse the comments made by my noble friends, Lord Berkeley and Lord Whitty. The local estate heating system is a bit of a minefield. There are estates in my former constituency where people feel their bills are too high and want the opportunity to switch companies, but this would have the effect of increasing bills for others. This is a dilemma and more work is required.

In relation to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, the impact assessment does not refer to the impact this would have on airports or ports. It talked instead about the costs to Ofgem. If there are associated costs that are not referred to in the impact assessment, or that I have missed, then there is an issue. We need to find a way of not imposing costs that would make businesses unprofitable and put them in jeopardy, particularly in times of recession. The impact assessment states that further legislation would be required. Does that mean we will have another opportunity to look at this before it is implemented? I hope that the Minister can address some of the points and concerns that have been raised.

[Lord Marland]

My Lords, it is, as always, a great opportunity to look at the contents of the Bill. I am afraid that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, about its size. Let us not forget that this regulation was agreed by the previous Government in 2009, at a negotiation in Europe. So I share the noble Lord’s complaint: I have inherited this vast document of noble exchanges at a very high level—beyond my pay grade—in Europe. The net result is that we have a broad regulation which we have attempted to modify and improve, taking on board what a number of noble Lords have said. We have largely accepted everything that is here, because it has been imposed upon us by the EU, through previous negotiation. We have taken four issues which we have tried to mitigate and improve on. Those are: loosening the private network owners’ situation—about which the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, is concerned—small generation interests, gas storage, which we have tried to find a more transparent way of managing, and switching licences. These are four areas which we, as a department, have decided it would not be in the best interests of the consumer to adopt wholeheartedly.

It comes as no surprise that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, has heard from one or two of the major energy companies, because they, quite naturally, do not like everything that is going on. We in Government—and I think that we would all in this Room agree about this—want, largely, to protect the consumer, not the provider. It therefore comes as no huge surprise that, in this particular instance, one or two of the companies are disappointed. That does not mean that we do not have to work with these big six, because they are fundamental to delivering supply and we must congratulate them on much of their work.

The noble Lord asked me a specific question in relation to ACER. The point about ACER is that it deals with cross-border issues, whereas Ofgem deals with issues in relation to the UK. ACER has, of course, a broader remit than Ofgem. My noble friend, Lord Teverson, asked about the views of the other European states. I am afraid that is way above my pay grade. Who would be able to navigate the minefield of the views of some of the European states? My concern is what goes on in this country and I know that is his primary concern despite his great knowledge of Europe.

18:59

This brings us, happily, to the issue of Northern Ireland, which a number of noble Lords have mentioned. It has taken a decision to wait and see what actually happens. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment in Northern Ireland makes it clear that it will consult on these licences, and the appeals progress, but I suspect that it will largely be onside with these excellent things negotiated by the British Government.

I turn briefly to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, who always speaks on the issue of transport, of which he has great knowledge—I have enjoyed sharing experiences with him on that front. There was a notable train journey that we took along the coast of Cumbria on the reopening of that line. It was a magnificent moment and a very enjoyable experience.

The issue of ports has been raised by the noble Lord and other noble Lords on a number of occasions. In this negotiation process, we have tried to push it as far as we could within the confines of the EU regulation that has been imposed on us. The short answer is that ports do not have to upgrade their network to those of a public network, which I hope the noble Lord will be pleased about. On a specific question that I was unable to answer, existing bulk contracts can stand but customers must be able to switch if they wish before deals are agreed. I hope that that answers the noble Lord’s question.

The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, comes at these things from the perspective of Consumer Focus, where people tell me that he was a brilliant chairman. It was not the noble Lord who told me, but I am sure that he would not disagree. The noble Baroness asked how the functions will be transferred. They will transfer to Citizens Advice, which is the appropriate place, not to Which? I have mentioned about loosening the private networks. The short answer to the question of whether CHP is provided for is yes. I hope that the noble Lord will therefore support these provisions.

My noble friend Lord Teverson mentions the business of checking. I am very pleased to be able to tell him that today the Prime Minister and our Secretary of State, Chris Huhne, opened something called “Check, Switch and Insulate to Save”. I know that he is going to leave this place and go to the website, on directgov.uk under home energy. It ensures the publication of cheaper tariffs. There will be a consumer checklist and a concise version will be summarised and the relevant information given.

The noble Baroness is quite right that it is a minefield going into the issues of where the cheapest price is and how people can get to it. She rightly raised very valuable points, which I have written down, about the interrelationship between the consumer and these new regulations. She asked whether there was a cooling-off period and when it starts. It starts from the end of the three-week period that we talked about. She asked what penalty could be imposed if the supplier did not supply in time. In fact, the penalty can be as much as 10 per cent of the turnover, so it is a very significant figure. Of course, it will be imposed on them, because it is very important that we represent the desires of the consumer.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

That is really helpful, but just for clarification could he tell me how that would fall into place and whether it would be the consumer who had to take action to ensure that happened, or whether it would be a matter for the regulator to deal with?

[Lord Marland]

I guess that it would be both, because the consumer will apply to the regulator, which would be the normal way for the regulator to impose that on the supplier.

I dealt with the question on checklists. Warm Front still exists, of course, and will do so for another year, so it is reasonable to use it. Of course, we brought in a whole load of other measures, which the noble Baroness knows. For the sake of clarity, from December 2011, 4 million of the most vulnerable energy customers in Britain will receive letters to tell them that they are eligible for free or heavily discounted insulation of their loft or cavity walls, which is the Green Deal that we were talking about earlier.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

That is the ECO, is it not?

[Lord Marland]

Yes, they will get the ECO through the Green Deal. A whole amount of measures was issued at the energy summit today, with which I will be very happy to furnish the noble Baroness. As for the issue of PRS and Green Deal, I think that we have debated that quite extensively and I really do not want to go over the old ground. We share a significant problem and concern, and in the end I think that we were all singing off the same hymn sheet in that debate.

Lastly, on the question of whether Ofgem has the right resources, it is important that it has. It has a task to manage this enormous amount of legislation in front of us, and we will watch very carefully to ensure that it is up to the task. The noble Baroness was quite right to raise that issue now, because it is important that customers at all levels are protected. I believe that the legislation goes a long way to doing that. As I said earlier, it is legislation that we have inherited, but there is a lot of good stuff in it. Would we have done everything to the letter of the word? Perhaps not. Are you pleased with everything that we have done to the letter of the word? Perhaps not. But it is legislation, and good legislation with the consumer in mind, and I think that we would all applaud that.

[Lord Berkeley]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord for the answers that he gave me on ports, airports and the bulk tariffs. My question applies equally to some of the examples from my noble friend Lord Whitty on the bulk suppliers of power to tenants, as we could call them, who opt to go to another supplier. As a result, the bulk supplier may lose the level of discount that he would have got if he had been selling to the whole lot. My impression from the Minister’s answer was: “Well, tough on the bulk supplier”. It could be a not-for-profit organisation; it does not have to be a commercial port. Is my interpretation of that correct and, if so, is there anything that Ofgem could do to mitigate the effect with a little bit more discussion? I would be grateful for his response.

[Lord Marland]

I am concerned to give the right answer about not-for-profit organisations, so I shall write to the noble Lord on that rather than ask him to whisper more in my ear. I do not know the answer, and it is an important question.

I should clarify one point about the switch to Citizens Advice. The detail is being worked out and no decision has therefore been made, but that is the likely intention of the transfer. With that in mind, I commend the regulations to the Committee.

Motion agreed.

Committee adjourned at 7.10 pm.

House of Lords

Monday 17th October 2011 Lords Chamber

Monday, 17 October 2011.

14:30

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Leicester.

Equality: World Bank

Monday 17th October 2011 Lords Chamber

Question

14:36

Asked By

[Baroness Prosser]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the World Bank’s World Development Report 2012.

[Baroness Northover]

The Government welcome the World Development Report 2012 on gender equality and development. The report identifies areas for international action that closely reflect the UK’s development priorities to reduce female mortality, close education gaps, improve women’s economic opportunities, increase women’s voice in society and limit the transmission of poverty across the generations. The Secretary of State for International Development is speaking at the UK launch of the report on 23 November.

[Baroness Prosser]

I thank the Minister for that helpful reply. Does she agree that while the report’s concentration on gender is very welcome, its implementation plan is weak and insufficient? Does she further agree that the plan should include concrete objectives on gender equality, particularly in areas such as political participation and access to justice?

[Baroness Northover]

The noble Baroness is absolutely right that this report is extremely welcome, and it is groundbreaking that it has been produced at all. It is notable that the World Bank does not necessarily match rhetoric with reality, and we hope that this will be a step on the way to making those two things dovetail. The noble Baroness is right that we have to make sure that we support the World Bank in making sure that this is carried through much more effectively than may have been the case in the past.

[Lord Avebury]

The report highlights the problem of domestic violence in one short paragraph, but fails to mention the United Nations Secretary-General’s campaign “UNiTE to End Violence against Women”. What are we doing through our embassies and otherwise to promote the goals of that campaign? Will the UK Border Agency review its country of origin information service to ensure that, in considering women’s asylum claims, officials have full and up-to-date information about this appallingly common phenomenon?

[Baroness Northover]

I thank the noble Lord for flagging this question up to me. In fact, domestic violence runs as something of a theme throughout the main report. It is clearly an issue that needs to be taken extremely seriously. When you look at some of the evidence it contains—for example, that in Cusco there are reports that 50 per cent of women suffer domestic violence—it is an astonishing situation. The UK Border Agency publishes country of origin information reports on the 20 countries that generate the most asylum claims, and all those reports have a section dedicated to covering matters relating to women, including violence against women. The independent advisory group on country information last month commissioned a review focusing on women and girls. I hope that the noble Lord will find that encouraging.

[Baroness Scotland of Asthal]

My Lords, I declare an interest as the founding patron of the Global Foundation for the Elimination of Domestic Violence. The noble Baroness knows that six out of 10 women in the world are subjected to domestic violence. Will the noble Baroness tell us what, if anything, the Government intend to do on 25 November, the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, to celebrate the things that have been done and, more importantly, to make sure that more is done to reduce domestic violence worldwide?

[Baroness Northover]

I commend the noble and learned Baroness on what she has done in this regard. Clearly an awful lot more needs to be done. I am speaking at a meeting on that day and I will get the details of that to her. Of course, we have appointed my honourable friend Lynne Featherstone as the UK’s international violence against women and girls champion. She has been trying to ensure that when Ministers go overseas, they routinely raise this in their bilateral meetings. DfID is working on domestic violence in 15 of the countries that it focuses on, and I hope that will extend further as well. The World Bank report mentions ensuring that domestic laws are put in place. One of the things that DfID is working on is trying to make sure that, in the countries in which it is working, the judicial systems and the police take this seriously and act upon information that comes to them.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, what are the Government doing to ensure that the World Bank will work with UN Women as it translates the 2012 development report into meaningful action for women and girls? Can the noble Baroness assure me that in our emphasis on schooling for girls in developing countries we do not place emphasis only on the provision of schools but on qualified teachers? In many countries that is where the problem is: we help provide the buildings but do not ensure that the qualified teachers are there.

[Baroness Northover]

This report is extremely interesting in that it makes the economic case for gender equality, which is extremely important. It is therefore a very useful tool for UN Women in its overarching approach to what the UN is doing worldwide. I would expect that UN Women would find this to be a useful tool. It is not just a matter of justice, but of the economic significance of gender inequality in terms of development. The noble Baroness also asked about education. It is absolutely vital not just to get girls into school but to get them through school, and she is certainly right that ensuring the teaching is there is absolutely vital.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

My Lords, I commend the work of David Mitchell, the Secretary of State for International Development—

[Noble Lords]

Andrew.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

I am sorry, it is Andrew Mitchell—who I know well, of course! He will never forgive me for that—who is doing an excellent job as Secretary of State for International Development, particularly in following on the Labour Government’s initiative to increase expenditure year on year and rejecting the pleas from the right wing of the Conservative Party to reduce expenditure. Will the Minister give an absolute assurance that that policy will continue?

[Baroness Northover]

I will certainly pass on that message to David—or Andrew—Mitchell and say how much you congratulate him on his personal efforts. Indeed, I pay due credit to the previous Government. We remain extremely committed to international development and will be implementing the 0.7 per cent of GDP target by 2013. That is an absolute commitment.

Sure Start

Monday 17th October 2011 Lords Chamber

Question

14:44

Asked By

[Lord Dubs]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many Sure Start centres have been closed since the coalition came into power.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Hill of Oareford)]

My Lords, local authorities are facing challenging financial circumstances, but we believe that they understand the crucial importance of children’s centres for early intervention. Good authorities are restructuring with care, and many are keeping all their children’s centres open. The Government have retained statutory duties requiring local authorities to provide sufficient children’s centres, and my department is monitoring the situation with local authorities.

[Lord Dubs]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that Sure Start centres have been an effective way of tackling child poverty and improving social mobility? Will the Minister agree that the Government have made repeated promises that Sure Start centres will not be cut, and that it is not acceptable to give such undertakings and then blame local authorities when those projects could easily have been ring-fenced by the Government? Was it not an act of dishonesty by the Government to cut Sure Start centres?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

First, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, about the important role that children’s centres can play in helping to tackle disadvantage and helping young children to get off to the best possible start. On his second point, we have put money into the early intervention grant to pay for a network of Sure Start children’s centres, but we have a difference of opinion with the party opposite about whether those services are best delivered by local authorities with flexibility about how to spend the money—which is what I think local authorities are keen to have—or whether it is delivered through a ring fence. We took the view that we put the money in and then give local authorities the discretion to make the decisions themselves.

[Lord Laming]

With that in mind, what steps can the Government take to make sure that the benefits of the remaining Sure Start schemes are directed toward the children and families who are most in need of that kind of help?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

My Lords, one of the initiatives that my honourable friend Sarah Teather is taking forward, which addresses the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Laming, is a series of trials, with payments based more on results, that will look specifically at the kinds of points that the noble Lord raises, particularly at how services are delivered to help families suffering from the greatest disadvantage. We will, however, try to get the focus to shift to the outcomes and the results from those services rather than simply the buildings themselves.

[Baroness Walmsley]

My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that last week, the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Sure Start had a seminar on Sure Start at which we heard from four different local authorities? We found that Haringey made very severe cuts and closures, whereas Cambridgeshire, Nottinghamshire and Manchester did not make any. Why does he think different local authorities are taking such different approaches, when they are all affected by the same economic constraints?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

My noble friend makes an extremely good point. Local authorities are taking different priorities in different parts of the country, and that reflects, in some local authority areas of the sort to which I know my noble friend refers, the weight and significance that they put on the provision of Sure Start children’s centres. All local authorities—and I accept that this applies to everyone—are having to face difficult financial decisions caused by the need for the Government to make savings, caused by the financial situation that we inherited.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

Noble Lords opposite can groan, but I fear that it is a consequence. I have been asked questions about the funding of Sure Start children’s centres. We have put the money into the EIG, and we have managed to find more resources to extend the offer to disadvantaged two year-olds and to increase the offer we have made for three and four year-olds. There is also the pupil premium. Those are priorities that the Government are putting money into, but we cannot wish away the economic situation that we inherited.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

How many have closed? That is all we need to know.

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

I do not have that specific answer to hand. Perhaps the noble Baroness will be able to help me, because I know the party opposite has done some work on that. I think the number amounts to 1.5 per cent of all Sure Start children’s centres.

[Baroness Hughes of Stretford]

My Lords, dozens of Sure Start children’s centres have already closed and many more will do so. Equally importantly, services are really being cut back in the remaining centres. The noble Lord neglected to say that the early intervention grant has been reduced by 22 per cent in real terms. Yet, for a tiny fraction of the cost of the health reorganisation, the Government could have protected children’s centres. Does this not reflect the fact that the Government are out of touch, particularly with women’s concerns, and why so many women now think that the Government are going in the wrong direction?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

I do not accept in any respect the point that the noble Baroness makes. From our debates during the passage of the Education Bill—I will not bore the House by repeating them—she will know about the money and funding that the Government have put into a whole range of priorities, including addressing the children in greatest disadvantage and seeking to help mothers and families who are struggling with those problems, as well as a whole series of initiatives and trials. We will continue with those. But to come back to the point made by my noble friend Lady Walmsley, there is a difference in the way certain local authorities have prioritised their spending, which we have to accept.

[The Lord Bishop of Leicester]

My Lords, in the light of the recent riots and mounting evidence that the first three years are crucial to personal development, do the Government have any concerns about any possible correlation between social unrest and the closures that we have been discussing?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

I hope I have made clear in all my answers, particularly to the question asked by the right reverend Prelate, that the Government accept entirely the importance of the services delivered through Sure Start children’s centres. One whole focus of the Government’s work is to seek to increase funding into greater concentration on the early years. That is continuing despite the difficult financial situation that we face. I agree that the more one can do with young children to help them become ready for school and to achieve and to learn, the better they are likely to do later and the less chance there is of them going off the rails when they are older.

[The Earl of Listowel]

My Lords, there is a huge cost to society from failing to intervene early, particularly a huge public health cost, given that mental disorders mostly begin in childhood. For example, if smokers had had an intervention in childhood and their relationship with their parents had been strengthened, perhaps 40 per cent of them would not be smoking now. It would probably be the same for alcohol and drugs. Failing to intervene is hugely costly. Will the Minister ensure that the Department of Health carries a proper rate in support of this early intervention and will provide funding to Sure Start children’s centres? Further, will it provide adult mental health services to parents in Sure Start children’s centres and that there is full recognition of this? Will the Minister also discuss with his colleagues how children and families can be prioritised in the Health and Social Care Bill so that these often overlooked groups get the early support that they need?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

My Lords, I agree very much with the noble Earl about the importance of early intervention, which is the theme of a whole range of measures that the Government are taking across departments. We work closely with the Department of Health. We worked with it on the statement on foundation years, which was published in July, and will continue to do that, bearing the noble Earl’s points in mind.

EU: Food Labelling

Monday 17th October 2011 Lords Chamber

Question

14:53

Asked By

[Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they are supporting the new food nutritional labelling regulations approved by the European Parliament on 6 July; and, if so, why.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)]

My Lords, we welcome the new regulation. The UK has led the way in Europe in improving nutritional information for consumers. Access to nutritional information supports consumers in choosing a balanced diet and can help in controlling calorie intake. The regulation meets our main negotiating objectives and will give the UK freedom to maintain and build on existing practice.

[Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes]

My Lords, I am a little astonished by that response. Is my noble friend aware that I have campaigned for many years in your Lordships’ House for clear, uniform food labelling on pre-packaged goods for easy comparison? The FSA produced such labelling, which I understand was approved by all five Select Committees but was rejected by the EU, which has now produced something futile, pathetic and unenforceable, to put it mildly. Does my noble friend agree that it is time for the proverbial worm to turn and to tell the EU that we do not want its version—we prefer our own?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I am not sure that I would accept the epithets that my noble friend has applied to this regulation. We have led the way in these negotiations. It is true that it has taken some time but we have come away with most, if not all, of our key objectives met. Nutritional information will now be displayed in a consistent manner on the back of all pre-packed foods, which is a major plus. A voluntary approach has been secured for front-of-pack nutrition labelling and for non-pre-packed foods, including those sold by caterers. It will also be made easier for alcohol companies to include energy information on their products on a voluntary basis. This will give people the information they need to make informed choices about what they eat and drink, which is the whole idea.

[Baroness Howarth of Breckland]

My Lords, is that truly the view of the Foods Standards Agency? I understand that we have different policies being developed in England, Scotland and Wales, but without differences being truly ironed out. I also understand that we have three departments—Defra, the Foods Standards Agency and the Department of Health—working at this in England alone. Does the noble Earl not think that there is room for confusion and a lack of cohesion when we do not have better co-operation?

[Earl Howe]

I take the noble Baroness’s point. Obviously, the Government would like to see greater consistency in front-of-pack labelling. We know that, if we can achieve it, that is likely to increase consumer understanding and indeed the way that consumers use the information. Now that the regulation is finalised, we have the opportunity to discuss with all stakeholders the way to achieve that. It is advantageous that there is the flexibility available for us to do that.

[Baroness Parminter]

My Lords, this country has one of the highest rates of obesity in Europe. France is taxing sugary carbonated drinks and Denmark is taxing fatty foods. Regulation is one thing, but can the Minister confirm that the Government are looking seriously at the potential of such fiscal measures to address this ballooning health problem?

[Earl Howe]

As I hope my noble friend will allow, that is a little bit wide of the Question. I do not have an answer for her in my brief, but I will write to her.

[Baroness Thornton]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, on her Question but I have to say that I think her target should not be the EU but actually her own Government. If you put “food labelling” into a search engine, you will get hundreds of different versions of how food can be labelled. It feels like we are going backwards because of the flexibility that the Government have sought through the EU regulations. What part have the Government’s relationships with the corporate sector played in this matter, and, indeed, if food labelling is going to become more confusing, will that not count against the drive to have good and well balanced diets?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, as the noble Baroness will know, there are various points of view from various sectors of industry about what constitutes the best and most helpful form of food labelling. As a matter of fact, that has lain at the heart of the difficulty in reaching agreement in Europe, because there are so many divergent views around this. It is quite true that we do have very strongly held views—not least by the Food Standards Agency—about the value of traffic lights. We have equally strong views, held by certain sectors of industry, on the GDA model. As I said earlier in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, it would be desirable to have consistency, but we are not there yet. We will continue to work at that objective.

[Baroness O'Cathain]

My Lords, first, has any research been done on the proportion of the population that actually reads these labels; secondly, are people able to read them; thirdly, do they understand them if they do read them; and, fourthly, what about magnifying glasses?

[Earl Howe]

One advantageous feature of the regulation, my noble friend will be pleased to hear, is provision on the legibility and font size of labels, which I am sure we all welcome. In 2009, the Food Standards Agency commissioned some research to examine which front-of-pack labelling system performed best, and the main finding was that the strongest performing front-of-pack label is one which combines the use of the words “high”, “medium” and “low”, traffic light colours and the percentage of guideline daily amount, in addition to levels of nutrients. That was the same across all socioeconomic groups.

Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting

Monday 17th October 2011 Lords Chamber

Question

14:59

Asked By

[Baroness Jenkin of Kennington]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what they hope to see achieved at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Perth.

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)]

My Lords, we believe that the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Perth, Australia, could and should be a significant moment for the future of the Commonwealth. The modernisation of the Commonwealth, based on Heads of Government agreeing the Eminent Persons Group core recommendations, is our priority. A reinvigorated Commonwealth with increased trade and investment flows is good for all its members and can help uplift prosperity levels for all its 2 billion citizens.

[Baroness Jenkin of Kennington]

I thank my noble friend for that positive response and I am sure we all wish the Commonwealth Heads of Government a successful conference at the end of the month. My noble friend will be aware that the UK Government have led the way in the polio eradication programme and that earlier this year the Prime Minister announced a doubling of the funding for it, which will lead to an additional 45 million children being vaccinated over the next two years. Can my noble friend confirm that, while he is in Australia, polio eradication will be on the agenda and that he and his colleagues will encourage other Governments, notably the Australians, to be similarly generous in their approach?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I can confirm that that will be on the agenda and that the Australian Government, the hosts for this Heads of Government meeting, have taken a lead in proposing it. It will certainly gain discussion and, I hope, intensive development and improvement at the CHOGM.

[Lord Triesman]

My Lords, with 100 days to go, the noble Lord said that he thought it would be a vital meeting for the relaunch of the Commonwealth, and with 50 days to go, on 9 September, he said that it would be a “defining moment” for the Commonwealth with “bold and vital decisions”. Can the noble Lord be somewhat more specific today? What are the two most important decisions that could be taken and how confident is he that the preparatory work means that they will see the light of day?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I certainly could be a lot more specific if I had more time because an enormous number of important objectives will be pursued. Among them, as I have already indicated, we are keen that the upholding of the Commonwealth core values of human rights, good governance, the rule of law, democracy and parliamentary development should be pushed very hard indeed, and that new machinery may be needed in the Commonwealth to do that. I do not guarantee that all these things will be accepted exactly as they are proposed by the Eminent Persons Group or the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group, which is proposing similar ideas, but these matters will be pushed extremely hard and are a very high priority for Her Majesty’s Government.

[Lord Chidgey]

Does my noble friend agree with the Commonwealth Eminent Persons Group, which I understand shares the view that the current failings of the Commonwealth Secretariat are the result of long-term underinvestment over many years, and that one of the ways forward is to enable it, through better funding, to recruit more capable and perhaps well recognised staff to undertake the functions better? In that context, can my noble friend tell us whether the Government will endorse the report of the Eminent Persons Group and support the range of essential recommendations? He has already mentioned human rights, but there are many other important issues, particularly the publishing of the group’s report.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

My noble friend is right. There are 106 recommendations in the EPG report and many more in the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group report. There are funding implications for the Secretariat and for the machinery of the Commonwealth, and we are looking at those very carefully. We will have to evaluate them and decide what we can do, given the inevitable limits of resources. One also has to remember that a large part of the Commonwealth is both bilateral between Commonwealth countries and, even more important, separate from government. The unique nature of the Commonwealth is its huge latticework of professional, business, scientific, medical and judicial relationships that exist in no other multinational organisation. Those, too, will need to be developed and encouraged.

[Lord Hylton]

My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that bilateral relations between India and Pakistan have been frozen into almost Cold War attitudes ever since those nations came into being? Would the Perth meeting not be a very good opportunity for getting them to thaw out a little?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

One naturally hopes and, indeed, urges that the Commonwealth can provide an envelope in which to resolve tensions of that kind between countries which, although fellow members of the Commonwealth, may have very different agendas—indeed, even hostility to each other—but that issue is obviously between the two countries concerned. Their highest representatives will be at Perth; I hope that they can get together at that and other opportunities to resolve the problems that face those two great nations.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

My Lords, the Perth CHOGM may be make or break for the Commonwealth, which is currently marking time. Two key tests are the strengthening of the Secretariat—are the Government prepared to fund the Secretariat more generously?—and human rights. Will the proposed commissioner be independent of the Commonwealth Governments and not beholden to them as the European High Commissioner for Human Rights is to European Governments?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

Yes; these matters are yet to be decided, but the recommendation is that he or she should be independent. I do not agree with the noble Lord that this is make or break; there are huge forces at work which are creating demand for the kind of network which the Commonwealth produces today, both at governmental and non-governmental level, and that will go ahead regardless of what final decisions are taken between Governments. When we are dealing with a global network of this kind, Governments cannot always decide everything by their own writ, so the great forces at work mean that the Commonwealth is a very necessary network for the 21st century. I would even go as far as to say that if it did not exist it would have to be invented. I have already acknowledged that there are funding implications; we will look at these carefully. Not everything is solved by more and more secretariats and central organisation, as we well know from our European Union experience, but funds will certainly be needed to make this whole programme go forward successfully.

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes]

Will the Minister accept from me first-hand, as I have just come back from Australia, that it is very much looking forward to the meeting, largely because its people all love the Queen very much, and her role as Head of the Commonwealth is particularly important? I did not meet anyone who was so excited about the Minister’s own visit.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

My noble friend is absolutely right that the position of Her Majesty at the Head of the Commonwealth is an immensely valuable binding force and, in the dark days of the past when the Commonwealth was grossly undervalued and its potential ignored, it was Her Majesty who kept the lights burning for the Commonwealth. Of course, Australia sees this as a huge opportunity to assert its rising role in the world and its key position in the Indian and Pacific Oceans, which are becoming the centres of great consumer markets of the future and the centres of our future prosperity.

Joint Committee on Human Rights

Monday 17th October 2011 Lords Chamber

Membership Motion

15:08

Moved By

[The Chairman of Committees]

That Baroness Berridge be appointed a member of the Joint Committee in place of Baroness Stowell of Beeston, resigned.

Motion agreed, and a message was sent to the Commons.

Health and Social Care Bill

Monday 17th October 2011 Lords Chamber

Order of Consideration Motion

15:08

Moved By

[Earl Howe]

That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to which the Health and Social Care Bill has been committed that they consider the bill in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 6, Schedule 1, Clauses 7 to 22, Schedule 2, Clauses 23 to 48, Schedule 3, Clauses 49 to 52, Schedules 4 to 6, Clause 53, Schedule 7, Clauses 54 to 58, Schedule 8, Clauses 59 to 73, Schedule 9, Clauses 74 to 99, Schedule 10 , Clauses 100 to 105, Schedule 11, Clauses 106 to 118, Schedule 12, Clauses 119 to 147, Schedule 13, Clauses 148 to 176, Schedule 14, Clauses 177 to 179, Schedule 15, Clauses 180 to 228, Schedule 16, Clause 229, Schedule 17, Clauses 230 to 246, Schedule 18, Clauses 247 to 249, Schedule 19, Clauses 250 to 271, Schedule 20, Clauses 272 to 274, Schedule 21, Clauses 275 to 291, Schedule 22, Clauses 292 to 294, Schedules 23 and 24, Clauses 295 to 303.

Motion agreed.

Education Bill

Monday 17th October 2011 Lords Chamber

Order of Consideration Motion

15:09

Moved By

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 4, Schedule 1, Clauses 5 to 11, Schedule 2, Clause 12, Schedule 3, Clause 13, Schedule 4, Clauses 14 to 16, Schedule 5, Clause 17, Schedule 6, Clauses 18 to 21, Schedule 7, Clauses 22 to 24, Schedule 8, Clause 25, Schedule 9, Clauses 26 to 34, Schedule 10, Clauses 35 and 36, Schedule 11, Clauses 37 to 48, Schedule 12, Clauses 49 to 53, Schedule 13, Clauses 54 to 61, Schedule 14, Clauses 62 and 63, Schedule 15, Clauses 64 and 65, Schedule 16, Clause 66, Schedule 17, Clause 67, Schedule 18, Clauses 68 to 79.

Motion agreed.

Localism Bill

Monday 17th October 2011 Lords Chamber

Report (7th Day)

15:09

Amendment 204EA

Moved by

[Lord Best]

204EA: After Clause 100, insert the following new Clause—
“Revision of local development documents
In section 26 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (revision of local development documents), after subsection (7) insert—“(8) Within an interim period after the occurrence of a relevant event, the authority must review every local development document in the light of that event.
(9) If the authority finds that any modifications of the document are required as a consequence of the review they must prepare a revised document containing those modifications.
(10) The following are relevant events—
(a) issuing any consolidated guidance to which a local planning authority must have regard under section 19(2);(b) the coming into effect of the abolition of regional strategies under section 97 of the Localism Act 2011.(11) During this interim period, local development documents adopted under section 23 shall be regarded by the Secretary of State as being in general conformity with consolidated guidance as referred to in section 26(10)(a).
(12) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision in connection with the exercise by any person of functions under this section.
(13) Regulations made under subsection (11) may, in particular, make provision as to an expedited procedure including—
(a) requirements for giving appropriate notice and publicity to any document made under this section;(b) requirements for the appropriate inspection by the public of any document made under this section;(c) the nature and extent of appropriate consultation with and participation by the public in any document made under this section;(d) the making of appropriate representations about any document made under this section;(e) the appropriate procedures to be adopted for the consideration of any such representations.(14) Regulations made under subsection (11) may, in particular, make provision as to—
(a) the determination of when the interim period in this section may cease, at least three years after the coming into force of this section;(b) the completion of any local development plan documents not adopted under section 23 within the interim period.””

[Lord Best]

My Lords, we are on the planning parts of the Localism Bill and my amendment addresses the transitional period between the old system and the new. The old planning system had regions, regional spatial strategies and many planning policy statements; the new arrangements have no regions, no regional spatial strategies and, instead of planning policy statements, one national planning policy framework, with its special ingredient of a presumption in favour of development. We have discussed this a great deal over recent days. There was a wonderful speech from the noble Lord, Lord Deben, in the previous session on the Localism Bill, in the debate led by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, who also made a wonderful speech. My position on that issue is on the side of the Government and not on the side of the National Trust and the CPRE. However, we are not going into that today but will look at the transitional period between the old planning system and the new.

In Committee, I brought forward an amendment to deal with those aspects of the local development frameworks used by local authorities that made reference to regional spatial strategies that are no more. The problem I was addressing with that amendment was that, without the regional spatial strategy to which the local development frameworks referred, the validity of the whole local development framework was called into question. My amendment sought to allow local authorities, even though there was no continuing regional spatial strategy, to continue to operate as if there had been in respect of those pieces of the regional spatial strategy that they had transmitted into their own local development framework.

For example, Woking Council had important policy decisions in its framework that related to sustainability in Woking. However, it did not put them into its own local development framework but referred to the south-east of England plan which covered those points for it. Under the new regime there is no longer a south-east plan, and Woking Council’s own local plan becomes invalid. At that stage in Committee we found ourselves with a need for my amendment because of the gap between the old system and the new, which it was suggested we could remedy by allowing a continuation of the reference to the regional spatial strategy. That amendment received short shrift from the Government at the time and I felt that it had not been fully appreciated when we discussed it. I was going to bring it back last week but it was bounced by an earlier government amendment which, by pre-emption, meant that mine could not be taken.

However, I have now brought forward Amendment 204EA, which looks at the question of the interregnum between the old system and the new system which includes the presumption of development provided projects accord with the necessary sustainability requirements. It has been said that all the existing local development framework plans and all the existing plans in the pipeline will become invalid and have to go back to square one—that they will all require evidence to be heard in public, extensive consultation, the use of an inspector and about a year’s delay before anything can happen, unless we can have in that interregnum a fast-track, speeded-up process to expedite the approval of local development frameworks and local plans.

There is widespread anxiety that if we do not fill this gap there will be a free-for-all, with planners able to lean on the fact that there is a presumption in favour of development and to come out with all kinds of unsuitable developments. I am not saying whether or not I believe that to be true, but there is a widely held view that there will be great difficulty if councils do not have time to settle into the new system and there are not arrangements in place. The procedures for that are set out in my amendment to carry us forward from the old to the new.

15:15

When we did this last time, with the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, there were three years in which local authorities were enabled to catch up and move to a new system. I have heard, for example, from the 74 councils in the south-east of England, which come together in the South East England Councils group. It states:

“It will take time for all local authorities, even those with Core Strategies in place, to get Local Plans updated/adopted in light of the new [national planning policy framework]—allowance for this should be included in the NPPF and the Localism Bill to avoid opportunistic and unplanned development coming forward during the transition period against local wishes, and to ensure development reflects locally-determined priorities rather than national ones”.

The Royal Town Planning Institute, which has prepared this amendment, wants to make clear that these amendments are not designed in any way to reinstate the contents of a regional spatial strategy; they are designed to strengthen the operation of the planning system during an inevitable period of uncertainty following the major reforms that there are. I know that the Local Government Association—I have declared my interest as its president—is very keen to work with government on this. The LGA makes the point that there has clearly been severe disquiet expressed by environmental lobbies, and the media, that the Government’s reforms could lead to unfettered “sustainable” development in places where local plans are not in place. To assuage these fears, government must listen to local authorities and local government, and ensure that the appropriate transition arrangements are in place. The LGA pledges itself to help in that process.

I am not at all convinced that my amendment contains the perfect way of doing this, but I am convinced that we need transitional arrangements to see us through from the old to the new. I beg to move.

[Lord Greaves]

I have the other amendment in this group, Amendment 204F, which has a very similar purpose. I very much support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Best, and what he said in his speech. In our view this is one of the important remaining issues in the planning parts of the Bill. The two amendments are about the pragmatic position of the local planning authorities. Some are faced with old plans under the pre-2004 legislation; some with emerging new plans—local development frameworks—under the 2004 Act; and some with adopted core strategies—new plans—under that Act. All of those are now up in the air as a result of the Government’s wish to do away with a great deal of the previous planning guidance and instructions which local authorities had in regional strategies and in the planning policy statements. Instead those will be replaced by a much shorter document, the national planning policy framework, but that is going to take some time to approve.

The Government originally said that local authorities would have six months in which to adapt their local plans, whatever state they were in, to the new guidance. Frankly, they have not thought through the practical problems that this would have caused. They are now doing so, and that is extremely welcome. I am taking a lot of advice from planning authorities, from the planning world and, indeed, from Members of this House. We understand that it is now their intention to include clear guidance on how to adapt their local plans, and pursue their new local plans, in line with the NPPF. My first question is to ask the Minister if she will confirm that that is the route they are taking. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Best, would put a great deal of the detail of how this is to happen on the face of the Bill, and this would be our first choice. Transitional provisions have appeared in quite some detail in previous planning legislation. In our view this would be the best place for it, but for various practical and other reasons, the Government do not want to do that.

My amendment would put a duty on the Secretary of State to issue regulations which would set out the transitional arrangements. It states:

“The Secretary of State may by regulations specify transitional arrangements concerning the timetable and procedures involved in the introduction of changes to local development schemes and the preparation and adoption of local development documents”.

Regulations are stronger than guidance so we would prefer to have it in regulations rather than simply in guidance. Wherever it is, it needs to be clear and well understood. It needs to give local planning authorities the necessary flexibility and time to get it right.

There have been fears that local planning authorities will be left with no defences against any kind of inappropriate development as a result of some of the wording in the draft national planning policy framework, particularly the suggestion that in the absence of a plan the default position on planning applications would be to approve. The noble Lord, Lord Best, said that that might be opportunistic and unplanned development. My description of it might be a bit cruder than that but I am happy to align myself with his more elegant wording there.

The timetable from transition is crucial. Six months is clearly ludicrous. We have heard rumours of 18 months but in practice it needs to be a lot more than that. The noble Lord suggested three years. We would perhaps go along with that. We clearly do not want it to be seven years or more, which is the position now following the 2004 Act, where half or more of the authorities have still not got their new local plans in place. My second question is about the timescale.

Thirdly, do the Government believe that the inspectorate will be able to deal in a practical way with the huge congestion that there will be in all this work of getting the local plans in line with the new planning guidance? How much work will be needed locally and at the inspectorate simply to get a certificate of conformity for approved core strategies? In determining planning applications during the transitional period, what reliance will local planning authorities be able to put in the mean time on approved core strategies under the 2004 Act which have not yet been certificated as compliant with the new NPPF? What reliance can they put on old, pre-2004 local plans which are still being used by many authorities as the basis for planning? As material considerations in planning application decisions, what reliance can be put on emerging core strategies which are perhaps near inspection but not there yet? What will be the relationship between these existing local plans and the emerging NPPF? Finally, what will be the relationship between the adopted NPPF and all these various kinds of uncertificated local plans?

This is absolutely crucial if there is not to be a free-for-all but a smooth transition from the existing, old system to the new one. This is not in any way trying to undermine the new system but rather to make sense of converting from one system to another, which will take a number of years.

[Baroness Whitaker]

My Lords, I would like to add my support to Amendment 204EA—supported also by the RTPI, which I think is very significant—and particularly subsection (14) of the new clause, which specifies the three-year minimum for transition. I completely understand why the Government have eliminated the regional tier but there remain instances where regional decisions are particularly valuable—I would say irreplaceable—such as matters to do with housing shortages, the issue of Gypsy and Traveller sites, which we discussed at the last Committee meeting, and the lack of planning expertise at a local level which could result in really unattractive developments. If we are not to go backward in all of these areas we need a transitional period as the amendment specifies for local authorities to work out how to co-operate where it is really essential.

[Lord Avebury]

My Lords, I would like to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, in what she said, and to point out that in the case of Gypsies and Travellers we have an additional difficulty in that the NPPF and the equivalent document on planning for Gypsy and Traveller sites are mutually incompatible. The Government say that these difficulties will be ironed out in a new version of the amalgamated documents which will be published at some time in the future. Meanwhile there is a policy vacuum which is being only partially filled by the Secretary of State’s dictum that all previous work on planning for Traveller sites has been torn up and local authorities are free to decide how many pitches for Gypsy and Traveller sites will be provided in their area, if any.

The result of this new-found freedom, according to research by the Irish Traveller Movement in Britain, is that roughly 50 per cent of the needs which emerged from the regional spatial strategies, the Gypsy and Traveller accommodation needs assessments, the public inquiries following those GTANAs and the redistribution between local authorities in the region—to accommodate the fact that some councils had done nothing whatever to meet the needs—have not been met. Perhaps I may just interpolate an aside here. In the new process the local authorities will only have to consider their local needs and will not have to co-operate with neighbouring authorities; and if authorities have steadfastly avoided making provision for Gypsies and Travellers in the past they will be able to demonstrate zero need because there are no Gypsies and Travellers in their particular area.

I see no way in which under the proposed system—and subject to what we do not know yet about the guidance that will be issued by the CLG—there will be any mechanism for adjusting that. I would like to know from my noble friend where we have got to in this process. Are we still in the position where every local authority will make up its mind irrespective of what any of the neighbours are doing? Will there be no contribution to the provision of sites for Gypsies and Travellers where a local authority can demonstrate that it has not had a need in the past because it has been successful in excluding Gypsies and Travellers from its area?

We in the Liberal Democratic Party made a reservation to the abolition of regionalism in our manifesto. We said that the numbers emerging from the regional spatial strategies with regard to Gypsies and Travellers should be preserved and should be the basis on which planning for Gypsies and Travellers would be effected under the new system. If we had done that we would have avoided the process that is currently being undergone all over the country as local authorities start again from scratch to consider their local needs and come up with figures which, as I say, are only 50 per cent of what had been provided where the regional process had been completed, as for example in the east of England. This will result in a severe shortage of sites in the whole country and there will be a proliferation of unauthorised sites, which is the chief source of friction between Gypsies and Travellers and the settled population. I do not know whether that is intentional but it will be the result of following the Government’s present policies.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords, I support the thrust of the amendments tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Greaves. It is not just helpful but necessary to have a transition period in recognition of the fact that not only do very significant numbers—nearly half of local planning authorities—not have local development frameworks, but, because of the abolition of the regional spatial strategies and possibly other factors, even those local planning authorities that do have local plans will find that the local plans that they have had hitherto are now out of date.

