Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
Good afternoon, my Lords, and welcome to the Grand Committee. I remind Members that they are encouraged to leave some distance between themselves and others—not, I think, a problem with this order, but it may apply later. If there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after a few minutes.
Industrial Training Levy (Construction Industry Training Board) Order 2022
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Barran
That the Grand Committee do consider the Industrial Training Levy (Construction Industry Training Board) Order 2022.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, as the Committee will no doubt appreciate, the construction sector is broad and a significant part of the UK economy. It is responsible for delivering infrastructure and large construction, including transport, energy, social infrastructure and commercial buildings. It is also responsible for delivering new housebuilding and for the repair, maintenance and improvement work needed for existing buildings and the built environment.
The traditional image of the industry and its workers is shifting. New technologies are enabling more efficient and modern methods of construction. We recognise the role that construction plays in reaching the UK’s net-zero targets, which the House passed into legislation in 2019.
This is a broad sector, as I said, and it is a large and growing one. It is valuable to our economy, currently contributing £155 billion, which represents 9% of our national gross value added. It is also valuable economically due to the large number and wide range of employment opportunities that it provides, many of them well-paid, highly-skilled roles offering excellent progression opportunities. It is valuable to the individual too; it employs 3.1 million workers, 813,000 of whom are self-employed.
In research conducted by the Construction Industry Training Board, known as the CITB, the Construction Skills Network forecast indicates that the sector will grow at an average rate of 4.4% across 2021-25. Skills interventions will be critical in meeting existing and future construction labour market demands and addressing skills deficits. New and existing workers will require interventions to retain, retrain and upskill as new regulations and technologies are introduced.
It is a broad, growing, and valuable sector, but it is a fragmented one too. Small and medium-sized enterprises make up more than 99% of all businesses, of which the majority are micro-businesses. It relies heavily on subcontracting and self-employment. This fragmentation creates long-held disincentives for employers to train and develop their construction workforce. This goes to the heart of what the CITB was created to do.
Established in 1964, the CITB is, at its core, industry led, and it exists to encourage the provision of construction training. It has a clearly defined role in identifying construction skills needs and plays a part, with others, in addressing them. It provides targeted training spend, as well as grants to employers, to encourage and enable workers to access and operate safely on construction sites, drive up skills levels and incentivise training that would otherwise not take place. It supports strategic initiatives to help to maintain and develop vital skills in the industry and to create a pipeline of skilled workers. It is developing occupational standards and recognised qualifications so that skills are transferable and increase productivity.
In all activity, the CITB is working in ways that will support the construction sector to develop an environmentally sustainable future, supporting the Government’s ambitions towards net zero. Over the coming three-year levy period, the CITB expects to raise around £502.2 million to invest in construction skills.
The recent 2021 levy order was for one year, not the usual three years. That order was more unusual still, as the levy rates that it prescribed were reduced to 50% of those prescribed by the three-year 2018 order. This was to accommodate the CITB’s decision to allow levy payers a payment holiday in response to cash flow pressures the industry was facing during the first Covid lockdown.
I now turn to the details of the draft order, and I thank the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for considering this draft legislation. This three-year 2022 order returns to the levy rates prescribed by the three-year 2018 order—0.35% of the earnings paid by employers to directly employed workers and 1.25% of contract payments for indirectly employed workers—for businesses liable to pay the levy. However, the industry, having been consulted on the CITB’s delivery strategy and levy rate, supported the retention of the higher exemption and reduction thresholds for small employers contained in the 2021 order. Construction employers with an annual wage bill of up to £119,999—previously £79,999 in the 2018 order—will not pay any levy, while still having full access to CITB support.
It is projected that approximately 62% of all employers in scope of the levy will be exempt from paying it. Employers with a wage bill between £120,000—previously £80,000 in the 2018 order—and £399,999 will receive a 50% reduction on their levy liability while also receiving full access to CITB services. Approximately 14% of all employers in scope of the levy will receive a 50% reduction. Maintaining the increased exemption and reduction thresholds seeks to acknowledge and ease the budgetary pressures on SMEs.
The CITB has consulted industry on the levy proposals via the consensus process required under the Industrial Training Act 1982. Consensus is achieved by satisfying two requirements: that both the majority of employers likely to pay the levy, and employers that together are likely to pay more than half the aggregate levy raised, consider that the proposals are necessary to encourage adequate training. Both requirements were satisfied, with 66.5% of likely levy payers in the industry, which between them are likely to pay 63.2% of the aggregate levy, supportive of the CITB’s proposals.