We need a transition period probably of three years, certainly not less than two, to provide time for proper consultation to take place. That is extremely important to win back the confidence of the public because it has been shaken on the basis of considerable amounts of misinformation having been provided. If the public had the opportunity to read the draft national planning policy framework, they would gain a lot of reassurance. The fact of the matter is that many people are disturbed and worried about what the new planning regime portends, so consultation will be particularly important. I would not want to see a truncated process of consultation in the interests of hurrying the process along unduly.

Time will also be needed to assist the process of co-operation between local planning authorities that will no longer be brought together under the umbrella of a regional development agency to facilitate that co-operation. We know that there are tensions—indeed, conflicts of interest—and interests that are very difficult to reconcile between different local planning authorities, so time must be allowed for that process to run its course. The inspectorate will need time, which is why I think three years rather than two years would probably be appropriate, as the noble Lord, Lord Tope, suggested in the debate last Thursday.

Will the Minister take this opportunity not only to say what the Government’s view is about a transition period but what supplementary guidance they may be minded to offer? While the Government are entirely entitled to revisit the planning policy statements, those statements are of pretty recent origin and represent a huge amount of work that has been put in by all the relevant expert interests. It would be a shame to discard them altogether. I wonder whether the Government are minded to look at a way in which planning policy statements, appropriately modified and updated to reflect the Government’s current policies, could none the less be made part of the system again so that we do not waste all that good will, expertise and very useful practical guidance that went into the development of those statements.

If the Government allow a three-year transition period, they will not abort the development that is so badly needed if we are again to have growth in this country because, unfortunately, the lack of confidence and available finance mean that there is not a lot of development in the pipeline. Even where the necessary confidence and funding exist, there are large numbers of extant planning permissions, so I do not think that a transition period would in any way obstruct the sustainable development that we all want to see in the interests of creating more jobs and homes and ensuring that our economy is modernised and made more powerful and effective. If the noble Baroness is able to indicate the Government’s thinking in this regard, more particularly whether their thinking is positive, it would be hugely welcome.

[Baroness Andrews]

My Lords, I spoke briefly on the topic in Committee and I was very glad that it reappeared on the Marshalled List, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best, as I thought that pre-emption might possibly mean that we would not have the opportunity to discuss what is a really important element of the Bill. I commend both the amendments. The questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, were absolutely pertinent, and I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to answer them in some detail. They go to the heart of what local authorities are trying to do at the moment.

The only thing that I want to say is that we should reflect on what is happening on the ground. These may sound like extremely technical issues, but in fact local authorities, a few of which I have seen in the past week, are wrestling with all manner of different states of maturity in relation to their planning policies: some have completed LDFs, but they do not know what will constitute an up-to-date LDF because of the need to accommodate with the national planning policy framework; some have not completed their LDFs but are quite close to doing so, but they are finding, for example, that their original planning assumptions on housing are being challenged by local people and local developers. Developers are challenging some of the decisions based on the premises that preceded this situation. There is genuine confusion on the ground and a real problem with uncertainty. We all know that the most crucial elements in delivering a proper planning system are certainty and clarity.

The noble Lord was right to raise the issue of planning guidance. When we reflect back on PPS5, one of the reasons why it was such a successful planning statement was that it had a great deal of clear and useful planning guidance, so there is a precedent.

On the transitional period, I know that the Government must have at the back of their minds the fact that almost half of local authorities have not yet completed their LDF in the time available. It was a very difficult challenge that the previous Government imposed on local authorities to take on board for the first time the notion of spatial planning. Too many demands were made on the nature of the conceptualisation and on the nature of the documents, so we cannot easily extrapolate from the time that that took to the time it will take to accommodate the transitional changes. I would ask for a transitional period, but possibly not for as long as two years. I know that clarity and speed are really important and that people need to get on with it and remove the uncertainties.

Finally, we need to bear in mind the fact that all this is happening at a time when local authorities are losing planning staff, conservation staff and some of their most important expertise while being faced with a bank of rolling fog around how to go forward. Anything that the noble Baroness can say to reassure local authorities, and not least noble Lords, will be extremely welcome if it deals with some of these difficult issues on the absence of transitional arrangements.

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords, I associate myself with the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, who talked about clarity and speed. I think that both the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Greaves, have performed a service by tabling these amendments. They are a prescription not for foot-dragging but for orderly progress, and it is essential to have that. Clarity, yes; speed, up to a point; but orderly progress is absolutely essential. There has to be a transitional period. I am sure that my noble friend the Minister will accept that. Whether or not she accepts the amendments, it is incumbent on the Government to explain to us that there will be proper transition and that we are not plunged from one situation into another. The fact that so many authorities do not have plans gives us all cause for concern. There has to be proper time to put those plans together.

The noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, was right to indicate that this is not the easiest of times for local authorities. Many have laid off staff and have not replaced conservation officers and people who did a vital job. In my local authority of South Staffordshire, which had an admirable record on these matters, the absolutely first-class conservation officer took early retirement in the early part of last year and has not been replaced. The local authority is trying to replace the work that he did, but without him it is not easy. For every possible reason, therefore, I ask the Minister to let us have a period of orderly transition and progress, so that if we are trying to create a better situation, we do not confound our own efforts by over-haste. Once again, there is good sense in the motto that I have quoted in this House before: festina lente.

[Lord Lucas]

My Lords, in former times it was the custom of some generals after a victory to allow a limited period for rape and pillage before good order was restored. The thought has been raised in this House and outside that this is what the Government intend with this Bill. Along with my noble friend Lord Cormack, I find myself worried. I do not understand how this transition is to be managed: how we are to get from a position where there are not valid local plans in a large number of local authorities to the position where there are, without there being a succession of undesirable planning permissions given. The core of this Bill is to allow localities to determine what happens in their areas. It would be most unfortunate if we had a period where an awful lot of bad will was created by the exact opposite happening, just because some superior authority had failed to get the ducks in a row.

[The Earl of Lytton]

My Lords, I rise briefly first to declare an interest as a practising chartered surveyor and as someone who is involved with planning, although I am not a chartered town planner.

There seems to me to be three particular issues here. One of them, as has already been touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, is the corpus of knowledge that is currently involved in the planning system. If we uproot that, we will cause delay, doubt, risk and uncertainty. There are economic implications, so we must try to avoid that. We have seen some of the public pronouncements that are based on questions of doubt about what is intended here. A great deal of clarification is needed.

Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, referred to the effect on economic growth. Yes, planning is a huge driver of economic growth in so many ways. While I would not wish to suggest that it is the be-all and end-all of economic growth, it is clearly something that is tangible that the general public can relate to. We must not lose sight of the fact that it is going to be one of the significant factors, if for instance what we are told about the lack of completions on housing is true.

My last point is to do with neighbourhood plans. I must declare another interest here as the president of the National Association of Local Councils, whose member parish and town councils may be those very bodies that are having to draw up a neighbourhood plan. A neighbourhood plan has to be in conformity with the principal authority’s local plan, and if the principal authority’s local plan is not in place, or is in disarray or is out of date, then we have a problem. This has a knock-on effect. I ask the Minister to give the House some reassurance that there is going to be some sort of seamless transition that will take place. I do not wish to add to what has already been said about the timescale over which that is to be done; and there may be different timescales for different bits for all I know, but the transition does have to be, to some degree, seamless. With regard to my first point about the economics of doubt, it is very important that we get this right.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, like all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate today, we support the need for transitional provisions that have clarity as to their meaning as well as a reasonable timescale that reflects the capacity both of local planning authorities and of the inspectorate. Like the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, I believe that this is probably the most serious issue left unresolved from Part 5 of the Bill. We hope that we will get a clear message from the Minister today. We added our name to the original amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Best, which bit the dust by being pre-empted, and we support the thrust of the amendments of the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Greaves.

It is imperative that we avoid a lacuna, with the prospect of all or most local plans being absent, silent or indeterminate or having policies that are out of date under the current NPPF formulation. Under the presumption in favour of development, this would lead to an emphasis on approving development proposals unless the adverse impacts of development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the framework policies. I assert that 50-odd pages of framework cannot be an effective substitute for all the local plans and the thousands of pages of guidance that currently exist.

15:45

The risk was put to us by one planner in the following terms:

“I’m worried about this. I can see a very silly situation emerging, with the Planning Inspectorate massively overloaded as several hundred LAs seek to get their new plans approved in a short space of time, and the rest of us seek confirmation that our existing Core Strategies conform. Also, the Inspectorate will have to look at everyone’s CIL frameworks … the Inspectorate will be under operational pressure … and developers will be seeking to use the vacuum in policy (combined with the presumption in favour of sustainable development) to get consents which they can then ‘bank’, rather than actually develop. I’m afraid it’s the oldest trick in the book—get a consent when the market is low, arguing viability to reduce level of affordable housing/other S106, then simply waiting for an upturn in the market!”.

This is a very serious issue, so the Bill cannot be left as it is. The minimum that we want to hear from the Government is that they will support effective transitional provisions and, after discussion in which I hope we can all be involved, bring forward amendments at Third Reading. I say to noble Lords who tabled the amendments in this group that they should bring them back at Third Reading if the Government do not.

The Government's amendments to Clause 97 that were moved last week hold out the prospect that existing regional spatial strategies and saved structure plan policies will not be revoked until an environmental assessment of the revocation has been undertaken. Perhaps the Minister will explain the position in the interim. Regional spatial strategies and saved structure plan policies could mean that some local authorities will have a core strategy that is effectively complete in the light of those strategies, or intact subject only to the NPPF. Of course, we do not know when the NPPF will be finalised. Will the presumption operate only when that happens? If the presumption is to predate the demise of some or all of the regional spatial strategies, will the NPPF prevail nevertheless? If not, there will be parts of the country where regional spatial strategies will prevail and parts where they will not because they were never completed or because they have been separately revoked. Clearly, there must be a robust transition in place to cover this and myriad other points that noble Lords have raised in the debate. We support the amendments in this group.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham)]

My Lords, I am very grateful that this matter has been raised again and that the noble Lord, Lord Best, has not been done out of his speaking part. It seems that the central issue is the maintenance of up-to-date local plans. They are absolutely essential to set out communities’ aspirations for the development of their areas. We are clear that the early review of plans will be the way forward to help manage transitions and deal with local issues arising from, ultimately, the revocation of regional strategies and the introduction of the national planning policy framework.

All of this has been about transitional arrangements. First, these need to be thought through very carefully. Secondly, my honourable friend at the other end has committed us to having transitional arrangements in policy and, where necessary, in guidance. Therefore, consideration to this is already being given. However, I am bound to say that this point has also been raised in the consultation on the NPPF, so the request of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, that we should come back at Third Reading may not be one on which I can deliver, because consideration may not have been given to what the full-blown transitional arrangements are going to be.

It has been said that not all local authorities have local development plans. In fact 46 per cent do not and they have had more than eight years to produce them. The worry is that if you time limit a transitional period in some way you are back exactly where we started before, that people do not pay the slightest attention. They think that they have got a long time to do it and they do not actually do it. It is absolutely essential that we put pressure on local authorities to get their local development plans completed and to get them up to date.

It may be helpful if I take this opportunity to clarify that the status of local plans will not change when the final national planning policy framework comes into force. Local plans will always be part of the statutory development plan and that is the first port of call for all decisions. As now, decision-makers are able to give weight to emerging plans in planning decisions and that weight will depend on how far these plans have progressed. Therefore, they are capable of being used to help planning decisions wherever they stand at the moment. Nor do our proposals change the situation for authorities who do not have a plan. Such authorities, because they do not have a plan, already have to have regard to all material considerations in their decisions. That will often include national policy. Areas without a local plan are lacking strategic community oversight, and the introduction of the national planning policy framework does not change this position.

As I have said, it is of course open to local councils to decide when they should update their local plans. It is in fact entirely a matter for them, but they are going to be under some pressure if they want to ensure that they have conformity with the national planning policy framework and that they are able to progress their plans in the most up-to-date way.

Transition is going to be helped by councils drawing on evidence that informed the preparation of regional strategies. We understand that that will need to go across. They will need to do that to support their local planning policies, supplemented as needed by up-to-date local evidence. If there are issues that councils regard as being an essential part of the development plan for the purpose of determining planning applications they must undertake an early review and work with local communities as they would be expected to do anyway.

With regard to the national planning policy framework, consultation ended yesterday and, as we said in our debate last week, this has now got to come under consideration. We have listened to the views of local government and we have said that we will put in place transitional arrangements that advantage plan making to reflect the fact that the national planning policy framework is all about putting local communities in control of planning. But the framework is policy, not legislation, as I discussed at some length on Thursday. Any transitional measures will be more appropriately delivered through policy or guidance rather than legislation. I suggested that we may not be able to come back with this at Third Reading, though it is a matter that I will take away. It looks very much as if we will be able to issue guidance within a timescale which we may be able to save.

The draft national planning policy framework offers councils the opportunity to seek a certificate of conformity with national policy, which will help them identify which of their existing local policies are consistent with the national planning policy framework. We actually expect that many elements of local plans will already conform with the direction of that because the policy framework in fact reflects all the guidance and planning policy statements.

I was asked a number of questions and I think that I have answered some of them on the way. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, asked whether there will be regulations and guidance. There will be guidance through the NPPF, but we will need to find out when that will happen.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

Will the Minister say a word or two more specifically about the status of the planning policy statements during this transition period and perhaps beyond? She will recall that in the debate last Thursday, the noble Lord, Lord Hart of Chilton, an experienced member of the planning bar, made the point, as did other noble Lords, including me, that the higher the level of generalisation in the national planning policy framework short document, the greater the risk of litigation. He thought that where there was litigation, the courts would take into account the planning policy statements, even if the Government have removed their formal status as policy documents, in default of other clear guidance. Therefore, de facto, the planning policy statements are going to have a status. They are still going to be a force on this scene. Would it not therefore be preferable for the Government to recognise that and embrace them in some appropriate form, given that the high level and major planning policy document will be the national planning policy framework?

[Baroness Hanham]

They are already going to be able to take into account the emerging NPPF as a policy statement. I should like to go back to the question of whether the PPS and PPG are going form part of it. I suspect that this is all part of the consultation about how much background is going to be needed and how those planning policy statements are going to be included. I will come back to that by Third Reading because I do not have the direct answer at present.

The noble Lords, Lord Greaves and Lord Best, asked about the timescale. I have already said that I do not think we will be putting in a firm timescale. We expect the changes to take place as soon as possible, and we hope that local councils will get a move on with them. I think I said that the transition is going to be helped by drawing on evidence that informed the preparation of the regional strategy, and part of that will be the PPS and PPG. The NPPF will supersede the PPS and PPG, but they stay in place unless and until the Government revoke them.

The noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked me about Gypsies. As both of them will know, the draft PPS on that has just been issued for consultation, but local authorities are already required to provide Gypsy sites and, under the duty to co-operate, they are required to work across boundaries to ensure that they have sufficient provision for them.

[Lord Avebury]

Is the noble Baroness aware that, according to the research conducted by the Irish Traveller Movement in Britain, the revised plans of local authorities following their liberation from the previous regional planning process are to provide 50 per cent of the number of pitches that had been calculated as necessary under the regional planning system? Does she intend to make any comment on that? Will she answer my question about how the Government are dealing with the mismatch which I pointed out between the NPPF and the separate document on planning for Traveller sites? Will that be accommodated by the publication of one single document that will incorporate the NPPF and the Traveller sites, or will there be a revision of the document on Traveller sites that will be compatible with the revised NPPF?

16:00

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, I will have to write to the noble Lord on that. I do not know whether these are going to be consolidated. I do know, and have said before, that there is a requirement on local authorities to provide sites and for them to work co-operatively with other local authorities to see that they have sufficient sites for their needs. The noble Lord says there will be 50 per cent less. I will need to come back on that.

I hope that I have more or less dealt with all the questions I have been asked. I sense that I will not totally satisfy noble Lords on the transitional period. I hope there will be an acceptance that a laid-down transitional period has not proved very helpful in the past, and it may not be helpful in the future, but that we are committed to guidance of some sort.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

Before the noble Baroness sits down, I may have missed it and she may have covered it, but we could now have a situation where a local planning authority has a core strategy in place consistent with the existing regional spatial strategy, and that regional spatial strategy, for a period, is not going to be revoked because of the environmental assessment. If in the interim the NPPF is introduced with its presumption in favour of sustainable development, those two will not be identical. Which is going to prevail in the interim in those circumstances?

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, while the regional strategies are there and before they have been revoked, the plan will have to have regard to them. They will also have to have regard to the emerging NPPF in determining a planning application. Unless they conflict wildly, that should work very well. There is going to be a short period only before the regional strategies are revoked. I do not think there will be any inconsistency. Local authorities are going to want to keep only part of the regional strategies in their local development plan and they ought to be able to work in conjunction with the NPPF for the short space of time, if that is necessary.

With the explanations I have given, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Best, will feel able to withdraw his amendment. I am afraid I said that the NPPF consultation ended yesterday; in the interests of accuracy, it ends today.

[Lord Greaves]

Before my noble friend the Minister sits down, would she consider the possibility that not giving any indication at all to local planning authorities of the time they have got to get themselves sorted out—I completely share her view that they need to get on with the job—might prolong the process rather than speed it up? In that context, I do not think she answered the question of what the Government are going to do to assist the Planning Inspectorate to cope with what everybody thinks is going to be a very substantial increase in its workload in the short run.

[Baroness Hanham]

Discussions are going on with the Planning Inspectorate at the moment to see what is required to make the examination process quicker. Under the new way of working, local authorities will be able to have single areas examined one at a time instead of the whole policy having to be dealt with. It is well understood that the Planning Inspectorate will be put under pressure and we hope and expect that that will be able to be worked around.

I have said all that I can say about a transitional period. The transitional arrangements will come about as a result of the consultation on the NPPF. The noble Lord thinks that a set period might be a good idea. However, as I said, with the experience of the previous set period, which does not seem to have put any pressure on local authorities, we would need to consider very carefully whether there is any value in having that.

[Lord Best]

My Lords, we have clearly come a long way since the Committee stage of the Bill and I am very grateful to Members of the House from all sides, who were extremely supportive of these measures to cover this transitional period.

The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, was right in expecting that the best we could hope for was not something in the Bill, but some firm guidance. I fully appreciate that the consultation period finishes only today. Therefore mulling over what others have said and taking it into account may take a little time. However, it would be very helpful before we get to Third Reading if the Minister were able to share her thoughts and put a bit more flesh on the bones of how these transitional arrangements may work. In particular, as the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has said, perhaps she could give us a little more specificity—if I have got that right—and be a little more definite on the timescales that local authorities will be expected to adopt—indeed, timescales that are reasonable in the circumstances and allow sensible things to happen.

I must acknowledge a very helpful meeting with Greg Clark down the other end. I am expecting the outcome of this to be positive and helpful, even if it comes in the form of guidance and is not in the Bill. Perhaps I may reserve the right to bring this back at Third Reading if by that stage we find that very little progress—I do not think that that will happen—has been made. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 204EA withdrawn.

Amendments 204F and 204G not moved.

Clause 103 : Use of Community Infrastructure Levy

Amendment 204GA

Moved by

[Earl Attlee]

204GA: Clause 103, page 82, line 33, leave out from “section” to end of line 38 and insert “205(2) (requirement to aim to ensure that overall purpose of the levy is to ensure that costs of providing infrastructure to support development of an area can be funded by owners or developers of land)—
(a) for “providing infrastructure to support” substitute “supporting”, and(b) after “land” insert “in a way that does not make development of the area economically unviable”.(2A) In the Table in section 205(3) (which describes the provisions of the Part) for “Section 216” substitute “Sections 216 to 216B”.
(2B) In section 211(4) (particular provision that may be included in regulations about setting rates, or other criteria, by reference to which the amount of levy chargeable is to be determined) after paragraph (a) insert—
“(aa) to have regard, to the extent and in the manner specified by the regulations, to actual and expected costs of anything other than infrastructure that is concerned with addressing demands that development places on an area (whether by reference to lists prepared by virtue of section 216(5)(a) or otherwise);(ab) to have regard, to the extent and in the manner specified by the regulations, to other actual and expected sources of funding for anything other than infrastructure that is concerned with addressing demands that development places on an area;”.”

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, in speaking to Amendment 204GA, I shall also speak to government Amendments 204GB to 204GD, 204HA to 204HB, 204JA to 204JC, and refer to Amendments 204H and 204J.

We set out our commitment to consider whether the existing restrictions on the use of the CIL—community infrastructure levy—receipts are drawn in precisely the right way to best support and enable new development and growth. We have considered this alongside our changes at Clause 103, through which we will place control over a meaningful proportion of levy receipts with the neighbourhoods and communities that accept new development and growth. We are consulting on our proposals to use the powers to require local authorities to pass on a proportion of levy receipts raised from development in an area where there is a parish or community council for that area.

Where no parish or community council exists, we will use existing guidance to require local authorities to apply an equivalent amount to addressing the demands of hosting new development in the area and to engage with the community in determining how that proportion of the funds will be spent.

Amendments 204HB and 204JC extend the permitted uses of this proportion of the funds to allow it to be used to support development by providing infrastructure or addressing any other demands that development places on the area. First, any body to which funds are passed under new Section 216A will benefit from these wider spending powers. Secondly, where a charging authority does not have to pass funds under Section 216A, we will have the power to specify that they can use a proportion of the CIL funds in this way. It is our intention to specify the same proportion for this purpose as we will for Section 216A, providing a consistent approach in both parished and unparished areas. The remainder of the funds will be retained by the local authority and must be used to support development of the wider area by funding the provision, improvement, replacement, operation or maintenance of infrastructure.

Our amendments will allow receipts raised from new development to be applied to the range of costs that it creates. They strike the right balance between enabling funds to be directed to the localised demands that development places on the areas that host it and the cumulative burdens that development creates across the local authority and wider area. The levy is to support new development. While the provision of infrastructure is essential to physically unlock new development, it is not the only matter that needs to be addressed to make development acceptable and sustainable to the communities that are asked to host it.

At the neighbourhood level, the impacts of development are more localised, direct and diverse. The impacts will, for the most part, be concerned with local infrastructure, but communities often identify other unfunded pressures on local services as the reason why new development is not acceptable. If communities are to accept and welcome growth, they must be satisfied that they will not suffer as a result of doing so. By placing a meaningful proportion of the contribution that new development makes under the control of the community that hosts it, and by giving that community the flexibility to spend those funds on the matters that it identifies need to be addressed, we will ensure that communities share in the benefits of growth rather than suffer as a result of it. When residents see and understand that development is making a fair contribution towards meeting the demands that it places on their communities, they will be more likely to accept and, indeed, welcome it.

Our amendments will enable the levy to support new development more effectively. The levy will mean that more development can go ahead by providing a valuable contribution towards delivering the infrastructure needed to unlock and enable it, and by ensuring that communities have reasons to say yes to growth. In making our changes we have taken the opportunity to make economic viability an explicit component of the purpose of the instrument. This will mean that local authorities must ensure that charges are reasonable and do not prejudice the delivery of their local plans, including matters such as affordable housing.

My noble friend Lord Jenkin has tabled Amendments 204H and 204J, which are concerned with restricting spending of the levy to matters publicly identified by the local authority that charges it. It may be helpful to the House if I use his amendments as a peg to provide further reassurance. I fully understand my noble friend’s concern to ensure that use of the levy should be transparent; indeed, it must be if developers and communities are to see and understand how the contributions are being used to support development and manage its impacts. That is why we are strengthening, through the levy and the town and country planning regulations, the requirement for local authorities to report openly and regularly on levy income and expenditure.

Our experience from the front runners scheme, which is supporting more than 33 local authorities to implement the levy, is that local authorities are in any case choosing to publish a list of their spending intentions. This demonstrates that a flexible approach to infrastructure lists is working and that a more prescriptive approach is not needed at this time. The legislation already allows for regulations to require them to do so, should we wish to in the future.

I appreciate my noble friend’s concerns, but I hope that he will be reassured by the steps that we are taking to improve transparency and accountability of levy income and expenditure, agrees that our changes are the right means to achieve that, and will be willing not to pursue his amendments. I beg to move.

16:15

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for the care with which he has set out these quite significant changes to the whole process of charging and applying the community infrastructure levy—or CIL, as he called it. We have moved a long way from the original intention of the CIL. In the Planning Act 2008, Section 205 states:

“In making the regulations the Secretary of State shall aim to ensure that the overall purpose of CIL is to ensure that costs incurred in providing infrastructure to support the development of an area can be funded … by owners or developers of land”.

It was perfectly clear to those of us who debated those provisions during the passage of the Planning Act 2008 what the previous Government were looking at. For instance, if you build a large housing estate, that is going to involve the building of roads. It may well involve the provision of a new school, and a number of other capital infrastructure measures that are necessary to support the community that will be enlarged by the main application when it is allowed and when it takes place.

It is quite clear from what my noble friend has said that we are moving a long way from that. It has caused a good deal of concern among those who are anxious to champion the promotion of more infrastructure. The British Property Federation, referring to what he called a “raft of new amendments”, has said:

“The upgrading of the country’s infrastructure is vital for our future economic success and the contribution from CIL will be a critical part of that at a time when public funding is heavily constrained”.

The letter that I had from my noble friend Lady Hanham, dated 7 October—just a few days ago—makes it perfectly clear that, under the new arrangements proposed, the CIL is not limited to providing infrastructure. Having set out the proposals, she writes:

“We have concluded that spending at the local authority level must continue to be directed to the provision of infrastructure”.

I will press a little further on that in a moment. She continues:

“However, at the neighbourhood and community level the demands and concerns amongst local people that new development creates are more diverse, direct and localised”.

She then refers to the amendments which my noble friend has just spoken to. She goes on:

“We believe this change is vital if we are to genuinely change attitudes to new development and secure sustainable growth”.

Changing attitudes is quite a long way from building capital infrastructure. It has changed the nature of what the CIL was originally introduced to achieve.

It may be that, in the new planning regime, it will be desirable to provide means whereby local communities can feel that they are getting some benefit. This may not take the form of schools or roads but may be some other form of benefit that will compensate them for the impact of the development to which they might otherwise have been opposed. I have always quoted the example of the French electricity system; if you want to build a new power station, in order to reconcile the local population to having to put up with that—after all it involves substantial interference in their normal lives, not only during the building but during the operation—they get electricity at a cheaper rate. That seems to me to be a very sensible thing to do. I am therefore not opposed to the idea that we need to provide something that will secure the consent, as my noble friend was saying, of the local community to the development that is being imposed upon them and to which they might have been quite vigorously opposed.

However, one point that I want to emphasise is still unclear, and I would welcome it if my noble friend could clarify this when he winds up. If councils in spending the CIL are confined to providing infrastructure, which is what I understood him to say and what my noble friend Lady Hanham said in her letter, spending at the local authority level must continue to be directed to the provision of infrastructure. That is fine, but then we are faced with the proposition that a “meaningful proportion” of the proceeds of the CIL, which is charged on the developer, can be devolved to the local parish or community, which, as I understand it, is free to spend it on anything it thinks would improve the condition of the community. What is a “meaningful proportion”? As I understand it, a local authority will be perfectly free to say, “We don’t think any more roads are necessary or that we need to build a new school, or anything like that, and therefore 100 per cent of the CIL for this particular development is going to be devolved to the local parish or community to spend as it wishes”.

I made the point previously in Committee that the CIL must not simply be used as a way of filling the gaps in local authority spending. It is not intended for that. It is intended to balance the provision of a planning application for a new structure of some sort with the infrastructure that is necessary for it. I have of course accepted that that must include the operation, maintenance and upkeep of the infrastructure, a matter that we discussed at length in Committee, but is there no limit to what the devolved body, parish, community or whatever it is can spend of the “meaningful proportion” that is delegated to it?

There is a good deal of concern about this among various bodies. The County Surveyors’ Society, which I understand is now called ADEPT, the British Chambers of Commerce, the British Property Federation, the Chartered Institution of Highways and Transportation and the local government tactical advisers group have all expressed the concern that this seems to be slipping away to the point at which it is simply providing inducements—I will not use the word “bribes”—to persuade a local community that it would be to its advantage to cease to oppose a planning application. I hope that my noble friend will be able to give me some reassurance that it is not intended to go as far as that, but there will have to be some specific measures.

I come to my two amendments, on which my noble friend has given his views. Amendment 204H would make a minor change to replace “may” with “must”, and would compel planning authorities to outline the infrastructure that they actually intend to support through CIL. If local authorities are going to have to confine their spending of CIL to infrastructure, I see no reason why they should not be instructed by the Act to outline the infrastructure they intend to support. Amendment 204J is also intended to link the evidence base used to justify an area’s CIL charging schedule to the levy’s actual expenditure. As I think my noble friend recognised, these are both intended to add to the transparency of the application of what CIL is: a tax on development. So far as local authorities are concerned, I see no reason why both these amendments should not be applied to them.

That leaves the “meaningful proportion” that is to be spent by other people. At the moment I feel that it is wide open for them to decide more or less what they would like to spend it on. I cannot believe that that is a wise way to spend the proceeds of what is in fact a tax. I hope that my noble friend can reassure me on this, but I have to tell him that there is a good deal of apprehension out there. He has told me that he has come under a lot of pressure from local authority and other community interests, which are saying that this sort of thing is necessary in order to reconcile people to new development in their area. But there must be some sort of limit on it, and I am not sure that the government amendments moved by my noble friend and the explanation set out in my noble friend’s letter of 7 October give that reassurance. I hope that my noble friend will be able to allay my anxieties.

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lord Jenkin on the need to be clearer on the gain to neighbourhoods and parishes from the community infrastructure levy. Whether that is done in the Bill, through guidance or by other means, it will be extremely important that local people in neighbourhood areas where development is taking place understand what the community gain might be as a consequence of that development.

My point is a parallel issue which relates to the duty to co-operate. It is implicit in the Bill that there is a duty to co-operate between councils on the community infrastructure levy. However, I am not certain that it is sufficiently explicit and in urban areas where there are boundaries between different local authorities, a development that could take place wholly in one council area might well impact upon the infrastructure and the well-being of one or more neighbouring council areas. To what extent should we make it explicit that there should be a duty to co-operate between local authorities on the community infrastructure levy where a development is taking place very close to a boundary? That will need to be clear, certainly by Third Reading, otherwise there could be a great deal of strain between local authorities over what a duty to co-operate over sustainable development actually means and how it is delivered on the ground.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, we share some of the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, and have some sympathy with his amendments. When we discussed this issue at Committee I thought we had established that, as previously structured, CIL gave quite a lot of scope for supporting local communities beyond what one might think of as the very strict interpretation of infrastructure, but this seems to be taking us a step further. The letter that I had from the noble Baroness was, I think, generally circulated and says:

“We are proposing amendments that would allow local authorities and parish and community councils to use this proportion of the funds to support development by providing infrastructure or addressing any other matter necessary to address the demands that new development places on the local area”.

This is potentially a very wide extension of what it was anticipated that CIL would be used for.

The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, raises a different point about what happens with adjoining authorities and how that fits together with the duty to co-operate. We also need to consider how this sort of formulation fits together with Clause 130, which we are going to discuss in due course. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, said that he would not go so far as to call this a bribe, but it is potentially a substantial inducement to an area to accept development and we need to reflect on that as well. Having expressed concerns about the possible dilution of funding for infrastructure, which is needed up and down our country, I pose the question that we raised when we covered it in Committee—my apologies to the Minister if he covered it—about the prospect of CIL being used for affordable housing. I am not sure where that discussion has gone, but there have been some real questions asked about the extension of CIL which takes it beyond its original intent. The new intent is not necessarily bad, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, said, but we need to reflect on what it means for the funding that is available for infrastructure in an area.

16:30

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this short debate. Responding first to my noble friend Lord Jenkin, yes, we have moved a long way with the community infrastructure levy. My noble friend talked about Section 205 and the restrictions on the application of CIL. He is accurate in terms of history but he will recognise the need to develop good policies as time goes on. He kindly organised a meeting between me, him and the Institution of Civil Engineers, which I found useful.

My noble friend referred to local needs and to changing attitudes. We need to change attitudes because, quite often, the knee-jerk reaction can often be “no”, and that is not helpful for development. Local authorities are best placed to determine the infrastructure need in terms of logistics and so on, but local communities are best placed to determine their much more local needs.

My noble friend asked what a meaningful proportion of CIL is. We are consulting on the matter and have invited views on the question. We have not taken a view on this and will carefully consider the representations made during the consultation period before determining the proportion of funds that should be directed to neighbourhoods that host new development. However, we are clear that the level must be sufficient to give neighbourhoods a meaningful contribution to meeting the impacts of development in their area. This needs to be balanced with the central purpose of the levy, which is to ensure that some or all of the costs of supporting new development are met by the developers.

My noble friend also asked whether there was any limit on how a meaningful proportion must be used. Our changes allow for a proportion of CIL receipts to support development of parish and neighbourhood areas by providing either infrastructure or anything else that is concerned with meeting the demands that the development places on the area. However, the spending must support development of the area. It may not be used to fill gaps in local authority resources. I am happy to give that reassurance.

We are making this change because new development creates local demands that are concerned with matters other than infrastructure. For instance, the provision of new dwellings will increase the population of an area and new or extended office premises will increase the number of people working in an area. Increased numbers of residents or people coming into an area to work will create demands on services in the area, including transport, training, education, health, social and other services, community assets and utilities.

My noble friend Lord Shipley asked about cross-boundary needs in urban areas. It is a good question but I shall have to write to him before Third Reading.

The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked about affordable housing. When setting a CIL charge a local authority must have regard to the viability of development in its area. In considering this viability, the local authority must take into account requirements normally provided for through Section 106—for instance, affordable housing—that will arise from the development. My noble friend will recall that we have tightened up on the use of Section 106.

The statutory framework for CIL provides for protection for affordable housing. This was, no doubt, in the minds of the previous Administration when they implemented the levy. However, we acknowledge that the guidance does not set this out as clearly and robustly as it could. We will revisit the guidance to make it clear that the imposition of a levy must not harm the delivery of affordable housing or other local policies set out in the local plan. I have asked my officials to work with the National Housing Federation to develop appropriate changes and we will reflect on the outcome in updated guidance from the Secretary of State. We are consulting on whether to allow CIL receipts to be used to fund affordable housing. We have asked for views on whether this approach could support local delivery of affordable housing by improving outcomes and offering better value for money. We will determine whether to make the change once we have received and considered the responses.

Inspiration has arrived to answer the question of my noble friend Lord Shipley, who asked to what extent authorities should be required to co-operate in using CIL receipts. This legislation allows authorities to pool resources to deliver infrastructure that supports their areas. We have the power to make statutory guidance about the duty to co-operate, and this could cover matters such as CIL.

The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, asked about how CIL money could be used to perhaps bribe communities—

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I do not believe I said that. I was referring to how it was not described by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, to touch upon the fact that if these are inducements for communities to accept development, we need to reflect on the issues we are going to discuss in relation to Clause 130. I was not arguing in favour of bribing communities.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I am struggling to read my inspiration here. However, I intend to make a substantive speech in our debate on Clause 130, which I think the House will find very helpful.

Lord Jenkin of Roding: Is my noble friend prepared to consider further any limitations in the amendments that he has put down, which say in several places, for instance, “for ‘projects’ substitute ‘anything’”? The concern is that it is “anything”, not just “projects”. Would he consider further representations on that subject?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I will consider any input that is brought to me or other Ministers.

Amendment 204GA agreed.

Amendments 204GB to 204GD

Moved by

[Earl Attlee]

204GB: Clause 103, page 82, line 39, at end insert—
“(za) in subsection (1) (levy to be used to fund infrastructure, or pay compensation under section 219)—(i) for “section” substitute “sections 216A(1), 216B(2) and”, and(ii) for “funding infrastructure” substitute “supporting development by funding the provision, improvement, replacement, operation or maintenance of infrastructure”,(zb) in subsection (2) (meaning of “infrastructure” in subsection (1)) for “subsection (1)” substitute “this section (except subsection (3)) and sections 216A(2) and 216B(2)”,(zc) in subsection (4)(a) (power to specify facilities that are to be, or not to be, funded) for “that are to be, or not to” substitute “whose provision, improvement or replacement may or is to be, or may not”,”

204GC: Clause 103, page 82, line 42, leave out “, operational and promotional activities” and insert “activities and operational activities (including operational activities of a promotional kind) in connection with infrastructure”

204GD: Clause 103, page 82, line 44, leave out “and” and insert—
“(ab) things within section 216A(2)(b) that may or are to be, or may not be, funded by CIL passed to a person in discharge of a duty under section 216A(1),(ac) things within section 216B(2)(b) that may or are to be, or may not be, funded by CIL to which provision under section 216B(2) relates,”,(aa) in subsection (4)(b) (power to specify criteria for determining areas in relation to which infrastructure may be funded) for “in relation to which infrastructure may be funded” substitute “that may benefit from funding”, (ab) in subsection (5)(a) (power to require authorities to list projects that are to be, or may be, funded) for “projects that are” substitute “what is”,(ac) in subsection (5)(c) (power to make provision about funding projects not on list) for “projects” substitute “anything”,”

Amendments 204GB to 204GD agreed.

Amendment 204H not moved.

Amendment 204HA

Moved by

[Earl Attlee]

204HA: Clause 103, page 83, line 2, leave out from “projects)” to end of line 3 and insert “for “on future projects” substitute “in the future”,
(c) in subsection (6)(c) (regulations may permit funding of administrative expenses in connection with infrastructure) after “infrastructure” insert “or anything within section 216A(2)(b) or 216B(2)(b)”, and(d) in subsection (6)(e) (regulations may make provision for the use of funding where the projects to be funded no longer require funding)—(i) for “the projects” substitute “anything”, and(ii) for “require” substitute “requires”.”

Amendment 204HA agreed.

Amendment 204HB

Moved by

[Earl Attlee]

204HB: Clause 103, page 83, line 10, leave out from “to” to end of line 13 and insert “support the development of the area to which the duty relates, or of any part of that area, by funding—
(a) the provision, improvement, replacement, operation or maintenance of infrastructure, or(b) anything else that is concerned with addressing demands that development places on an area.”

[The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara)]

My Lords, I should point out that if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment 204J.

Amendment 204HB agreed.

Amendment 204J not moved.

Amendments 204JA to 204JC

Moved by

[Earl Attlee]

204JA: Clause 103, page 83, line 37, leave out “infrastructure” and insert “anything”

204JB: Clause 103, page 83, line 43, leave out “infrastructure” and insert “anything”

204JC: Clause 103, page 83, line 46, at end insert—
“216B Use of CIL in an area to which section 216A(1) duty does not relate
(1) Subsection (2) applies where—
(a) there is an area to which a particular duty under section 216A(1) relates, and(b) there is also an area to which that duty does not relate (“the uncovered area”). (2) CIL regulations may provide that the charging authority that charges CIL received in respect of development of land in the uncovered area may apply the CIL, or cause it to be applied, to—
(a) support development by funding the provision, improvement, replacement, operation or maintenance of infrastructure, or(b) support development of the uncovered area, or of any part of that area, by funding anything else that is concerned with addressing demands that development places on an area.(3) Provision under subsection (2) may relate to the whole, or part only, of the uncovered area.
(4) Provision under subsection (2) may relate—
(a) to all CIL (if any) received in respect of the area to which the provision relates, or(b) such part of that CIL as is specified in, or determined under or in accordance with, CIL regulations.””

Amendments 204JA to 204JC agreed.

Clause 104 : Neighbourhood planning

Amendment 205

Moved by

[Lord True]

205: Clause 104, page 84, line 9, at end insert—
“( ) Where a local authority has a scheme or process of neighbourhood engagement and localised planning that promotes and enables the involvement of the residents and businesses of its area, within their local neighbourhoods, and that process has been agreed by the Secretary of State to—
(a) meet the objectives set out in section 61F, 5(a)(i) and (ii) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Schedule 9 to this Act, and(b) constitute a sufficient process of local engagement to enable the making of neighbourhood development orders and neighbourhood plans on the basis of informed involvement and consent,that local authority may make such orders or plans on behalf of local residents without the establishment of neighbourhood forums or the holding of a referendum.”

[Lord True]

My Lords, in moving this amendment I should remind the House that I lead a London borough council, and one that under successive administrations has been and is a localist council. We are actually slightly unusual in having a regional plan that is going to stay in place, and also an adopted core strategy. We are now very actively involved with local communities in trying to create what we call “village plans”, but for the sake of this argument I will call “neighbourhood plans”. I do not think we need to be told by a government Bill how to go about this. I hope that does not sound too vainglorious.

I am a strong supporter of giving people the opportunity, and where opportunity is not given the right and the power, to directly influence decisions affecting their lives. Nothing in the amendment before the House detracts from that. My noble friend has been an absolutely admirable listener on this Bill. The Government have made major changes, on shadow mayors, EU fines, referendums, the right to challenge and on assets of community value. I do not ask for sweeping change on neighbourhood planning. I support the Government’s wish to have local involvement in the planning system. Most other council leaders also support that and many already practise it. In many of our views, planning led from the bottom up is essential. My amendment does nothing to stop the Government’s objective there.

I also recognise the Government’s wish to have back-stop—as I think it should be—regulation to enable local public engagement with planning where that is not happening. That may be necessary where communities are systematically excluded from having a voice in planning. Of course they should have a voice, and that inspiration behind the Bill is right. My amendment does nothing to stop that. The amendment proposes a system that allows the Secretary of State to permit local variety and discretion—that is, more localism and, I would argue, more trust in the best-performing local authorities.

On neighbourhood planning so far in the Bill, the Government have set down one model in the rather compendious schedules. Surely councils that are engaged in local neighbourhood planning can be approved, indeed encouraged, to go on doing so in their own way. My amendment also seeks to allow that, if other local authorities have a scheme for neighbourhood planning to do the job in ways that do not coincide in every dot and comma with what is in these labyrinthine schedules, they can be given the go-ahead and frankly be spared the constant potential challenge to react to a parallel national regulatory model at the same time. We have to go on from where we are now and from where we started. With a more permissive approach, we might even learn something from the differing approaches of differing councils and communities, with different sizes and places, run by people often with different views. A more permissive approach goes with the spirit of the Bill and in no way against it.

If there is in place a solid, reputable process in which hundreds, perhaps thousands, of local people have become engaged, why in principle should that local authority and those local communities be caught up with having to consider or fend off demands to set up a neighbourhood forum from what may be groups of as few as 21 people? As we argued in Committee, these may sometimes even be malcontents who have lost out in community debates, perhaps people who even court rejection by the council as a device to gain publicity. That is not necessary in the ideal world. I fear we may confuse the means of how to do this with the ends, on which I sense there is wide agreement in the House.

I set out in Committee a number of detailed aspects in the Bill’s area planning procedures that I do not understand. In particular, I do not understand why, under new Section 61G(2) that Schedule 9 to the Bill will insert into the 1990 Act, a local authority can designate neighbourhood areas only where a would-be forum asks for one. Why on earth can a council, informed by its knowledge of local events and the surveys it has done with local people, not go ahead and designate its own neighbourhood areas? I do not see why urban neighbourhood planning has to be done through forums that, by definition, are made up of the few rather than the many in any given area. I have argued in various places that the default position should be that everyone in an area is part of a neighbourhood planning process. The best body for facilitating that is the elected authority, of whatever size or nature, if it operates well.

I have not tabled again the amendments that I tabled in Committee that dealt with a number of those issues. I hope that my noble friend the Minister may even now be able to reflect on them and clarify some of those detailed points as we move towards Third Reading. They are embraced within the case for allowing different approaches made in the amendment.

16:45

In concluding, I must emphasise that my proposal is not made from the standpoint of one who opposes the Bill. It is made on the basis of active commitment and experience, as with many other noble Lords who spoke, in seeking to put the principles of this Bill into practice. From that standpoint I must say—and I have had this from a number of other council leader colleagues—that the creation or imposition of a parallel system of challenge by would-be forums will in some cases not be a help but potentially a hindrance.

When the principle of allowing the best performing authorities freedom to do local planning in their own way was debated in Committee, I felt I had wide support from various parts of the House. I have been very grateful for discussions and conversations with Mr Greg Clark and with my noble friend and I am perfectly ready to accept that my amendment may not be the perfect route. It may indeed be that devising an exemption system run by the Secretary of State would create its own complexities. It may be that the operation of the system in this Bill, given the undesirability of seeking to run two parallel systems together, can be clarified in the guidance we hear about. I apologise that I have not had an opportunity to study in detail the draft guidance I hear has been published.

One way or another my fundamental plea, in which I am grateful for the backing of London Councils, is that local authorities engaged in robust neighbourhood planning should not also have to grapple with the parallel legislative and regulatory framework currently enshrined in the Bill. I believe, I hope not naively, that freedom would encourage and stimulate the best councils to be leaders in neighbourhood planning. I believe, and I know from our conversations, that my noble friend and her right honourable and honourable friends share that commitment to localism and neighbourhood planning, and so I hope even now that the Government may be able to offer some more flexible way forward on this very difficult, but I believe important, matter. I beg to move.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, I enthusiastically support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord True. I do not want to repeat everything he said about the common sense of building on existing successful systems and structures rather than trying either to set up a separate parallel structure, as the noble Lord suggested may well happen, or alternatively closing down something that exists or trying to transform it into a template imposed from on high.

I have been involved in the idea of getting people in communities to take a much greater involvement in local affairs generally, and in planning specifically, for about 40 years now. Forty years ago, when some of us started to talk like this, we met total opposition, and indeed hostility, from almost everybody else in British politics outside the Liberal Party at that time. Opinion has so changed that we have won the argument over those years. The last Labour Government talked about double devolution—central government devolving powers, and perhaps even resources, to local authorities and the local authorities devolving them to “communities”. It never actually happened very much but there was a lot of talk about it.

In the present Government we have had the idea of the big society coming from the Conservatives and, separately really but perhaps as part of that—I have never really been quite sure—the idea of neighbourhood planning, which is a very strong part of this Bill. Always, mechanisms are difficult because there are always the questions: “What is a community?” and “Who are the big society?”. Many of us have argued for a long time that, on a democratic basis, the default position is: “The many, not the few”, as the noble Lord, Lord True, said. A neighbourhood is a clearly definable entity, unlike a community which is much more difficult to define as you may have several communities in a neighbourhood. In a neighbourhood you start off from the basis that everybody who lives there is a member of that neighbourhood and you build it from the bottom upwards. Of course, some do not want to take part in it but that is up to them.

As regards who in the neighbourhood area takes part, lots of councils of pretty well all dispositions have been working hard on this idea in their patches. In a truly localist way, they are approaching the matter in different ways that are appropriate to their area, the ideas of the people who live in that area and, indeed, the people on the local authority, so the systems that exist in many parts of the country are different. There are obviously similarities but, basically, each area has built its own system according to its own circumstances: the noble Lord waxes lyrical about Richmond; my noble friend Lord Tope could wax equally lyrical about Sutton; and I could go on for ever about attempts to do all this in Pendle, some of which have been very successful. Many others could make similar remarks, but the systems are all different.

However, the real problem arises when central government comes along and, in order to do something which is very worth while, imposes a national template on very different systems. Where there is nothing at all, that is a good way to tackle this matter as at least you get people going. However, where measures exist on the ground, it is counterproductive and, indeed, ridiculous to force people to spend a lot of time either closing something down in order to start something else up or, indeed, trying to adjust and adapt to the new rules and regulations coming from on high. Therefore, I very much support this amendment. If nothing else, I hope that the Government will be rather more flexible in carrying out this measure than seems to be the case at the moment.

[Lord Newton of Braintree]

My Lords, I had hoped to be here the other night when I thought that we would reach my noble friend’s amendment. I was sorry that I was not able to be present, but then the amendment was not reached. We have now reached it and I am per contra glad to be here to add my support for what my noble friend has proposed. However, I am very conscious that the word on the street is that everybody wants to see the back of this wretched Bill today, even though it is less wretched than it was before my noble friend started amending it, and I do not want to delay the House. Indeed, I may shortly put myself beyond temptation in order to avoid doing so later.

Meanwhile, the House is already aware that I think this Bill is misnamed. Certainly, as it started, it was not a Localism Bill but a centralism Bill because “localism” meant what the Secretary of State said that it meant, not what local authorities decided that it meant. This debate is essentially on that very point.

I do not pretend to wish to defend the detail of the amendment, any more than my noble friend did. However, its fundamental thrust is that, where satisfactory local arrangements to achieve the Government’s objective exist, the Government should not stamp on them and insist that they are replaced with a template—I repeat the word used by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves—imposed from the centre. I cannot see any sense in that. It is the opposite of localism and common sense, and the Government need to look at it again.

[Lord Lucas]

My Lords, I entirely support my noble friend’s amendment for two principal reasons. One is that local authorities can game the system anyway—all they do is get their councillors to get a group of 20 members round locally and kick off the process that is in the Bill. That will be an expensive and tiresome way of doing it and will result in councils being divided up on ward boundaries, which is not perhaps the right way of doing it because wards have been created for equality of size and electoral convenience rather than to encompass natural communities.

My other reason for supporting the amendment is that it is the best hope—despite all the other hopes that I shall express later in respect of my amendments—of getting the Bill to work in cities. As it stands, the Bill has very little to offer a city community. What a city wants, by and large, is the local application of the policies of its council rather than a hand in planning, where in a built-out environment there is very little to offer. Co-operation and working with the council to establish the area that is a neighbourhood will be a great deal easier if that comes from the council rather than a community that does not exist and has no momentum or reason to create itself. The whole process of creating neighbourhoods will happen much better in cities when guided by councils. If we consider not just relatively easy parts, such as Lavender Hill, but areas where communities are at loggerheads, how the system set out in the Bill will work when it will merely become a vehicle for neighbourhood power struggles rather than anything really creative, is beyond me. The department needs to get a grip on the question of cities, particularly inner-cities, and how we are to bring the benefits of the Bill to them.

My noble friend’s amendment seems to address this most constructively, and I hope that the department, even at this stage, will start to pay some attention to that. We all had a wake-up in our holidays and reappeared here when we suddenly discovered that communities in cities were not as strong as we might have liked to hope. This is the “Department for Communities” and it ought to be doing something, but it is not, I am sad to say.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I got more supportive of the amendment the longer the debate went on. I was almost there when the noble Lord, Lord True, had finished his introduction. Let me say, first, that a world in which the noble Lord, Lord Newton, is beyond temptation is not something that I wish to contemplate.

We accept entirely the thrust of the proposition of the noble Lord, Lord True. If you have robust engagement with communities that works and delivers, why tear that up and replace it with something else? However, there is a conundrum. What will the process be by which we say that not only is the existing process sufficient but we have to withdraw from parish councils the other opportunities that are provided in the Bill in respect of the creation of neighbourhood forums? One might read the proposition in the noble Lord’s amendment to say that that has to be decided between local authorities and the Secretary of State. Of course, that would leave out the voices of the community.

I agree with what the amendment is trying to achieve, but—perhaps the noble Lord has simply truncated his presentation and has thought this through—how you decide whether what is working locally is sufficient such that you will not apply those other provisions in the Bill is a question that needs to be answered. One could not disagree with the proposition that, if you have good engagement at the moment in a variety of different circumstances across the country—particularly important is the issue of urban communities, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said—that should be preserved. How you do it and how you switch off the other mechanisms is key.

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, once again we have had an interesting debate on this part of the Bill and I am grateful to those who have taken part. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, for putting his finger on one of the conundrums. One would have to decide how you work out how a local authority is doing it better than anyone else. That is perhaps something that will have to be decided anyway in the course of the process that has been laid out.

This amendment would allow a local authority to make a neighbourhood plan or order without a referendum being held or a neighbourhood forum being established. The basis on which this decision would be made is whether the local authority has an adequate process of neighbourhood engagement—I am not quite sure that that is how my noble friend put it, but I think that that is what it means—to enable the formation of neighbourhood plans. It is, as he suggested, a permissive approach. Whether this process is adequate will be determined, as the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, has said, by the Secretary of State—which is not a terribly localist aspiration.

The effect of the amendment would be to give a very significant degree of power to the Secretary of State. I wonder whether that is entirely what is wanted. The Secretary of State would be allowed to control the neighbourhood planning process and bypass the referendum stage, because he would have to agree whether a local council is well advanced in what it was doing. I fully appreciate, however, the noble Lord’s concerns about the delay in holding a referendum on a neighbourhood plan or the way that it can be demonstrably shown that the local planning authority and the community at large are content for the neighbourhood plan or order to come into force.

17:00

I have previously said that, under the current proposals, if the local authority and the neighbourhood forum, or parish council, are in agreement over proposals, they have the option of using development plan documents, supplementary planning documents and local development orders to take forward the policies, or give permission to developers, without the need for a referendum. Where this is not the case, it is essential that the neighbourhood plan has the support of those who have a real interest in the planning of the neighbourhood area and the proposals that are developed. There is a project here for local people to get involved in what their own areas are going to look like. This support needs to be clearly demonstrated. A referendum will give everyone in the community the opportunity to have their say and demonstrate evidence of community support in a manner which cannot be demonstrated through a petition or consultation.

The referendum in that situation—where you have the neighbourhood forum—is important in retaining the credibility of the principle that this is a community-led system, with the local planning authority’s role being one of facilitating and enabling the community to draw up plans at the neighbourhood level.

We have previously discussed the fact that no neighbourhood has to have a forum. It is not a requirement. If a neighbourhood does not want to have a forum and it is happy to rely on the local development plan or local development orders, that is perfectly permissible. There is nothing to stop that at all. But this moves me on to my noble friend’s concerns—which he has raised on several occasions—about the situation where there are established groups in the local authority and where the authority already has well advanced plans.

I hope my noble friend will accept if I say that I will undertake to look again— without making any commitment at this stage—at the position which he has described, with a view to possibly returning to the matter at Third Reading. This is not an easy matter, but we ought to allow the opportunity to have a last look at it, before this Bill passes from this House.

I hope with that reassurance, and the undertaking, of course, to talk to him and to other Members of the House who are interested before Third Reading, he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord True]

My Lords, of course I am extremely grateful for what my noble friend has said. As I have said in my opening remarks, she has been an outstanding listener on this Bill and the whole House recognises that and is very grateful. Of course, I accept her assurance as being absolutely something that one can rely on.

I do not wish to trouble the scorers any longer: On this Bill I have troubled them almost as much as my noble friend Lord Newton of Braintree. I am grateful for the support of all noble Lords who spoke. There is a principle of concern here. The answer in brief to the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, who asked how we would get out of this problem, is “What a pity we got into it”. Localism was going along very happily in many parts of the country until the Government came along, plonked down a Bill and said: “This is how you do localism, boys and girls”. I drafted my amendment to try to give content and relief to the Secretary of State, who seemed to want to designate a system to allow him at least to take a view on whether what was going on was satisfactory.

I would rather have an alternative to a back-stop power. I have always thought that a problem in many sections of the Bill is that a back-stop piece of legislation that should have guaranteed certain rights has become potentially all-embracing. I am not trying to push the Secretary of State into anything: it is a way of trying to find a solution. The Secretary of State has already come into the question.

Without further ado, I again thank my noble friend for what she said, thank other noble Lords who spoke and express the hope that we can find a solution to what other noble Lords have agreed is a real conundrum. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 205 withdrawn.

Amendment 205ZZA

Moved by

[Lord Greaves]

205ZZA: After Clause 104, insert the following new Clause—
“Community governance review in area of a neighbourhood forum
In the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007, after section 80 insert—“80A Community governance request by a neighbourhood forum
(1) This section applies to a neighbourhood area where a neighbourhood forum makes a request for a parish council to be created.
(2) A request may be made to create a new parish council for—
(a) the area of the neighbourhood area, or(b) the area of the neighbourhood area together with the area of an adjacent parish council.(3) A request under subsection (2)(a) must be made jointly by the neighbourhood forum and the parish council.
(4) Following a request under this section the principal council must commence a community governance review relating to the area of the request within three months of receipt of the request.
(5) A community governance review under this section shall have a presumption that a new parish will be created.
(6) The provisions of this apply only insofar as they do not prevent action being taken on the request made under this section.
(7) In this section “neighbourhood area” and “neighbourhood forum” have the meanings given by section 61F of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.””

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, it has been drawn to my attention that there is a typo in my proposed new Section 80A(3). It refers to subsection (2)(a) instead of (2)(b). The misprint will be obvious to anybody reading it. I am sure that it was my fingers that got it wrong and not the Public Bill Office.

The amendment tackles the problem of the democratic deficit and creates the opportunity for more democratic legitimacy in unparished areas where neighbourhood areas and neighbourhood forums may be set up. It does this by amending the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, covered by Schedule 9 to this Bill, which then affects the sections of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 that cover community governance reviews. It is slightly complicated, but I think that what is set out is clear.

I remind noble Lords that in parished areas, the body that will be responsible for neighbourhood planning—for the creation of a neighbourhood plan or of neighbourhood development orders—is the parish council. In unparished areas, the local planning authority can, on request, designate a neighbourhood area; and no fewer than 21 people in that area can be designated as a neighbourhood forum. Clearly in that situation there is a democratic deficit in the formation and accountability of the neighbourhood forum compared with parished areas where there is an elected local authority—the parish council—responsible for carrying out the work.

This is a modest proposal. It does not force anything on anybody. It seeks to give a neighbourhood forum—where it exists and is recognised by the local planning authority for the purposes of neighbourhood planning, and where it believes that it would be advantageous to convert into an elected parish council—an easier and quicker means of doing that than exists at the moment. The Government recognise the problem. After the summer the Minister wrote a number of letters to various Members of the House setting out the views of the Government on this. I want to quote from the letter to my noble friend Lord Shipley, because when I was digging this out I could not find the letter to me, which I think includes the same stuff. My noble friend Lord Shipley apologises for not being present at this debate on a topic which he has raised repeatedly. He has had to go to another gathering in order to make a speech.

The Minister wrote to my noble friend as follows:

“In these neighbourhood areas, we have sought to recognise the democratic legitimacy of parish councils by ensuring that, within an area that includes any part of a parished area, only the parish council has a mandate to undertake a neighbourhood plan. We would therefore encourage communities to use the opportunity of preparing a neighbourhood plan to consider whether they wanted to apply to become a parish, town or community council—with the extra powers and responsibilities that brings”.

Community councils, of course, are parish councils in Wales. The letter continues:

“However, we do not want to force communities to become parish or community councils before they undertake neighbourhood planning—hence our neighbourhood forum provisions”.

The problem with the way that the Government want to go ahead on this is that where a neighbourhood forum and a neighbourhood wish to consider setting up a parish council, the process under a community governance review—under the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007—is fairly cumbersome. More to the point, the principal local authority—the district or unitary council responsible for the community governance review—can put a stop to it if it wants to do so. In the best of all worlds, it will not be carrying out local community governance reviews very frequently. It may say, “Well, we have just done one and we are not going to do another for five years”, or something like that, or it may, as has happened with a number of local authorities, simply be hostile to the idea.

This amendment puts forward a means by which a neighbourhood forum can require a community governance review covering just its area, which has to take place fairly quickly. It also provides for a presumption that, unless there are some very good reasons, it will be approved. That is the purpose of this amendment. What I would really like to come out of this debate today is for the Government to tell us how they intend to tackle this problem, which they have recognised, and how they will make sure that there are more community governance reviews for more parish and town councils, particularly in urban areas where they do not exist at the moment, and where local people, through the neighbourhood forum, actually want them. They should not be compulsory by any means, but there should be a means by which a lot more could be created. I beg to move.

[The Earl of Lytton]

My Lords, I support the principle behind the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. I cannot speak to the wording, even less to the typos I am afraid, but noble Lords will of course know of my interest in parish and town councils. At present a parish council is the only community-based organisation that combines a democratic base, truly local roots and a statutory status. So it has a special cachet from that point of view, and indeed many communities aspire to that status. Crucially it is independent of other local government bodies in having its own power to precept, and that of course gives it a financial independence as well.

The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has touched on this, and it is certainly no reflection on the borough—which I think has an exemplary record towards communities in its area—of the noble Lord, Lord True, who I see is no longer in his place, but some local authorities have been obstructive to the formation of new parish and town councils, and I do not think that there is any point in overlooking that. That has happened on occasions despite an authentic and well-argued local desire having been put forward.

I would put one caveat in here and that is that the geographical template for new parishes in unparished areas needs to be a reasonably good fit. I am concerned not so much about the precise geography as about the cohesion and the identity which is to some extent reflected, as it must be, in geography. Size is clearly not the main issue because, up and down the country, we have very large and very small parish and town councils. One feature that they benefit from is that they serve the needs of the community and have grown up to reflect that community, whether large or small, over very many years.

I welcome the sentiment behind this amendment, which I see as a way of effectively creating, to some extent, the possibility of a fast-track route to parish and town council creation. It enables neighbourhood forums that wish to to migrate to the statutory basis where they can join and become one of the family of democratic structures that form the first tier of local government. I welcome the principle behind this amendment and I hope that the Minister will be able to give a positive response.

17:15

[Lord Lucas]

My Lords, I have an amendment which covers very much this area—Amendment 210AC—which I do not now have to speak to, I am delighted to say. I agree with everything that has been said. I will add just one rider to it. It seems to me that where a community has got itself together and has gone to the lengths of putting together a neighbourhood plan, dealing with the criticisms of it and then winning a referendum, that should count for something in the arguments with its local authority about whether it should be a parish. At the moment it does not, and I think that it should.

[Lord Newton of Braintree]

My Lords, I cannot resist the temptation, so clearly I am going to have to go shortly. Meanwhile, I have been tempted. Perhaps I may ask a possibly elementary and perhaps even naïve question. How does all this relate to the fact that, in my understanding, and certainly in my neck of the woods, the concept of parish is basically an ecclesiastical one? Indeed I am slightly surprised to find that the Bishops’ Bench is empty during this debate. Is the parish essentially an ecclesiastical concept? Whether it is or is not, this clearly raises the possibility of parishes being extended in a rather curious way, by a proposition coming from an adjacent district—albeit requiring the consent of the parish council—which creates a parish council that then, by definition, extends into more than one parish. I find this very curious. If we are going down this path, which I do not object to in principle, at the very least we need some different terminology, because it would not be a parish council as normally understood in my kind of area.

My second point—noble Lords will be glad to hear that it is my last one—is that subsection (4) states that there must be a community governance review if there is a request for one, and that if there is a review, there must be a presumption that a new parish will be created. Why? Why cannot a review come to the conclusion that the world is all right as it is and that no change is needed? Whatever the merits of the intended fundamental thrust of this amendment, the amendment needs a lot of looking at.

[Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville]

My Lords, I add the briefest of footnotes to the remarks of my noble friend Lord Newton of Braintree, if only to make the point that Essex and Wiltshire can be different. In fact I am not sure whether or not I am going to illuminate the matter that he has just raised. I live in the ecclesiastical parish of Tisbury and, simultaneously, in the local government parish of Sutton Mandeville, and on the principle of “render unto Caesar”, I took my title from the latter rather than the former. It is possible to live in several parishes at the same time.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I am pleased to see that the noble Lord, Lord Newton, takes the same attitude to temptation as St Augustine did to chastity. There is another line about temptation that we might want to consider:

“The last temptation is the greatest treason:

To do the right deed for the wrong reason”.

It seems that this amendment is in fact the other way round: it is doing the wrong thing for the right reason, potentially.

I noticed the typing error that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, referred to in subsection (2)(a), but I think there may be another typographical error, or perhaps an error in drafting. Subsection (5) says:

“A community governance review … shall have a presumption that a new parish will be created”—

and I will come back to that point. Subsection (6) goes on to say:

“The provisions of this apply only insofar as they do not prevent action being taken on the request made under this section”.

It is not clear to me what that means. Does it mean the provisions of the previous subsection, or does it mean the provisions of the whole clause? I am at a loss to understand what that implies.

However, I agree very strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Newton, that there is no case for there to be a presumption that a new parish should be created on the simple fact that a request has been made by a neighbourhood forum that might constitute 21 people, of whom a majority of 11 against 10 would therefore trigger not only the whole process but a presumption as to its outcome. It seems a ridiculous proposition given that we are presumably talking about areas of several hundred people, if not thousands of people, possibly, in an area the size of an urban ward or a significant rural community.

The clause also requires the commencement of a review within three months. That might be all right if there was to be one review, but supposing there was a rash of applications from these neighbourhood forums, is a local authority obliged to commence reviews on all of them in that timescale? It does not seem at all realistic. There certainly should be a method of facilitating a legitimate demand—or a widespread demand, let us not prejudge the issue—for the creation of parish councils or town councils. They have a perfectly proper place in our system of local government and that should be facilitated, but this clause really goes much too far in that direction.

Nor is it the case that, once created, all of these bodies are trouble-free. Your Lordships will be aware, from the debate about the standards boards and the need for codes, that most of the complaints that arose under the existing procedure actually came from parish councils. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, who is not in his place at the moment, will no doubt have told your Lordships of the case in Newcastle where a council inherited three parishes on local government reorganisation, and one inner-city area opted for a parish council. That particular grouping did not seem to perform very effectively, to the extent that Councillor Shipley’s colleagues in his political group decided that they would go in and in effect take it over, which they did—by perfectly legitimate democratic means, I should say. These places are not without their problems, although they can certainly contribute to an enriched local democracy.

However, there is one other issue in which, again, the drafting is perhaps defective—certainly it raises an issue—and that is subsection (2), which says:

“A request may be made to create a new parish council for … the area of the neighbourhood area together with the area of an adjacent parish council”.

Is it not conceivable that there may be more than one existing parish council? Certainly there are contiguous parish councils in my authority; there will be in other authorities, particularly urban authorities, I suspect. You may well find a community between the two wishing to align with both rather than one, and creating an entirely new structure. For a variety of reasons, I suspect I may find myself—unusually—agreeing with the Minister when she replies and, I hope, says that she may want to take this away and look at it, but that she cannot agree the amendment as it stands. Certainly that would be my position.

[The Earl of Lytton]

Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask him if he would comment on the fact that although it is true that parish and town councils provide a disproportionate amount of the subject matter for standards committees, it is also true that because there is no other body of a sort which has recourse to a committee dealing with standards, there is no other basis to judge whether that statistic is large or small, or whether it is characteristic of dealing with community affairs. What I am trying to get at is that it is perhaps not a specific criticism of parish councils as a construct.

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, I am going to leap in because I think, with the greatest respect, that the noble Earl is out of order. On Report, we normally get the Minister to wind up after the Opposition. But I hear what he says.

The amendment has its faults, and the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has already recognised that. But having said that, we are not unhappy about the principle of neighbourhood forums investigating opportunities to create town or parish councils for their area, and we accept that that gives greater democratic legitimacy. The noble Lord is also correct that there were a great many standards inquiries on parishes, but we also accept that they have responsibilities, duties, income and powers that would bring benefit to these neighbourhood proposals.

This is why we have already committed, in the Open Public Services White Paper, to look and see how to make it easier for neighbourhood forums and others to have a parish or town council for their area. In doing so we are looking at streamlining the community governance review process, to which the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, referred in rather uncomplimentary terms, but we need to strike the right balance so that neighbourhood forums or communities that want a parish council can get one relatively quickly. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, was correct that this is not a speedy process at the moment, but if we speed up the process there will have to be safeguards to ensure that parish areas reflect community identity and interests.

The listening phase—which I have written down here, by which I assume consultation is meant—on the Open Public Services White Paper has just finished, and we are looking at cross-government implementation plans being announced in November. Building stronger neighbourhoods, including making it easier for people to set up parish councils, will be a priority for us in those plans.

While I do not want to pre-empt this work that has got to be done, I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, that we will consider the issues raised in this amendment in conjunction with that. I hope that, as I said, that process will not be terribly long in coming to conclusions. I hope that with those reassurances, the noble Lord is willing to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, I am grateful to everybody who has taken part. I have to point out to my noble friend Lord Newton of Braintree that there is a fundamental difference between a parochial church council and a civil parish. If he would like to do some historical research he will find that a not very great Liberal Government in the middle of the 1890s—perhaps in 1894, but I would not stick to that—introduced the concept of civil parishes against the hysterical opposition of Conservatives, particularly in your Lordships’ House, who thought that the idea of elected parish councils in the countryside was the nearest thing to communist revolution they could think of. But it was forced through, and it was just about the only good thing which that short-lived Liberal Government managed to do before they lost power.

Having made the party political plug, if I can comment very briefly, the point is —and I am grateful for the support from the noble Earl, Lord Lytton—I accept the nitpicking complaints about the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. If he were to investigate the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 he would find out what is in this section which this amendment is referring to. In my opinion, it is all together far too long-winded and bureaucratic in terms of community governance reviews. On standards, it is often little rural parishes which cause the most bother.

However, I am extremely grateful for the Minister’s comments, which are extremely positive. I look forward with enthusiasm and anticipation to the Government’s proposals in November, which some might say is a pleasant change for me, although it is not entirely. I thank her very much for what she has said. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 205ZZA withdrawn.

17:30

Schedule 9 : Neighbourhood planning

Amendment 205ZA

Moved by

[Baroness Hanham]

205ZA: Schedule 9, page 319, leave out lines 11 to 18 and insert—
“(a) it is established for the express purpose of promoting or improving the social, economic and environmental well-being of an area that consists of or includes the neighbourhood area concerned (whether or not it is also established for the express purpose of promoting the carrying on of trades, professions or other businesses in such an area),”

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, I will move Amendment 205ZA and then sit down for the other amendments to be moved or spoken to. I will respond to them subsequently. Government Amendment 205ZA makes it clear that neighbourhood forums should always have a purpose which seeks to promote the overall economic, social and environmental well-being of the neighbourhood area. We do not want to impose any further unnecessary restrictions on organisations which want to put themselves forward to create neighbourhood forums. It continues to make it clear, however, that a forum may also have an explicit purpose of promoting the development of business in a neighbourhood area should that be appropriate given the local context. I beg to move.

Amendment 205ZB (to Amendment 205ZA)

Moved by

[Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville]

205ZB: Schedule 9, line 3, leave out “and environmental” and insert “ , environmental and cultural”

[Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville]

My Lords, I have Amendments 205ZB and 205ZC in this group, to which I will speak. I immediately welcome the Government’s amendment moved by my noble friend the Minister, which leads this group, and express appreciation for it in response to what was said in Committee. It still does not go quite as far as I wished, as expressed in Amendment 205ZC on the Marshalled List, which I moved in Committee on behalf of the Heritage Alliance. Amendment 205ZB addresses that. I shall not rehearse everything I said on the previous occasion, except to explain why I have put it down again and to repeat the final sentence of my speech in Committee.

On that latter occasion, I said that the amendment’s essence was to make sure that there is a consideration of cultural well-being in addition to the considerations that the Government have placed in this part of the Bill. As to why I have repeated this amendment, last Monday night I said that I understood and concurred with the Government in their emphasis on economic growth in their planning policy, but I retain a concern that we shall not have fully done our job of scrutiny on this Bill unless the Government have made their peace more fully with the heritage lobby.

Since last Monday, I have spoken to the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, to air my concern about this issue. I received their encouragement to bring it back to your Lordships’ House. I recall the treatment, perhaps due to their funding decisions towards the heritage, meted out to DCMS Ministers in the previous Government at the annual dinners of English Heritage. Of course I realise that in such an instance the Government are the Government are the Government. But it is not DCLG Ministers who will carry the can in terms of criticism of the Government’s planning policy within that heritage arena but rather their DCMS colleagues if some planning cruces are left unimproved.

The Government will know better than I how they can resolve this matter but the acceptance of Amendment 205ZB would be a helpful sign that they understood the problem. The Minister may well say that the word “environmental” embraces “cultural”. But environmental is much more of a portmanteau word; the old contradistinction between the Department of the Environment and the Department for Culture, when in 1992 the responsibility for the built environment was separated at the creation of the new department, itself makes the separate culture point. That is reinforced as a cultural emphasis when I say that I have no emotional capital tied up in the words of my first amendment but I hope that the Minister can recognise the significance of the issue. I should add that within the Heritage Alliance, this view is particularly held by the Theatres Trust, which falls into the area of responsibility of DCMS. I beg to move.

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords, I strongly support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville. I had the pleasure of taking a small deputation to see my noble friend the Minister a couple of weeks ago. It included the chief executive of the National Churches Trust as well as the chief executive of the Heritage Alliance. We discussed a range of issues as we also had a representative from the National Trust present. We had an extremely constructive and amicable meeting, for which I am very grateful to my noble friend. But I do not think that she could fail to have been impressed by the quiet passion expressed by those I took with me on that occasion. A very special concern was expressed by the chief executive of the Theatres Trust. My noble friend has just referred to that.

This is not just a semantic point. There is real substance in his argument and it is not sufficient for any Government or Minister to assert that environmental embraces cultural. Because of the demarcation to which my noble friend referred when he talked about the establishment of the Department of National Heritage, as it originally was, the Government have decided that there is a distinction, but it is not a distinction without a difference. When the Minister replies to this debate, I hope that she will at the very least promise to come back at Third Reading on this issue. I hope that it is not an issue on which we have to divide the House because these matters transcend all party and petty differences. We are concerned about establishing a new system that will be in place, I hope, for a long time. I trust that it will bring real benefit. But it will not bring the real benefit that we all desire unless there is sufficient recognition of the points made so succinctly and admirably by my noble friend. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us at least some comfort when she comes to reply.

[Lord Lucas]

My Lords, perhaps I may address my amendment in the group before we get too far into the speeches. I am addressing a rather different subject, which is to try to make sure that the wording in the Bill will encompass people who are part of the community because they volunteer in it and not because they work in it. I am thinking particularly of, say, a scout leader who has come into an area to create a new scout group. He may not be from the area but he will be an expert community organiser. In the process of this, he will have become someone who really knows and understands the community, and will be a valuable part of the forum. I very much hope that people like that will be included.

[Lord Deben]

My Lords, I hesitate to disagree with my noble friends on this subject but I would hope that the Minister will be careful before she automatically goes down the tempting line of adding cultural to the environment. The reason for that is very clear. First, I have to declare an interest: the division between the Department of the Environment and the Department for Culture was a huge mistake. But it was not made on the basis of a difference: it was made on the basis of personalities. It was set up in that way to provide particular jobs for particular people, which is why culture and sport were put together. As it was done by a Prime Minister whom I strongly supported, I do not think that people can complain about my point.

I do not think that the idea that there is an eternal justification for this distinction based on the division in government is acceptable. I understand the reason for it but it has some very dangerous aspects to it. Let me give a simple example. I have fought for a long time to protect the countryside in Suffolk—its environment and its beauty. Part of that is stopping the sea taking it away. One of the things that the previous Government did, which was wholly unacceptable, was to downgrade the nature of the heritage contribution to the environment by making the points that they scored when they came to discuss the issue of coastal defence. Without any discussion with the heritage lobby, they lowered the importance of heritage within the environment.

I cannot consider the environment without considering culture. I believe that “environment” is a word which covers our cultural heritage as much as it does—I am afraid I am going to insult people—woolly animals. One of the problems is that the environment is often talked about as if it is about woolly animals. It is not—it is about the whole ambience in which we live. To exclude culture from the environment, or to suggest that there is a distinction, seems to me to have very serious import. I would hope that a future Government would reunite the environment with culture. That is where it should be. It is much closer to that than, for example, the media, which seem to me to have only a tangential effect on it. Much of the media seems to me neither cultural nor environmental. I do not see that the media should therefore necessarily be in the same box. To be told that the future of legislation should be based on a mistaken decision in the past about divisions between Ministries seems to me to be a fault.

One of the problems the Government have got themselves into—I am sure my noble friend Lord Cormack will agree with this—is that some of the language that has been used in the context of planning has led people to believe that our commitment to our environment, be it the cultural environment or the natural environment, has been less than strong. I think that has subsequently been put right and has been remedied not only by my noble friend but by the Prime Minister and others. However, I beg my noble friend to be very careful about this. I know that the House wishes to move on, but I have stayed—I have not had temptation—for this amendment, because I think we have to stand firm on the statement that the environment is not just about the natural environment but that the urban environment, the cultural environment and the spiritual environment all fit in. If she gives way on this, I would argue that there ought to be amendments about the spiritual environment. We have had this before. If we are going to start dividing the environment up, I would find it unacceptable to leave the spiritual side of life out of the Bill. I am able to accept it because the word “environment” carries that meaning for me just as much as it implies the natural environment and the cultural environment.

I hope that the Government will take this very seriously and that those who lobby my noble friend Lady Hanham are told very clearly that if they have not managed to establish the idea that great poetry, plays, architecture and heritage are part of the environment, then they need to present their case more effectively.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I shall work back through the amendments, starting with Amendment 205A, which is tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I doubt whether the wording is actually necessary, as it is probably encompassed by what is already in the Bill, but I do think it is an admirable amendment and its thrust is certainly something we support. With regard to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, I was persuaded by the points that have just been made by the noble Lord, Lord Deben.

I should like to ask the Minister for clarification concerning the Government’s amendment, the thrust of which was to dispel a concern that business neighbourhood forums were going to be focused on business to the exclusion of the environment and other social and economic aspects. I think the wording has now changed, so that it ensures that neighbourhood forums always have a purpose which seeks to promote the overall economic, social and environmental well-being of the neighbourhood area. The original formulation—which is the one used in the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke—was that it should relate to individuals who want to live in the area. There may not be a great distinction in those formulations, but I should be grateful if the Minister could help us on that. Amendment 205ZA, which deals with concerns about the focus of neighbourhood business forums, is to be welcomed.

17:45

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. With regard to Amendment 205ZA, I hope I have made clear that we do not want to impose further restrictions on the purpose of a neighbourhood area, but we do want to make clear that a forum may also have an explicit purpose of promoting the development of business in a neighbourhood area. This picks up that point and makes it clear that it is possible to have business areas as well as neighbourhood areas which are mostly residential. A business area can also include residents and often does. However, there are places such as business parks where there is not a resident to be seen, and therefore it is appropriate that there should be business areas in such cases.

Amendment 205ZB has generated the most emotion. I have some sympathy with my noble friend Lord Deben and what he said about adding “cultural”. We had quite a long debate at the previous stage about the definition of sustainable development. At one stage I recall myself saying that if we were not careful we would have a whole string of additions to sustainable development. The cultural and spiritual aspects were both discussed, and we were in danger of developing a wider and wider concept of the environment.

We still have to decide what we will do about the definition of sustainable development. However, I am not anxious to have extra elements added in to it. This is specifically because the national planning policy framework is very clear about the preservation of historic regions, areas and buildings. These have to be taken into account and looked at by a neighbourhood forum. It cannot simply ignore them and they will probably already have been identified in the local development plan. There are sufficient ways of making sure that culture is protected. The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, is correct that the question of theatres, opera houses and other cultural buildings was also raised. There is enough to protect all of these and make sure that they are taken into account in any question about the development of a neighbourhood plan.

Amendment 205ZC explicitly promotes the purpose of business. Amendment 205A would specify that neighbourhood forums shall be open to employees, owners of businesses premises, and, as was specifically raised by my noble friend Lord Lucas, volunteers. We do not think that this amendment is necessary as the wording in the Bill, which was amended in the Commons, is sufficiently broad to include individuals who work in businesses carried on in the neighbourhood area, who own businesses, or other organisations operating in the area or who otherwise work in the neighbourhood area. That very specifically also includes volunteers. It must be right that an organisation which is helping in an area or providing volunteers for it should have a say. We do not think that the amendment is necessary and I hope my noble friend will take that reassurance.

The word “businesses” in the context of this amendment is used in the broadest of terms. It includes commercial, industrial and professional activities, the public and third sectors as well as the agricultural and fishery sectors, but ensures that membership is open only to those with a local connection. This encompasses practically everybody, but they have to be specifically related to the neighbourhood area. By specifying these categories in the Bill, Amendment 205A would reduce the scope we have provided for in terms of the diverse range of people who can become members of a neighbourhood forum.

I hope that, with those explanations, noble Lords will feel able not to press their amendments.

[Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville]

My Lords, I am not entirely clear whether under our procedure I am allowed to say a word about my amendment to my noble friend’s amendment. However, I would be speaking after the Minister and I am not clear whether I am allowed to or not.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Colwyn)]

The noble Lord may speak at this point.

[Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville]

In that case, I shall give way to the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, who I think wants to intervene.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I am conscious that the Minister has spoken, but can she deal with one point, which may be just a matter of drafting? The existing Bill refers to,

“furthering the social, economic and environmental well-being of individuals living, or wanting to live, in an area”.

The amendment would change that to,

“it is established for the express purpose of promoting or improving the social, economic and environmental well-being of an area”.

The reference to “individuals” has slipped out. This may be a point of drafting rather than one of substance, and I am trying to see what it is if there is one. Can the Minister give us an assurance on that?

[Baroness Hanham]

I think my inspiration has arrived in this note. We have used the phrase “well-being of an area” because it is already used in the Local Government Act. We want the purpose to relate to the area rather than to the well-being of individuals within the area. It is not a mistake and the word “individuals” has been taken out, but by definition individuals would make up an area. You cannot deal with one without taking account of the other.

[Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville]

My Lords, from what the Minister has just said, I understand the purpose of her amendment and the change in emphasis from the original text to which it gave reference. My noble friend Lord Deben and I have, on one or two occasions both in this House and the other place on matters of some importance, differed in a most agreeable way in the course of respective debates. I can remember defending Westminster Abbey and its Dean and Chapter against him, and I now find him defending the Department of the Environment against me. I am not suggesting for a moment that I am trying to put the tanks on his lawn with my amendment, but I will remind him of something in terms of what he has said about the 1992 division of responsibilities. It is not for me to comment on whether it was done for personnel reasons, not least because I was a totally incidental participant in that process. But I will say that one of the great virtues of the separation made in 1992 is that it removed the need for Chinese walls within the Department of the Environment. Previously the department had been involved both in making listing decisions and in listing building consents. The great advantage of the separation—I can remember it when my noble friend Lord Deben was the Secretary of State for the Environment—was that we did not have one department making all the same decisions. That was extraordinarily useful.

I understand the desire of the House to move on. I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Cormack for his intervention. I do not know whether we can move the Minister at all between now and Third Reading, but in the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 205ZB, as an amendment to Amendment 205ZA, withdrawn.

Amendment 205ZA agreed.

Amendments 205ZC and 205A not moved.

.Amendment 205B

Moved by

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

205B: Schedule 9, page 321, line 18, at end insert—
“( ) A neighbourhood forum designated under this section is to be taken for the purposes of section 6(3)(b) of the Human Rights Act 1998 and section 149(2) of the Equality Act 2010 to be exercising a function of a public nature when exercising functions under this Act.”

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I hope to be brief in moving this amendment because I think a point here was left outstanding. This brings back an amendment that was introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, in Committee. In responding to the amendment, I think the noble Baroness confirmed that plans could not be approved under these provisions unless they were compatible with the Human Rights Act, but she said that neighbourhood forums do not exercise a public function and therefore we have the anomaly originally pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, that parish councils are subject to the equality duty while neighbourhood forums are not. This remains an issue of concern because the impact assessment for these provisions points out that certain communities are much less likely to engage and therefore be involved in this process than others. I do not think we dealt with the question of whether there is a technical problem in bringing neighbourhood forums within the scope of the equality duty, notwithstanding that they apparently do not exercise public functions. Otherwise, there is an issue about doing all we can to ensure that all communities have a chance to become engaged in these neighbourhood planning opportunities. I beg to move.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, has quite rightly said that I brought this amendment forward at the Committee stage. I apologise to him because I had intended to add my name to his amendment at this stage, but in the hustle and bustle of the Bill, I failed to do so. The noble Lord has set out the position clearly and I do not have anything to add other than to support his remarks.