This order will enable the CITB to continue to carry out its vital training responsibilities, and I beg to move.
Lord Jones (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her helpful and informative introduction to a welcome order of importance to our national economy and, indeed, to our future. I also acknowledge the ever-present commitment, conscientiousness and insight of my noble friend Lord Watson. I declare my interest in the register as president of the Engineering Education Scheme Wales, the EESW.
Page 2 of the order refers to consultation with Scottish Ministers, and I ask how and when consultations with Welsh Assembly Ministers took place. In the Explanatory Memorandum in paragraph 10.1, reference is made to a small group of employers that advised on the 2022 to 2024 levy orders. Will the Minister name the employers in the small group and describe the process? If the answer is not immediately forthcoming, perhaps she might write. Where in all this was there a place for trade unions? Was the TUC considered in any way?
Will the Minister expand on the role of technical colleges in the training of apprentices? Concerning apprentices, what role does a Minister play in relation to college trusts and boards? Surely these colleges have a huge and beneficial role. I have in mind here paragraphs 7.2 and 7.3 of the very helpful Explanatory Memorandum.
At paragraph 7.4 there is a more serious statement, which I will quote:
“The construction industry contributes 8.6% of the UK’s gross domestic product, employing over 2.5 million people. However, there remains a serious and distinct market failure in the development and maintenance of skills in the construction industry: the trading conditions, incentives and culture do not lead to a sufficient level of investment in skills by employers.”
I thought it was very helpful to see that paragraph in our papers, and surely it is to the credit of the Government that it was put in. It is of huge importance, and I am sure the Minister will respond.
What special and urgent initiatives is the Minister undertaking on the basis of that serious paragraph? What policy stimuli are under way? Are not engineering apprentices of great national importance—for example, in our aerospace industry and the Ministry of Defence? How does a Minister liaise cross-departmentally to seek ever more and ever better apprenticeships?
I note the 21 November impact assessment and its self-evident helpfulness. Look, for example, at the figurative illustrations—figures 5 and 6—at paragraph 36. First, figure 5 shows the estimated CITB levy payable by employers in England, Scotland and Wales in 2018 versus 2022—that is, the changes. In this, general building, civil engineering and housebuilding come out on top, with £20 million for housebuilding. Why are the Government not pushing harder for housebuilding?
Secondly, figure 5 shows the levy paid by nations in 2022: some £149 million in England, £13.6 million in Scotland, but only, I note, £4.8 million in Wales. Will the Minister tell us what is going on in Wales? For certain, the Welsh Assembly and Government have a good record; all my compatriots are good payers, as I am sure the Minister would agree. Will she please comment and explain? Is it simply that the money that Wales pays is based on population only? But why so little?
Thirdly, in figure 6, it is good to see the brickie and the pointer itemised. The pointer puts the icing on the brick cake. Is the Minister prepared to agree? What are the Government doing to get more brickies and pointers? They are absolutely vital in housebuilding and they are in very short supply, which leads to bottlenecks. The Government want, in the most positive way, more housing built, but here is a bottleneck around the brickie and the pointer. We need many more in the industry, so how hard are the Government negotiating with the employers? Do they pressurise the chief executive officer of the CITB for more brickies and pointers?
Lord Storey (LD)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jones, for that tour de force, and, having spent the week in Anglesey, we have a Welsh connection.
As the Minister rightly said, the construction industry is hugely important to the economy of the UK. She also referenced the need for a pipeline of skilled workers. What she did not talk about was the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jones, that there is a national crisis in the shortage of construction workers, which could hamper the many infrastructure schemes that we have—not just big infrastructure schemes, but local and small ones. If my noble friend Lord Stunell was here, he would tell the Minister in no uncertain terms, which I think he has already done, about the dire consequences of not ensuring that those brickies and pointers, as the noble Lord, Lord Jones, said, are recruited as quickly they should be. I have also wondered why more women are not involved in the construction industry.
The Construction Industry Training Board undertakes a large number of activities, and the Minister spelled them out in some detail, but this is perhaps a time to question what has been going on. I wonder whether the CITB would be considered by Jacob Rees-Mogg as part of his bonfire of the quangos. I hope not, but I hope that it will be reformed and refocused, because there are real concerns. You have only to listen to the National Federation of Builders, which is calling for a fundamental restructuring of the CITB, including an end to its levy-raising powers. It states that the majority of construction employers asked do not see the CITB as adding value to the industry and do not believe that it meets the labour market or industry needs, and that they cannot access the training they need when they need it. That is quite a concern.
Employers in the construction industry are facing many issues, post Covid. Is it fair that the academic institutions receive so much more; should not the levy go directly to levy-paying employers? The levy returns can sometimes be challenging and time-consuming for employers, generating additional administrative costs. Importantly, there needs to be an easier and quicker way to complete the required documentation without further record-keeping. As I have said before, a business must focus on the job of the business, making a profit and securing jobs. When the bureaucracy gets in the way, that often causes real problems for the business.
I hope that the Minister will listen to the comments made and answer them. I too had scribbled down that it would be useful to know, on a regular basis, the names of the small group who advised: let us name them and see who they represent. I had also scribbled a note asking whether the TUC was involved.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction to the order, which it is fair to say is not controversial. It states that
“the Secretary of State is satisfied that the industrial training levy proposals are necessary to encourage adequate training in the industry”,
and we concur. For that reason, I do not propose to say much at all about the levy itself, which will continue much as before. Rather, I shall focus on the CITB and its role in assisting the construction industry to address some of the issues of recruitment and training it currently faces.
In a previous life, further back than I care to remember, I was a full-time official with a trade union in the engineering sector, and I recall dealing with several industry training boards on a number of different issues. Indeed, from memory, there were more than 20 in the 1980s, until the number was significantly reduced by the Industrial Training Act 1982. It is to be regretted that, apart from those in the film sector, only the Construction Industry Training Board and the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board are still in place today. The last two are non-departmental public bodies, and thus accountable to Parliament and, as the noble Lord, Lord Storey, said, possibly within the sights of the Minister for Brexit Opportunities and Government Efficiency—a quaint name, without a department behind it.
The order we are considering today runs to six pages, but its impact assessment is five times that length. That is to be welcomed, because it contains much interesting—in some cases, fascinating—information and statistics about the levy, the board and the construction industry itself. From it, we learn that the industry has had a levy and grant arrangement for 58 years. The impact assessment says that it currently employs more than 2.5 million people—the Minister said 3.1 million, so I am glad to hear it is growing—contributes 8.6% to GDP, and, if I caught it correctly, 9% of gross value added, which, as an economist, I think is a productivity metric. Both demonstrate the importance of the industry.
The CITB exists to ensure that the construction workforce has the right skills for now and the future, based on three strategic priorities: careers, standards and qualifications, and training and development. As is made plain in the impact assessment:
“There remains a serious and distinct market failure in the development … of skills in the construction industry”.
It is stated that this is because
“the trading conditions, incentives and culture do not lead to a sufficient level of investment in skills by employers.”
Unfortunately, this malaise is not restricted to the construction sector. UK employers in many sectors have long been unwilling to recognise the need for upskilling and to pay for it, and that is a major factor in the low productivity levels from which our economy suffers. The introduction of the apprenticeship levy five years ago was a clear sign of the Government’s acceptance that employers will not in sufficient numbers invest of their own volition in skills development, and thus require a firm hand on their collective shoulder to encourage them to do so.
The training levy plays a key role in equipping the construction industry with the skilled and flexible workforce it needs. In the post-EU world in which we find ourselves, and given the large number of EU nationals who have traditionally worked in the construction industry in this country, it is not just important but absolutely vital that the industry is in a position to train, and continually retrain, its workforce for the challenges facing the economy.
Indeed, to quote the Explanatory Memorandum:
“It is essential, now more than ever, that employers have access to the support needed to upskill existing workers and adequately attract and train new talent, as industry seeks to fully recover from the impacts of the pandemic.”
Absolutely. This order will raise more than £0.5 billion between now and 2024 to invest in training skills, which is why employers have always strongly supported the levy and value the payback they get from their contributions.