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, I am not going to be able to take this any further, so the response I made in Committee is the one I am going to give to the noble Lord again. Neighbourhood forums are not public bodies and therefore by definition they are outside the requirements of the Equality Act. Their purpose is to form themselves in order to make a neighbourhood plan and subsequently, when they have done that, to disband, so they will have a shortish life. By definition they are expected to be widely inclusive in terms of who is on them, and that will be checked by the local authority. The neighbourhood planning proposals cannot be approved unless they are compliant with human rights obligations. Built into this is an expectation of equality both in terms of who should be on the neighbourhood forum and in the way that plans have to be compatible with human rights obligations. It is a requirement, but it is not an absolute legislative requirement because it cannot be one. I hope that, with my explanation, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Greaves]

My noble friend has just said something I have not heard before, which is that the expectation is that neighbourhood forums will be short-lived. They will be set up for a particular purpose and they will then close down. I wonder if she would like to comment on that because it is something that we would like to take away and think about, particularly in light of the comments made on earlier amendments by the noble Lord, Lord True.

18:00

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, I do not think we have ever said anything different. The neighbourhood forums are to come together within a neighbourhood area and their prime purpose is to put forward the neighbourhood plan. They were never expected to be longstanding or permanent organisations and the shortest time, I think, is up to five years. That has been the situation all along and if there is anything different from that—noble Lords have been drawing their breath and sucking their teeth at that response—I will write to the noble Lord.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for those two answers, effectively. The latter one is rather illuminating. Will the noble Baroness drop me and other noble Lords a line to confirm that notwithstanding that the Equalities Act does not ab initio apply to neighbourhood forums, it cannot be brought within its scope, so that we have that added reassurance of the thrust of that equality duty? Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, I will certainly write to the noble Lord, but my response will be in Hansard and I do not anticipate that it will change.

Amendment 205B withdrawn.

Amendment 205C

Moved by

[Baroness Hanham]

205C: Schedule 9, page 322, line 10, at end insert “; but if a modification relates to any extent to the area of a parish council, the modification may be made only with the council’s consent”

[Baroness Hanham]

Amendment 205C ensures that a neighbourhood area for which there is a parish council can be modified only with the consent of that council. We have listened to the cogent arguments put forward by the noble Lords, Lord Greaves and Lord Tope, and brought forward this amendment to meet those concerns. I am grateful to the noble Lords for raising this issue. The amendment is entirely consistent with the localist thrust of the Bill and will ensure that changes cannot be imposed on parishes in a top-down manner.

Amendment 206A is intended to make it clear that neighbourhood development plans are flexible and that the policies can apply to all or part of a neighbourhood area. That is to say that they do not need to have policies that apply across the whole neighbourhood area. That had always been our intention, but this amendment addresses concerns raised in Committee that the provisions about flexibility were not clear on this point. This flexibility is important. We want communities to be able to use neighbourhood planning in ways which reflect their aspirations and their vision for the future. We want to make clear, therefore, that there are no unnecessary, top-down restrictions: neighbourhood development plans can be as simple or as ambitious as the community wants to make them. They can include policies covering the whole area, or could have just one or two policies focused on a specific site, such as a high street or valued green space.

Amendment 210B seeks to emphasise the central importance that the Government place on effective consultation in neighbourhood planning. Therefore, rather than leaving consultation requirements to secondary legislation, this amendment would require a qualifying body to submit a consultation statement to the local planning authority prior to independent examination. Amendment 210B also makes it clear that this consultation statement should set out who has been consulted in developing the neighbourhood plan or order and a summary of the key issues raised through that consultation. It responds to concerns raised by several Peers and partner organisations in Committee that the Bill did not contain explicit consultation requirements for neighbourhood planning or the need for evidence to show that the views of others had been listened to and considered in the development of the neighbourhood planning proposals. Further detailed consultation requirements will be set out in secondary legislation. I beg to move.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, we support all three amendments.

Amendment 205C agreed.

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, was here a moment ago. I am not sure why she is not here, but the rest of us can speak to our amendments when we get to them. I do not think that we can move hers.

[Earl Attlee]

If it might help the House, the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, can move Amendment 206 without any difficulty.

Amendment 206

Moved by

[Lord Berkeley]

206: Schedule 9, page 324, line 36, at end insert—
“(c) in the case of planning permission for the construction of a basement at an existing property, provision requiring the applicant to undertake full consultation with owners of adjoining properties and with any others who would be adversely affected by the construction.”

[Lord Berkeley]

I am grateful to the noble Earl. This amendment is in my name as well as that of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes. Let us hope that she comes back to your Lordships’ Chamber before we get to the end of this. I feel that these amendments are very important. I have had several close experiences of party wall failures. I am going to talk not about fracking—that comes in a later amendment—but about people extending their basements in rows of terraced houses and things like that. I have had one experience which persuaded me of the need for changes to the legislation. The amendments put down by the noble Baroness will achieve this.

My experience was to do with a garden wall in London. The people next door wished to build a house against the garden wall and to go down to build a basement. They had to go about five feet down and said that they had to take five feet of the garden in order to achieve this, which, of course, is allowed under party wall legislation. They put up a temporary fence, knocked everything down and dug the hole. Then they went bust and the hole stayed there for two years. By that time I had sold the house to somebody who, luckily, was a professional architect and knew what he was talking about. In the end, he took the neighbours to court but had to get two separate court orders; one before they would construct the basement up to ground level and reinstate the garden and another before they completed the wall up to the requisite height. Five years later the wall is still not finished—if you push the top of it, it moves, which is interesting. Having had to go to court twice and suffered two burglaries as a result, I think it demonstrates that something needs to be done. I certainly support these amendments which the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, has put forward and co-ordinated. I am sure that she will wish to speak after me, but in the mean time I beg to move.

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for starting this debate. I will speak to Amendments 206, 224 and 227. Amendment 206 is the one about consultation. I have a somewhat sceptical view about consultation because when I was building my house, we consulted all the neighbours and they all objected just the same, so it is of limited value. However, Dr Thompson, who has done a lot of work and held public meetings on this issue, quoted me an example of someone who consulted their neighbours and agreed that they would have all the cars washed every day and would have everything swept and cleaned. Apparently the whole basement development went through without a hitch. That person has now moved into the basement and the people next door to her have started to do theirs. Apparently, it is absolutely chaotic and they have not consulted or agreed anything, so consultation might be of value but it is of limited value.

It is far more important to deal with the other items which I am covering in Amendment 224. One is the question of precedent. I should declare an interest in that, when I die, my children, in order to get the best value for my home, will definitely want to be able to say that they could have a basement under it, because in that part of London a hotel has just been built with six storeys underground. Other people are building to a lesser extent, but at least half the people in the streets adjoining my house in London have already either got permission or done their basements. Because you cannot go up, the only way you can continue to live in a place with an expanding family is to go down so there is a definite need and a case for basements. That is why I have included in subsection (1) of Amendment 224 the issue of precedents. If an area is already full of basements, why should you not have the same right?

More importantly, subsection (2) refers to a bond or security. When my husband was alive, he represented St John’s Wood as a councillor and I certainly know of a basement there that was under construction for three years. There was another one in Brompton Square. After three years, the people each went bankrupt and with that, the people in the houses on either side of them were faced with a terrible situation. They could do nothing: their houses could fall into the hole or fill with water, as the basement was filling with water. It is quite alarming. A bond or security could be an answer in this kind of situation. It should be easy to find cover as part of your buildings insurance. Subsection (3) refers to “a qualified structural engineer”. Some of the better London boroughs already impose such conditions. They apply them to any such planning consent and the work has to be both planned and supervised. The three subsections in Amendment 224 are important.

Even more important is Amendment 227, which relates to amendments to the Party Wall etc. Act. I am grateful to the noble Lord who gave me some marvellous papers from the RICS, on its practice standards for UK party wall legislation. They were very interesting. The noble Lord is an expert on the subject. If the party wall legislation were updated to cover these matters, there is already a great deal of provision for security in there, which would also cover the consultation issue. As far as I can see, basements are more or less a big city issue. I do not know whether it is a big issue in big cities outside London, but in London it has certainly become one. It is important that something should be done about it.

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

My Lords, I support my noble friend’s amendment, which was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley.

I say at once that I was extremely grateful to my noble friend Lady Hanham for acceding to my request that I should take a deputation from two of the community bodies interested in this subject. We met my noble friend on 31 August. The community bodies included representatives of some of the householders who have been so appallingly affected by these basement developments—“subterranean developments”, they seem to be called. So impressed was my noble friend by what she heard and read that she instructed her officials—I hope I quote her correctly—“to find a solution”. The delegation therefore left in some considerable hope that something might be done to meet their concerns.

In passing, I asked them whether they had tried to raise this issue in the other place. Their answer was rather revealing: they had tried but they could not find any Member of another place who was prepared to take up the issue. There was no delegation to see a Minister in the other place. It has been left to this House to pursue the issue and to gain the assurance from my noble friend that her department should find a solution.

I have four amendments in this group. The first two were tabled for Committee and have been carried through to Report. One was intended to provide a code of practice and the other to provide some form of recompense for the massive disturbance that householders face. However, I have subsequently received a letter from my noble friend explaining that those amendments were not acceptable. In the letter of 9 August she said:

“With regard to your proposals relating to the Secretary of State issuing guidance, in the spirit of localism, I believe it is best to leave it to local authorities to issue guidance”.

Relying on that, I then tabled Amendment 230 to provide that the local authority shall issue guidance.

However, my noble friend also was not keen on the idea of compensation. She said she believed that,

“the introduction of such a provision would set an unwelcome precedent for this to be adopted more generally”.

I have therefore tabled a second amendment.

18:15

My noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes is absolutely right that we need an extension of the Party Wall etc. Act 1996, which was passed after a good deal of discussion in order to deal with the problem of party walls dividing two houses. I say this with some hesitation as the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, is a considerable expert. As my noble friend has already pointed out, he chaired the RICS panel which has recently produced the sixth edition of its guidance on party wall legislation and procedure. However, we need an amendment to the Party Wall etc. Act because, as presently drafted and operated, that legislation is not apt to catch the kind of experiences that neighbouring householders are facing as a result of these subterranean developments.

It is perfectly clear from page 3 of the guidance that the Act,

“authorises work that may involve physical encroachment onto a neighbour’s land, or produce dust, vibration, noise or some other inconvenience”.

However, the work must be carried out in such a way as not to cause unnecessary inconvenience. That is what we are talking about, and yet I have been advised—I think that this will be confirmed by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton—that the Act is not in a form in which it can be used to remedy these evils. I use the word advisedly. This applies to householders in many parts of London. It happens not only in Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster; I am told that it happens also in Camden, Hammersmith and Fulham. It occurs where the value of the land is so high that it is cheaper to carry out an expensive excavation downwards than to move into a larger house, on which of course there is now the extra stamp duty. That is what is driving it. It is a function of the value of land.

Perhaps I may give an indication. A very old friend of mine, a distinguished former ambassador—he and his wife are now both over 80—sent me a message when he realised that I was taking an interest. He writes as follows:

“Our little London house in Hamilton Close St John’s Wood was once the groom’s cottage for the main house in Hamilton Terrace. When we bought it in 1985 Hamilton close was a quiet cobbled backwater. In recent years we have been plagued by noisy builders, excavators and concrete mixers obstructing the Close and damaging the cobbles as well as making an infernal noise during working hours”.

As with the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, they, too, suffered not just one but two failures by the contractors, who were building next door an underground swimming pool and gym.

As for those employing the contractors, often these are people for whom it is only one of a number of houses, and as my noble friend said, these things are apparently considered necessary in modern society. When one is told that people can spend £750,000 on building an underground swimming pool in that sort of area, one can see that huge resources are involved. The effect on neighbours is simply horrendous. The owners of the house, of course, move out. They can go and stay in a hotel while it is all going on. The neighbours just have to put up with it.

I am not in the least surprised that my noble friend Lady Hanham told her officials that a solution must be found. It may well be that none of the amendments I have tabled is sufficient to do this. It may well be that my noble friend’s reason—which she has put to me—is that if one is going to change the law in this respect, it must be the subject of consultation, but there really is not time for that. However, it should be possible for this House to ask the Government to table an amendment which would give the Government the power to amend the Party Wall etc. Act so that it can be extended to this sort of development, that it can provide for an effective code of practice, and that it can provide for some measure of compensation—as does the party wall Act—for the disturbance, and horrendous interference with normal life, which these developments are causing.

I agree with noble friend that something must be done; a solution must be found. My noble friend has convened a meeting tomorrow to discuss this issue, and I am fascinated to know what we are going to discuss. However, I give her notice that if none of these amendments is acceptable to the Government, then I would want to table an amendment at Third Reading to give the Government the power to amend the party wall Act, so that it can be extended to cover precisely the problem that we have been discussing. There is no doubt about it: something has to be done. I hope we shall find a way that this House can achieve that.

[The Earl of Lytton]

My Lords, I rise to plead guilty as charged I am afraid. I am indeed a professional practitioner in matters of party walls, and I am indeed the chairman of the professional panel set up by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors on boundaries and party wall issues, which was responsible for the recent guidance note to which the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, referred.

I am also a paid-up member and a former national council chairman of something that is known as the Pyramus and Thisbe Club—that delightfully named organisation which is peopled by specialists who have a particular interest in party wall matters. Noble Lords will realise straight away that it is named after Shakespeare’s characters in “A Midsummer Night’s Dream” who whispered, conversed and conducted their courtship through a chink in a party wall. I have to say that most of the things that go on through chinks in party walls are anything other than courtship, as we have already heard. A further charge to add to the sheet is—

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

There is, I believe, a committee of surveyors called the Pyramus and Thisbe group which draws its name entirely from what the noble Earl has just referred to.

[The Earl of Lytton]

Yes, indeed. It is actually called the Pyramus and Thisbe Club, and it has London and regional representation. It expanded quite considerably after the Party Wall etc. Act 1996 became law. Noble Lords—and certainly the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner—will remember that I took that Bill through its stages in this House in a previous parliamentary incarnation. I make no apology for saying that I have always thought that Section 10 of that Act—which is the dispute resolution process—was a model for our time. It is a form of alternative dispute resolution, and I thought it was well worth applying to a much larger range of inter-neighbour issues, as opposed to people having to go through the courts.

Let us leave aside for one minute the point that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, mentioned about the state of the housing market and the huge pressures that that brings to bear on scarce urban space, about which I will make a comment later. Many of the things that noble Lords have referred to are, of course, true. Subterranean development can have very significant implications for neighbouring properties both during the course of construction and in the subsequent effects, often several years later. The planning and building regulations regime provides only a partial protection. Sometimes it provides none, and the common law gives rise to actions often only once damage has become apparent, sometimes long after the original developer has gone from the scene.

I turn to the question of whether the Party Wall etc. Act 1996 can be usefully amended. At this juncture I would say that that legislation is, of course, very narrowly framed. It came out of the old London Building Acts, which had broadly similar provisions. That legislation risked being abolished under the terms of the repeal of the London Building Acts with the abolition of the GLC. It was saved from that in no small part by the prompting from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I am very grateful to him. From his knowledge and experience at the time, he was one of the mainsprings for making sure that that legislation was preserved. I pay him tribute for that. But widening its scope would have to be considered very carefully. It is a very finely drafted construct. There are many professional and technical understandings that are interwoven right the way through the Act. To amend one particular bit through an amendment to this Localism Bill would, I am afraid, have other consequences that might be less desirable—possibly the law of unforeseen consequences. That said, I would welcome the opportunity to see whether that Act can be amended to deal with this issue.

On security for expenses, we have this issue with the technically challenging nature of very deep excavations. They often create larger risks than those just arising from works for which notice would have to be served under the party wall provisions. So there is an issue about how you extend that scope, and make sure that it remains cohesive. There must be very few surveyors involved in this area of work who have not come across a building site where the contractor or the developer—or sometimes both—have gone bust, possibly leaving a building site with a large hole in the ground, and creating huge ongoing liabilities for adjoining properties. Enabling a default mechanism where this can be addressed is in the public interest. But then comes the question: if you are going to empower something to be done about it, how do you pay for it? This brings into question the matter of an insurance-backed warranty of some sort.

Again, this is a very difficult area. It depends how the provision is constructed, how it is worded, and how it benefits other people, who are not necessarily identified from inception as being beneficiaries of this. Overseas-based developers, non-resident owners and possibly eastern European builders do go to make a bit of a heady mix in the more valuable and economically important parts of our inner cities. Clearly these matters need to be dealt with by technicians who are competent and know what they are doing, know what they are looking at, can identify issues of boundaries and know something about construction. However, there is no generally applicable or enforceable code of practice for this type of development. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, referred to Camden. The London Borough of Camden probably has the most competent of all the codes of practice that I have seen.

However, the whole process is permissive at the moment. It is actually dogged by having poor enforcement procedures. It needs to have something better than it has. It operates by a process of consensus. With those who wish to play fast and loose with the system, often the consensus does not exist. That is a criticism of the whole process.

18:30

I hope nobody will suppose that I am in favour of putting impediments in the way of undertaking development, to cover the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner. I did professional work for those involved in the development process so the principle of being able to do works on one’s own land should, within limits, be properly protected. Local residents should not be able to veto a scheme just because they dislike it. There is a broader question of how far the effects of that development process should be visited upon neighbours and more widely on the general public in terms of serial, ongoing building works that can often blight urban streets over many years. That needs to be internalised within the development process to a greater degree.

While I am nervous about how these amendments would affect the Party Wall etc. Act, I would be happy and willing—as would many chartered surveyors, engineers, architects and others who are actively involved in party wall matters—to assist the noble Baroness and her department in trying to find a solution. With that in mind, I hope that there is some way that this can be brought forward a little faster than waiting for some remote next legislative opportunity while at the same time perhaps not rushing to see that something must be done in the context of this particular Bill.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, before I speak to our Amendment 226 in this group, I have a few general comments about the contributions of other noble Lords. Some compelling points have been made about the need to address this issue. I suspect, although it may not be the case, that this is largely a London issue because, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, said, it is particularly associated with very high land value. I can honestly say that I have not encountered it in Luton to date, but it may apply to other areas of the country. I see that the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, has clearly experienced it. We are interested in hearing the Minister’s view on whether the way forward is to deal with a combination of codes of practice, party wall legislation changes, and issues around insurance or bonds.

Our Amendment 226 would amend Amendment 225 from the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, and my noble friend Lord Berkeley, with its code of practice for subterranean development. It is simply to ensure that the importance of promoting good health and safety and minimising the risk of injury or ill health to workers and the public is part of any addressing of the issue. I was prompted to bring it forward by simply looking at the text of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, about the code of practice. He talks about “noise and vibration”, and,

“dust, dirt and the risk of an infestation of vermin”—

all things that one can imagine are an integral part of excavation. It is important that we focus on the safety of people working in that environment as well as the convenience of neighbours and the owners of the property itself.

Construction is still a pretty unsafe working environment. It has got a lot better over the last decade, although I do not have the very recent figures on fatalities and fatal accidents. Most concerns arise in small house-building and refurbishment projects, the sorts of projects that one would envisage being involved here. Although I am advised that no special codes or regulations need to be introduced to deal with this—the CDM regulations of 2007 and the guidance around them are sufficient—in considering all these matters we should have uppermost in our minds the safety of people who undertake what can be quite dangerous work. In so far as protecting the public is concerned, I was advised that on one occasion the development was subterranean to such an extent that the skip on the road outside went through the road. Obviously there were risks of injury to the public from that. That is the purpose of my amendment, which I hope is entirely non-contentious.

[Lord Lucas]

My Lords, I hope that my noble friend will find a way forward in this area. It seems so consonant with what we are doing in the Bill to give those who are polluted some comeback or control over those who pollute. That seems a good principle to push forward on.

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, I must say at the outset that it was only because I became a Minister that I stopped being on the planning committee of my borough, the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, where we dealt with an enormous number of subterranean developments. My patience ran out when we had one that went down three floors. When I asked why it had to go so far down, they said that the person who owned the house wanted a high diving board.

I am not at all unsympathetic to this particular discussion. After my noble friends Lord Jenkin and Lady Gardner came to see me originally with some representatives from Kensington and Chelsea, and Westminster, I thought carefully about what we would do here. The fact is that this Bill will not solve the problems. There are too many elements to this to help by legislation. There is legislation all over the place that governs this. I was concerned to see what could be done within the legislation that is there at the moment and whether codes of practice, guidance and all the elements could be brought together and given to local authorities to help them. For that reason, I asked my noble friend Lord Jenkin and the people who came to see me to agree to be a small working party to discuss with officials the ideas that they had for amending this, with the officials bringing together what can already be done. Could we, through some discussion and feeling our way, find a solution that did not require primary legislation, or has this been going on for so long that it is well beyond that? We want something quick that guides local authorities in what they can and cannot do.

The local authorities that have to deal with this are becoming quite adroit, but the effect on people who live roundabout is absolutely atrocious. I know of one person who complained that a basement extension was being dug up on either side of his house and opposite it, too. Once basements are developed you cannot see them and they are all gone, but it is during this development process, which can take anything up to two years, when the trouble starts.

I hope that my noble friend Lord Jenkin will not bring back an amendment at Third Reading. We have an awful lot already and the Bill managers are becoming slightly anxious. I feel that we can resolve the problem more quickly than this. There are already endless Acts covering this. I am concerned that those Acts are not properly understood or implemented by local authorities. There are building and environmental regulations. Construction method statements are required. There are party wall implications, construction design and management regulations, the control of pollution Acts and the Party Wall etc. Act. As a result of the meeting that we had prior to this being brought up this time, we are already working with the Basement Information Centre to see about guidance on the construction of basements and how those could be developed to cover the issues we have raised. Defra is looking to prove an updated version of the British Standard so as to give it statutory force under the Control of Pollution Act. The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors publishes guidance on the Party Wall etc. Act, as the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, said. I would accept, immediately with gratitude, his help with this. We already have a meeting tomorrow if the noble Lord is free, and we will take it into account.

The party wall issue is clearly another very major area, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, has pointed out the difficulties with bringing this into more legislation when there may be ways of making it clearer and more acceptable by guidance. We and the department are going to review the guidance on the Party Wall etc. Act so that it reflects matters better. The Health and Safety Executive is developing guidance for builders, and all the issues which the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, has raised will come under health and safety; they must do. We do not underestimate the disturbance and distress that poorly executed work on subterranean developments can cause.

I want the small group that we have now, working with our officials, to go through what has been picked up on now, what the legislation is, what guidance is needed and where local authorities need to be given a better helping hand with a code of conduct, and to see whether we can do this without having to go to primary legislation again. I think we can probably do this, and I would like to be given the opportunity to try. I cannot complete this between now and Third Reading, so I am going to have to rely on the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, perhaps not moving this at Third Reading, but with my commitment to try to see this through. I fully and totally understand the concerns around this. I am not surprised that it has provoked discussion to get it into the Bill. By the time we have had a consultation on legislation, if it is possible to have that, we are going to be way off down the line.

I will personally take a lead in this to see what can be done, what guidance can be provided and what extra clout can be given, one way or another, either through the Party Wall etc. Act or by strengthening the guidance. I would like an opportunity to be able to do that, but having said that I am very grateful to the noble Lords who have spoken. I gather that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, had to leave to chair another meeting, but his amendment was very much along the lines of the others moved in this debate.

I hope noble Lords will feel able to withdraw their amendments. I hope to see all those noble Lords reasonably frequently for the next weeks while we try to sort this out. I look forward to seeing the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, as part of that.

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes]

My Lords, I have listened with interest to the Minister’s reply, and I am sure we would all like to go along with whatever she says because she has clearly thought about it seriously. However, I do not think that it in any way answers the problems that people have.

The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, talked about unnecessary inconvenience, but that is not the big issue. Every bit of building work is always an extreme inconvenience for everyone else around it. In the street where my house is in London I have gone through eight years of all the office blocks being demolished and replaced with giant blocks of flats. It meant that the whole street was congested and you could not move. It was extremely inconvenient, but I do not expect compensation for that. We have to encourage development and any necessary construction. I am not so concerned about compensation for disturbance, but I am concerned about people who find themselves left with a hole in the ground beside them when the people who have dug it have gone bankrupt. It should be simple to set up some sort of insurance, and I would like to speak to the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, whose views I greatly respect, because he said there might be complications with this. I thought that insurance was a pretty common feature in building. Most builders have insurance. We should discuss that at some further time.

17:06

I cannot promise not to bring this matter back at Third Reading until we have had the meeting and I hear the other possibilities. I appreciate the complexity of the Party Wall etc. Act and I can see that the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, are again very good. He and others mentioned foreign builders, which really are a major issue in central London. You do not get it outside London so much. In rural areas you get very helpful local builders who seem to do what they say they will do. People near me have found that even when they have told builders that they are working outside the official hours, those builders just ignore that totally. It has been mentioned how poor the enforcement is on these issues, which is another issue. I do not know whether a code of practice would deal with that as there is already a code of practice and special hours for people to be building—from 8 am to 6 pm, or from 8 am to 4 pm on certain days of the week. That is just ignored.

I thought the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, about the safety of the workers was, again, very important. Again, foreign workers seem very often to just ignore normal safety precautions. I have taken in everything that has been said, but I cannot promise not to proceed again at Third Reading. I will need to consult the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, before that. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 206 withdrawn.

Amendment 206A

Moved by

[Baroness Hanham]

206A: Schedule 9, page 328, line 8, after first “in” insert “the whole or any part of”

Amendment 206A agreed.

Amendment 206B not moved.

Amendment 207

Moved by

[Lord Best]

207: Schedule 9, page 328, leave out lines 18 to 25 and insert—
“(4) A local planning authority must make a neighbourhood development plan or order unless—
(a) one or more of the relevant ward members expresses disagreement;(b) the local planning authority receives a petition signed by a minimum of 5% of voters in the areas covered by the plan or order; or(c) the local authority thinks it expedient to hold a referendum.”

[Lord Best]

My Lords, I will also speak to Amendments 208 to 210. These amendments are about the referenda for approving and adopting the neighbourhood plans. One of the major changes to the Localism Bill has been the extensive change to the requirements for referenda with the removal of Chapter 1 from Part 4, but neighbourhood plans are still subject to referenda.

I understand that if local people are at loggerheads with their local authority but feel very strongly that their particular neighbourhood plans should proceed, it is no doubt necessary before imposing the plan on everybody else to find out what the whole community thinks of it. However, if the local authority accepts the neighbourhood plan, and it is acceptable to the parish council or the town council, there is no real democratic deficit. A number of elected politicians are involved, and where everyone at the local level, the local authority level and the parish level thinks it is a good idea, it does not seem very wise to proceed with a referendum that brings in people who have had very little to do with working through the neighbourhood plan.

The Government are setting up 126 front runners, as they call them, with some funding to see how things work. I have seen one of these and talked to the group that is bringing forward its neighbourhood plan. The group is in the parish of the Cerne valley, north of Dorchester in Dorset, and it is doing great things. I strongly approve of the idea of people in the neighbourhood working out a plan for their area. This is all about a culture change. Instead of everybody being against development, people are thinking through the fact that there has to be some development and deciding where it is best sited. People reject some of the sites the house builders might have liked but bring on stream others and bring together their plan.

There are lots of difficulties, hassle and arguments at the local level, but I say good for them. Finally, at the end of a long and tortuous business, I am sure they will have a neighbourhood plan and it will be agreed with the parish council. If the local authority, the district council in this case, says that that is fine, for goodness sake let us not put this out to a referendum that brings in all kinds of people who have had absolutely nothing to do with the process and have not come to any of the meetings. It is always so much easier for people to say no to something than to say yes. If you want to keep your head below the parapet you do not say you are in favour, you stay at home. The people who get up the petition and want to say no are very glad to put their heads above the parapet and will bring out some votes. I fear that an awful lot of hard work in the Cerne valley, or wherever it may, can be lost when, as I said, all kinds of people who have had little to do with the process turn out for a referendum.

My amendment contains a couple of safeguards. I have to admit that I am having second thoughts about my own safeguards. I am just about to talk against my own amendment at this point. However, fearing that it might be unacceptable not to keep the referendum ingredient in the Bill, I have included two ways in which a referendum would legally be required. One would be a petition is signed by 5 per cent of villagers who say that they want to have a proper referendum in which more than 50 per cent would have to vote in favour of the proposed measure. The amendment suggests that if 5 per cent did that, a referendum would go ahead.

The other safeguard is that if one of the ward councillors—there might be three ward councillors for the parish—was opposed to the idea of the plan being taken forward, a referendum would have to be held. I have talked to people at the local level—I met a number of people in Dorset last Friday—who thought that my amendment was great up to the point where it referred to the 5 per cent petition. I was told that that could comprise 125 people in one of the parishes concerned, who all go to the local shop and sign any petition that is put under their noses. Local people were also not in favour of one recalcitrant councillor who wishes to curry favour—perhaps he is in a different party from the majority in that particular patch—saying that a referendum must be held. They did not think that it was a bright idea for my amendment to include those safeguards.

I should have been emboldened by the comments of the noble Lord, Lord True, who is, indeed, a true believer in localism but who does not see the need for a referendum in circumstances such as I have described. He favours a much more permissive regime involving consultation with local people. I had a very good meeting with Greg Clark during the summer. His view at that point was that if the neighbourhood plan is acceptable to the council and the council agrees to prepare a local development order that embraces the plan—I think the noble Baroness reiterated this today—that can go ahead without the need to go through the rigmarole of a referendum. That is a significant point. In these circumstances it would be enormously helpful if that could be clarified.

The noble Baroness said that she would look again at the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord True. I wonder whether the proposals in my amendment might be wrapped up in his to determine whether there is a way in which we can make it clear to people that once a neighbourhood plan is devised and agreement is reached with a district council, parish council or town council, and everyone is okay with this, a referendum will not be needed. At the moment people’s understanding, fear and anxiety is that a referendum will have to be held in all cases. I am preparing myself for reassurance. I beg to move.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I do not know about other noble Lords but, having heard the noble Lord speak to his amendments, I find myself more confused than I was when I read them. Therefore, it is an extremely good idea that these matters should be taken away and discussed further and perhaps enlightenment will dawn on me by the time we get to Third Reading. However, I agree with the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Best, that if we can avoid a plethora of unnecessary referendums, so much the better. In that light, I would be happy for the Minister to consider the matter further and for it to be perhaps slightly reshaped at Third Reading.

[Baroness Eaton]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association, which has offered its broad support for the neighbourhood planning reforms. Indeed, a lot of the thinking on the reforms has come from the innovative and creative local planning schemes which councils have introduced over many years. I do not know of a single council that does not want a more flexible and consensual planning system—indeed, the most consensual possible—and common sense tells us that this benefits communities. The Government have made great strides forward, shredding down the national planning policy framework and confirming that residents will be firmly at the heart of local developments. However, within these new parameters we need to ensure that the planning system can move as fluidly and quickly as possible. I hope that this amendment, to which I am happy to attach my name, clarifies that in certain cases referendums on planning issues might be locally appropriate, as we have heard. The noble Lord, Lord Best, said that discussions with the Minister have suggested a mechanism whereby, if there is consensus, this process will go straight ahead without a referendum. I think that would be well received.

The Local Government Association has estimated that the cost of holding a local referendum on a planning issue will be in the region of £5,000. This is a very significant figure when you consider the sheer number of referendums that could take place around neighbourhood planning issues. It would not be a case of a one-off cost of £5,000 as many costs would arise for local authorities. When the public sector, particularly local government, is so tightly squeezed, that hardly seems a wise use of public resources and public money. I share the request of the noble Lord, Lord Best, for clarity. We would all be much happier if this process was made much simpler and referendums were rarely used in neighbourhood planning. Certainly, councils across the country would support that. I support the noble Lord, Lord Best.

[Lord True]

My Lords, I wish to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Best, as he referred to me. It follows from my arguments on my own amendment that I think there are many cases where a referendum is not necessary. Indeed, my amendment suggested that local authorities should be able to proceed without the need for referendums. Therefore, I was interested to hear about the discussions that the noble Lord mentioned. As he knows, I am not axiomatically against all referendums. There is a place for a referendum in some circumstances to empower those who are disempowered or, indeed, to resolve a genuine heated dispute in a community.

However, for the reasons the noble Lord implied, I could not support Amendment 207 because it would give too much potential power to an individual councillor. This may not be the case only as regards councillors from a minority party. In my authority five out of 18 wards are split wards with minority representation. Frankly, there are wards where everybody is nominally of the same party but they cannot stand each other, although that does not apply in my authority, of course. Therefore, there is scope for a lot of potential mischief. The threat of provoking a referendum, which would cost money unless someone does something for someone else behind closed doors, is probably better avoided. In other respects I have a lot of sympathy with the amendment. In the context of the discussions, I encourage the noble Lord to follow the direction in which he has begun to move.

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, we have returned somewhat to the discussion that we had on Amendment 205 at the beginning of the evening. I am happy that noble Lords still remember what was said on that amendment. At the outset I confirm what I said when responding to Amendment 205. Where there is agreement on the neighbourhood plan between the neighbourhood forum and the local council under the local development plan, a referendum does not have to take place. As long as they are all in agreement and are all working to the same end, the local authority can accept that the neighbourhood plan conforms with the local development plan and therefore does not require a referendum.

19:00

Referendums need to be held where the local neighbourhood forum is putting forward a new plan which may or may not conform to a local development order or the national planning framework. Somehow it has to be confirmed that everybody would like to see what has been put forward. It is not inconceivable in the way that a plan is drawn up by a body of people that it should be tested against the people who will be affected by it. We have accepted that there ought to be real consultation with people beyond the neighbourhood forum to make sure that what is being suggested is what they want to see. That is when a referendum would be appropriate to test out their views. It is not essential. As I said, where there is broad and happy agreement between the authority and the community at large, the neighbourhood plan does not require a referendum.

I understand what has been said about the costs of referendums but we covered quite a lot of the discussion in response to the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord True. I have already said that we will consider these before Third Reading. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Best, will feel able to withdraw his amendments because they are not necessary. The situation is that either you have to have a referendum, which is very clear, or you do not need to have one, which is also reasonably clear.

I shall speak to government Amendments 211, 238, 239 and 240. Government Amendment 211 requires regulations about neighbourhood planning referendums to be subject to an affirmative resolution in both Houses. Government Amendments 238, 239 and 240 give effect to that change, following the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which we are happy to accept. The committee also recommended that the regulations on charges relating to neighbourhood planning to be made under Clause 105 should be subject to affirmative resolution by both the Commons and the Lords, instead of just the Commons. Again, we are happy to accept that recommendation.

Bearing in mind what I said on Amendment 205 and what I have confirmed on Amendment 207 that you do not always have to have a referendum, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Best, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Best]

My Lords, I am very grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, and the noble Lord, Lord True. I am grateful, too, to the Minister for her clarification.

The distinction that we have been drawing out in the course of our discussions today is between the local authority saying, “The neighbourhood plan is in conformity with the local plan”, and the local authority saying, “Although the neighbourhood plan makes some embellishments and has some bright ideas that the people within the locality wish to see which may change the local plan, nevertheless the local authority is happy with those changes and will issue a local development order that will embrace that neighbourhood plan”. There is a slight distinction between accepting what the neighbourhood plan says and accepting simply that it is in conformity with the local plan. We have gone a little bit further. The local authority may say, “Okay, you didn’t want to use those sites over there that were in our local plan. We fully understand. We are still going to have the housing or whatever it is that is required in the area. They will be in a slightly different place but that is what you have all negotiated and worked through. You have spent 18 months on this hard work and we are prepared to accept that as a local authority”. We have got to the point where that change to the local authority’s original intentions triggered by the neighbourhood plan will be something that does not require a referendum. The local authority accepts it at the neighbourhood level. It is, of course, approved by the parish council neighbourhood forum.

I think that we are more or less there, but I would like to be part of the further negotiations as the Minister considers these matters in detail between now and Third Reading. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 207 withdrawn.

Amendments 208 to 210 not moved.

Amendment 210A

Moved by

[Lord Lucas]

210A: Schedule 9, page 329, line 37, at end insert—
“38AA Additional rights of qualifying bodies
(1) A qualifying body may, in the course of the preparation of a neighbourhood development plan, enter into negotiations with landowners and others with a view to them concluding agreements with the local authority that, in the event of the neighbourhood plan being adopted and of specified other events, specified additional contributions will be made to the community by landowners or others.
(2) Qualifying bodies may, in conjunction with neighbourhood development plans, promote referendums on or proposals for parishing in order to present integrated proposals for the development of the community.”

[Lord Lucas]

There is not much to say in substance about this amendment because my noble friend’s answer to the first part is yes, and to the second part, “Hard luck, we blew that out of the water earlier because we no longer have local referendums”. However, I want to explore the implications behind this amendment because my noble friend was kind enough to write to me during the Recess. There are some interesting aspects of localism and I should like to have a clear understanding of the Government’s position.

My noble friend wrote to me as follows:

“Neighbourhood planning offers an exciting opportunity for local communities—through a parish council or neighbourhood forum—to initiate meaningful negotiations with landowners over how their land may be used in a way which benefits the landowner and the community alike. It is of course of fundamental importance that any agreements reached are transparent, that any developments coming forward are acceptable within the broad ‘basic conditions’ for neighbourhood planning, and that landowners are not ‘held to ransom’ or unreasonably prevented from developing their land in any way which is acceptable in broader planning terms. The parish council or neighbourhood forum will in developing their neighbourhood planning proposals consult with a range of stakeholders, including landowners. They may also talk to the landowner about whether their land is accessible and deliverable and what types of development the landowner may consider accommodating on their land. This is important to ensure that any proposals in a neighbourhood plan or order have the support of those organisations and individuals needed to ensure delivery during the plan period. In the case of a neighbourhood development order they may also discuss what conditions may need to be built into the order, or whether there are any matters that will need to be provided for via a related planning agreement (for example the provision of services or infrastructure), to make development acceptable when considered against the basic conditions for neighbourhood planning. The responsibility for confirming what conditions or planning agreements are necessary to make the proposed development acceptable will sit with the local planning authority and the independent examiner. If a neighbourhood development order gave permission for a modest housing development, but required that to be accompanied by such extensive community benefits that the overall development would be rendered financially unviable, then the landowner would remain at liberty to apply to the local planning authority for planning permission for a less expensive scheme, in the normal way. Planning obligations need to meet strict legal tests if they are to be relevant considerations. These are set out in regulations, case law and guidance. These provide that a planning obligation may only constitute a reason for granting planning permission for the development if the obligation is necessary, directly related to the development and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development. If a planning obligation does not satisfy these tests it will not be a material consideration. Whatever negotiations and agreements do take place, it is important to note that what land is allocated in a plan or given planning permission in an order should never simply be a matter of which landowner can be persuaded to share the biggest proportion of any land value uplift with the community. It has to be about enabling any developments which the community support and which are acceptable when considered against the basic conditions”.

That is a very fair summary of the position as is. But, of course, this is localism. In a parish, words such as “fair” and, indeed, “sustainability” have altered meanings. The parish might, for instance, choose to talk to all landowners and ask them to put forward proposals for the way in which they might like to see development on their land, and for ways of mitigating any adverse effects on the neighbourhood that they perceive. The parish will then publish all proposals and invite comments from the public, which will be passed on to the landowners. The parish will then invite landowners to submit modified proposals in the light of comments, together with binding commitments to the mitigations that they have themselves—the landowners—proposed. The parish will then publish all proposals and invite the public to rank them. The most popular of the proposals will then go forward as a draft neighbourhood plan.

That is as fair as fair can be. There are no obligations on the landowners that they have not proposed themselves. All factors will be taken into consideration in the process of the parish ranking which ones they like best. I am sure that in most parishes the process will result in a large slice of the landowner’s planning gain ending up with the parish community. That is what I hope we are going to see as a result of the Bill. I hope that my noble friend will tell me that she sees no holes in my logic. I beg to move.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I had some reservations when I first read this amendment, but then was reassured when the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, went through the planning obligations provisions and the test that had to be met. He then worried me a bit when he went on to describe it as an auction among landowners in the parish potentially seeking out the highest bidder. I would need to read the record and I would be interested in what the Minister has to say about that. Does that not have the potential to be outwith the strict application of planning obligations and the rules that go with that? I do not assert that it is, but certainly the way in which it was expressed gave me some cause for concern that that might be the path that one was heading down. I would be happy to read the record and be reassured otherwise.

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, Amendment 210A would give new rights for qualifying bodies—neighbourhood forums and parish councils—to negotiate with landowners on infrastructure contributions and to promote proposals for parishing at the same time as they are preparing a neighbourhood plan. We discussed the issue of parishing earlier on.

The first part of Amendment 210A would allow a qualifying body—the neighbourhood forum or the parish—to negotiate with landowners for contributions to be paid to the community. The expectation is that the landowners would subsequently agree the contributions with the local authority through formal agreements—for example, Section 106 agreements. There is nothing to stop local communities talking to landowners about how their land may be used in a way which benefits the landowner and community, but the responsibility for confirming what conditions or agreements are necessary to make the proposed development acceptable must remain with the local planning authority. In determining a planning application, the authority will have regard to the provisions of the development plan, including any neighbourhood plans in force.

The amendment would cause significant confusion about when such contributions would be paid by the landowner, how they would meet the strict legal tests for planning obligations and how any of the community’s negotiations could be secured by legal agreements between the landowner and the local authority. I want to make it clear that whatever negotiations and agreements take place, what land is allocated in a plan should never be simply a case of which landowner is prepared to share the biggest proportion of land value uplift with the community. That was the point that the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, was making. I accept the broad approach of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, to this. However, I must reassert that it is the local planning authorities which must determine what obligations are necessary to mitigate development impacts, and that will include financial ones.