However, as the Minister will have noted from the impact assessment, the consultation among employers on the CITB’s proposals for this levy produced a figure of 66.5% in support. That should cause some concern, because not only does it mean that a third of employers were not in favour of the levy—for reasons unknown, or at least not listed in the impact assessment—but the 66.5% figure was down from 76.9% when the vote was last held, in 2017. Perhaps the Minister can say whether DfE officials and/or Ministers have asked the CITB for its explanation of that reduction and what action, if any, the board will be asked to undertake to ensure it does not fall further in three years. More positive is the survey on the final page of the impact assessment, which shows that, when asked whether the statutory levy, grant and funding system should continue, 75% of employers said that it should.
The CITB has had an awkward few years recently, with more than its fair share of criticism from within the sector. The board was forcefully led by Sarah Beale from 2017 until her departure last year, and now has Tim Balcon as its CEO. Ms Beale oversaw a restructuring that saw its workforce cut by two-thirds as it returned to its core business, but that has not assuaged all in the sector. One of its largest participants, Build UK, recently called for fundamental changes, stating that there remains
“widespread frustration with the performance of CITB”.
Mr Balcon deserves the chance to make his influence felt, but are the Minister and her officials aware of the discontent with the board felt by some of the employers it exists to assist? If so, can she share any information as to what support—I am not talking about financial terms—might be offered to the board?
One of those areas should be the need for much greater diversity within the construction industry. The CITB itself deserves credit for becoming, under Sarah Beale, a female-led organisation in a male-dominated industry. One of the potential benefits of that was that it allowed the CITB to push boundaries and promote change, but much more remains to be done. ONS data shows that the construction industry’s 16% female workforce—a point referenced by the noble Lord, Lord Storey—compares with 23% in transportation and 25% in water supply and manufacturing, the other worst sectors.
The 2011 census showed that 13% of the UK population identified as black, Asian or minority ethnic, yet ONS data found that the percentage employed at that time in UK construction was just 7.5%. More worryingly, in a 2015 survey of its own, the CITB found that the actual figure could have been closer to 5%. We should be told what the current figures are, so that the board can begin to plot a course towards increasing the number substantially. As Kay Jarvis of the global infrastructure company blu-3 reported in 2020:
“The 2018 OutNext/PwC Out to Succeed survey also found construction had the third-worst image of all industries as an LGBT+ employer.”
A recent study by recruitment analytics specialist Hays discovered that, of those black people
“who managed to break into the construction sector”—
that term is perhaps of some importance—no less than
“78% claimed they had experienced career restrictions due to their race or other demographic factors such as sexuality and age.”
Whether this is down to structural prejudice or unconscious bias, it highlights the significant and clear challenge of discrimination in the hiring and promotion process, which surely must be addressed. The CITB is well positioned to do so; I hope that the Government will offer it every encouragement, perhaps by setting a baseline and then measuring year-on-year progress against it in respect of equality and diversity in various forms in construction.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions to the debate. I will attempt to cover the questions asked but I will of course write on any that I cannot answer at the Dispatch Box.
Before I go any further, the noble Lord, Lord Watson, highlighted the difference between the 2.5 million employees cited in the Explanatory Memorandum and the 3.1 million that I referred to in my opening remarks. The figure of 3.1 million comes from the Office for National Statistics and represents a wider definition of construction that includes the built environment and manufacturing. The figure in the Explanatory Memorandum is an estimate of the CITB-relevant part of the total. I hope that clarifies it for the noble Lord.
The noble Lord, Lord Jones, shared his deep expertise in the sector and asked a number of questions in relation to Wales. In line with the requirements of Section 88 of the Scotland Act 1988, we consulted Scottish Ministers—the noble Lord pointed this out—who confirmed that they are content with the levy order. The Welsh Assembly has also confirmed its support for the order.
The noble Lord asked why the contribution for Wales appears to be so small. The levy is charged to in-scope employers based on their wage bill, so it is possible that there are fewer or smaller such employers in Wales and this is reflected in those figures. The noble Lord also asked how much of the levy will be distributed in Scotland and Wales. The split in income and expenditure between England, Scotland and Wales is not something that the CITB generally measures or reports on.
The noble Lord asked about engagement with the unions. Obviously, it is up to the CITB as to who it engages with. It is the legislation that controls who can actually vote on the levy proposals.