The second part of Amendment 210A seeks to empower qualifying bodies to promote referendums or proposals on parishing alongside referendums on neighbourhood planning. In my recent letter to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, which he has quoted extensively and which I have placed in the House Library, I repeated our commitment in the public services White Paper to consider how to make it easier for local people, including neighbourhood forums, to take advantage of existing legislation which allows for the establishment of parish or community councils. Nothing would legally prevent the joint holding of referendums into a neighbourhood plan and into proposals for creating a new parish council.

With these reassurances—on the commitment from landowners and on parishing—I hope that the noble Lord will be happy to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Lucas]

My Lords, I am very grateful for that explanation. Yes, I am getting a clearer idea of where these things will go and the role that the local councils will have to play in moderating these things. As the local councils have to hold the contracts, they clearly have to have a role in deciding what is reasonable. I hope that they will take an activist role in that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 210A withdrawn.

19:15

Amendment 210AA

Moved by

[Lord Lucas]

210AA: Schedule 9, page 331, line 9, at end insert—
“Preservation of local amenities(1) The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 59 after subsection (3) insert—
“(4) A provision in a development order has effect subject to the provisions in a neighbourhood development order under the Localism Act 2011, which may over-ride the development order in all or any respects.””

[Lord Lucas]

My Lords, I will speak at the same time to Amendment 210AB. Amendment 210AC, which is in this group, was admirably covered earlier by an amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. I will not need to speak to Amendment 232A, which appears later; I am sure that the reply my noble friend will give on these amendments will cover that too.

Since we have done away with local referenda, we need some way of making localism relevant within cities. Planning is not the issue that is really going to get to people in cities. It is much more, as I said earlier, aspects of the way that they are dealt with by local councils within the matters that they have within their gift. I have picked up, in Amendment 210AB, their control over the way roads are used. When an area wants to examine pedestrianisation and alternative uses for parts of the street, to allow children to play or to affect the speed limits—and, talking more of Lavender Hill, the way in which parking regulations are enforced—those aspects are the sort of things that engage the spirit of the community.

A lot that happens under permitted development orders within planning—the way in which the streetscape changes, the way in which change of use is permitted to commercial premises and the developments of shopping streets that result from that—just goes ahead under permitted development and is not within the scope of neighbourhood planning as foreseen in this Bill. Yet those are the things that engage an urban community. If we want to make something of this Bill and the virtues that it will bring in urban communities, we have to look at giving local, neighbourhood communities some power over these things. I prefer the route that my noble friend Lord True proposed. That is a better way of doing things: to have a clear and formal partnership with good local authorities that will allow these things to develop and allow a voice.

In Battersea, which is within Wandsworth—a good Conservative council; it has been that for a long time—one still does not get that sort of bite on the way that things happen locally. I cannot afford to move to Richmond, so I am rather keen that we do something that will bite on my local council and to get to the position where we have within a neighbourhood plan some things to give urban communities a hold on things that they care about. I have picked two examples of the right way to go about it. That way, we have a hope of using the Bill to create vibrant urban communities that will have a real effect on what happens locally, which is mostly an apparition of the power of the local council. I am not addicted to this way of doing it. However, it is very important that we take this chance to try to create strong, geographically based—rather than racially or spiritually based—neighbourhood communities in cities. I beg to move.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, this is another interesting series of amendments tabled by the noble Lord. I cannot but agree with the proposition that doing what we can to build and empower strong local communities must be right. I am not sure that the prescription which the noble Lord offers is right in its totality, particularly on road traffic regulations. In my experience, if one wants to engage a community one has a consultation on pedestrianisation, a one-way system or residents’ parking and sees what the response is. If a council sought to impose something like that without proper consultation, we would certainly see the spirit of the community engendered by those events. However, if we gave each neighbourhood particular powers, for example over pedestrianisation, we would face a clear issue of the view taken by adjoining neighbourhoods. We would almost need to reinvent the duty to co-operate at neighbourhood forum level if we went down this path. The basic proposition to use the opportunities that the Bill presents to enliven, empower and engage communities in an urban setting is absolutely right, but I am not sure whether the prescription of the noble Lord is the best way to achieve it.

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, Amendment 210AA would allow neighbourhood development orders to restrict permitted development rights in a neighbourhood area in order to preserve local amenities. Neighbourhood planning has been designed as a new addition to the existing planning system. It is permissive in nature. Therefore, it adds to existing permitted development rights rather than removing rights that already exist. Neighbourhood planning is at the forefront of delivering the Government's reforms and it should not be used to stop or restrict development. Rather, it gives people a real opportunity to shape and influence the places where they live. We need to ensure that the ambitions of people for their neighbourhood are consistent with the needs and ambitions of the residents of the wider area. I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, when he spoke about cities and the effect on neighbourhood planning there. I have a lot of sympathy with the fact that local communities often do not come together, but part of the neighbourhood planning ought to ensure that groups are coming together to discuss all the issues around planning.

My concern with Amendment 210AB is that it would extend the powers available to communities to control the development and planning of their local areas by amending the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. It would expand the local authority’s ability to make traffic regulation orders and by-laws to preserve or improve a local area’s amenities. This is not strictly related to the neighbourhood planning provisions being introduced by the Bill, but does relate to the Government’s wider commitment to extend the powers of local authorities and communities to shape their local areas.

First, I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that I support the principle that local authorities and communities should have a greater say in safeguarding local amenities. Similarly, the planning of a neighbourhood should be a holistic process that looks beyond just land-use planning matters to the wider community well-being of an area. A community may use the opportunity of preparing a neighbourhood plan to discuss its priorities for transport in the area. However, there are two key issues with the amendment. First, because neighbourhood plans form part of the statutory development plan for a local area, they can relate only to the development and use of land. Secondly, traffic regulations and by-laws should be a measure of last resort in achieving the goals of sustainable transport that the noble Lord seeks. By-laws create criminal offences intended to prevent specific nuisances. If used inappropriately, they can have a significant adverse effect on the local environment and economy. They should be employed only when all other measures have failed. Therefore, this amendment is unnecessary.

Again, I do not want to undermine the noble Lord’s principle of making sure that local neighbourhoods have the opportunity to discuss the things that affect them. If ever there was anything that affected them, it is traffic, parking and so on. However, this cannot be dealt with under localism in this part of the Bill, which covers neighbourhood planning. As a wider objective, I do not think that anybody would have any disagreement with the idea that local neighbourhoods should be at the forefront of thinking about the wider things that matter to them. It is just not appropriate here. I hope that with those explanations, the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Lucas]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that explanation. It is clear that I am not going to get anywhere. However, I shall come back to this when we get our next opportunity, because I have been converted by the Government's enthusiasm for localism. I just want to see it in Battersea as well as Hampshire. I shall support my noble friend Lord True, should he choose to reappear in one form or another at Third Reading, and remain silent. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 210AA withdrawn.

Amendment 210AB not moved.

Schedule 10 : Process for making of neighbourhood development orders

Amendment 210AC not moved.

Amendment 210B

Moved by

[Baroness Hanham]

210B: Schedule 10, page 333, line 3, at end insert—
“(3) The power to make regulations under this paragraph must be exercised to secure that—
(a) prescribed requirements as to consultation with and participation by the public must be complied with before a proposal for a neighbourhood development order may be submitted to a local planning authority, and(b) a statement containing the following information in relation to that consultation and participation must accompany the proposal submitted to the authority—(i) details of those consulted,(ii) a summary of the main issues raised, and(iii) any other information of a prescribed description.”

Amendment 210B agreed.

Amendment 210C not moved.

Amendment 210D

Moved by

[Baroness Hanham]

210D: Schedule 10, page 335, line 27, at end insert—
“(ca) the making of the order contributes to the achievement of sustainable development,”

Amendment 210D agreed.

Amendment 210E not moved.

Consideration on Report adjourned until not before 8.28 pm.

EU Committee: Court of Justice of the European Union

Monday 17th October 2011 Lords Chamber

Question for Short Debate

19:28

Asked By

[Lord Bowness]

To ask Her Majesty's Government what is their response to the report of the European Union Committee on The Workload of the Court of Justice of the European Union (14th Report, HL Paper 128).

[Lord Bowness]

My Lords, I have pleasure in presenting the report of the European Union Committee, which forms the subject of the Question I put to the Government in this short debate. The committee has received the Government’s formal response and welcomes the opportunity to press them on points raised in the report in the light of recent developments. I am grateful to the Members of the Justice and Institutions Sub-Committee, our Clerk, advisers and witnesses, who gave both oral and written evidence.

We embarked on our inquiry, first, because of the extension of the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice into the area of freedom, justice and security as a result of the Lisbon treaty, and the potential work that that may create. Secondly, there is the potential impact of the expansion of the European Union from 15 to 27 member states, and the Court's published analysis of its workload, which shows an average time of more than 33 months for a competition case before the General Court.

For the record, since all noble Lords participating in the debate are aware of the position, I will make it clear that the Court of Justice of the European Union comprises three courts: the Court of Justice, the General Court and the Civil Service Tribunal. Any reference that I make in this debate to the Court of Justice refers to the first and highest court, not the Court of Justice of the European Union. For the benefit of too many media commentators, none of them has anything to do with the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

Our evidence was drawn from professional bodies, a former advocate-general, representatives of the Commission and the Attorney-General. Discussions were held in Luxembourg at the Court with the three United Kingdom judges serving within the three courts of the Court of Justice of the European Union and with the president of the General Court.

May I make two general comments which relate to the Court of Justice of the European Union as a whole before turning to the separate courts? First, the Union is based on the rule of law and respect for human rights. The Court of Justice is a vital institution for the proper functioning of the Union. For example, while some question some aspects of European Union policy, without the Court we have nothing to buttress the operation of the single market, which is so much more complicated than a trade deal and is essential for our interests.

Secondly, the amount of money is quite small. Of a 2011 European Union budget of €126,527 million, the cost of the Court is just over a quarter of 1 per cent. It is often assumed that the need for translation is the cause of cost and delay. This was not our conclusion. Of course translation has its cost, but not everything is automatically translated into the 23 official languages. Everything is translated into French, which is the working language of the Court. This is the case for historical reasons and some have suggested that an additional language be added, but to add another would only add cost.

In the Court of Justice, which deals with preliminary references on points of European law referred from national courts, the reference is sent out to all member states in their language for their observations. The judgment in each case is also translated, which is not unreasonable given that the judgment is of universal application to the Union and everyone in all member states should be able to read it in their own language. Contrary again to much popular belief, using other languages is not a luxury, as not everyone everywhere speaks English or, for that matter, French or German. In the case of the General Court and the Civil Service Tribunal, the language regime is much more restricted and may only be the language of the Court and the parties, and only judgments of particular interest are the subject of translation into all official languages.

Turning to the individual courts, we looked first at the Court of Justice, which may be described as the supreme court of the European Union. The majority of its workload relates to preliminary references to which I have already referred. The number of judges is laid down in the treaty—one per member state—and they are assisted by advocates-general, who give the Court a written opinion which is not binding. The number of advocates-general may be increased by unanimity without treaty change and we recommend that this be done to assist the Court in increasing the speed at which cases are dealt with. We believe that the Court of Justice faces a crisis in its workload following the expansion of membership and the expansion of its jurisdiction into freedom, justice and security.

The Court of Justice has had a good record in managing its workload in the past, but in this it was helped by an automatic increase in the number of judges following enlargement but that predated the expansion of jurisdiction and the work now flowing from enlargement. The General Court, however, is where we believe that the problem lies. The General Court deals with almost all the cases brought against the institutions and agencies of the European Union. These are often complex, involving both written and oral evidence. We found that the General Court has significant problems in managing its current and likely future workload.

We proposed a number of solutions. We accepted that there may be a case for better case management but we were of the opinion that that would not solve the essential problem. We also gave consideration to the creation of additional specialist chambers similar to the model of the Civil Service Tribunal, but we rejected this as a long-term solution. The Civil Service Tribunal is a special case dealing with internal European Union staff matters. Its significance is quite different from that of the Court of Justice and the General Court. It has been a success and we found no reason to recommend any changes. But in our opinion it is not the right model to follow for the General Court. We agree with the Luxembourg judges that more specialist tribunals would diminish the character of the Court as a general court combining a mixed expertise. Those judges appointed to the tribunals would have reduced or few opportunities to sit in the General Court and, similarly, the judges of the General Court would have few opportunities to sit in the tribunals.

Additional judges can be appointed to the General Court without treaty change, and this in our opinion is the answer to the problem. Without specifying a particular number, we suggested an increase of a third. The Government in their written response do not seem convinced that the problem is as serious as we believe and certainly do not warm to the idea of more judges other than in a specialist tribunal.

Since we reported, matters have moved on and the committee currently holds under scrutiny three proposals for reform of the Court of Justice of the EU. The first is a proposal from the Court: to create within its number a vice-president; to amend the rules relating to the composition of the grand chamber; to abolish the rule requiring the reading of the judge rapporteur’s report at the oral hearing; and to increase the General Court judges from 27 to 39. There is a second proposal for the revision of the Court of Justice rules of procedure to take account of changes of workload. Thirdly, there is a draft regulation to allow the appointment of temporary judges drawn from the ranks of retired judges to assist the Civil Service Tribunal, which seems to us to be eminently sensible and an economic way of dealing with the short-term problem. We have welcomed all these but the Government seem to lack some enthusiasm, save for the revision of the rules of procedure.

While we have the original response to our report, in the light of recent developments will the Government please give active and urgent consideration to increasing the number of judges in the General Court? If not, what is their alternative solution, bearing in mind that even specialist tribunals, which we do not favour, will cost money? Will the Government also consider the recommendation in our report that, before approving legislation, an assessment of the possible impact of such legislation on the Court of Justice of the European Union should be undertaken?

Lastly, will the Government also take account of the observations of Sir Konrad Schiemann which is referred to in Appendix 4 of the report, in which he said:

“The Court had to interpret legislation which had been designed by politicians whose political priority was the achievement of a formula, if necessary at the expense of a clear formula. Where the original legislation was imprecise, the Court was required to intervene. This was often the case with Directives, but could also be seen in the Treaties themselves”.

As so often when governments look to others to solve the problems, this could be an example of where the Council could assist by remembering that, in many instances, the legislative proposals before them are indeed just that, draft legislation, and should be approved on the basis not just that there is political agreement but that they represent legal certainty.

19:38

[Lord Boyd of Duncansby]

My Lords, I begin by declaring an interest as a solicitor-advocate in practice in Scotland, and from time to time my practice involves cases which may end up in the European courts. I am very pleased to have been a member of the sub-committee which undertook this investigation and I want first of all to pay tribute to our chairman in guiding us through what I believe was a very good report with a deftness of touch, and also to the staff, the clerks and the legal advisers who gave excellent advice.

I want to address the issue of judges and resources in the courts. In a time of austerity, for a lawyer to make a plea for more resources and more judges in a court may sound like special pleading if not perverse. To ask for such resources for European institutions is always asking for trouble. In the popular mind, a European court is one that interferes with British interests, perhaps to the detriment of parliamentary sovereignty. The failure in the popular mind to distinguish clearly between the European Court of Human Rights on the one hand and the Court of Justice of the European Union on the other makes the task even more difficult. Yet it is apparent from our report that the delays in the Court process as a result of the situation that now faces the Court are a significant impediment to economic activity and the achievement of the goals of the European Union.

The committee was particularly concerned about the workload of the General Court, which deals with cases that turn crucially on the assessment of often large amounts of factual material, including competition cases where challenges to the decisions of the Commission, which themselves run into 600 pages, may generate files that contain 20,000 pages or more. Competition cases now represent 10 per cent of the workload of the General Court, and the average turnaround for all cases, including competition cases, is 33 months. As the CBI has said, an average turnaround of 33 months in competition cases is simply unacceptable. It cites the particular example of the ICI case which, exceptionally, took over nine years to be resolved.

The move to have decisions under the EU regulation on the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals—the so-called REACH regime—from the European Chemicals Agency subject to appeal in the General Court will undoubtedly increase pressure on that court. One estimate suggests that there may be over 2 million applications to the European Chemicals Agency, and there is real concern that the General Court may be overwhelmed as a result.

One way of helping to ease this is by the creation of specialist tribunals taking some of the work—trade marks have been suggested—away from the General Court. As we have already heard, the committee considered that specialist chambers were a more efficient way of proceeding because they would allow judges to be redeployed within the Court structure to cope with peaks and troughs. A specialist tribunal would simply increase the rigidity of the system without gaining any flexibility.

In my submission, we cannot get away from the need to increase the number of judges in the General Court. To that extent, I was pleased to see the response from the Government in the letter of 4 July to the chairman of the European Union Committee. The Minister, Mr Lidington, said that the Government were working actively with other members discussing the size of the judiciary in the General Court. Will the Minister tell us what progress has been made on that issue?

Turning to the Court of Justice, we believe that there are problems ahead. It is true that the present workload is being coped with, but we saw a crisis looming because of the number of new cases that are likely to come forward from the new states following enlargement and the new jurisdiction in freedom, security and justice. It is clear that these pressures are going to be there, and I was disappointed to see in the same response that the Minister is not convinced that the Court of Justice is facing an imminent crisis without any real specification of that. What evidence does the Minister have to counter that of the committee that the Court of Justice is indeed facing a crisis? How imminent it is may be a matter of conjecture, but does he agree with the committee that something needs to be done, and done soon, otherwise we will face further problems?

I believe that this is a good report that will set a benchmark for the future of the Court if the Government act in conjunction with other member states. I will be pleased to hear in general what the Government’s response is to this report.

19:45

[Lord Dykes]

My Lords, I am sure the whole House will be particularly grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Boyd, for asking for certain clarifications, bearing in mind his authority and activity as a representational corporate and commercial lawyer helping clients dealing with these matters, as well as for his general views in the sub-committee of which I am also a member. As he said, we are deeply grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, for being chairman of the committee and for having launched and taken the initiative on this report. We had an enormous amount of expert advice and guidance from our officials and special advisers, and I warmly thank them for it. That set the tone for us to do what I thought was a very thorough and profound report, which was not too long, as some of these reports are on these occasions.

I hope that when he replies the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, will reassure us on some of the points of confusion about the imminent crisis that may be looming for the ECJ. However, there is a difference of views on that. As we indicated, there is more likely to be agreement in this short debate about crisis in the General Court as a result of its excessive workload and the need for that to be taken care of. Unlike the more supreme, higher level, intellectual work of the Court of Justice, dealing with treaty matters and the support or otherwise of legislation in the European framework, the General Court is the coalface of these judicial proceedings in the European Union.

We know what kind of reception Europe gets in the British press. I hope that the situation will be a little easier now after the hacking scandal. There may be no connection at all, but you never know. There might be a bit of luck in that and most, though not all, of the British press might be more serious about reporting and carrying stories about European institutions. The wicked Commission is attacked far more often than the European Court of Justice because the European Court of Justice is harder to explain to the ordinary reader. I am not criticising the ordinary reader; it is just one of those things with highfaluting, high-level courts. However, it is essential that there should be more explanation because it is embarrassing when people get the Council of Europe mixed up with the European Union.

Despite the workload problems and the excessive time taken to deal with cases, the European Court of Justice does a very good job on behalf of the citizens of this country, who under the Maastricht treaty are also citizens of the whole of the European Union. I wish that British newspapers would sometimes remind us of that important reality. A British citizen is not just a patriotic citizen of our own country; he or she is also able to work, operate, retire and travel in the European Union as well as to use the facilities of the European judicial system mainly under the General Court of the ECJ—not so much the staff court, the European Union Civil Service Tribunal, which is a separate matter—in order to deal with things in a way which is much more just than many people in this country think because of the poison in the press. It is tragic that they should believe that.

I suppose that that happens to a lesser extent in other countries, and perhaps also on a case-by-case basis, but here there is general agreement in the printed press that Europe is a bad thing and that the European institutions, the Commission and the European Parliament are menaces. The Council of Ministers is all right because that is member Governments, but even that comes in for attack if it does not agree with what the British Government are suggesting. This nonsense really ought to stop.

The recommendations in the report are very important. The suggestion of increasing the number of judges by one-third is important. I hope that my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness will respond on that. I think it is very important to bear in mind that although there are no severe problems like this in the European Union Civil Service Tribunal, the sentiments about it expressed in paragraph 54 need to be looked at quite carefully. Coming back to the ECJ itself, and the need to get the workload down, and to increase the number of judges in the General Court, this needs to be done with some urgency.

As for the budget matters that we are considering, being one-quarter of 1 per cent of the total EU budget—and nowadays I think I am right in saying that most years the budget outlays are less than the original appropriations; there is always a gap between them when you take the total EU budget—there is money at the margin available for these matters; they can be easily dealt with within those parameters, and I do not think there should be an excuse. At the hearing, the Attorney-General kept harping on about financial problems and problems of government spending and that we had to be very careful—of course that is a general position that a lot of people accept—but really these are small amounts of money. The idea that a court’s functioning would be impaired and would suffer not just at the margin but quite significantly in its general activities because of a lack of funds is totally unacceptable, particularly in the international context. This is a treaty-based institution, where we have to work with our fellow member states, and I think sometimes they psychologically and in an ineffable way seem to give much more support to these institutions than we do in Britain.

I do not think that applies to the House of Lords. Tonight we have the two Lord Wallaces on the Front Bench: the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, of course dealing with other matters tonight, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness. I hope I do not misrepresent them when I say that they are both enthusiastic supporters of our membership of the European Union—I am glad to see the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, confirming that—and so we can go onwards and upwards with this excellent report and get some good responses from the Government tonight.

19:51

[Lord Rowlands]

My Lords, I too am grateful to our chairman and to the staff of our committee for helping us to prepare this report. Like a rather large number of Members of this House, I am something of a veteran of European treaties and the institutional changes that have flowed from them: Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice and Lisbon—I have been through them all. I have sat through and taken part in some of the debates we have had.

If we retrospectively reflected on the experience of treaty change and institutional change, I have a sneaking suspicion that we would find a rather high proportion of either unintended consequences of those changes or that at least the assessment of what impact these changes would make has often been wrong or ill conceived. My noble and learned friend Lord Boyd made a reference to one such glaring example to which we draw attention in our report, in paragraph 52, on the European Chemicals Agency. This was established on an assumption that there would be only 250,000 licences granted. As my noble friend has said, the figure is now likely to be 2 million. As the president of the General Court said in evidence, a proportion of them will be challenged so it is inevitable that the workload of the General Court will increase. Here is a perfect example of the way in which treaty change was made or institutions were established without any effective impact assessment.

This strengthens our case for being, if not pessimistic, realistic about the changes the Lisbon treaty will have on the work of the Court of Justice. The Lisbon treaty created a fundamental change in the architecture, destroying the whole of that third pillar and bringing within the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice the areas of freedom, security and justice. What will flow from that is a very significant increase in the workload of the European Court of Justice. It was flagged up first by our European Union Committee in 2007-08 in what I thought was the most thorough and wonderful scrutiny of the impact of the Lisbon treaty. On page 127, the European Union Committee flagged up that there would be problems with the workload of the Court of Justice as a result of this change and the inclusion of this extra jurisdiction.

We have followed that up and have confirmed those concerns in our report. In paragraphs 42 and 43, we spell out that it is not simply a matter of more cases but that they will be in areas likely to generate much more difficult and important forms of litigation, and that for the first time the Court will be dealing with individuals in custody, and therefore will need speedy justice, a fast-track approach. Indeed, that is presumably partly why in the Lisbon treaty there is a fast-track procedure to deal with it. If one reads further on what this fast-track procedure is, the assumption was that 10 or fewer cases a year would be fast-tracked. Now we suspect that with the changes that have occurred to the jurisdiction there will be a lot more fast-tracked cases. There will be two consequences of that. First, it could displace other, less urgent cases to be dealt with over a longer and longer time. Secondly, in the annexe to our report, on page 67, it says that if there were an increase in fast-track cases,

“the number of cases that the Court could handle … would decrease sharply”—

because of the nature of fast-tracking, there is going to be a very significant potential displacement of other cases. I do not think we are being alarmist in saying to the House and to Ministers that this is going to create a much greater problem than is being recognised at the moment.

When I joined our chairman and two others in going to Luxembourg, I was rather surprised by how rather sanguine many of the Court administrators were about the impact these changes are going to have on the work of the Court of Justice. Sadly, not only did I find them sanguine in Luxembourg, I now find that Ministers here are sanguine. The letter from Mr Lidington says that he is not convinced that the Court is facing an imminent crisis. I do not know what imminent means, but certainly within the next two or three years we are going to see a very significant increase and significant pressure. It is not unjustifiable to present it as a potential crisis, with which Ministers do not appear to be fully engaged.

I hope tonight when the noble and learned Lord replies that we will at least have something more than the replies we have had so far to our reports, and of course to the other suggestions that have been made by the Court itself since our report came out. Reading Ministers’ responses so far, it appears that they are very good at telling us what they do not want to do but not at telling us how they are going to handle the crisis. I think they are in a state of semi-denial that there is a crisis on the horizon and I hope tonight to be enlightened not only on the proposals they have but to be reassured that in fact they appreciate and understand the potential seriousness that the courts face.

19:58

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

My Lords, I adopt all the calls that have been made for clarity on the part of the Government in response to this report and to the problems of the Court of Justice. I was not a member of the relevant committee at the time of this report so I can praise the work of the committee in producing it, and I can praise the work of the chairman and indeed the clarity of the speech he made today.

It is clear that everyone agrees that European courts, both the Luxembourg courts—the Court of Justice and particularly the General Court—and the Strasbourg court, the European Court of Human Rights, are overloaded. I need not go into the position of the Strasbourg court, but there are 160,000 cases pending and the numbers are increasing annually at a rate of 12.5 per cent. There is of course now a linkage between the Luxembourg court and the Strasbourg court, with the EU becoming a party to the European Convention on Human Rights, and there is therefore a danger of possible further delays.

The Government may be reluctant to call the position of the Court of Justice a crisis, but there is clearly a major problem of delays, as the CBI pointed out, which are relevant to our business, and therefore something has to change. Even if the intellectual property cases were shunted into a separate court, that would still leave a backlog of 1,000 cases before the General Court, where much of the work is of course consideration of fact. That is roughly two years’ work if one sees that perhaps 500 cases are concluded in a year.

What, then, to do? The editorial in the most recent edition of the Common Market Law Review, which again is a tribute to the committee’s work, stated as follows:

“It would seem that by now, all the possible options for reform and their respective pros and cons have been on the table several times … a big leap seems inescapable. It is only a matter of time”.

The Government thus far seem to want to avoid a big leap. Their proposed changes range from: reducing the supply of cases; changes to the rules of procedure—and the Government state that there is little prospect of member states agreeing to a degree of autonomy of the Court in respect of its own procedures; broader, better case management; more new specialist courts; and the appointment of more judges.

Clearly there is a need to look at procedures; the editorial states that essentially the procedures of the court reflect the Court’s role as an administrative court carrying out judicial review in respect of the activities of member states, when increasingly now the emphasis has changed to references from member states for preliminary rulings.

The Government appear to oppose limits on pleadings to cut down more prolix advocates, and the Court’s potential powers to dispense with oral hearings. As one of our colleagues said earlier, we know what the Government are against; we do not know what the Government are for. The Government are surely not just outside observers but should be active participants in these debates.

There must surely be some scope, despite what the committee says, for a reduction in translation. French is of course the working language, for understandable reasons of history, but increasingly the new member states have English as their main working language. Alas, there is clearly a veto possible for the French Government, so we cannot see much change there.

Changes in the structure of the Court have helped in the past. In 2005 the Civil Service Tribunal was established, and the committee calls it a success story. Some 30 years or so ago I was writing the section on the European courts in The Solicitors’ Diary, and it was clear at that time that there was too much able judge power on cases that were relatively trivial, save for the individuals concerned, and that would have gone to employment tribunals in the UK. That was 30 years ago. It took all that time to set up this specialist court, which perhaps does not augur well for changes to come about in a timely fashion.

The case against further specialist tribunals and in favour of an increase in the number of judges is set out persuasively in the letter of the president of the Court to the president of the Council: that there are risks in relation to consistency, the flexibility of judge power, the speed of implementation and so on. The letter states that an increase in the number of judges in the General Court is,

“essential … to reduce within a short time the volume of cases pending before the court and the duration of proceedings”.

If it is true that it could be solved in only a short time, one must ask why the large increase from 27 to 39 should be permanent, and what the prospects are of a reduction in the future if the case load were to warrant it.

There is clearly now a conflict between the views of a number of member states and the president of the Court. This is a matter of judgment in respect of both the costs and the efficient running of the courts. There is probably no prospect now of an outside independent expert being asked to report on the comparative costs, as this would only lead to further delay.

However, I end where a number of colleagues have ended. It is uncertain where Her Majesty’s Government stand, so perhaps the Minister will clarify for us on which side the Government stand. Are the Government leaning towards more specialist tribunals, with all the problems set out by the president, or do they now accept the case for an increase in the number of judges in the General Court?

[Lord Bowness]

My Lords, I must apologise to the House that in asking my question I failed to draw attention to my declared interests as a practising solicitor, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, for allowing me now so to do.

20:05

[Lord Liddle]

My Lords, I join my noble friend Lord Anderson of Swansea in congratulating the committee and its chair on the excellent report before us tonight. It once again shows the value of our European Union Select Committee and the work that it does. The subject of the Court of Justice is—and I come on to this in a moment or two—a subject that arouses great passions in some quarters, but this is a model of a balanced report based on careful study of evidence and entirely non-partisan in its spirit, and I think, as the Opposition do, that the Government would do well to heed its recommendations.

My only regret—and it is a point that I have made about these reports before—is that it was completed at the end of March and we are now debating it in the second half of October. In this case, it so happens that the report and its recommendations remain relevant, topical and timely, but that is not always the case, and we should give these Select Committee reports a high priority in our work.

Obviously there is a real problem about the Court’s growing case load. I looked up how many cases the ECJ had before it or had settled in the year before we joined the European Community in 1970, and the number was 70. In 2010, the figure was 574, which tells you something about the expanded scope of the European Union’s work. I agree with my noble friend Lord Rowlands that some of this is the result of unintended consequences, but at the same time one also has to acknowledge the technical complexity of operating a single market as seen in the REACH chemicals directive or the extension of the scope of European activity into areas such as criminal justice, because our security depends on our interdependence with our neighbours. This will inevitably bring more work into the remit of the Court.

In one respect, the letter that we have received from the Minister for Europe, the right honourable David Lidington, is encouraging. It acknowledges that there is a workload problem, and it is encouraging that the Government are having discussions about this. However, the sentence,

“we are not convinced that the court is facing an imminent crisis”,

suggests to me that the Government are not grappling with this issue with the urgency that they should.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Boyd of Duncansby, explained how the delays in the Court are very damaging. If you look at the evidence on how long cases such as competition cases take to get resolved—33 months—that is not terribly satisfactory from anyone’s point of view. It is not satisfactory on grounds of efficiency and justice, nor does it happen to be in Britain’s national interest. We need an effective Court, as we need an effective Commission, to police the single market’s rules. Perhaps I may make an obvious point that is worth repeating again and again; there is a huge contradiction in the attitude of Eurosceptics towards the European Union. They say that they joined only a single market and that all they want is a single market, but they refuse to accept that the functioning of the single market depends on effective supranational institutions such as the Commission and the Court: that you cannot have one without the other. I would like the Government—I know that the pro-European half, or section, of the Government is facing me from the Front Bench—to feel that the whole of the Government recognise the truth of that argument: namely, that it is in Britain’s national interest to have an effective ECJ.

There are Members in the other place who have strong views about the ECJ. I was very alarmed to read that Mr George Eustice, in this new group of Eurosceptic Conservative Back-Benchers that was established, started talking about how in reality the European Court of Justice operates as a political court; that it has been out of control for far too long; and that it is time to clip its wings and to make it accountable to Parliament, as though it is normal that courts are accountable to politicians. That is the attitude in important sections of the governing party.

The fundamental reason why these sensible proposals are not being squarely addressed by the Government is because of this politics, which is getting into very dangerous territory. Some Members in the other place have attacked individual British Members. One attacked the British Advocate-General, Eleanor Sharpston, just because she happened to be, in their view, on the wrong side in the metric martyrs case. That kind of populist approach to the European Court is quite unacceptable. We need to see on the part of the Government a willingness to deal with these issues in the kind of objective manner that is in our national interest, as this report recommends. I commend the report to the House.

20:12

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, first, I join the noble Lords, Lord Liddle and Lord Anderson—the three of us not being members of the committee—in congratulating my noble friend Lord Bowness and the members of his committee on this important work which they have undertaken. I think the first call for evidence was in the summer of 2010 and that the report was published just one week after the president of the Court published his proposals. The fact that it was timely shows the foresight of the committee in identifying what is undoubtedly a very important issue.

I believe that the report’s conclusions and recommendations have been a valuable contribution to the current debate. We have heard those conclusions and recommendations echoed in the contributions this evening, which I will seek to address. It is important that we take this opportunity to discuss these matters. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, asked what the Government believe in. They believe very much in the effective and uniform interpretation, application and enforcement of European Union law across the Union, which was a point well made by my noble friend Lord Bowness in his opening remarks.

We believe that the Court of Justice has a vital role to play in ensuring that member states and European Union institutions act in accordance with the treaties. It is therefore essential to the functioning of the single market that it ensures that there is a level playing field for United Kingdom businesses operating in other member states, and vital in upholding the rights under European Union law of British citizens living and working in other member states. That point was well made by my noble friend Lord Dykes, who emphasised that the Court has that important role in safeguarding the rights of people who are not only United Kingdom citizens but citizens of the European Union.

Accordingly, the Government share your Lordships’ views that the Court of Justice of the European Union is in need of reform in order to work through its sizeable backlog of cases and to reduce the time taken to process cases in the future. I can confirm that since the publication of the committee’s report, officials have been engaged in discussions with their counterparts in the European Union about reform of the Court, following on a set of six recommendations made by the president of the Court to the Council. Discussion has continued between officials and at ministerial level on a bilateral basis and within the Council. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Boyd of Duncansby, asked about that. I can confirm that there have been meetings. In July, the Minister for Europe raised the issue at the General Affairs Council. As I have indicated, discussions continue at a working level, most recently on Friday of last week. The Government are engaging constructively in these meetings with an open mind. We certainly see merits in a number of the recommendations, to which I will deal with in more detail.

I am sure your Lordships’ House will forgive me for not divulging the details of working group discussions, which by their very nature are confidential, but I can indicate in the broadest terms that officials of the United Kingdom Government have been focusing on negotiating changes to the Court’s structure and its rules of procedure, which would enhance the quality of the Court’s judgments and reduce the turnaround time of cases while emphasising—it is important to emphasise this and to remind ourselves of the need for—cost efficiency. In the current economic climate, it is vital to ensure value for money for our taxpayers, and the proposals that the Court makes must be assessed according to financial and budgetary implications. Indeed, I think that even the summary of the conclusions of the committee’s report acknowledged that there were cost implications.

As the debate has made clear, the most significant reform under discussion is the composition of the General Court and specifically the question of how to expand its capacity. I will perhaps deal with that in more detail later. We know that the committee proposed an increase of one-third to 36 members. The president of the Court has tabled a proposal to add to the number of members of the General Court by 12 judges, which is of course one of the key subjects under discussion within the Council. As has been identified, and as I will elaborate, there are other possible options, such as the creation of a specialist trademark court or specialist chambers within the General Court, for managing trademark cases. Officials are considering how each would improve the efficiency of the court, the political and legal implications that they would have and the financial ramifications.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Boyd of Duncansby, and the noble Lord, Lord Rowlands, asked whether there was an imminent crisis. Although we recognise the huge challenge with regard to the General Court, the report itself, as well as contributors to the debate this evening, recognises that the Court of Justice has done a remarkable job in managing its case load. It was in that context that we did not accept that there is an imminent crisis with regard to Court of Justice—I think the noble Lord, Lord Rowlands, said “potential crisis”. Clearly this is something that we want to focus on to ensure that it continues to build on the advances that it has made.

The report itself recommended that there should be the appointment of extra Advocates-General. It is not clear what evidence this is based on. Significantly, it is not one of the proposals which the Court itself felt was necessary when the president of the Court put forward its proposals. Other measures have come forward from the president of the Court that we would aim to assist: the possibility of the appointment of a vice-president, and the proposal with regard to how grand chamber might be restructured. We are looking at that seriously. We want to ensure that, in doing so, there is continuity, across the courts, of the jurisprudence of the Court. That particular proposal is somewhat complex.

On the issue that was described in your Lordships’ report as the “green light”, we would not necessarily go as far as that but we think it is of considerable importance, when national courts are framing their reference, that they do so concisely. We would certainly encourage them to put forward any proposal and conclusions that they may have reached in framing that reference, so that when the Court of Justice looks at these preliminary references it is very focused on the particular issues.

My noble friend Lord Bowness made some specific points, reminding us that the Council also legislates. Those points were extremely well made. Certainly the Government are seeking to ensure that there is clarity not only for those who subsequently have to interpret the law in the courts but perhaps most importantly for those who have to implement the law in their businesses and daily lives. That is certainly the objective of the negotiations, but I think it is also fair to say that, in a negotiation involving 27 member states, that objective is not always as easy to achieve as one might hope.

A similar answer applies to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rowlands, and my noble friend Lord Bowness about the legislative implications of certain decisions. Perhaps that should not be a counsel of perfection. It ought to be given attention, but again I suspect that that is easier to say, and to make exhortations for, than it is to deliver in the legislation itself.

[Lord Rowlands]

Does the noble and learned Lord accept the fact that, as a result of the change in jurisdiction, there is going to be a very considerable increase in fast-tracking procedures within the Court of Justice and that this will have very considerable consequences for the rest of its workload?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

The noble Lord raised the point about the possibility, post-Lisbon, of fast-tracking and asked whether there was going to be a significant increase. There are issues there which need to be considered. There is not yet any evidence of that coming through, but it is not something to which we are turning a blind eye. According to the Court of Justice’s report on its work in 2010—after the Lisbon Treaty came into force—the use of the urgent preliminary measure in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice was requested in six cases, and granted in five. It is of course relevant to the work of the Court of Justice in its consideration of preliminary references, which is its other main volume of work. It is less relevant in the case of the General Court, which does not do that kind of work. I shall come onto that, as there is agreement across the House that there are quite clearly issues as regards the work of the General Court.

We fully recognise that there are issues that need to be considered in terms of the particular problems which the General Court is facing. Justice delayed is justice denied: it is a phrase which trips off the tongue, but it is one with substance and truth. The position of the General Court is one to which we are giving our attention. The proposal on the table is the one that has come from the President of the Court. It is that there should be an increase in the size of the Court by nine. The House has reasonably asked about our position with regard to the consideration of a specialist trademark court or specialist chambers within the General Court. We see merit in the proposal put forward by the committee of your Lordships’ House of increasing the number and we are considering it against our basic criteria of quality of judgments, their timeliness and cost-effectiveness. That is why we are not ruling it out, but why we also believe that some of the other options ought to be given consideration too.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Boyd of Duncansby, referred to the letter sent on 4 July by my right honourable friend the Minister for Europe to the noble Lord, Lord Roper. He pointed out that while he recognised the point that judges on a specialist tribunal may not be widely deployable, creating a specialist tribunal would free up judges in the General Court currently working on trademark cases to deal with other types of case. It is important to note that judges currently dealing with trademark cases, which form a substantial part of the General Court’s work, would be freed up for other work. The Commission itself said in its response to the President’s proposals, published at the end of last month, that it has looked at the possibility of specialist chambers within the General Court. It is important that these options are fully explored with regard to what will deliver the best in terms of efficiency, speed and quality of judgment.

However, as I have indicated, we cannot ignore the question of finance. I take the point made by my noble friend Lord Dykes that in the totality of the European Union budget it may appear a small matter, but nevertheless it is the Government’s position that there should be no increase in real terms over the next spending period. We want to examine the costs of the different options. The estimate of the Court itself on an increase of 12 judges is some €13 million. We would want to drill down on that and ask why the cost is more than €1 million per extra judge. We would also wish to look at the fact that the Court has had over the past year an underspend of €5.5 million. It is not unreasonable, in exploring the different options, to bear in mind the costs and to try to ensure that we not only achieve what is best in terms of speed of delivery, but also that there is efficient use of taxpayers’ money—not just that of British taxpayers, but of taxpayers throughout Europe.

As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Boyd, said, we recognise that delay sometimes brings its own costs, and that must be part of the equation, but we feel that considerably more work could be done, not least given the fact that there was a €5.5 million underspend of the Court’s budget last year. Obviously, as the committee itself indicated, it may be possible to find funds by deprioritising other parts of the budget.

I hope I have emphasised the fact that the Government take this issue seriously. We appreciate the constructive proposals that have been put forward. As I have indicated, we are not ruling out the possibility of an increase in judges. At the present time, the proposal on the table is for an extra 12 judges, which has come from the President of the Court. We are giving these matters detailed consideration through working groups and at ministerial level. We are also conscious that the outcome in the end should be to ensure that the Court of Justice, as one of the institutions of the European Union, delivers and serves the wider purposes both of the Union itself and of European citizens. They should be on the receiving end of justice when the call comes for it. I hope that I have reassured your Lordships that we are taking this matter seriously and working diligently to get the right outcome in terms of speed, quality and cost-effectiveness.

Localism Bill

Monday 17th October 2011 Lords Chamber

Report (7th Day) (Continued)

20:28

Schedule 12 : Neighbourhood planning: consequential amendments

Amendment 211

Moved by

[Baroness Hanham]

211: Schedule 12, page 349, line 44, at end insert—
“21A(1) Section 333 (regulations and orders) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (3) (regulations to be subject to annulment) after “except regulations under section 88” insert “or paragraph 15(5) or 16 of Schedule 4B”.
(3) After that subsection insert—
“(3A) No regulations may be made under paragraph 15(5) or 16 of Schedule 4B unless a draft of the instrument containing the regulations has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.””

Amendment 211 agreed.

Clause 111 : Retrospective planning permission

Amendment 211A

Moved by

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

211A: Clause 111, page 90, line 18, leave out “an” and insert “a pre-existing”

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

This group covers all the government amendments on enforcement. Turning first to Clause 111 on retrospective planning applications, these amendments will, I think, allay the concerns raised by my noble friend Lord Avebury in Committee. He thought that the drafting of what is now Clause 111 was ambiguous in that it might be possible for a local planning authority to negate the purpose of this clause by both declining to determine a retrospective planning application and arguing that an enforcement appeal on ground (a) was also inadmissible. These amendments solve the problem. Amendment 211A specifies that the enforcement notice in question must be “pre-existing”. Amendment 211B defines a “pre-existing enforcement notice” as one that was issued before the application—being the retrospective application—was received by the local planning authority. To paraphrase what my noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach said in Committee, our policy is that those people seeking planning permission after the event should have one, but only one, bite at the cherry.

I move on to Clause 115, on powers in relation to unauthorized advertisements. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, supported by my noble friend Lord Black of Brentwood, was concerned that the provision for serving a removal notice for an allegedly illegal advertisement hoarding was not subject to a right of appeal to a local magistrates’ court, but only by means of a judicial review. Since that debate the Government have been convinced by the arguments made. We have therefore come forward with Amendments 213A, 213B, 213C and 214A. Amendment 213A says that removal notices should be subject to a right of appeal. Amendments 213B and 213C are minor drafting amendments for consistency of expression. Amendment 214A contains the right of appeal itself. The format of the right is very similar to those in new Sections 225C and 225H further on in Clause 115, but with some small differences to reflect that this right of appeal applies to notices requiring the removal of advertisement hoardings, rather than fly-posting or graffiti. I therefore hope that these amendments will meet the concerns of the noble Lords, together with their colleagues, the noble Lords, Lord Smith of Finsbury and Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank. I therefore also urge the noble Lords not to press their Amendments 214 to 223, which have the same purpose as the government amendments, but do not quite work in the way intended. I beg to move.

20:30

[Lord Borrie]

My Lords, all the non-government amendments in this grouping have been proposed by me and colleagues from different parts of the House: the noble Lords, Lord Black of Brentford and Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank. We were concerned in Committee that advertisers ought to have a right of appeal to magistrates’ courts against orders for removal of structures for the display of ads. They ought to have a right of appeal against orders made by planning authorities. There have in the past been such rights of appeal outside London and we were concerned that fairness suggests that that right should also exist within London and not just through the more expensive procedure of seeking a judicial review in the High Court. The amendments have, of course, been put down again at this stage, but one has learnt over the weeks—and it is now confirmed by the noble Lord, Lord Shutt of Greetland—that the Government have moved considerably on the matter. As it seems that the government amendments are satisfactory from the point of view that I have mentioned, I will at the appropriate moment not press the non-government amendments in this group.

[Lord Black of Brentwood]

My Lords, I warmly welcome the government amendments. In talking to this group, I declare an interest as a director of the Advertising Standards Board of Finance. I first raised this issue at Second Reading with the health warning that it appeared to be a rather dry and technical issue. So it is, but it has been an important issue to a substantial industry. The outdoor advertising industry in the UK is worth well over £1 billion and accounts for 10 per cent of all display advertising, employing, directly or indirectly, about 15,000 people. It is also a very responsible industry and is fully committed to the codes of advertising practice enforced by the Advertising Standards Authority. Although the noble Lord, Lord Smith, may be able to tell us more, complaints about outdoor advertisements have, as I understand it, dropped by more than 30 per cent in the past year or so. It is absolutely right that we should do what we can to support the industry, and the Government’s amendments—which will give the industry real local power over appeals against enforcement notices—do just that.

I add my thanks to the Minister and her colleagues for listening to the real concerns and for acting. These amendments give real force to the issues that we raised and I warmly welcome them.

[Lord Smith of Finsbury]

My Lords, I support the noble Lords, Lord Borrie and Lord Black, in welcoming the Government’s amendment and I agree with them about withdrawing our alternative amendments.

As chairman of the Advertising Standards Authority I believe strongly in the enormous value of responsible advertising. The outdoor advertising industry is, overwhelmingly, hugely responsible. The amendment ensures that that responsibility and the freedom to advertise that goes along with it will remain firmly in place, and sensibly so. I welcome the Government’s amendment. I thank them for listening and for producing a highly acceptable formula in their amendment.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, we obviously support the Government’s amendments on retrospective planning permission, particularly those in relation to unauthorised advertisements. I understand that my noble friend Lord Borrie and his colleagues will not press their amendments. The Government should be congratulated on listening to the arguments from across the House and the discussions that took place outside the Chamber. We have got a good outcome to this issue which we support. We thank the Government for listening.

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

My Lords, I am grateful for those four splendid contributions.

Amendment 211A agreed.

Amendment 211B

Moved by

[Baroness Hanham]

211B: Clause 111, page 90, line 20, at end insert—
“(2) For the purposes of the operation of this section in relation to any particular application for planning permission, a “pre-existing enforcement notice” is an enforcement notice issued before the application was received by the local planning authority.”

Amendment 211B agreed.

Amendment 212

Moved by

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes]

212: Clause 111, page 90, line 20, at end insert—
“70D Requirement for consultation on retrospective application
A local planning authority must, on receipt of an application for retrospective planning permission, notify and consult on the application those who were notified and consulted on the original application, and must have regard to any responses to the further consultation.”

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes]

My Lords, I should like to clarify that I am not speaking about what I would call a repeat amendment, where someone is coming back for another planning application; I am speaking purely about cases where someone has built premises in contravention of the planning permission they have been granted.

This has happened to me in both London and the country. I supported the application in the country, only to find that an extra metre and a half had been built on a wall, cutting off totally our view of the village green, which was a very pretty part of the place. When I rang the council to ask why nothing had happened about this, they said, “Oh, we gave him retrospective permission for it”. The same happened in London, where I actually phoned the council during the construction and said that it was not being built according to plan. “Oh of course it is”, they said. Eighteen months later the council came back and said, “You’re quite right, it was not. However, we felt that as people had already moved into it, we should give them retrospective permission”.

This is quite unfair to people who have a right of legitimate comment on the original planning application but have no idea when the council is considering a whitewash for something that should not be. That is the purpose of the amendment. I beg to move.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I would have thought that this amendment is unnecessary. If an application for retrospective consent is a fresh application, it would, or should, be notified to those occupiers—not necessarily those who objected before, who might be living anywhere. However, surely it should be treated as an application de novo, and therefore the normal processes would apply. So those affected on a retrospective application would receive notice. I should think, unless the Minister disagrees, that the amendment is otiose.

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord is right on this. I thank my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes for bringing this forward. It is important that we get this absolutely clear. This word retrospective largely means that something happened for which there was no permission. Someone spots it and says, “Look here, you’d better put in a planning application”. That’s the position. In all instances where there is a change, there are requirements in place for local planning authorities to publicise and consult on those applications—that is, the retrospective ones. This is true when a new revised planning application is submitted, and where the holder of a planning permission wishes to delete or vary one or more of the conditions to which their existing planning permission is subject. The Government therefore believe that this amendment is a solution to a problem that does not exist. I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw it.

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes]

I thank the Minister for that answer. I really find it surprising that I should have been unfortunate in two entirely different locations in this respect. But I accept what he says and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 212 withdrawn.

Clause 114 : Planning offences: time limits and penalties

Amendment 213

Moved by

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes]

213: Clause 114, page 94, line 36, at end insert—
“( ) In section 171B (time limits), after subsection (4)(b) insert—
“(c) at any time taking enforcement action in accordance with an enforcement order which has not been complied with by the party that has breached planning control.””

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes]

My Lords, I am hoping that this one is equally unnecessary. I moved this amendment in Committee—or an amendment very like it—but when the government reply came, the Minister thought that I was asking about the right to take a new enforcement action well after six years, which is apparently the limit. That was not my point. My point concerns situations where enforcement action has been taken. Again, somewhere near me there is a property which is in foreign ownership; enforcement notices have been served; it has gone through the court process—everything—but nothing has happened for about 10 years now. They have absolutely failed to comply and cannot be contacted anywhere. That is really why I tabled the amendment. However, I hope that the Government will tell me that it is not necessary. I beg to move.

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

I understand the concerns of my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes. Again, however, this amendment is not necessary. Section 171B deals with time limits for taking enforcement action—essentially, serving an enforcement notice. It does not deal with ensuring compliance with that notice. A valid enforcement notice—in other words, one that has not been appealed against, or has been upheld on appeal—remains in force indefinitely unless the local planning authority withdraws it. If the person on whom it has been served does not comply, they can be prosecuted. The maximum penalty is a £20,000 fine in the magistrates’ courts, or an unlimited fine on indictment, and can be subject to a repeat prosecution if they still fail to comply. The penalty is a daily fine until compliance. The local planning authority can also do the works in default and recover its expenses from the landowner. So I believe that there is no need for the amendment, and I trust that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw it.

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes]

Again I thank the Minister. I am delighted that he has given me that answer. To have it in writing means that I can go back to the local authority and try to persuade it again to pursue the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 213 withdrawn.

Clause 115 : Powers in relation to: unauthorised advertisements; defacement of premises

Amendments 213A to 213C

Moved by

[Baroness Hanham]

213A: Clause 115, page 95, line 41, after “(5)” insert “and the right of appeal under section 225AA”

213B: Clause 115, page 96, line 3, leave out “made”

213C: Clause 115, page 96, line 30, leave out “within the period” and insert “by the time”

Amendments 213A to 213C agreed.

Amendment 214 not moved.

Amendment 214ZA not moved.

20:45

Amendment 214A

Moved by

[Baroness Hanham]

214A: Clause 115, page 97, line 28, at end insert—
“225AA Appeal against notice under section 225A
(1) A person on whom a removal notice has been served in accordance with section 225A(3) or (5)(b) may appeal to a magistrates’ court on any of the following grounds—
(a) that the display structure concerned is not used for the display of advertisements in contravention of regulations under section 220;(b) that there has been some informality, defect or error in, or in connection with, the notice;(c) that the period between the date of the notice and the time specified in the notice is not reasonably sufficient for the removal of the display structure;(d) that the notice should have been served on another person.(2) For the purposes of subsection (3), a person is a “permitted appellant” in relation to a removal notice if—
(a) the removal notice has been fixed or exhibited in accordance with section 225A(5)(a);(b) the person is an owner or occupier of the land on which the display structure concerned is situated; and(c) no copy of the removal notice has been served on the person in accordance with section 225A(5)(b).(3) A person who is a permitted appellant in relation to a removal notice may appeal to a magistrates’ court on any of the following grounds—
(a) that the display structure concerned is not used for the display of advertisements in contravention of regulations under section 220;(b) that there has been some informality, defect or error in, or in connection with, the notice;(c) that the period between the date of the notice and the time specified in the notice is not reasonably sufficient for the removal of the display structure. (4) So far as an appeal under this section is based on the ground mentioned in subsection (1)(b) or (3)(b), the court must dismiss the appeal if it is satisfied that the informality, defect or error was not a material one.
(5) If an appeal under subsection (1) is based on the ground mentioned in subsection (1)(d), the appellant must serve a copy of the notice of appeal on each person who the appellant considers is a person on whom the removal notice should have been served in accordance with section 225A(3) or (5)(b).
(6) If—
(a) a removal notice is served on a person in accordance with section 225A(3) or (5)(b), and(b) the local planning authority bring proceedings against the person for the recovery under section 225A(7) of any expenses,it is not open to the person to raise in the proceedings any question which the person could have raised in an appeal under subsection (1).(7) In this section “removal notice” and “display structure” have the same meaning as in section 225A.”

Amendment 214A agreed.

Amendment 215 had been retabled as Amendment 214ZA.

Amendments 216 to 223 not moved.

Schedule 13 : Infrastructure Planning Commission: transfer of functions to Secretary of State

Amendment 223ZA

Moved by

[Lord Berkeley]

223ZA: Schedule 13, page 359, line 25, at end insert—
“(3A) After subsection (2)(b) insert—
“(ba) in the case of an application for an order including provision authorising the compulsory acquisition of—(i) statutory undertakers’ land(ii) local authority land,(iii) National Trust land, or(iv) land forming part of a common, open space or fuel or field garden allotment,the effect of the compulsory acquisition of any such land”.”

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 223ZA and the other amendments in this group. I first apologise to the House for bringing these amendments forward comparatively late in the day. I will be as quick as I can although the amendments are fairly technical, with some pretty detailed arguments behind them.

The amendments stem from the issue of the change in responsibility for decision-making from the Infrastructure Planning Commission to the Secretary of State and provide that Parliament, in the form of the House of Commons only, approves the national policy statement series that is supposed to underpin the new regime. There have already been some minor changes to improve the process of planning major infrastructure projects and to streamline the whole process. I suspect that now that the Secretary of State will be the final decider—that is a political decision—rather than an official, many of the checks and balances that were in the original Act could possibly be dispensed with or reduced in scope to try and simplify the procedures.

I know that these points have been made to officials quite frequently over the past few months and that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, moved similar amendments in Committee. When the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, responded to the noble Lord on 19 July, he said:

“I would like to consider the points he has raised in more detail and consult him and others between now and Report to see whether anything further can be done”.—[Official Report, 19/7/11; col. 1319.]

I am not aware of any meetings that have taken place since then, which we probably all regret in retrospect. I will try to go through these various issues as quickly as I can and hope that we can all have a meeting with the Minister between now and Third Reading to see whether any of these particular issues can be resolved. The Government could then bring back some amendments at Third Reading.

To go through them quickly, starting in not quite the right order, Amendment 223ZD refers to Section 127 of the Planning Act, which requires a separate consent to be sought from the Secretary of State in some circumstances when it is proposed to acquire statutory undertakers’ land compulsorily. Again, now that the decision has been transferred back to the Secretary of State, this is probably an element of gold-plating. I suggest it would be sufficient if the Secretary of State was required to take into account the views of the undertakers.

Amendment 223ZE refers to Sections 128 to 132 of the Planning Act, concerning the special parliamentary procedures which are available if there are objections from various organisations and authorities which end up having to go through a Joint Committee of Parliament, which could take quite a long time to resolve. The restoration of the Secretary of State’s decision-making power could allow these provisions to be removed and for it to be left to the Secretary of State to decide whether to grant consent for an application that affects these types of special land holders. The SPP seems to be unnecessarily complex and gold plating.

Amendment 223ZF refers to Section 137 of the Planning Act, which requires a separate consent to be sought from a statutory undertaker or the relevant Secretary of State in some circumstances where the undertaker’s apparatus is installed. Again, the same comments could apply to that. Amendment 223ZG refers to Section 138 of the Planning Act. It inserts an additional test and a consent from the relevant Secretary of State where the undertaker’s rights to use land are being extinguished.

All these separate consents, which will often involve other Secretaries of State as well, fly in the face of one of the main purposes of the Planning Act regime, which was to create as far as possible a single consents regime. There are many examples I can quote but it is well known to your Lordships’ House and Ministers. It seems that the Planning Act provisions set out in these texts go much further than the two key order-making procedures that the Act replaces—TWA and harbour orders. Taking them as precedent there is an argument for saying that there is a bit of gold plating in here.

It is interesting that on 13 October we heard the first IPC decision which was to allow Covanta’s proposed energy from waste project in Bedfordshire. It was made within the statutory timescale of nine months. I am sure we are all happy to see the IPC sticking to its timetable. However, 43 of the 96 plots of land to be purchased are owned by statutory utilities or local authorities and they have made representations about the project. The Planning Act requires the project to be subject to the special parliamentary procedure which could add six to nine months to the programme, which for a big project is actually quite serious. There is an opportunity to put this right and to incorporate some of these amendments to simplify the process and accept that because we now have the Secretary of State making all the decisions he can take all these issues into account.

I will now mention one or two other items as briefly as possible. There are a large number of things that we really cannot go through at this time of night but there is one issue that refers to the construction of these big projects. It means that regulations made under Section 150 of the Planning Act still require the promoters to seek myriad other consents and regulators before they can start construction. The Infrastructure Planning (Miscellaneous Prescribed Provisions) Regulations 2010 lists 42 separate agencies or authorities from which permissions have to be sought and a further 36 for Wales only, which I find quite interesting. Why is Wales so much more complicated? Again, it would be an enormous help to these projects if there could be just one consent which went through the IPC process.

I could spend a lot more time going through the detail of the technical issues. I hope that it might be possible for those of us who take an interest in this to have a meeting with Ministers before Third Reading to see whether we can encourage the Government to make some changes at that stage. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, and perhaps other colleagues, would wish to participate fully in such a meeting. I beg to move.

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has masterfully reduced what could have been a very long speech into one that lasted less than 10 minutes. There has been some confusion about this whole matter. The group of amendments that I moved in Committee on 19 July contained a large number of separate and discrete subjects. The amendments that I moved were concerned primarily with ensuring a seamless transition from the existing IPC procedure to the NSIP procedure. I will not go into the details now but my noble friend Lord Attlee very kindly said that there should be discussions on this. Those who were advising me on this matter did have discussions with officials in the department. The result was that when we approached Report stage, when I asked them whether they had achieved what they were looking for, they said yes. Therefore, I have not retabled those amendments. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has rightly said, there were other amendments, a lot of which were aimed at the proposition that there should be a one-stop shop.

As I understand it—I am open to correction—for some reason the meeting with officials did not take place until last week. There was a misunderstanding about who was seeking to organise the meeting and make sure that proper discussions could take place. I think that the meeting took place on 13 October, with the result that the large number of amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, were tabled only on Friday and appeared with an asterisk in this morning’s revised Marshalled List. I had not realised that they would appear on the Marshalled List. I have made inquiries and I have a great deal of information on this issue but most of them are the same as those we discussed on 19 July in Committee, although there are one or two additional ones to which no doubt attention will be drawn at some stage. Whether it was the fault of my noble friend on the Front Bench or of those who have been advising us, the fact of the matter is that there have not been the discussions that there should have been and that my noble friend offered when he wound up the debate on 19 July. Therefore, we are in a slight difficulty on this. I hope that the request of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, that serious meetings should be held before Third Reading so that we can, if necessary, retable the amendments, or some of them, at that stage and have them debated will be taken note of.

21:00

I am getting a little alarmed about the number of issues which we are reserving for Third Reading. I am told by the Whips that we are likely to have only one day for that stage so we may find ourselves sitting even later then than we are likely to do tonight. However, I also have two new amendments in this group about which I would like to say a few words. This is a question of how and when a planning application can be referred to the NSIP procedure. There is a process in the Bill whereby the Secretary of State can call in an application and ask that the NSIP procedure should be applied but it also provides that anyone can make a qualifying request. It is astonishing that anyone can make a qualifying request. It has been put to me that that is a great deal too inclusive. Anybody could take a controversial project that that they did not like that was being put forward to the local authority and say, “Right, it should go to the planning inspectorate under the NSIP procedure”. My first amendment restricts who can make a qualifying request to the prospective promoter and the relevant authority—the authority to whom the application would ordinarily have been made.

My second amendment introduces a cut-off date. It is rather like some of the points mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley: the more delays that you build into this process the more the infrastructure that is needed will itself be delayed. I know that it is my noble friend’s intention that these procedures should operate as swiftly and effectively as possible while at the same time giving local communities the right to be heard and to present their case. Of course, all the pre-application consultations that are now required, which are a very important part of the NSIP procedure, are now in place and are happening. I get the newsletter from the IPC regularly when it is issued and it is fascinating to see how many applications it is now considering that have gone through a pre-application procedure. If we are then to have people entitled to say that an ordinary application should be handled by the NSIP procedure rather than by the local authority, it cannot be without limit. Therefore, the amendment says that it should be done before the application has actually been made. All the pre-application procedure will have told them and objectors may then say, “This ought to go through the NSIP procedure”. Once the application is made to a local authority, that should be that, and the application should then be heard by the local planning authority.

These are two new points that stand a little apart from those of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and the amendments are different from the amendments that I moved in Committee which I have not retabled. They have merit and I hope that my noble friend will consider them sympathetically.

[Lord Boyd of Duncansby]

My Lords, this is the first time that I have spoken on Report, so I repeat my declaration of interest: I am a solicitor in private practice and registered as a foreign lawyer in England and Wales, and some of my practice involves planning. I recollect that in Committee I stood to support amendments in terms very similar to those before the House this evening. I cannot now recollect in whose names the amendments stood, but I was pleased that the Minister, the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, offered to discuss that issue. It may be that I and others took our eyes off the ball, as it were, in following up the matter. I do not want to take the time of the House unnecessarily because both my noble friend Lord Berkeley and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, have gone through remarkably succinctly the detail of the amendments in the group.

The central issue is that the development consent order is expected to be an omnibus order that will encompass a range of other consents and will reduce the number of applications that a developer has to make, thereby making the development procedure that much easier.

The amendments address two issues seriously. The first is the range of further consents required beyond the development consent order. My noble friend Lord Berkeley listed the consents that are still needed—another 42 are still required, including 36 in Wales. Of course, there are occasions when you require specialist input that only specialist agencies can give—these are necessary safeguards—but, on the other hand, the policy behind this ought to be to reduce to the minimum the number of other consents that are required. That would be consistent with this Government’s approach to reducing regulation and removing red tape. There are a large number of these further consents that can be effectively removed without reducing the necessary safeguards. At Committee stage, I gave an example of the London Gateway Port Harbour Empowerment Order 2008, which is an order under the Harbours Act which included provisions for the benefit of the Environment Agency, and would be a model for that.

The second strand is the further consents and procedures necessary on top of what the IPC grants in a development consent order—in other words, the further consents from the Secretary of State where, for example, land of statutory undertakers is being compulsorily acquired or the special parliamentary procedure applies. This procedure is not one that is used very often, yet we find, as my noble friend Lord Berkeley said, that the first application to be granted by the IPC requires that further consent.

Some might say that we need to have a proper check and balance. I accept that when the Infrastructure Planning Commission, which the Government told us was an unelected quango, was making its decisions independently of any outside scrutiny, it might then have been appropriate to keep a number of other procedures and safeguards in process—safeguards which were accountable. Now that we have the Secretary of State giving the final decision, you can incorporate within that the necessary safeguards that some noble Lords may wish to see.

There are also, within this group, issues in relation to the discharge of requirements. I do not intend to take up the House’s time on that, but there are important issues in relation to ensuring that the regime that we create works effectively and that the transition from the Infrastructure Planning Commission, which makes the decision at present, to one where the Secretary of State is deciding on the recommendations of the major infrastructure unit of the Planning Inspectorate, is effective too.

I hope that the Minister will look at these issues seriously. They are important and they are designed to reduce the amount of bureaucracy and red tape that there is and make this a streamlined process.

I make one final point. A European Commission study into the consenting regimes for major infrastructure projects throughout the European Union commended the one-stop shop, which at the moment is encompassed within the Infrastructure Planning Commission, but which, when this Bill goes through, will still be there but with the Secretary of State. My understanding is that the European Commission is likely to make regulations to ensure the acceleration of the deployment of priority energy infrastructure projects by concentrating resources, simplifying and enhancing permission procedures and making use of innovative financial instruments. In order to enhance national permitting and granting processes, each member state will be required to create a competent authority—a one-stop shop—responsible for those tasks. Therefore, it looks as though we will get a seal of approval, if that is required, from the European Commission. We can make things better.

I hope that the Minister will take away these matters and look at them seriously.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, it is unfortunate that a raft of technical amendments have come forward very late in the day, and seemingly in an environment where the promised engagement in Committee was not fully realised. That is not the best way for us to deal with these hugely important matters. It means that we are stacking up yet another issue to deal with at Third Reading. Whether we get through Third Reading in one day remains to be seen.

I hope that we all agree that, in relation to infrastructure, we want an efficient and effective system of dealing with planning. We have heard arguments about a one-stop shop and the extent to which we are some way from that. We have heard about the issues around the extent to which there should be a parliamentary process now that the Secretary of State is the ultimate decision-maker. I say to my noble and learned friend Lord Boyd and to my noble friend Lord Berkeley that I would need a bit of convincing to step aside from a parliamentary procedure just because the Secretary of State is making the final decision. We have debated the Bill in some detail and the issue of the powers of the Secretary of State has been a running sore in our deliberations, but I remain to be convinced on that.

Certainly I agree with and support the importance of having a one-stop shop on the raft of consents that apparently are still needed. However, the clock is ticking on Third Reading. This is an opportunity to sort out some issues, but we do not have much time in which to do it. It may be, as my noble and learned friend Lord Boyd said, that the EU could overtake us on this matter. We have a couple of weeks before Third Reading and there are very serious issues that have been raised tonight by all three noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, also raised new points that we had not touched on before about who can make these qualifying requests, as well as issues around pre-application consultation. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us a full response on these issues. Generally, I find that we are in an unsatisfactory position on a hugely important issue for this country.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. On the point about meetings, I cannot understand what has gone wrong. I would never resist meetings, not least because I find them so valuable. It is my responsibility to call a meeting. On the other hand, if it looks as though the meeting is not going to happen, a reminder would be helpful—and I do enjoy the meetings that I have with the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley.

We are very short on time. The amendments in this group seek to change the Planning Act 2008. Although they are technical in nature, they are none the less important, so I shall respond to each in turn. Amendments 223AA and 223AB, in the name of my noble friend Lord Jenkin, seek to limit the circumstances in which a qualifying request for a direction under Section 35 of the Planning Act 2008, as amended by Clause 120 of the Localism Bill, may be made. The amendments would restrict those who can make a qualifying request to the proposed applicant and the authority in question. Amendment 223AB would prevent a qualifying request from being made after an application is made to the relevant authority.

21:15

I do not think that Amendments 223AA and 223AB would be helpful. In relation to who may make a qualifying request, it may be that third parties with expertise in particular areas, such as environmental requirements, possess information which they think may elevate a proposed development from one of sub-national significance to one of national significance. It would not be right to prevent such bodies drawing this information to the attention of the Secretary of State as this amendment seeks to do. I understand my noble friend’s argument and am sympathetic to his aims, but I do not believe that there is a great deal of scope here for a delay to projects. The new provisions contained in the Localism Bill set out a clear, tightly constrained timetable in which the Secretary of State must decide a qualifying request. If someone were to make a vexatious request simply to slow down the local planning process, the Secretary of State would be quickly able to provide a response in the negative. The scope for delay is therefore minimal.

My noble friend Lord Jenkin suggested that an application has been made to the local authority and that should be that. At present, an application to a local authority can be directed to the Planning Act regime by the Secretary of State after submission. This amendment enables someone to draw key information to the Secretary of State’s attention if it had not already come to light. With these assurances, I hope that my noble friend is willing to withdraw his amendments.

Turning to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, Amendments 223ZD and 223ZE would, by amending Schedule 13 to the Bill, repeal Sections 127 to 132 of the Planning Act 2008. These sections draw into the Planning Act long-standing protections from compulsory purchase for certain special types of land—land belonging to a local authority, statutory undertaker or the National Trust and commons, open spaces or fuel or field garden allotments. Amendment 223ZA replaces these protections with a significantly weaker requirement for the decision-maker to have regard to the effect of the compulsory acquisition of the land or statutory undertaker when taking decisions.

Amendments 223ZF and 223ZG would repeal Section 137 and subsections (4) to (6) of Section 138 of the Planning Act. I understand the purpose of the noble Lord’s amendments and sympathise with his aim to simplify the major infrastructure planning regime. However, the existing protections embodied in these sections of the Planning Act are well established in existing compulsory purchase law. The proposed amendments would significantly weaken them, effectively creating a two-tier system for compulsory purchase with a stronger set of protections existing outside the major infrastructure system than within it, and I just do not think that that can be right. Secondly, these rights are well established in law and I see no evidence that the need for these rights has diminished. I do not believe that it is right to weaken them. I do not agree that a significant extra burden exists, and I hope that the noble Lord will not press these amendments.

Amendment 223ZB seeks to clarify that the Secretary of State may modify the proposals contained in an application when making an order. I am pleased that the noble Lord has raised this point. It gives me the opportunity to put an important assurance on the record. Section 114(1) of the Planning Act already grants a wide discretion for the decision-maker to decide the terms on which a development consent order may be made. The Secretary of State may already modify the consent order submitted as part of the application in whatever way the Secretary of State believes is necessary.

Section 150 of the Planning Act provides an important function. The Planning Act contains wide powers for development consent orders to amend and disapply other legislative requirements. Section 150 protects certain key consents from this power by requiring the agreement of the consenting body for the consent to be modified or disapplied. In doing so, it provides clarity to potential applicants that certain consents should not ordinarily be absorbed into the major infrastructure planning process. I understand that some have argued for a less bureaucratic approach to regulatory and environmental consents from the Section 120 power, but this is a complex issue and a better solution has not presented itself.

Amendment 223ZJ would allow an order or regulations made under the Planning Act, with certain exemptions, including a development consent order, to include a procedure to waive compliance with any of the requirements if compliance would be “unnecessary, impossible or impracticable”. This provision is not necessary. Orders made under the Planning Act may already provide for such a waiver procedure if it is deemed necessary.

Amendments 223ZK and 223ZL seek to increase these powers, enabling offences to be created in relation to any type of development consent by creating a new power to vary by order the list of offences that can be created by a development consent order. I am not convinced that this widening of powers is necessary or appropriate. The present provisions of Schedule 13 aim to replicate equivalent provisions in paragraphs 12 and 13 of Schedule 1 to the Transport and Works Act 1992 and Sections 14(3) and 16(6) of the Harbours Act 1964, with which the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, will be very familiar. The proposed power goes considerably wider than those of the Transport and Works Act and the Harbours Act, and I can see no evidence of the need to expand these powers so dramatically.

Amendment 223AC would amend Section 120 of the Planning Act 2008 to provide that, for the purpose of discharging the requirements and making a related appeal, the requirements are to be treated as if they were conditions imposed under Part 3 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Again, I am pleased that the noble Lord has raised this matter as it gives me the opportunity to provide clarification on the record. Together, Section 121 and Section 120(5)(c) of the Planning Act provide a wide power for a development consent order to provide for third-party discharge of requirements and for any related processes, including appeals, to be specified.

Finally, Amendment 223ZM seeks to amend Clause 117, which gives the Secretary of State the power to make directions regarding the handling of applications which would transition from the IPC regime to the Secretary of State when the IPC is abolished. Specifically, the amendment seeks to enable the Secretary of State to make directions regarding environmental impact assessment screening or scoping decisions which have been issued by the IPC or where the IPC has authorised the applicant to obtain information about interests in land. I can confirm to the noble Lord that this amendment is unnecessary. Where the IPC has issued a screening or scoping opinion or has authorised someone to serve a notice under Section 52 of the Planning Act, these actions will generally stand as authorised after transition as the IPC was the body with legal authority to carry out those actions at the time. Screening and scoping opinions and authorisation to obtain information about interests in land will not have to be given again.

I am pleased to have been able to give a full response on the issues raised today, and I hope that, with the reassurances and clarifications given, the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for a very full response on this group of amendments. It is incredibly helpful to have it on the record. I am sure we will be happy with the response on some of the amendments, but it will certainly be necessary to read in detail what the Minister said to see the extent to which it is worth taking the amendments further to try to simplify the objective of a one-stop shop.

Before I withdraw the amendment, I want to put on record that I do not think any of us were trying to blame the Minister for not having a meeting. We are all guilty, or we are all innocent. We did not have it, and we have a lesson to learn from that. I am sure that, if we find something we would like to discuss before Third Reading, the Minister will, as usual, be pleased to see us. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 223ZA withdrawn.

Amendments 223ZB to 223ZL not moved.

Clause 117 : Transitional provision in connection with abolition

Amendment 223ZM not moved.

Amendment 223A

Moved by

[Lord Berkeley]

223A: After Clause 118, insert the following new Clause—
“Directions relating to railway projects
(1) In the Planning Act 2008 after section 35A insert—“35B Directions relating to railway projects
(1) Subsection (2) applies if a project for the construction or alteration of a railway includes—
(a) development which is within section 14(1)(k), and(b) development which is permitted development and which is to be carried out wholly in England.(2) The Secretary of State for Transport may, in response to a qualifying request, direct in the case of any specified development within subsection (1)(b) that—
(a) development consent is not required for the specific development, or(b) development consent for development within subsection (1)(a) may also be granted for the specific development.(3) A direction under subsection (2) can only be made if the Secretary of State for Transport thinks that the making of the direction will promote the efficient and timely development of the rail network.
(4) Subsection (5) applies if—
(a) a project consists of development which is within section 14(1)(k), and (b) the Secretary of State for Transport thinks that the project, taking into account its size, its potential effect on the railway network and all other relevant circumstances, is not of national significance, whether by itself or when considered with any other related project or proposed project in the same field.(5) The Secretary of State for Transport may, in response to a qualifying request, direct the development to be treated for specified purposes or generally as development for which development consent is not required.
(6) If the Secretary of State for Transport decides to give a direction under subsection (2) or (5), the Secretary of State for Transport must give reasons for the decision.
(7) In this section “qualifying request”, in relation to any development, means a written request which is made by the person proposing to carry out the development and which specifies the development, and—
(a) in the case of a request for a direction under subsection (2), explains why the conditions in subsections (1) and (3) are met; and(b) in the case of a request for a direction under subsection (5), explains why the conditions in subsection (4) are met.”(2) In section 15(5) (development for which development consent may be granted) after “associated development” insert “or development in respect of which a direction has been given under section 35B(2)(b)”.”

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, I assure the House that I shall be quicker than the last group of amendments. This is something that has come up quite recently, when we have tried to see how the IPC and the Planning Act 2008 should be applied to railway projects. It appears that there is no minimum size for railway projects to have to go to the IPC under the Planning Act. The example that has been brought to my attention is the electrification of the Great Western main line between Airport Junction, which is near Heathrow, and Cardiff, where Network Rail may have to demolish certain bridges or do other works. It mainly has the permitted development rights for those works but some of them may creep a few yards outside those rights. It has been suggested that any such creep would need permission through the IPC, so the amendment suggests that it would be nice if the Secretary of State were minded to direct that specific and maybe small developments outside the limits of permitted developments could proceed without any other process, on the basis that they were quite small.

It is not just about the electrification of the Great Western main line. The East West Rail project, roughly between Oxford and Milton Keynes, has found two places where the existing railway has never had permission. One little connection between two lines was built in the last war and nobody can find the documentation giving it permission; it may be with the British Rail Property Board but it has not found it. There is another place where the route that got permission went through a farm and the actual railway went round it; clearly the person owning the farm at the time saw somebody all right and there was a gentle deviation, which of course was no problem 150 years ago. Quite rightly, the promoters of this line want to get the legal situation correct before they start building.

There is a problem here which requires some change to the Planning Act, probably to Section 14. Perhaps the Secretary of State might be minded to bring forward regulations to find a way of getting some smaller railway projects permissions in a process outside of the IPC, which is meant for big projects and takes a long time to do. One can debate whether the problems here are with the Transport and Works Act, an ordinary planning application or something else, but I am sure the Minister will understand them. Maybe he has a better solution. I am grateful to him for the meeting that he arranged some time this summer. I cannot remember when it was now but we had a good discussion about this. What we do not want is for our new Secretary of State for Transport to turn round in six months’ time and say that the electrification is held up for a couple of years because they cannot get permission for a couple of yards’ extension to a bridge and that it has to go to the IPC. On that basis, I beg to move.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, my noble friend has brought forward what seems to be an entirely reasonable proposition. I look forward to the Minister’s reply. I add only that I do not know whether the same issue arises in relation to projects other than railway projects. Perhaps the Minister can cover that as well.

21:30

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for his work in this area. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, I have really considered this matter only in respect of railways but I think that noble Lords will find my answers satisfactory. The noble Lord and I did indeed have a meeting on this—ironically, I turned up a few minutes late.

Amendment 223A would amend the provisions of the 2008 Act which relate to railway projects. The amendment seeks to introduce two new powers. The first relates to a case where a railway project contains both development for which consent is required under the 2008 Act and development for which permitted development rights exist. In this case, the amendment seeks—on application from the promoter—to permit the Secretary of State for Transport to direct that the permitted development should be dealt with under the Planning Act along with the development for which consent is required under the Act. I confirm that Section 35 of the Act already provides a power of direction capable of achieving this. A new power is not necessary. The second relates to a situation where development consent is required for a railway project under the 2008 Act. In response to a qualifying request, if the Secretary of State for Transport thinks that the project is not of national significance, he may direct that the development should be treated as development for which consent under the Planning Act is not required.

My DCLG officials have discussed this matter with the Department for Transport and Network Rail, and have agreed that a carefully considered threshold would be preferable to such a power, as it would provide greater clarity on what should be considered major infrastructure. We have therefore agreed that secondary legislation should be brought forward under Section 14 of the Planning Act to set a suitable threshold for rail projects, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. This will be taken forward by the Department for Transport. With this assurance, I hope that the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Berkeley]

I am extremely grateful to the Minister for that very positive response. Perhaps I could tell my noble friend Lord McKenzie that it applies only to railways because in other major project areas under the Planning Act there is always a minimum threshold. For some reason, one was not done at the time for railways—everybody thought that railways were big ones, and nobody picked it up. I suppose I should ask the Minister when the regulations will be tabled, but I am sure that he recognises the importance of that for certain projects. If it would help in drafting these things I am happy to meet with him, along with people from Network Rail and other infrastructure managers if they are interested. However, that seems to be a very good way forward and I am very grateful to him. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 223A withdrawn.

Clause 120 : Secretary of State’s directions in relation to projects of national significance

Amendments 223AA and 223AB not moved.

Clause 128 : Development consent subject to requirement for further approval

Amendment 223AC not moved.

Amendment 223B

Moved by

[Lord Berkeley]

223B: After Clause 129, insert the following new Clause—
“Hydraulic fracturing of underground rock
(1) Within 12 months of this Act being passed, the Secretary of State shall, by order, amend the Planning Act 2008 as follows.
(2) In section 14(1) (nationally significant infrastructure projects: general), at the end insert—
“(q) the hydraulic fracturing of underground rock”.”

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, this is a completely different subject; it is to do with something which is colloquially called fracking. I raised it very briefly in Committee, but we were short of time then and I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the letters that she wrote, dated 5 September. Since that time I have had further thoughts about it. I have had quite an amazing amount of correspondence from people on the basis of a very short entry in Hansard. That is why I have tabled this amendment tonight, because it needs a different solution.

Very briefly, fracking comprises drilling a hole that is probably several kilometres under ground, pumping in water and unspecified chemicals, and sometimes apparently causing an explosion in the hope that gas will come up to the surface. There have been some pretty horrendous stories from the United States, where this is apparently quite common. There, houses have collapsed or settled seriously while water sources, and therefore water supplies, have allegedly been poisoned. In one instance, I believe that gas came out of the water tap, which must have been quite frightening.

I am not saying that that is going to happen here. However, the press release relating to what I believe is the first attempt at fracking in this country, somewhere near Blackpool, by a company called Cuadrilla Resources—the noble Lord, Lord Browne, an ex-chairman of BP, is apparently its chairman—said that it was excited because that could produce 200 trillion cubic feet of gas. I do not know what that means to the ordinary person in the street but it would be something like 30 years of gas. It all sounds very nice, with mouth-watering profits. But what will happen to the people who might be affected not by just the drilling and the things that I have mentioned, but by extra traffic on the roads, construction work and everything like that?

I know that there would be licensing from DECC and others. But if it were to happen around the country, I do not think that one can expect a local planning authority to have the resources to give something that is pretty technical due consideration, especially when it is balanced by potentially exciting numbers of new jobs and extra revenue from rates. It would be unfair to expect local planning authorities to give it the consideration that it deserves. I believe that the right solution is to make another change to Section 14 of the Planning Act to create a new type of project to include hydraulic fracturing of underground rock —it is not called “fracking” in the amendment.

This new type of project would then be subject to the IPC process but, equally importantly, it would have to have a national policy statement in which all these questions that I have been suggesting and more could be investigated, responded to, debated in the House and consulted on. We would all then have confidence that if this process could be done safely with minimum upset to local residents, it could go ahead on a national basis. If not, it will be in trouble. That is the purpose of my amendment. I beg to move.

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

My Lords, it is right that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has brought this matter back to the attention of the House. I have attended a number of lectures and presentations about the development of shale gas. As he said, it is perfectly true that there are substantial areas of shale several kilometres or more under the surface of this country, which could be, in appropriate circumstances, a source of gas for this country. However, a good many people have said to me, “But you would never be able to deal with this properly in a country that is as crowded and as fully populated as the United Kingdom”.

It has happened in the United States—indeed, it is happening on a very substantial scale—but there are wide open spaces there. It is apparently likely to happen in Poland where, again, there are substantial areas where it could be done without interfering with the life of the normal population. But in the crowded areas of western Europe and the United Kingdom, there is a widespread view that this is not likely to happen.

I, too, have had correspondence from a farmer in west Lancashire who has written in terms of being extremely anxious about what is happening. Yes, we had the small earthquake outside Blackpool, which is perhaps a foretaste of what may come. But the real concern is the huge amount of surface activity that has to go on at regular intervals. There is a limit to the amount you can drill horizontally before you need to drill another hole down and have all the equipment and plant at the top to deal with it.

There is quite a movement now to say that there should be a moratorium on this until it has been examined a great deal more thoroughly. I do not know enough about it. The noble Lord, Lord Browne of Madingley, clearly regards it as very important: he is the chairman of Cuadrilla, which is the only company that I am aware of that is drilling so far in this country. One needs to treat this very seriously, as it is a serious prospect. If we could find an acceptable process for recovering very large quantities of shale gas, that would replace a lot of the North Sea gas, which appears to be coming towards the end of its life. At the same time, however, if there are enormous disturbances of local populations and communities because of a huge rash of surface activity, this solution would seem to be worse than the problem.