The noble Lords, Lord Jones and Lord Storey, challenged whether the Government are doing enough with our investment in training, qualifications and skills in this area. We have already put in place a wide range of opportunities for adults to gain the skills that they need for employment and are ensuring that people have opportunities to study by delivering on the Prime Minister’s lifetime skills guarantee. The provision of skills, in construction in particular, is supported through a number of routes, including courses available through further education colleges and independent learning providers, with funding of more than £1.3 billion from the adult education budget. Noble Lords will be aware that we introduced construction T-levels in 2020, as an alternative vocational route into the sector, and are continuing to develop skills boot camps, which offer free and flexible courses of up to 16 weeks, funded through the national skills fund.
As noble Lords observed, apprenticeships remain a key route into this industry. There are currently over 640 high-quality, industry-designed standards available, and we aim to continue to improve and grow apprenticeships, so that more employers and individuals can benefit from them.
The noble Lords, Lord Watson and Lord Storey, rightly focused on the lack of diversity in the construction workforce. Obviously the CITB is not responsible for the construction workforce, but it has an important role in facilitating skills opportunities to help the industry strive towards a workforce that reflects today’s society. It undertakes a wide range of initiatives and activities; it works with industry and other partners to try to attract a diverse pool of new entrants into the industry and to promote construction careers. I share the hope of the noble Lord, Lord Watson, that in three years, when we debate this instrument again, the make-up of the sector will look very different from where it is today.
The CITB is funding the training of industry construction ambassadors on fairness, inclusion and respect, who contribute to a dedicated industry project which creates resources for employers to promote and celebrate best practice across the sector. It is also funding a digital resilience hub, which is a free and accessible tool that brings together mental health resources for those working in the construction industry. Finally, it is funding the on-site hubs that support individuals to become employment-ready and site-ready to take up opportunities in construction. Their target is to support underrepresented groups, including women and those from black, Asian and other minority-ethnic backgrounds, to secure sustainable job outcomes. It is fair to say that representation from those groups remains disproportionately low. The CITB continues to work with partners to try to address that.
The noble Lords, Lord Watson and Lord Storey, questioned the value of the CITB and raised some of the criticisms that have been lodged against it, and asked whether there would be an alternative model for funding skills development in the construction industry. The Government seek to evaluate the rationale for and effectiveness of its arm’s-length bodies through a programme of regular reviews, and that includes the ITBs. In 2017, the review of ITBs confirmed that there remains an ongoing need for a central skills body and recommended that the CITB should make stronger efforts to address the skills gap and market failure within the industry. That included the requirement for the CITB to lead on emerging needs, such as supporting the Government’s ambitions for housing.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
I mentioned earlier that the impact assessment shows that 75% of employers, when asked, said that they wanted the current scheme to continue. Is it not unthinkable that, with that kind of backing, the Government might move away from the current model?
Baroness Barran (Con)
Obviously I cannot predict the future. I can only repeat what the review of 2017 said, on which basis the Government are moving forward. The review showed that there is an ongoing need for a central skills body and, as the noble Lord says, employers support it.
Following that review, the CITB’s implementation of its three-year transformation process, Vision 2020, has helped to make it a more focused and more agile partner to industry, and, as a result of the initiative, the CITB has implemented new governance structures so that industry voices are at the heart of decision-making, has launched new funding systems to allow employers to have easier access to support—the noble Lord, Lord Storey, referred to bureaucracy being a barrier to accessing support—and has moved to an investment model based on strategic commissioning. As I noted, the industry has expressed concerns about the performance of the CITB, but we are confident that it has worked hard to increase industry involvement in its strategic planning to address those concerns.
The noble Lord, Lord Storey, asked about the funding model and exactly what it pays for. The levy provides an investment in skills through a redistributive and collective fund, and it provides value through strategic initiatives that benefit the whole industry—I have referred to some of them already—such as attracting new entrants, identifying common standards and common training solutions, encouraging the transferability of skills, quality control of training provision, leadership and project management development, and collaborative behavioural training programmes.
The noble Lord, Lord Watson, asked about the relationship between the amount of levy that is paid and the grants that an employer might receive. We believe that employers receive value for money, but they do not expect to receive a direct financial return via the training grants that is equal to the levy that is paid. As I mentioned, the levy is an investment in skills through a redistributive and collective fund that benefits all employers.
The noble Lord, Lord Jones, asked about our housebuilding targets. One of the priorities from the DfE to the CITB for 2022-23 is providing support to the industry to meet our ambition to build 300,000 homes each year.