I do not know what the answer is—whether it is a moratorium, or it is simply sufficient to say that it will come under the NISP process. As I said to the lady who wrote to me, it is going to be jolly interesting to learn what the Minister says in answer to this amendment. All I know is that there is a widespread view that it is not going to catch on in this country for the reasons I explained a few moments ago. I look forward hearing my noble friend’s response.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, this issue is closer to me than to other noble Lords, since the Bowland shale, which is the reserve of rock that potentially contains a large amount of methane, if it could be extracted in a sensible and safe way, underlies at a very great depth of some two miles or so a large amount of the Lancashire plain, and extends up towards Pendle Hill, where it is rather nearer the surface. Like other noble Lords, I have taken an interest in this and decided that I ought to find out something about it, as it is clearly extremely controversial. I have been doing just that, and I spent an extremely interesting three hours last Friday afternoon at the site at Banks in Lancashire where the firm Cuadrilla is currently drilling. Its employees showed me around, explained what they were doing and told me a very good tale. I listened and, like all very good tales, will assess it against all the other evidence in this particular case.

I have been deliberately trying not to take a view on the desirability of the extraction of shale gas until I discovered a great deal more about it. My current view is that the people who claim that this will be the answer for decades to the gas problems of this country are overegging their case a little bit, or quite probably a very large amount, but, equally, the people who claim that it would be the kind of environmental disaster in this country that it clearly has been in parts of the USA are also overstating the case. The regulatory regime in this country is very much stricter and more acceptable than the regime in the USA, particularly in some states of the USA. I doubt whether we will get the environmental devastation that has happened in some parts of the USA. I am told by Cuadrilla, although I cannot confirm it, that the famous picture which we have probably all seen on television of the water tap setting on fire was a result not of shale gas but of drilling into coal-seams. Even so, this clearly has to be taken extremely seriously indeed.

The licensing regime at the moment appears to be threefold. First of all, drilling for shale gas comes under ordinary petroleum exploration and development licences. Areas in which shale gas is currently being looked at have licences, issued in 2008 as I understand it, under that regime. It is a licence to explore and develop, but it does not grant planning permission or give the go-ahead even with planning permission. It is the first stage. The areas of this country where these licences have been issued in relation to shale gas include part of south Wales, where a different company, a British one I believe, is involved. I understand that there is also a wish to explore in a part of Somerset that has given rise to concerns in Bath about the spa waters.

The second stage is planning permission, which is what the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has been talking about. Planning permission is needed for exploration, and that is what is taking place in Lancashire at the moment. That planning permission was obtained from Lancashire County Council because in two-tier areas, the upper tier authority gives permission for mineral extraction. I have to say that, given the scale of the present exploration, it seems reasonable that the local planning authority, the county council in the case of Lancashire, should be in charge of this, although if it really took off, the points made by the noble Lord make a great deal of sense.

21:45

The second thing needed in order to explore is to get consent from the Department of Energy and Climate Change. This is a separate consent in addition to planning permission. If you want to move on to commercial exploitation involving the extraction of the gas in order to sell it on, an additional and separate planning permission and an additional and separate consent from DECC are needed. So the consent regime is already quite complex. My view is that, given the scale at the moment, it is probably okay to leave this with local authorities, but just in the short term. That is because, as the noble Lord said, it is not just what happens underground that matters; it is also the infrastructure required above ground to get the gas into the mains gas distribution network or perhaps to turn it into electricity at the wellheads. That would clearly have a local impact and needs to be looked at.

I suggest that, as people learn more about it, this topic probably merits further debate in your Lordships’ House separate from this Bill. It would be a useful exercise. I believe that central government needs to start to take an overall view on it because fracking for shale oil in different parts of this country and indeed in Europe, particularly in Poland, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, said, is not going to go away. Given the increasing shortage of oil and gas resources around the world, and given the large-scale exploitation of shale gas in the USA, where it has contributed to a substantial reduction in gas prices, I repeat that it is not going to go away. For many of the reasons stated and others, extracting it in this country is going to be much more expensive than it is in the USA and probably in Poland because of our much stricter regulatory and planning regimes. Nevertheless, people are going to continue to want to do it.

As for a moratorium, if there is to be one it should be at the level of DECC consents to exploit. Continued relatively small-scale exploration is necessary in order to find out the facts, such as how much of this shale there is in different parts of the country. It is found in quite a few different areas, including places such as Surrey, I have to say, where it might well send the balloon up, no doubt filled with methane. The Government ought to have an overview of this, perhaps in the form of a national policy statement or something different. They need an overall view to determine, first, whether it is a desirable process; secondly, whether it has undesirable side-effects, even if it is properly regulated and controlled; thirdly, what the implications are environmentally for the areas concerned; and, fourthly, the matter of the potential contamination of water resources, which ought not to happen if it is done properly. However, that has happened in certain parts of the USA on a large scale. Lastly, the use of water is a major issue. All these issues need to be looked at if this is going to take off, because the worst possible thing would be for a relatively large amount of development to take place in a relatively economically uncontrolled way, and then for it to become a disaster. If it is going to be done, it has to be done properly, and I do not believe that it can simply be left to the market.

I hope that that is helpful. If noble Lords want some contacts in order to go and look at it themselves, I will happily pass them on. I do not know whether this will be the El Dorado of tomorrow—I suspect that it will not. Equally, I do not know whether it will be a total environmental disaster—I suspect that it will not. I suspect that it will be relatively small scale in this country, but even so it needs to be done absolutely properly.

[Lord Lucas]

My Lords, I was thinking, as that speech went on, what it would have been like if we had been discussing, a couple of hundred years ago, the idea of opening up deep-mine coal in northern England. I think we would have been rather more aware of the dangers and that the dangers would have been rather more real. Houses do fall down coal-mines from time to time; the idea that they could fall down a hole made by fracking gas two miles deep is really not tenable. I am very sad to say this, as an ex-member of both Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace, but there is a typical, current environmentalist film around called “Gasland”, which, as far as I can establish, peddles nothing but lies, including that tap. If you drill a well through coal-seams you get gas out of it. That is not surprising, and methane is not exactly dangerous anyway. We are talking about a technology that, by and large, chucks household chemicals two miles deep. There is a chance of them coming back to the surface, but I am sure we will be careful about what we allow to be stuck down the wells.

I am someone who, although I do not have the pleasure of living in Lancashire, has lived in the Hampshire oilfields. Noble Lords may remember that in the 1980s there was a nice little mini-boom in wells all over mid-Hampshire, which we suffered happily without any great effect. There was a month when the drills were busy and then you were just left with a hut. That is really what happens with shale gas; you have a well every half kilometre or so and you are left with a garden shed that produces gas. It is not exactly an environmental problem, other than the interference when the drilling is going on. I think this is something that we will deal with extremely well within the boundaries of our ordinary and sensible systems for dealing with potential environmental hazards and for planning.

In fact, the Bill will make things better, because one of the problems with such developments in the past has been that they have benefited the oil company, they have benefited the Government and benefited the landowner who is lucky enough to have the well drilled on his patch, but the local community, which has put up with the noise, the transport during the drilling and the continuing risk of something going on with the well, gets nothing. Under the Bill, of course—under neighbourhood planning—the benefit will be shared and that will be a great step forward.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, if I understand my noble friend’s proposition, it is that the hydraulic fracturing of underground rock will be brought within the national infrastructure projects regime, the planning regime that deals with major projects. I think that is central to what my noble friend is moving. We have had a wider debate about the potential importance of shale gas, what that might mean and the risks associated with it. It seems to me that we need a broader regime that encompasses all those issues: licensing regimes, as the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said, not only to deal with exploration, but with exploitation as well. If there is to be no national infrastructure projects approach to this, then planning, presumably, is a matter for local planning authorities and, indeed, neighbourhood planning. That does not seem to me to fit well with something that is potentially of huge national significance, with potentially huge risks and uncertainties attached to it.

The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said that this issue is worthy of a further debate. Perhaps when we have debated the NPPF to death we might turn our attention to it. I am a novice on this, but it is a fascinating and hugely important issue. I can remember when North Sea oil first opened up. It was a project on which I worked in my former life and I know some of the debate that went on around that. However, if I understand it correctly, my noble friend’s proposition about the environment within which the planning ought to be considered is a straightforward one, and he makes a good case.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, Amendment 223B seeks to require the Secretary of State, by order, within 12 months of Royal Assent, to add hydraulic fracturing of underground rock, commonly known as “fracking”, to the list of nationally significant infrastructure projects in Section 14(1) of the 2008 Act.

The first exploration for shale gas in the UK has begun only recently. Fracturing has so far been used on one shale gas drill site in Lancashire but is currently suspended pending a geomechanical study into seismic activity.

The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, raised some wider planning issues, but fracking is no more difficult or technical than other mineral extraction methods, and my noble friend Lord Lucas said as much. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, covered some of the regulatory issues, and I shall not go over that ground again. My noble friend Lord Jenkin referred to a small earthquake. Of course he was actually referring to a seismic event, which is slightly different.

The amendment would require hydraulic fracturing to be added to the types of activity that are considered nationally significant. It is not necessary, however, to use this Bill for that purpose; a secondary power exists to achieve this. I am happy to undertake that this issue will be raised with my colleagues in the Department of Energy and Climate Change and, if it appears appropriate to the purposes of the Bill to add this type of activity to the list of nationally significant infrastructure projects, we will use the secondary power. On that basis, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, there has been a great deal of discussion previously about thresholds and nationally significant infrastructure projects. Does the Minister agree that the question of thresholds may also be relevant in this case?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I am sure my ministerial colleagues in the Department of Energy and Climate Change will take all relevant matters into consideration.

[Lord Berkeley]

I am grateful to noble Lords who have participated in the debate. It has been a good debate in which a number of different views have been expressed. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, made a good point about thresholds. As I raised it in a previous amendment in respect of railway projects, I think it is relevant to learn from something that possibly went wrong before.

I am grateful to the Minister for agreeing to speak to his ministerial colleagues and, if appropriate, to bring this matter forward by secondary legislation. I am therefore pleased to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 223B withdrawn.

Amendment 223C

Moved by

[Lord Greaves]

223C: After Clause 129, insert the following new Clause—
“Notification of initiation of development etc
(1) In the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, after section 106C insert—
“106D Notification of initiation of development
(1) A local planning authority may require a person who carries out relevant development to inform the planning authority of the date on which they intend to initiate the development as soon as possible after they make a decision on that date.
(2) A relevant development for the purposes of subsection (1) is one for which permission has been granted or for which a local development order, a neighbourhood development order or a community right to build order has been made.
(3) A local planning authority may apply the requirement in subsection (1) to all planning applications or particular descriptions of applications.
(4) A notice of planning permission or a community right to build order must where appropriate include a statement of the requirements of subsection (1) and section 171 and, where relevant, of section 106E.”
(2) In section 171A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (expressions used in connection with enforcement), after subsection (1)(b) insert—
“(c) initiating development without giving notice in accordance with section 106D,”.”

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, the amendment is a slight variation of an amendment that I moved in Committee and concerns the notification of the initiation of development. It is a development of the amendment suggested by the Royal Town Planning Institute which I put forward in Committee, and it has the support of the Town and Country Planning Association.

In Committee, I suggested that when development is initiated the developer should inform the local authority of the date on which it expects to start work in order that the local authority knows what is going on and can make appropriate checks if it wishes to do so.

22:00

It was suggested by the Minister at the time that this was rather over the top as many authorities might not want to do it and that it would be a burden upon developers. The burden argument is grossly overstated. They already have to notify the appropriate authority, which might be the local authority, for development control purposes. In addition to that, if CIL is involved they have to make notification in relation to CIL, which will apply to larger projects, but not the very small ones. The amendment tries to take account of those objections by making it permissive:

“A local planning authority may require a person who carries out relevant development to inform the planning authority”.

The authority can also make different rules for different classes of development. In other words, it would not be required for small developments, kitchen extensions, or whatever the authority thinks is a relatively small development. But it would be required for major and important developments, which would have a more important effect on the area, and where it may feel that having this kind of control is more important.

It was also stated in Committee that there was no evidence whatever that local planning authorities wanted this power. The RTPI has since then carried out a survey of its members in local authorities and it has come up with evidence that a substantial number of them would very much welcome such a power and believe it would help them in their work.

This is in many ways a watered-down amendment, but perhaps a more appropriate one, which would allow local authorities to do this but does not force them to. It was also stated in Committee that local authorities have this power anyway. This was news to various planning officers I spoke to. Where this does happen, it is done on a voluntary basis, which is not entirely satisfactory. If the Minister still believes that local authorities can do this, and can require such notification, it would be interesting to know under which legislation that takes place.

This is a sensible and modest amendment and it is one which would significantly improve the operation of the local planning system. I beg to move.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, we are in total agreement with the amendment; indeed we should have added our name to it. I apologise for not having done that. One of the issues that was raised previously was about regulation, and if you have a new regulation then something has got to go. I would urge the Government not only to take on board this proposition but to look and see what might be gained by trying to streamline other notification procedures, particularly in relation to building regulations and notifications in respect of the community infrastructure levy. Why can these not potentially be combined into one notification procedure? So you have got two out, and only one in, on that basis. That notwithstanding, it does seem a very sensible proposition which we support.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, my noble friend’s Amendment 223C is, as he has said, a simpler, more permissive version of the one he tabled in Committee. However, I regret to say that it still does not overcome the Government’s concerns that this would add yet a further element of complexity and box-ticking to the application process for both the applicant and the local planning authorities and yet yield no practical benefit for local planning authorities.

In the March 2011 Plan for Growth, the Government clearly cited the problem of the cumulative additional cost to business of new regulations introduced since 1998. It is essential that reforms continue to reduce costs, delays and bureaucracy in the planning system and support the Government’s collective approach to driving sustainable economic growth. Local planning authorities can, and do, ask for notification of commencement of development when and where they think it necessary. A developer failing to notify the local authority that the works had commenced would not be a good start to the relationship between them.

My noble friend may argue that an administrative scheme has no teeth if the developer does not return the form but the Government’s view is that new Section 106D, to be inserted by the amendment, would have no teeth either. Making the commencement of development without giving notice a breach of planning control implies that enforcement action could be taken. However, the point of enforcement action is to remedy breaches of planning control. Once development has started it will no longer be possible to give prior notice, so the breach could not technically be remedied and enforcement action would be ineffective. If it turns out that the developer has failed to comply with pre-commencement conditions as well as not giving notice, then the local planning authority can take such action as it sees fit, perhaps by serving a breach of condition notice.

The Government’s view is that this amendment will inject additional complexity into the planning process yet provide little practical benefit. I invite my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Greaves]

I do not know whether the Minister incites me to call a Division but I will not do so at this time of night. I can see my Chief Whip in his place, who might not be very pleased by that and I do not want to fall out with him.

The Minister made some good points. On reflection, the amendment could be further simplified, particularly by the removal of the last four lines. There is a problem. The Minister wants to reduce the amount of bureaucracy on the part of local planning authorities. At the moment, particularly on major developments where there is concern about whether the development has started, the authority sends people round to find out and look on site or ring people up. That takes time and effort.

It is really six of one and half a dozen of the other. On the local planning authority side, this would not make much difference at all. However, I am sorry that the Government will not accept this. They will not accept everything that I put forward in the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 223C withdrawn.

Clause 130 : Applications for planning permission: local finance considerations

Amendment 223CA

Moved by

[Earl Attlee]

223CA: Clause 130, page 123, line 4, at end insert—
“(5) The amendments made by this section do not alter—
(a) whether under subsection (2) of section 70 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 regard is to be had to any particular consideration, or(b) the weight to be given to any consideration to which regard is had under that subsection.”

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, your Lordships will recall our helpful debate in Committee on this clause, when we dealt with an array of issues. I shall give a brief reminder of the key points before moving on to the amendments now tabled and the issues that I understand still worry some noble Lords.

I start by reiterating the Government’s purpose here. As my noble friend Lady Hamwee noted in Committee, the issue of local finance incentives and planning decisions was made topical by the new homes bonus, or NHB. When we consulted on that scheme, uncertainty was expressed about its relationship with planning. The CPRE was concerned enough to seek a legal opinion, which implied that the scheme might taint the planning decision-making process. The supposition was that the scheme might encourage local planning authorities to take non-material considerations into account when determining planning applications for new homes.

The CPRE is right to keep a keen eye on this issue but in some instances its press releases and briefings have unnecessarily added to the sector’s confusion and alarm. It has raised fears that that NHB will undermine the planning system and result in,

“hugely damaging consequences for local communities and the environment”,

and result in any local decision in which a local finance consideration were taken into account being,

“legally ‘tainted’ and open to question”.

The clause itself, which the Government prepared in an attempt to ensure that local finance consideration would not be taken into account in inappropriate circumstances—in other words, to address the CPRE’s core concern—has been branded as,

“a brazen attempt to legalise cash for sprawl”,

and as a temptation for local planning authorities to,

“fill shrinking coffers by permitting any development, regardless of its environmental impact or the views of local communities”.

All such claims, though doubtless borne of genuine concern, are based on a false premise about the effect of the clause. As such they are rather misleading. To be clear, the clause simply restates the existing legal position, confirming for the avoidance of doubt that, like any other consideration, a matter such as the NHB or CIL must be taken into account if they are material to the planning application under consideration.

Inevitably, the CPRE activity on this issue has not helped the confusion already apparent in the sector, evidenced, for example, by the London Borough of Islington which, in its response to the NHB consultation, said:

“The government should make it clear whether NHB can be taken into account as a material consideration when determining planning applications”.

It was precisely to address this confusion and to give a clear and lasting reminder that local finance considerations should be taken into account only where they are material in the long-understood sense—in line with case law—that Clause 130 was prepared.

It is clearly untenable to allow confusion to linger, particularly within the bodies responsible for making planning decisions. As I said in Committee, this would undermine the planning system’s integrity and affect public confidence. Making the legal position more clear should reduce the risk of local planning authorities being accused of letting financial incentives improperly influence their decisions and so facing legal challenges to their decisions.

In Committee, my noble friend Lady Hamwee asked why the necessary clarification could not be given in guidance. As I indicated at the time, we thought carefully about the option. However, the Government concluded that with confusion on this legal and technical issue so prevalent, the only responsible option was to bring the desperately needed clarity to the fore by using the Localism Bill.

Given the significant accusations the CPRE was asserting, the consequent confusion that local planning authorities were faced with, and the grave risk which that confusion posed to the proper operation of the planning system, we felt it essential to clarify the position and clear up the confusion in law. Using the Localism Bill presented the most immediate and visible way to set the record straight on this important message. As the confusion concerned the legal position it made sense to use legislation to clarify the point and provide councils with reassurance on what they should and should not legitimately do.

It may be helpful if I remind the House of the tests for a material consideration. I know some noble Lords remain uncertain as to the circumstances in which the NHB or the community infrastructure levy might be material to a particular planning decision. Current statute confirms that in determining planning applications regard must be had to the development plan so far as it is material to the application and to any other material considerations. Statute does not define what a material consideration is but clear tests for materiality have been developed through case law.

22:15

The classic statement is to be found in Stringer v Minister of Housing and Local Government. It states:

“Any consideration which relates to the use and development of land is capable of being a planning consideration. Whether a particular consideration falling within that broad class is material in any given case will depend upon the circumstances”.

In order to be material, therefore, a consideration must relate to the use and development of land and to the planning merits of the development in question. These tests apply to all considerations, financial or otherwise, and are not altered by the clause.

Clause 130 clarifies that regard should be had to,

“any local finance considerations, so far as material to the application”.

What this means in practice is that regard should be had where, and only where, the case law tests on materiality are satisfied; that is, where the local finance consideration in question relates to the use and development of land and relates to the planning merits of the development in question.

I am conscious that concerns were expressed in Committee that the clause as drafted might do more than this. There were suggestions that it might elevate the status of financial considerations above others; threaten the probity of planning; send a message that under the new system planning permissions can be bought and sold; allow financial inducements that are irrelevant to the merits of a particular development proposal to be material; and similar horrors. We took these concerns very seriously. We have taken all possible steps to ensure that the clause absolutely does not have the potential to result in such unintended consequences, and we have been consistently reassured on these points. Although it is not customary for Government to share their legal advice, perhaps it is opportune and helpful to do so on this occasion. I can categorically confirm that the Government are in no doubt that the clause as drafted does not represent any change in the current law whatever. It is declaratory of the current law, which is that where local financial considerations are material to a planning application they should be taken into account in the determination of that planning application.

Furthermore—this is of direct relevance to the concerns raised previously by noble Lords—the Government are absolutely certain that the clause does not require greater consideration to be given to local finance considerations than to any other material consideration. The decision-maker retains the discretion to determine the weight to be attached, subject ultimately to the supervision of the court. To reiterate: the Government are confident on these points. However, we do not wish to dismiss the understandable and well meaning concerns of noble Lords. We have not just blithely continued on our way without reflecting very carefully on the issues raised. Instead, we made a genuine commitment to consider further the wording of the clause to ensure that it is absolutely clear that apportioning weight remains a matter for the decision-maker. As noble Lords can see, we have now fully honoured that commitment and have brought forward an amendment which should put noble Lords’ concerns completely beyond doubt.

As noble Lords will see, Amendment 223CA makes it absolutely explicit that the new reference to local finance considerations does not affect the weight to be given to any particular consideration. We have provided even greater reassurance by additionally confirming that the clause does not alter whether regard is to be had to any consideration. Apportioning weight remains a matter for the decision-maker. It may assist your Lordships if I give some simple examples to illustrate when matters relating to the NHB or CIL are likely to be material or not. In Committee, I used examples relating to new housing developments and the funding of improvements to commuter links. In the interests of variety, I shall use a different scenario. Take a situation where NHB and/or CIL moneys pooled by an authority will help fund new flood defence measures. In determining an application for a major housing development within the area to be protected, the fact that the scheme would generate funds to support the provision of the necessary defences would be material: it is clearly relevant to a planning issue arising from the proposal at hand. What, though, if the new proposed development would take place elsewhere, on land not at risk of flooding? The development would still result in moneys which would help fund the flood defences and this would still be a reasonable use of the funds. However, the provision of flood defences would not be material to the determination of the planning application.

Put simply, the crucial issue is not the nature of the policy instrument that results in funds being accrued, whether or not the Government require authorities to ring-fence funds for a particular use; it is whether at the local level there is a commitment to spend those funds on something that relates to the development and use of land and the planning merits of the planning application that is being considered. In practice it is likely that CIL will be more material in more instances than NHB. This is a natural consequence of the fact that authorities are free to spend NHB funds as they see fit while CIL must be spent on infrastructure needed to support the development of the area.

Of course, where regard is to be had to NHB or CIL, the local planning authority will need to be confident at the planning decision stage that the funds will be used to deliver the infrastructure anticipated. It will be for the charging authorities concerned to put adequate safeguards in place to ensure that the funds are spent appropriately and for the local planning authorities to be satisfied that the developments will be acceptable in planning terms, having regard to any relevant infrastructure that they can legitimately expect to be provided by the charging authority. Of course, none of this fetters the ability of an authority to choose not to spend its NHB moneys on matters relating to specific developments. The funds could, for example, be distributed as funds to local communities to spend as they wish. This would be a legitimate use of the funds, but in such circumstances the funds will not be a material consideration in planning decisions.

I now turn to Amendment 223D. This amendment, tabled by my noble friend Lady Parminter, proposes that Clause 130 be withdrawn from the Bill. We have been clear that the clause does not alter the law but merely clarifies a topical point of confusion. Noble Lords may well ask, therefore, why the clause needs to remain in place. The simple answer is that having come so far in clarifying the question of when a local finance consideration should and should not be taken into account, it would be regrettable indeed to throw this matter back into doubt. Withdrawing the clause would not change the law. It would remain the case that decision-makers must have regard to any local finance considerations that are material to the planning applications that they determine, but there would be no clear reference in statute to this point. I hope that I have left your Lordships in no doubt that, irrespective of whether we are all in agreement that the clause is essential, we can at least be clear that it does no harm. I beg to move.

[Baroness Parminter]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 223D. As we know, this clause, which outlines that financial considerations can be material to a planning application, was added in the Commons as an incidental measure for clarification. As the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, indicated, the Government have argued that it is the new homes bonus that has necessitated such clarification. However, by using statute rather than the traditional route of guidance, the Government are undoubtedly creating further uncertainty.

The clause elevates financial considerations above all other legitimate planning considerations, which are not mentioned here or anywhere else in statute. As such, the courts will be used to decide just what Parliament means by putting financial considerations up front as a material condition. While the government amendment goes some way to try to tackle that ambiguity, there still remains a lack of clarity about when such financial considerations could be considered material. Until now, case law has determined whether or not a financial consideration is material. Over time that has been determined as it being necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, directly related to the application and fairly and reasonably related in scale to the application. On Report in the Commons the Minister gave an example of materiality which related to a road scheme that accommodates a development—a direct link between the use of the money and making the application acceptable in planning terms. Further, in the Government’s response to the consultation on the new homes bonus in February this year, they stated that the new homes bonus could be lawfully taken into account as a material consideration,

“where there is a direct connection between the intended use of the Bonus and the proposed development”.

My noble friend Lord Attlee gave a useful example of such a direct link. However, this key point about the direct link is not made at all in the clause or the government amendment. This direct linkage is what case law has determined makes a financial consideration material, and it is a fundamental principle—to me at least—that guarantees the probity of planning. The Minister has made much of the CPRE opposing this clause. However, it shows skill on the part of the Government to unite the CPRE, TCPA and RTPI in opposing this clause and government amendment.

Without that clarity it can be read that financial inducements that are irrelevant to the merits of a particular development proposal can be material in determining planning applications. It is just such a lack of clarity that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, rightly raised earlier when he talked about the changes around the use of the community infrastructure levy. It is quite clear that guidance will have to be issued to local authorities on how government incentives are intended to influence planning and how this will work in practice. If further clarification is needed on the relationship between financial considerations and considering planning applications, as the Government say it is, then cover that alongside government guidance about the workability of these incentives. That would avoid further legal wrangling over what Parliament intended to say by this clause. I beg to move.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester)]

The House is debating government Amendment 223CA, with which Amendment 223D is grouped. Therefore the noble Baroness is not able to move that amendment separately.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I think that my noble friend realised that when she started to speak. Some things become automatic as the evening goes on. I support my noble friend, who has made a very powerful case, as she has done on previous occasions.

I thought that I might be able to say tonight that the Lady at the Dispatch Box doth protest too much, but I suppose that Earls can protest too much as well. I find that as this debate goes on, the hole that the Government are digging is getting deeper and deeper. The position is not being improved by further re-emphasis. Can you have further re-emphasis? I think that we have got to that stage now—we are up to about three lots of emphasis. By adding this amendment, which says the same thing again, I become more and more concerned.

I do not want to repeat points that my noble friend Lady Parminter has made. However, the clause must mean something. It must mean something not otherwise provided for. I find it quite puzzling that the Government take the view that they need to use primary legislation to bring the matter, in the words of the noble Earl at the last stage,

“quickly to the attention of concerned parties”.—[Official Report, 20/7/11; col. 1420.]

I really do not believe that concerned parties need primary legislation to have this and the answer to it brought to their attention. The noble Earl told the House he thought that it would always be helpful, but it is not the practice, for legal advice to be shared. I asked innocently—it was not intended to be disingenuous, but probably sounded it—if we could have sight of the legal advice. I do not want this to sound ungrateful, but what we heard from the legal advice was not helpful, having got to this stage. We did not hear argument; we heard assertion. I am sure that it was not unsupported, but what was shared with the House was simply assertion.

Finally, the noble Earl talked of this certainly doing no harm. My fear is that it will do harm because it must be interpreted as meaning something that has not been the case hitherto. I support my noble friend.

22:30

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords, it is ironic that the Government's attempt to clarify the purport of the existing law has led to large-scale confusion and anxiety. While I was enormously relieved to hear what the noble Earl said, and absolutely accept that that is the appropriate interpretation of the provision, none the less, since he also said that the addition of this clause and the amendment that we are debating to the new clause that the Government brought in at a late stage in Commons proceedings does not do anything to change the law, would it not be better to withdraw the clause and issue guidance to clarify, for anyone who may be in doubt, what the existing law means? That would be helpful. Of course, those who attempt to construe the law and the Government's intentions will take careful account of what the noble Earl said on the record this evening. However, it would be better to remove the clause, clarify the law as it is and allow everybody to settle down and get on with the work that they need to do.

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

My Lords, the Minister deserves complete support. When we debated this in Committee, I made the point that the clause did not change the law at all. My noble friend made this clear and stated that there had been confusion, which the amendment was designed to remove. The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, spoke eloquently. Her noble friend Lord Greaves suggested that perhaps, in order to remove doubt, it might be helpful if the Government could clarify the extent of the clause and explain that it did not put financial considerations above all others, but that it was entirely for the planning authority to determine what weight should be given to them. That has been done. I find myself very unsympathetic to the argument advanced by my noble friend Lady Hamwee that by going on and trying to make this clear, my noble friend is digging himself deeper into a hole. That is very unfair. He recognised the concerns that were expressed in Committee and moved an amendment that puts the matter beyond doubt. He deserves complete support.

[Baroness Hamwee]

Perhaps I may clarify that I am not suggesting that the hole is of the noble Earl's making.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, that reminds me of a song about digging a hole, but perhaps we should not go into it. In Committee, I attempted to search for a compromise on this and to help the Government to clarify what they were saying. I spend a lot of time trying to do that on Bills. The Government should be congratulated on and thanked for the huge amount of time and effort that was put in by Ministers and their civil servants in the Bill team, and by their ministerial colleagues in the House of Commons, to try to sort out a bit of a mess—perhaps more than a bit of a mess—that has resulted from what some of us would say was the rather hasty addition of this clause at the end of the procedures in the House of Commons. They made a huge effort, and I have no doubt that the amendment moved by the noble Earl is an improvement. It helps a bit. My noble friend says that it takes him further into a hole, but I am not sure that that is the case; it probably keeps his head above water. However, it is our clear view after reflection throughout the summer that far and away the best thing to do would be to remove the clause altogether. That is why I support the amendment eloquently spoken to by my noble friend Lady Parminter.

I want to make a couple of points—and one point in slight jest, which I will make now. My noble friend Lord Attlee said that one argument for accepting that this clause should remain is that it does no harm. I must say that I am so used to Governments telling us that amendments that we put forward may not do any harm but are not necessary that I think the boot is on the other foot now. Every time I move an amendment, while the noble Lord is taking the clause for the Government I will look forward to reminding him that my amendment does no harm and therefore should be passed with acclamation.

I would like to make two serious points. There is a very clear difference between CIL and Section 106, for example, which are themselves tied to an application and cannot be untied in any way, and the new homes bonus, which is not tied to a particular application and can be tied, as I think my noble Friend, Lord Attlee, said, only by a clear decision, a resolution presumably, of the council that will receive the new homes bonus. That is the real difference. The noble Earl said quite clearly that it can be taken into account only if it is tied to the application by the receiving council.

I have been thinking about this. In a possible case study, which may happen more often than people might imagine, a big development may result in a lot of new homes bonus and a significant amount of money coming to that council. The use of that money might be politically controversial and contested within the council. In advance of that money coming, the council, the executive, the cabinet, or whoever it is that makes decisions about its allocation, might corporately pass a resolution that makes it quite clear that when it comes, and if planning permission is given, the money will be tied to a project linked to that development. However, it is controversial and the opposition on the council does not agree to it and campaigns against it. Then there are some elections and the opposition wins them, and this large amount of money is taken out of that project and put somewhere else. Once a planning decision is made and issued, that is it; it cannot be revisited by the council. However, decisions about how to allocate money can be revisited whenever the council wants to revisit them. What happens if the development is clearly given on the basis, say, of flood damage or a new swimming pool in the middle of the estate that is linked to that development, and planning permission is passed and the council later changes its decision about how to use that money? They might have a huge budget crisis. Perish the thought that any council has a huge budget crisis nowadays, but if does have a huge budget crisis, the council may find that it simply has to put this money into the general fund in order to keep its head above water. It is quite clear that that could happen. What is the legal position? I do not believe that anybody can do anything about it, except that that planning permission will have been given on false pretences.

[Lord Best]

My Lords, I think the government amendment does something helpful. Councillors on planning committees have to face the accusation, if they are not careful, that they are selling planning consents, that they are just doing it for the money. There is ambivalence as to whether they can take on board the fact that it is surely important to consider that the local community may benefit financially from what happens if the development goes ahead.

The Minister has clarified the circumstances in which it is entirely legitimate for the planning committee to say, “Yes, we have taken on board the fact that there are financial gains for the locality as a result of this. It is not the only thing we take into account. It has no greater weight than the other material considerations. The fact that local people are going to benefit from this”—as the noble Earl made so clear—“can be taken into account, but don’t let anybody accuse us, the planning committee, of just doing it for the money. We’re doing something that is legitimate”, as this clause makes clear. I think it can be quite helpful.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I speak in support of Amendment 223D to leave out Clause 130 and in support of the noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter and Lady Hamwee, my noble friend Lord Howarth and the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. To argue that these amendments are unnecessary and that this clause is necessary because it addresses the issue of confusion seems to be turning the matter on its head. We know there is confusion because the clause exists. The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, said that it takes something to get the CPRE, the TCPA and the RTPI in the same position and all very concerned about this. They do not arrive at spurious conclusions. They have impressed on us and all noble Lords their real concerns about the impact of these provisions.

The noble Lord, Lord Best, said that the provision helps councillors understand what they can and cannot do. The Government’s basic proposition in this is that the clause does not change the law. If the clause does not change the law, why have it? The proposition that noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, referred to—that it does no harm—is an extremely spurious basis on which to legislate, particularly in such an important area. I accept that the Minister made some effort to differentiate situations where material considerations—local financial considerations—can legitimately be taken into account from those where they cannot, but that analysis does not depend upon the clause and the amendments before us but upon the law as it currently is. Are we not much better off leaving the law as it currently is rather than introducing something that does not, with great respect, clarify matters but adds to the confusion?

The very existence of the clause, amended or not, has caused great controversy. What changes the existing position? How does the new homes bonus or CIL change, from the Government’s point of view, and to what extent can it be taken into account as a material consideration? As I understand it from the Minister, nothing changes. All it does is describe the law as it is. If that description is the cause of confusion and uncertainty, surely we are better off without it. It seems a very straightforward proposition. It seems to me that the onus should be on those seeking to introduce and sustain the clause as amended to explain why. To say that it does no harm is a totally inadequate justification for a provision that is causing great consternation among many people involved in planning, who are experts and who have been in the field for a very long time. I urge the Government to reconsider this matter. If the only justification for the clause is that it will help to deal with uncertainty, I hope the Minister will accept just from the discussion tonight that in many quarters it clearly does not and that we are better off without it.

22:45

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I feel slightly disappointed that I have not managed to convince all noble Lords of my position. However, I do not feel in the slightest that I am in a hole. I am entirely comfortable with Clause 130 and the Government’s position. It was mentioned that this was introduced as an incidental matter in the House of Commons. Your Lordships are quite used to matters being sneaked into a Bill in the other place and then coming to your Lordships' House for detailed scrutiny, which is exactly what we are here for.

The noble Lord, Lord Howarth, discussed my assertion that the Bill does not change the law, but my contention is that the clause is essential. On my point that it does no harm, the harm has been done by opinions that have muddied the waters in the past with regard to the NHB, and therefore it was necessary to introduce Clause 130. My noble friend Lord Greaves raised the issue that we need to be sure that the money will be tied to a project. In his expert case study, he described a situation in which the political landscape could change. The CIL-charging authority will need to be sure that it will spend the money in the way anticipated at the planning decision stage. If not, and things change, it may be challenged on the grounds of legitimate expectation. The local planning authority and the CIL authority will need to be sure that the money will be spent in the way anticipated.

I gave the House a very detailed exposition of my position and we have had an excellent, thorough and useful debate on this clause. I must thank my noble friend Lord Greaves in particular for highlighting the scope for the clause to be made clearer on the point of weight. In light of what I have said, the House can be confident that the clause poses no threat to the fair and proper operation of the planning system. I hope your Lordships are now happy, if a little reluctant, to support Clause 130 and the important elucidation it brings to the question of when local finance considerations can be taken into account in planning decisions. With the further refinements made by the Government’s amendments, it is not clear to me that there is any problem left to solve. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend Lady Parminter will feel able to withdraw her amendment at the appropriate point and support the Government’s amendment.

Amendment 223CA agreed.

Amendments 223D to 227 not moved.

Amendment 228

Moved by

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes]

228: After Clause 130, insert the following new Clause—
“Development on green belt land
The appropriate planning authority may grant planning permission for development involving infilling on green belt land (within the meaning given by Planning Policy Guidance 2: green belts) if on that land sufficient infrastructure and services exist as to make the development reasonable.”

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes]

My Lords, I discussed this amendment to a certain extent at an earlier stage. Therefore, I do not feel I need to say very much, especially so late at night.

The reason for tabling it is that there are little pockets of between two and five acres in between lots of other houses and buildings. I know of some that are described as green belt and are so listed and yet there is a conference centre next to them and huge buildings around them. To my mind, those are infill sites. I do not know the government ruling as to what exactly comprises an infill site, but it seems to me that if you have a small patch of land, whatever its classification, it is not really green belt if it is just a little bit in the middle of places. Yet it might already have all the infrastructure of transport, electricity and the things that are needed for development, and could provide a valuable space for either a children’s home or housing or something of that type. It is for that reason that I move this amendment.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, the issue of green belt is one of those matters which has caused great consternation. Obviously, we will have to await the final version of the NPPF. Of course, it is not for me to defend the NPPF in its current form, but as currently drafted it seems to address what the noble Baroness is in part seeking. The NPPF states that:

“A local planning authority should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in Green Belt. Exceptions to this are: limited infilling in villages, and limited affordable housing for local community needs under policies set out in the Local Plan; or limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed sites”.

That is envisaged within the NPPF as I understand it.

In terms of the infrastructure, it is not always right that the services and infrastructure exist before, rather than being provided as a consequence or as part of, the development. I understood that it might be implicit in the noble Baroness’s amendment that it needed to be there before, rather than arising as an alternative. Therefore, I struggle to support the amendment in its current form. But the issues around development in the green belt are very important. We need to track what is going to happen and what the final version of the NPPF will be.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, my noble friend’s amendment seeks to allow infilling on green belt land if,

“sufficient infrastructure and services exist as to make the development reasonable”.

This test is not related to green belt policy, which is about preserving openness, preventing the unrestricted sprawl of built-up areas and preventing the merger of towns. You could well have land with sufficient infrastructure, but allowing development on it would put at risk the key principles of the green belt policy. In any case, the law already requires determinations under the Planning Acts to be made in accordance with the development plan,

“unless material considerations indicate otherwise”.

Infrastructure is one of the material considerations routinely taken into account by decision-makers in planning cases.

As observed by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, the draft national planning policy framework contains the Government’s proposed policies on planning, including the green belt. It includes exceptions, set out in a similar way as current green belt policy, for certain categories of development. For example, it allows for the re-use of buildings, and the extension or replacement of dwellings. It also provides for the infilling or redevelopment of previously developed sites. I believe that these policies provide the flexibility to achieve the outcomes which my noble friend is seeking.

Given that current national policy has delivered a strong level of protection, I do not think it appropriate to make changes to green belt policy through legislative means. If changes are required to green belt policy, they should be carefully considered as part of the ongoing consultation and, if appropriate, taken forward through the framework. I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes]

My Lords, it seems to me that the policy has always existed about being able to use infill sites. The real debate is: what is an infill? I remember the case of Little Paddock in Pinner from when I was on the Greater London Council. There were huge rows which went on for a period of a year or so about whether it was an infill. I do not know how it was eventually decided other than that eventually someone was allowed to build on it. Whereas in other cases I have met, people have been told, “Oh, well this has been a little smallholding, so if you put a barn on it, and you make it possible to live in the barn, you’ll be able progressively to convert it”, in the way that the Minister has just said, saying that you can rebuild and change things slightly. That seemed to be such a false way of allowing it, to have a creeping development into this infill site.

As I said, I have known some that were described as not being infills being definitely described as green belt even though there were huge conference centres adjoining them. It is a question of this definition of infill, which I hope can be clarified in due course. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 228 withdrawn.

Amendments 229 to 231 not moved.

Amendment 232

Moved by

[Lord Best]

232: After Clause 130, insert the following new Clause—
“Town and village green legislation
(1) Regulations may make provision relating to powers for registration authorities to decline to accept proposals under section 15 of the Commons Act 2006.
(2) The regulations may in particular make provision—
(a) dealing with any case of proposals submitted under section 15 of the Commons Act 2006 where in the view of the registration authority insufficient evidence has been submitted or there is strong evidence that the application could not meet the criteria for registration; and(b) dealing with costs incurred by the registration authority in amending or dismissing the application in cases of frivolous or vexatious proposals.(3) Regulations may make provision relating to powers for registration authorities to reject proposals accepted under section 15 of the Commons Act 2006.
(4) The regulations may in particular make provision—
(a) dealing with any case of proposals accepted under section 15 of the Commons Act 2006 and which are subsequently deemed in the view of the registration authority to be frivolous or vexatious;(b) as to the award of costs to relevant parties and as to the parties by whom the costs are to be made.(5) In subsection (4), an application is “frivolous or vexatious” if it discloses no reasonable grounds for the application or is otherwise an abuse of process.
(6) Section 15(4) of the Commons Act 2006 does not apply in relation to any land where there is an extant planning permission in respect of the whole or any part of the land for the life of the permission.”

[Lord Best]

My Lords, I shall be brief as we had an interesting debate on this issue in Committee. Amendment 232 relates to vexatious town and village green applications. There is a widespread view that, under the Commons Act 2006, the measure allowing areas that had been used for sporting, leisure and recreational use to be declared village greens and never to be built on, a status that would last in perpetuity, was being abused and being used as a pretext for stalling and blocking developments that in other terms would have succeeded. It is a very cheap way to stop anything happening. It costs those who do it very little. I quoted the example of the 50 acre site for which I was responsible on the edge of York, which was held up for a considerable period of time because someone was deemed to have walked their dog on the site for 20 years. I think that the dog was changed somewhere along the way. Even if the application fails, this can inflict a great deal of damage, delay matters and cause a lot of expense.

As I understand it, the Government are seized of all this, for which I am very pleased, and consultation is under way to see what might be done. The problem is that this consultation exercise concludes that action should be taken to prevent vexatious applications of this kind. As my amendment suggests, local authorities should have the power to turn down applications that they deem to be frivolous or vexatious, but that the Government will come to that conclusion at the end of a consultation period after the Bill has completed its passage through Parliament. There will be no opportunity until the next legislation comes along—in I do not know how many years—to set this one straight.

I ask the noble Earl on the Front Bench to let us know what the Government are expected to be able to do through regulations or other methods so that we do not find ourselves in the bind that without any legislative amendment nothing can happen, even though all are agreed that it should. I beg to move.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, because of the time of night, I shall make a couple of statements rather than explain them. This is not the right Bill or the time to do this. It probably does not require any amendment to Section 15 of the Commons Act. It can be dealt with in two ways: first, local authorities can pull their fingers out and not be unnecessarily legalistic and bureaucratic, which in my experience they have been; and, secondly, by tweaking secondary legislation. It is not necessary to do it here. The problem can be solved in a much more efficient way in secondary legislation through Defra.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Best, in what he seeks. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, says that this is not the right Bill. It may be that it is not appropriate to put something in primary legislation but, surely, it is absolutely pertinent that we discuss it in the context of the Bill before us. It cannot be outwith the thrust of this Bill, given the whole range of stuff that is encompassed in it. I think that the noble Lord is simply seeking clarification of what the Government intend, what they propose to do, and when and how they propose to do it. If it is in secondary legislation, that is fine, but clarity is needed.

23:00

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Best, for moving his amendment again as the matter has moved on a little. Amendment 232 would provide regulation-making powers to allow commons registration authorities to decline new greens applications if there was insufficient evidence that they could meet the necessary criteria, or if they were frivolous or vexatious, and to award costs. It would also prevent applications for the registration of land on which use for sports and pastimes ceased before 6 April 2007 if the land was subject to planning permission.

The Government share the concerns lying behind the amendment about the way in which the new greens registration system is being used in some cases to hinder legitimate development. I said in Committee on 14 July that the Government hoped to make an announcement on town and village greens shortly. On 25 July, we published a consultation document proposing reforms to the new town and village greens registration system. Coincidentally, that consultation closes this evening.

The noble Lord, Lord Best, asked what can be done through regulation. Through regulation, we can consider streamlining the process for registering greens and setting the fees. The consultation includes a proposal to rule out applications for land which is subject to a planning application or planning permission. This would address the purpose of subsection (5) of the amendment. It also includes a proposal to rule out applications for land which has been identified for development or protected by the local green spaces designation in a local or neighbourhood plan. There is also a proposal to introduce fees for applications.

Commons registration authorities already have the power to reject new town and village green applications that are incomplete or lack the requisite evidence for registration. However, a specific power to deal expeditiously with such matters will provide an increased level of confidence to authorities. For that reason, we have proposed to streamline the sifting process. My noble friend Lady Byford and the noble Lord know that we are still consulting on our proposed reforms, though the deadline fast approaches—in fact, it is tonight. I am sure that they will appreciate how those who have responded to the consultation would feel if we were to legislate now in the manner suggested, without, it would seem, hearing their views on the options we have set out.

I have made it clear that the Government share the concerns of my noble friend and the noble Lord. As the Minister for the Natural Environment and Fisheries said in his introduction to the Government’s consultation, we plan to announce our conclusions early in the new year. We will want to work with my noble friend, the noble Lord, Lord Best, and with others with an interest in taking these conclusions forward. In the mean time, I would prefer not to second-guess what those conclusions will be without having first carefully digested the response to the consultation.

[Lord Best]

My Lords, I think there is some helpful material within that. There are still 58 minutes in which people can give their responses to the consultation document. I am grateful for that response. We will be able to look at it at our leisure. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 232 withdrawn.

Amendment 232ZA

Moved by

[Lord Reay]

232ZA: After Clause 130, insert the following new Clause—
“Determination of appeals
(1) Section 79 (determination of appeals) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1), at the beginning insert “Subject to subsection (1A),”.
(3) After subsection (1) insert—
“(1A) The Secretary of State may only overturn a local planning decision if—
(a) the Secretary of State has reason to believe the decision is unlawful;(b) the Secretary of State has reason to believe that due process was not followed; or(c) the proposed development does not contravene materially the local development plan.””

[Lord Reay]

My Lords, this is a simplified version of an amendment which I moved in Committee. The idea behind it is to remove the right of the Secretary of State to overturn local planning decisions where these have been taken in accordance with the local development plan. Under the amendment, the Secretary of State would be able to overturn a local planning decision on appeal only where the decision had been to refuse permission for a development which was compatible with the local plan, or where the local authority had acted unlawfully, or where due process had not been followed. Where the local authority had refused permission for a development that contravened the local plan, the Secretary of State could not find in the developer’s favour on appeal.

The aim is to redress the balance in the planning process to a small degree, so that developers do not have an entirely unfettered right of appeal. This has led to powerful developers—or, in the case of wind farm applications, to developers with the intoxicating whiff of enormous subsidies in their nostrils—wearing down local authorities and local resistance by systematically appealing every decision that goes against them. By linking the rights of developers and the powers of the Secretary of State to the local plan, the amendment goes some way down the road that the Minister in another place once said he wished to follow, of making the local plan sovereign. The amendment would reduce the scope for developers to ram through unpopular proposals against the wishes of the local community as expressed in local plans. It has the support of the CPRE, which had a large part to play in its drafting.

I also strongly support Amendment 232ZB, tabled by my noble friend Lady Parminter, which would introduce a community right of appeal. This was the policy of both the Lib Dems and the Conservative Party before the last election. Since then, they seem to have invented the doctrine that it is the planning system that is responsible for the failure of the economy to grow faster than it has, and that nothing new must be introduced which could possibly provide a further obstacle to development. I do not think that my noble friend’s amendment is any different from the one she moved in Committee. She has been careful to circumscribe the circumstances in which an appeal can be made so that not any Tom, Dick or Harry can appeal whenever he likes.

I agree with the terms in which my noble friend has cast her amendment, with one exception. I am not convinced that whether an appeal can go ahead should depend on the position taken by the planning officer. In my noble friend’s amendment, the planning officer has to have recommended refusal of planning permission before any appeal against a local authority’s decision on the part of the local community can go forward. This seems to be too restrictive. But, even as it is, I would prefer the Bill to contain this amendment.

There is not much localism in the Bill now. Nothing would do more to restore meaning to the Bill than to reinstate into coalition policy a community right of appeal. Without it, the planning appeals system will remain most unfairly balanced in favour of developers. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be sympathetic to these amendments, both of which advance the cause of localism. I beg to move.

[Baroness Parminter]

I rise to speak briefly to Amendment 232ZB in this group. A limited third-party right of appeal would provide stronger safeguards against planning applications which cut across local and neighbourhood plans. Such applications risk compromising the plan-led system and undermining public enthusiasm for taking a stronger role in plan making. As my noble friend Lord Reay mentioned, the Minister in another place has made statements about the importance of enshrining the primacy of the local plan. Granting a limited third-party community right of appeal, which was triggered where a decision to grant planning permission was not in line with the adopted local plan, would be a powerful support to that approach. It could also help to ensure that local councils put sufficient weight on policies in a democratically agreed plan and, crucially, strengthen mandatory pre-application discussions for major developments introduced by this Bill.

[Lord True]

My Lords, I was not able to be present for this discussion in Committee. I would like to associate myself very strongly with the remarks made by both my noble friends because they are good localist arguments. Having campaigned in all integrity on the basis of the promises that were put forward by my party in respect of a community right of appeal, like many colleagues in the Liberal Democrat party I remain in a state of puzzlement as to why this worthy and desirable policy, very sensibly circumscribed in the amendment spoken to by my noble friend, has disappeared. It is something that some of us will want to return to on a future occasion, and I hope sincerely that the leadership of my party and that of my fellow party in the coalition will think again on this matter.

[Lord Beecham]

Heaven forfend that I should trespass on the griefs of the coalition about unfulfilled promises. It is already late enough and one could go on for many hours about unfulfilled promises, but I shall resist the temptation.

We cannot support either of these amendments. There is a balance to be struck between what is purely local and where there are other considerations which might well be of significance in regard to major areas of public policy, including that to which the noble Lord, Lord Reay, refers and about which he is exercised—it is right that he should be, if those are his views. There is a legitimate role for the Secretary of State to determine, at any rate, some appeals beyond those which the amendment would refer.

The amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, in addition to the general principle, also creates difficulties. A community right of appeal is an arguable proposition. Whether a community right of appeal could be said to be legitimately exercised by,

“a ward councillor for the area; … any parish council covering or adjoining the area of land to which an application relates; or … any overview and scrutiny committee for the area”,

as proposed in new subsection (2B) that Amendment 232ZB would insert into Section 78 of the 1990 Act, is indeed arguable. I cannot see that those matters are a very persuasive definition of a community right of appeal, even assuming one was in favour of a community right of appeal, which, on balance, I am certainly not—whatever the coalition parties thought they were going to implement.

In these circumstances I offer once again an unusual degree of support to the Minister if he declines to support these amendments.

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have spoken. I should like, first, to respond to Amendment 232ZB in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, because it helps to set the scene. The amendment intends to give a new right of appeal for local councillors. Before going into detail it would be useful to start by setting out what we are seeking to achieve in the reforms and how communities can shape the area in which they live. The purpose of our planning reforms is to put the local plan at the heart of the system. In fact, the draft national planning policy framework explicitly says so. It is the plan where councils and communities weigh up and integrate different goals and long-term needs so that it sets the framework within which individual planning applications are assessed and decisions taken. We want planning decisions to be taken by local communities, not more appeals undertaken by unelected inspectors in Bristol.

Everything that we are currently undertaking in the Bill—removing unelected regional structures and the top-down targets which constrained local councils, stopping inspectors arbitrarily rewriting plans without a council’s consent and removing unnecessary central government monitoring regimes and interfering in local timetables—gives control, choice and responsibility for local planning back to councils and communities. Other reforms which introduce neighbourhood planning and ensure appropriate consultation with local people before proposals are submitted have also been to that end, so that local people will, in future, have a real say. They will encourage developers to work with the local community to develop proposals all can support, rather than setting them against each other.

Given this, I have considerable sympathy with the noble Baroness’s intentions here. She desires, as I do, to ensure that local communities and the plans agreed between them and their councils should remain at the heart of planning decisions and she is concerned that, in some cases, that does not always happen because of the way the system works. I do not think that her amendment is a solution here. We consider that this would risk adding unnecessary uncertainty and delay at this crucial time of recovery and growth. Applicants will have invested considerable time, money and effort in preparing their proposals and should expect a council’s decision to be a corporate one. However, I recognise that there are issues that we need to address.

First, I understand that local councils have often felt pressure to approve applications which have not been consistent with the plan. One reason is that officers may advise elected members that if they do not approve development, even where it is outside the plan, they may lose at appeal and have to pay costs. Therefore I can reassure the House that we will revise the costs award circular which governs this process so that where a council refuses a development proposal on the grounds that it is contrary to an up-to-date development plan and there is no issue of conflict with national planning policy, there should be no grounds for an award of costs against the council in question.

Secondly, in some cases applications are made and approved which fall outside the development plan. This is an important flexibility in the system. However, we must also be clear that if an application is outside the terms of the plan it should be approved only if locally elected representatives have considered the views of the local community and concluded that such a departure would be acceptable in planning terms. For this reason, we will consult on requiring departure applications to have compulsory pre-application consultation with the local community so that elected members are fully aware of local views before they decide an application. This will mean that local councils will have a clear understanding of local views when they deal with key applications, should have no fear of costs being awarded against them when they have followed the right procedures and will be able to decide cases in the long-term interests of local communities. These changes to the system will strengthen its resilience and ensure that our reforms achieve their objective of putting the local plan and the views of the local community at the heart of the system.

I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, for raising these issues so vigorously. By doing so, she has done a service to the House. Given our proposals to strengthen community influence and the involvement in planning as a whole, which I have outlined, I hope she will agree that our measures are strong and effective ways to ensure that community views are heard in the process, especially where a development might depart from an up-to-date plan, and that she will not press her amendment.

Turning to Amendment 232ZA, as the noble Lord, Lord Reay, said in Committee, planning is a matter of getting the balance right. I agree. We are committed to a system of fewer appeals and want development proposals to be determined locally. However, in the few cases where appeals are made, the Secretary of State, as decision-maker, must be entitled to take other material considerations into account, as can councils, on finely balanced matters of judgment—for example, where a local policy is out of date because it does not reflect the changing circumstances of the local area or more recent national policy. In such instances the law allows councils to consider other material considerations in making the right decisions for their communities. They should not be restricted and neither should the Secretary of State’s decision be fettered. Amendment 232ZA would therefore be unduly restrictive in this regard.

However, I understand the intention behind the noble Lord’s amendment. We shall take the measures that I outlined earlier so that councils and communities feel confident, if challenged at appeal, in defending planning decisions made in accordance with an up-to-date plan and where there is no conflict with national policy. I reassure the noble Lord that judicial review proceedings can already be brought if a decision was unlawful or due process was not followed. I hope therefore that he will be willing to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Reay]

I thank my noble friend Lord True for his support for my amendment. I agree with him that we have not seen the end of this matter. I was sorry not to have the support of noble Lords opposite. For once they have revealed themselves in their centralist colours.

The Minister entered fully into the arguments on the amendment and I am grateful for that. He said that the Government want to limit appeals—they do not want everything decided in Bristol—but, of course, the effect of my amendment would be to reduce appeals. I appreciate that he repeated what was said at an earlier stage about costs awards and I appreciate what he had to say about the consultation that would need to take place with local communities. In those circumstances, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 232ZA withdrawn.

Amendment 232ZB not moved.

Clause 131 : Application of this Part to the Crown

Amendment 232A not moved.

Amendment 232AA

Moved by

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

232AA: After Clause 131, insert the following new Clause—
“Report on Part 5
(1) The Secretary of State must—
(a) establish an independent review of the planning provisions introduced by Part 5;(b) publish a report on this review, including any recommendations for change; and(c) lay a copy of the report before both Houses of Parliament within 3 years of section 97 coming into force.(2) The report required under subsection (2) must, in particular—
(a) have regard to and report on the effectiveness of the provisions in producing sustainable development outcomes;(b) report on the extent to which planning permission has been granted in respect of brownfield land;(c) report on the extent to which open spaces and the green belt have been protected;(d) report on the extent to which affordable and sustainable housing targets have been achieved;(e) provide statistical information about the number of planning applications that were approved, approved but not actioned, or appealed before and after the commencement of that Part.”

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 232AA. This calls for an independent review of the provisions of Part 5 of this Act; it calls for a report of this review, and it requires a copy of the report to be presented to both Houses of Parliament.

In particular, it requires the report to cover the effectiveness of sustainable development outcomes; the extent to which brownfield land has been developed; the extent to which green belt has been protected; whether affordable housing targets have been achieved; and data about planning approvals and rejections, et cetera. In short, it requires taking stock of how the new planning landscape is working in practice. It will no doubt be argued that there is going to be post-legislative scrutiny of this legislation in any event, but we consider the ramifications of this part of the Localism Bill to be of particular significance and that it should have this special focus. It requires this report within three years of entry into force, but this timescale is not sacrosanct for us.

If Ministers have confidence in their case, this should not present a difficulty. There can be no doubt that in recent months, since the publication of this Bill, and particularly since the publication of the draft NPPF, the profile of planning—and the purpose of planning—has been raised in our country and our communities. One would not normally expect to see headlines in the Telegraph dominated by planning matters; and we have in a way been startled spectators in unpleasant exchanges between the Planning Minister and no less a body than the National Trust.

Whatever the Government intended to be the outcome of these proposed changes to our planning system, there is no doubt that the way they have gone about it has caused chaos and added huge uncertainty in the planning system, of itself creating paralysis and holding back growth, the very thing they were supposedly designed to stimulate. The fears are that the Government were redefining the purpose of the planning system and refocusing on economic growth to the detriment of the broader requirements of sustainable development. There were plenty of signals to this effect: the presumption in favour of sustainable development; the denial hitherto of transitional provisions; the very wording of the NPPF, which contains no recognisable definition of sustainable development; the scrapping of “brownfield first”; and the inevitable uncertainty created by cramming 1,000 pages of regulation and guidance into 50, even accounting for the removal of overlaps and duplication. Alongside this was the introduction of the neighbourhood planning regime, to be supported by local planning authorities at a time of stretched resources; the duty to co-operate as a substitute for regional and sub-regional spatial strategies; and the operation of the new homes bonus as the supposed driver of new dwellings. Uncertainty abounds. We need a process for Parliament to be able to take stock of where this is all taking us. I beg to move.

[Lord Lucas]

I hope we see annual reports. This is such an exciting, interesting and unexplored area that we are going into that we really need to know what is going on rather earlier than three years. However, I would measure things in a much happier vein than the list of grizzles in proposed subsection (2) in this amendment. It is going to make a great change and advance to people’s lives—and I would like to see that documented—as much as create possible pitfalls.

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, at this time of night I am going to resist the temptation thrown at me by the Labour Lord opposite to discuss further the sustainable development in the NPPF—great sighs of relief opposite. I will therefore confine myself to the proposal that there should be a report on progress.

We agree that there should be a transparent system for monitoring and reporting. As with decentralising decision-making over housing and planning matters to councils and local communities, we expect them to report progress on all aspects of planning and to make this available to local communities to whom they are accountable. The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 already places a duty on councils to undertake a survey of matters affecting the development of their area, including—I promise I will not go back to sustainable development again—its physical, economic, social and environmental characteristics.

The council is already required to produce an annual monitoring report of local planning activity. Our proposals in the Bill and local planning regulations, on which we have recently consulted, will streamline the process for preparing these reports, reducing the burden on councils and strengthening public accountability. Local planning regulations will also require councils to report progress in relation to neighbourhood development plans and demonstrate how they have worked with others under the duty to co-operate.

My department will support councils in this process by continuing to produce official statistics that can contribute to the evidence base used by councils to develop their plans. With these reassurances, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that response but it did not deal with the central point. I accept that there are a range of reporting requirements for local authorities over a range of aspects, but the purpose of this amendment was to say that we have a new system here. A great deal of uncertainty surrounds it. It is right that both Houses of Parliament should be able to take stock of how it has worked out overall. If I understood him, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, was in favour of more frequent reporting than three years. Three years does not seem an unreasonable timeframe. It would be a pity if we could not take the whole of Part 5 and have some report back on how it has all worked out as a package at a macro level. This is not the time of night to pursue this in greater depth, but I ask the Government to reconsider this issue. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 232AA withdrawn.

Clause 218 : Taking account of planning permission when assessing compensation

Amendment 232AB

Moved by

[Earl Attlee]

232AB: Clause 218, page 193, line 41, leave out “In section 14” and insert “For sections 14 to 16”

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 232AB and will speak to Amendments 232AC to 232AR. I have a short speech and a very short speech. The sense of the House is rather for the latter. Amendments 232AB to 232AR amend Clause 218, which reforms the planning assumptions for compulsory purchase compensation. Amendments in this group extend the application of Clause 218 to Wales as well as England following a legislative consent Motion before the National Assembly. The other amendments, particularly Amendments 232AE and 232AR, make technical drafting changes so that the provisions work as intended. I beg to move.

[Lord Boyd of Duncansby]

My Lords, briefly, Clause 218 was put in without any debate in Committee. I simply thank the Government for having looked at the issue, bringing forward Clause 218 and then engaging with the Compulsory Purchase Association to discuss the amendments that are now being moved by the Government. I very much welcome this. Part 8 is an important part of the new Bill. I thank noble Lords for their time.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I am grateful that noble Lords have heard the reassurance and thanks of my noble and learned friend Lord Boyd directly. We have relied on him for advice on the appropriateness of this and are happy to support the amendments.

Amendment 232AB agreed.

Amendments 232AC to 232AR

Moved by

[Earl Attlee]

232AC: Clause 218, page 193, line 41, leave out from “permission)” to end of line 6 on page 194 and insert “substitute—
“14 Taking account of actual or prospective planning permission”

232AD: Clause 218, page 194, line 9, leave out “in England”

232AE: Clause 218, page 194, line 24, at end insert “to which subsection (4)(b)(i) applies, and
(b) that, in the case of any development that is appropriate alternative development to which subsection (4)(b)(ii) applies and subsection (4)(b)(i) does not apply, it is certain at the relevant valuation date that planning permission for that development will be granted at the later time at which at that date it could reasonably have been expected to be granted.”

232AF: Clause 218, page 196, line 4, leave out “14B” and insert “15”

232AG: Clause 218, page 196, leave out line 7

232AH: Clause 218, page 196, line 21, leave out subsections (4) and (5)

232AJ: Clause 218, page 196, line 29, leave out “In section 17” and insert “For sections 17 and 18”

232AK: Clause 218, page 196, line 29, leave out from “alternative” to end of line 35 and insert “development and appeals against certificates) substitute—
“17 Certificates of appropriate alternative development”

232AL: Clause 218, page 196, line 36, leave out “in England”

232AM: Clause 218, page 197, line 4, leave out “authority proposing to acquire the interest” and insert “acquiring authority”

232AN: Clause 218, page 198, line 39, leave out from beginning to “Appeal” in line 41 and insert—
“18 ”

232AP: Clause 218, page 198, line 46, after “be” insert “, or is,”

232AQ: Clause 218, page 199, line 19, leave out subsection (9)

232AR: Clause 218, page 199, line 30, leave out from “3)” to end of line 35 and insert “omit—
(a) in the opening words—(i) the words “and appeals under section eighteen of this Act”, and(ii) the word “respectively”, (b) paragraph (b) (manner of and time for giving notice of appeal), and(c) paragraph (d) (which refers to provisions of section 17 not re-enacted in the section 17 substituted by this Act).(10A) Omit section 21 (proceedings for challenging validity of decision on appeal under section 18).
(11) In section 22 (interpretation of Part 3)—
(a) in subsection (1) (meaning of “the parties directly concerned”) for “authority by whom it is proposing to be acquired” substitute “acquiring authority”, and(b) in subsection (2) (interpretation of sections 17 and 18) for “and eighteen” substitute “to nineteen”.(12) In each of paragraph 11 of Schedule 27 to the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 and paragraph 8 of Schedule 9 to the Housing Act 1988 (modifications of section 17(2) of the 1961 Act)—
(a) for “authority proposing to acquire it” substitute “acquiring authority”,(b) for “in respect thereof,” substitute “in respect of the interest”, and(c) for “sale thereof” substitute “sale of the interest”.(13) The amendments made in the Land Compensation Act 1961 by this section apply to the Crown to the extent set out in section 33 of that Act (Act applies in relation to acquisition by government department, including any Minister of the Crown, that is an authority possessing compulsory purchase powers as it applies to other authorities possessing those powers).”

Amendments 232AC to 232AR agreed.

23:30

Schedule 24 : Transfers and transfer schemes: tax provisions

Amendment 232AS

Moved by

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

232AS: Schedule 24, page 419, line 31, at end insert “(Transfer schemes),”

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

My Lords, this not-quite-final group consists of minor technical and consequential amendments to Part 9 and the schedules to the Bill that have not been picked up in earlier groups. I beg to move.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I thought that we were going to have a short speech from the Minister. The first few amendments here are to do with transfer schemes and tax issues arising from the core cities amendments that we discussed earlier, so I am happy to support them, and indeed the rest of the amendments in this group.

Amendment 232AS agreed.

Amendments 232AT to 232AV

Moved by

[Earl Attlee]

232AT: Schedule 24, page 420, line 5, leave out from beginning to first “to” in line 6 and insert “an appropriate authority to be required or permitted”

232AU: Schedule 24, page 420, line 18, leave out from beginning to first “to” in line 19 and insert “an appropriate authority to be required or permitted”

232AV: Schedule 24, page 420, line 24, at end insert—
““appropriate authority” means—
(a) the Treasury,
(b) any other Minister of the Crown with the consent of the Treasury, or
(c) the Mayor of London with the consent of the Treasury,
“Minister of the Crown” has the same meaning as in the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975,”

Amendments 232AT to 232AV agreed.

Clause 221 : Orders and regulations

Amendments 232B and 232C

Moved by

[Baroness Hanham]

232B: Clause 221, page 200, line 20, leave out “the Secretary of State, the Treasury” and insert “a Minister of the Crown”

232C: Clause 221, page 200, line 23, leave out “the Secretary of State, the Treasury” and insert “a Minister of the Crown”

Amendments 232B and 232C agreed.

Amendment 233

Moved by

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

233: Clause 221, page 200, line 24, after “Act” insert “(other than a power under section 226)”

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

This is a minor technical amendments dealing with commencement orders. I beg to move.

Amendment 233 agreed.

Amendments 233A to 236A

Moved by

[Baroness Hanham]

233A: Clause 221, page 200, line 38, leave out “The Secretary of State” and insert “A Minister of the Crown”

234: Clause 221, page 200, line 42, at end insert—
“(za) an order under section 5(2) that—(i) amends any Act or provision of an Act, and(ii) is not made (in reliance on section 7(4)) in accordance with sections 15 to 19 of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006 as applied by section 7(3);”

235: Clause 221, page 200, line 44, leave out “7(5)” and insert “7(5)(b)”

236: Clause 221, page 201, line 3, at end insert—
“(ba) an order under section 8(2);”

236A: Clause 221, page 201, line 3, at end insert—
“(bb) an order under section (Designation of public authorities);”

Amendments 233A to 236A agreed.

Amendments 236B to 240A

Moved by

[Baroness Hanham]

236B: Clause 221, page 201, line 4, leave out “57”

237: Clause 221, page 201, line 4, leave out “or 69(9)” and insert “, 69(2)(d), (5)(e) or (9) or 71(8)”

238: Clause 221, page 201, line 7, at end insert—
“(fa) regulations under section 105;”

239: Clause 221, page 201, line 10, leave out “105 or”

240: Clause 221, page 201, line 14, leave out subsection (8)

240A: Clause 221, page 201, line 22, leave out “the Secretary of State” and insert “a Minister of the Crown”

Amendments 236B to 240A agreed.

Amendment 241

Moved by

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

241: Clause 221, page 201, line 34, after “7(3),” insert—
“(ba) an order under section (Power to transfer local public functions to permitted authorities) (but see section (Orders under section (Power to transfer local public functions to permitted authorities): procedure),”

Amendment 241 agreed.

Amendment 241A

Moved by

[Baroness Hanham]

241A: Clause 221, page 201, line 34, after “7(3),” insert—
“(ba) an order or regulations under Schedule 24,”

Amendment 241A agreed.

Amendments 241B to 242ZB

Moved by

[Baroness Hanham]

241B: Clause 221, page 201, line 41, at end insert—
“(aa) an order under section (Designation of Welsh public authorities),”

242: Clause 221, page 202, line 7, at end insert—
“(13A) Subsection (13) does not apply to an order under section 226.”

242ZA: Clause 221, page 202, line 7, at end insert—
“(13B) If a draft of a statutory instrument containing an order under section (Designation of public authorities) would, apart from this subsection, be treated for the purposes of the standing orders of either House of Parliament as a hybrid instrument, it is to proceed in that House as if it were not such an instrument.”

242ZB: Clause 221, page 202, line 10, at end insert—
““Minister of the Crown” has the same meaning as in the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975.”

Amendments 241B to 242ZB agreed.

Clause 222 : Power to make further consequential amendments

Amendments 242ZBA to 242ZD

Moved by

[Baroness Hanham]

242ZBA: Clause 222, page 202, line 17, after “14,” insert “22 to 27,”

242ZBB: Clause 222, page 202, line 17, leave out “and 136,” and insert “, 136 and 149(2A)(b) and (c),”

242ZC: Clause 222, page 202, line 22, after “to” insert “Part (EU fines: Wales) and”

242ZD: Clause 222, page 202, line 22, after “68” insert “, and Part 13 of Schedule 25 and section 223 so far as relating to that Part,”

Amendments 242ZBA to 242ZD agreed.

Schedule 25 : Repeals and revocations

Amendment 242A

Moved by

[Baroness Hanham]

242A: Schedule 25, page 421, line 6, at end insert—
“Part 2AOther authorities

Reference	Extent of repeal
Transport Act 1968 (c. 73)	In section 10(1)(xxviii), the words “so far as not required for the purposes of their business”.
Local Government Act 2003 (c. 26)	In section 93(7)(b), the “and” at the end.”

Amendment 242A agreed.

Amendment 243 had been retabled as Amendment 248ZQA.

Amendments 244 to 248ZW

Moved by

[Baroness Hanham]

244: Schedule 25, page 424, line 10, column 2, at beginning insert—

	“Section 33(4), (6) and (7).
	Section 34(5) and (6).
	Section 38(4), (6) and (7).
	Section 40(4), (6) and (7).”

244A: Schedule 25, page 424, line 36, at end insert—

“Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 (c. 13)	In Schedule 2, the entry for the Standards Board for England.
House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 (c. 24)	In Schedule 1, in Part 2, the entry for the Standards Board for England.
Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975 (c. 25)	In Schedule 1, in Part 2, the entry for the Standards Board for England.”

245: Schedule 25, page 424, line 36, at end insert—

“Local Government Act 1972 (c. 70)	In section 85(3A), the words “66A,” and “, 78A”.
	In section 86(1)(b), the words “66A, 78A or”.
	In section 87(1)(ee), the words “66A, 78A or”.”

245A: Schedule 25, page 424, line 43, at end insert—

“(da) subsection (5),”

245B: Schedule 25, page 424, line 47, at end insert—

	“, and
	(g) subsections (8) to (10).
Audit Commission Act 1998 (c. 18)	In section 49(1)(de), the words “an ethical standards officer or”.
Data Protection Act 1998 (c. 29)	In section 31—
	(a) in subsection (7), paragraph (b) (but not the word “or” at the end of that paragraph), and
	(b) in subsection (8)(b), the words “, or to an ethical standards officer,”.”

246: Schedule 25, page 424, line 47, at end insert—

“Greater London Authority Act 1999 (c. 29)	In section 6(5), the words “66A,” and “, 78A”.
	In section 13(2), the words “66A,” and “, 78A”.”

246A: Schedule 25, page 427, line 29, at end insert—

“Freedom of Information Act 2000 (c. 36)

In Schedule 1, in Part 6, the entry for the Standards Board for England.”

247: Schedule 25, page 428, line 26, column 2, at end insert—

“Section 201(4)(b) and (c).”

248: Schedule 25, page 431, line 3, at end insert—

	“In section 113(3)(a), the words “52F(4), 52H(2), 52Q(2), 52S(2), 52X(6),”.
Local Government Act 1999 (c. 27)	In Schedule 1, paragraph 9(b).”

248ZA: Schedule 25, page 431, line 14, column 2, after “(2),” insert “the paragraph (a) inserted in relation to authorities in England by the Local Authorities (Alteration of Requisite Calculations) (England) Regulations 2005 (S.I. 2005/190), and”

248ZB: Schedule 25, page 431, line 25, column 2, after “(7)(a),” insert “in sub-paragraph (i), the words “general fund or (as the case may be)”, and”

248ZC: Schedule 25, page 431, leave out line 45 and insert—

	“In section 43—
	(a) in subsection (2)(a), the words from “, other than” to “1988 Act”,
	(b) in subsection (3)(a), sub-paragraph (iii) and the word “or” immediately preceding that sub-paragraph (but not the word “and” at the end of that sub-paragraph), and
	(c) subsection (5).
	In section 44—
	(a) subsection (3), and
	(b) in subsection (4), the words “or subsection (3) above”.”

248ZD: Schedule 25, page 433, line 8, at end insert—

“Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (c. 8)	In Schedule 1—
	(a) paragraph 7(2)(a), (3), (5)(a), (9) and (11), and
	(b) in paragraph 7(10), paragraph (b) and the “or” immediately preceding it.”

248ZE: Schedule 25, page 433, line 9, leave out “70” and insert “70(1) to (4) and (6) to (8) and 71”

248ZF: Schedule 25, page 433, line 10, leave out “82(2) and (3)” and insert “82(3)”

248ZG: Schedule 25, page 433, column 2, leave out lines 19 to 23

248ZH: Schedule 25, page 434, line 27, at end insert—

“Section 70(5).”

248ZJ: Schedule 25, page 434, line 38, after “82(1)” insert “and (2)”

248ZK: Schedule 25, page 434, line 44, at end insert—

“Localism Act 2011

In Schedule 8, paragraphs 13(1), 17A and 17B.”

248ZL: Schedule 25, page 435, line 13, at end insert—

	“In section 264(5)(b), the words “or a local development order”.
Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (c. 5)	In section 38(2), the word “and” at the end of paragraph (a).
	Section 40(2)(b) to (k).”

248ZLA: Schedule 25, page 435, line 25, at end insert—

“Companies Act 2006 (Consequential Amendments, Transitional Provisions and Savings) Order 2009 (S.I. 2009/1941)

In Schedule 1, paragraph 157.”

248ZM: Schedule 25, page 436, line 27, at end insert—

“Section 70.”

248ZN: Schedule 25, page 439, leave out line 5

248ZP: Schedule 25, page 440, line 5, leave out “subsection (8)(a),” and insert “in subsection (8), paragraph (a) and the word “and” at the end of that paragraph.”

248ZQ: Schedule 25, page 440, line 17, leave out “(d) paragraph 4,”

248ZQA: Schedule 25, page 441, line 31, column 2, leave out from “section” to “the” in line 32 and insert “214(4),”

248ZR: Schedule 25, page 442, line 17, leave out “62(a) and (b)” and insert “62(b)”

248ZS: Schedule 25, page 442, leave out lines 37 to 40

248ZT: Schedule 25, page 445, line 20, at end insert—

“Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 (c. 20)	Section 35(2)(q).
	In Schedule 5, paragraph 6.”

248ZU: Schedule 25, page 445, leave out lines 28 to 32

248ZV: Schedule 25, page 446, line 18, leave out “Section 17(10) and (11).” and insert—

	“In section 20—
	(a) in the opening words, the words “and appeals under section eighteen of this Act” and the word “respectively”, and
	(b) paragraphs (b) and (d).
	Section 21.
Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 (c. 65)	Section 121(1).
	In section 121(2)—
	(a) the words “Section 17 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 and”, and
	(b) the word “each”.
	In Schedule 24, Part 1.
	In Schedule 33—
	(a) in paragraph 5(1), the words “2(2), 15(5) and”, and
	(b) paragraph 5(2) and (3).”

248ZW: Schedule 25, page 446, line 21, at end insert—

“Planning and Compensation Act 1991 (c. 34)	Sections 64 and 65.
	In Schedule 6, paragraph 1(1)(a).
	In Schedule 15—
	(a) in paragraph 15(1), the words “section 14(1) of” and the words after “1961”, and
	(b) paragraphs 15(2) and 16(a).
Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992 (c. 53)	In Schedule 3, paragraph 1.
Transfer of Tribunal Functions (Lands Tribunal and Miscellaneous Amendments) Order 2009 (S.I. 2009/1307)	In Schedule 1, paragraph 42.”

Amendments 244 to 248ZW agreed.

Clause 224 : Financial provisions

Amendment 248A

Moved by

[Baroness Hanham]

248A: Clause 224, page 202, line 36, leave out “the Secretary of State” and insert “a Minister of the Crown”

Amendment 248A agreed.

Amendment 249

Moved by

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

249: After Clause 224, insert the following new Clause—
“Post-legislative impact assessment
(1) The Secretary of State must produce and lay before Parliament an assessment of additional expenditure incurred by relevant authorities as a direct consequence of this Act within two years of the Act’s commencement.
(2) This assessment will be known as the Localism Act post-legislative impact assessment.
(3) A relevant authority must supply the Secretary of State with such financial information as the Secretary of State may specify for the purposes of enabling the Secretary of State to exercise functions under this section.
(4) In producing the Localism Act post-legislative impact assessment, the Secretary of State must have regard to—
(a) any relevant guidance issued in relation to new financial burdens placed on local authorities;(b) any relevant pre-commencement regulatory impact assessment; and(c) information submitted by relevant authorities as the Secretary of State may require.(5) In this section “relevant authorities” means—
(a) county councils in England;(b) district councils in England;(c) London borough councils;(d) the Common Council of the City of London in its capacity as a local authority;(e) the Greater London Authority;(f) the Council of the Isles of Scilly.”

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

My Lords, my estimate as to when we would reach the end of Report took me up to midnight, so I reckon that I have 25 minutes in which to speak. Like my noble friend Lord Attlee, I have two speeches. One was a very short speech which said, “I think this is a good idea”. The other one was a rather longer speech which said, “I think that this is a very good idea”. The Explanatory Notes to the Localism Bill estimated at paragraph 491 that the charge to local authorities would amount to £21 million per annum. I have seen an estimate of the net value of all the changes in the Bill as having a range of between £20 billion and £35 billion. There have been changes and many amendments to the Bill. However, local authorities are worried that they will still have to meet expenses substantially in excess of the Government’s estimate of £21 million. The purpose of this measure, which is not, of course, a full post-legislative assessment—I have no doubt that the Government will want to do that anyway—is to place a very firm date on when there should be an estimate of the actual costs that will be incurred by local authorities.

I have here a three-page speech but I will not read it out. However, it seems to me that given that so much of this Bill has affected the way that local authorities are to carry out their duties, it is only fair for the Government to be prepared to have that estimate examined so that there can be a proper assessment of what local authorities have to pay and what will otherwise fall on council tax payers. I will read no more of my speech but I think this is a very just proposal which is supported by the local authorities. I beg to move.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, it is fitting that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, should effectively conclude Report stage after his many distinguished contributions to the Bill’s proceedings thus far and, indeed, his previous very substantial record in government. I have a couple of questions. I entirely endorse the thrust of the noble Lord’s amendment. I hope that it will be acceptable to the Government. This is more a matter of process. We are not entirely clear how the new system of post-legislative scrutiny will work and what pieces of legislation will be included in it. I hope that this will be one of them. I do not know whether the Minister can indicate whether that is so but in any case it is understood from the impact analysis that the Government intend to draw up the finer details of the review methodology in the months ahead, as they put it. Since the relevant document was written some time ago, that will presumably be done through a soon to be formed Localism Bill review steering group. Has such a group been formed or will it be formed? Who will be involved in it if it has not already been set up? When is it likely to report? How will it work? These are the crucial procedural questions. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, rightly refers to the financial aspect and we entirely endorse the view that as this will effectively be a new burden on local government, it will presumably be within the new burdens doctrine. It will be good to have an assurance on the record that any additional costs of that kind will be met by central government.

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

My Lords, Amendment 249 would mean that the department has to produce a post-legislative impact assessment setting out the additional expenditure incurred by relevant authorities as a direct consequence of this Bill. An established process is already in place for post-legislative scrutiny of Acts. As set out in Cabinet Office guidance, departments are required to submit a memorandum to their departmental select committees three to five years after Royal Assent of an Act. This memorandum sets out a preliminary assessment on how the Act has worked out in practice, relative to objectives and benchmarks identified during the passage of the Bill.

In addition, each of the individual impact assessments for the specific policies in the Bill is accompanied by a post-implementation review plan. The amendment to insert a further requirement to produce a post-legislative impact assessment is therefore unnecessary. Inevitably, putting the provisions of this Bill into practice will mean local authorities taking on some new responsibilities. However, the Government are committed to ensuring that any additional burdens on councils are funded in accordance with the new burdens doctrine. The impact of the Bill has been assessed in the usual way, and the necessary funding will be made available.

I regret that I am not cited on the localism group referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. Obviously, I shall have to drop him a line on that point. I hope that my noble friend Lord Jenkin will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

My Lords, I am very grateful for the kind remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. I am not wholly reassured because this is such a very special and particular post-legislative assessment that it will be necessarily picked up in that form by the full PIR. However, my noble friend has made the Government’s case on this. I have argued that local authorities generally want to know early the total extra burden, but I am happy to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 249 withdrawn.

Clause 225 : Extent

Amendment 249A not moved.

Amendments 249AA and 249AB

Moved by

[Baroness Hanham]

249AA: Clause 225, page 202, line 41, at end insert—
“(za) Part 2,”

249AB: Clause 225, page 203, line 7, at beginning insert “Part 2,”

Amendments 249AA and 249AB agreed.

Amendment 249B had been retabled as Amendment 249BA.

Amendment 249BA

Moved by

[Baroness Hanham]

249BA: Clause 225, page 203, line 10, at end insert “, subject to subsection (6).
(6) Any amendment or repeal made by this Act in the Transport Act 1968, and the repeal of section 121(1) of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, extend to England and Wales only.”

Amendment 249BA agreed.

Clause 226 : Commencement

Amendments 249C to 249F

Moved by

[Baroness Hanham]

249C: Clause 226, page 203, line 15, at end insert—
“( ) section (Arrangements for provision of services and discharge of functions),”

249CA: Clause 226, page 203, line 21, leave out paragraph (h)

249D: Clause 226, page 203, line 26, leave out “, 28 and 31” and insert “and 28”

249DA: Clause 226, page 203, line 38, leave out “and 136,” and insert “, 136 and 149(2A)(b) and (c),”

249E: Clause 226, page 204, line 11, at end insert—
“(ga) Part (EU fines: Wales),”

249F: Clause 226, page 204, line 31, at end insert “to (3C), paragraphs 1, 13(1), 17A and 17B of Schedule 8 and section 97(5) so far as relating to those provisions of that Schedule”

Amendments 249C to 249F agreed.

Amendment 250 not moved.

In the Title

Amendment 251

Moved by

[Baroness Hanham]

251: In the Title, line 2, leave out “Local Commission for” and insert “Commission for Local”

Amendment 251 agreed.

House adjourned at 11.44 pm.