There continues to be the collective view across the sector that training should be funded through a statutory levy system and that that system should be used to contribute to a pool of skilled labour, now and in the future, for this critical sector. There is a firm belief that without the levy there would be a serious deterioration in the quality and quantity of training in the construction industry, leading to a deficiency in skills levels and in capacity. That would create particular challenges in the current economic environment, when skilled workers are needed to deliver the infrastructure projects required to meet the environmental challenge of reducing the UK’s carbon emissions to zero by 2050, as well as all the other ambitions that we have referred to in relation to other infrastructure and housebuilding projects.
Coronavirus Act 2020 (Delay in Expiry: Inquests, Courts and Tribunals, and Statutory Sick Pay) (England and Wales and Northern Ireland) Regulations 2022
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Stewart of Dirleton
That the Grand Committee do consider the Coronavirus Act 2020 (Delay in Expiry: Inquests, Courts and Tribunals, and Statutory Sick Pay) (England and Wales and Northern Ireland) Regulations 2022.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Stewart of Dirleton) (Con)
My Lords, last month, 25 March marked two years since the Coronavirus Act gained Royal Assent. This Act gave us the necessary powers to tackle the direct health impacts of the Covid-19 virus, support individuals, businesses and the economy, and maintain our critical public services during the pandemic. When the Act was introduced, this House and the other place agreed for the temporary provisions within it to have a two-year lifespan. The Government have always been clear that these provisions would remain in place only as long as they are necessary and proportionate to respond to the pandemic. Thanks to the progress made in the fight against the virus, the Government have been able to repeal the vast majority of the temporary non-devolved provisions in this Act. There are now only five temporary non-devolved provisions remaining in force, which are extended by the regulations before us today.
Four of these provisions, at Sections 30, 53, 54 and 55 of the Act, relate to the justice system. They have allowed the system to continue to function throughout the pandemic, enabling the courts to deal promptly and safely with proceedings, and to avoid unnecessary social contact and travel while upholding the principle of open justice. They are now proving vital in our efforts to support court recovery. These temporary measures are so important to court recovery that we intend to replace them with permanent legislation, but we cannot afford any gap in provision while we wait for that legislation to complete its passage through Parliament, albeit some of it is comparatively well-advanced.
Section 30 removes the obligations for coroners to hold inquests with a jury where Covid-19 is the suspected cause of death. An equivalent measure is included in the Judicial Review and Courts Bill, which is expected to receive Royal Assent later this spring. The replacement measure has effect for two years and can be extended by regulations made by the Secretary of State. Neither Section 30 nor the new Judicial Review and Courts Bill prevents coroners from holding jury inquests in cases where they consider it appropriate. I think it is important to emphasise this element of discretion vesting in the coroner.
Sections 53, 54 and 55 enable participation in court and tribunal hearings to take place remotely by video or audio links. They also allow audio or video footage to be transmitted to remote observers and create new offences to prohibit the unauthorised recording or transmission of any live links sent from court. Essentially, it is an updating of the power inherent in the court already to regulate the behaviour of those observing its proceedings.
They are due to be replaced this summer with new provisions in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, subject to parliamentary approval. In the meantime, it is vital that these measures remain in place so that our courts and tribunals can continue to hold virtual hearings in an open and transparent manner. These measures continue to be crucial in helping our courts and tribunals to work more quickly through the backlog of cases that has built up during the pandemic.
Currently, around 10,000 hearings each week take place using some form of remote technology. On 14 February, the Lord Chief Justice issued guidance on the circumstances and types of proceedings where it might continue to be appropriate for advocates to attend Crown Court hearings remotely under these provisions. This includes bail applications, ground rules hearings, custody time limit extensions, uncontested Proceeds of Crime Act hearings and those hearings which involve legal argument only. Conducting these types of hearings via audio and video links means that court-rooms can be reserved for hearings which require participants to attend in person, including trials and sentencing hearings.
Without Section 30, the backlogs in our coroners’ courts would be significantly larger, further increasing the demand on local authority-funded coroner services. Hundreds, possibly thousands of individuals, would have to serve on Covid-19 inquest juries and coroner services would have been overwhelmed by the logistics. If the courts are unable to continue to use these provisions, even for a few months, I submit that it will have a significant impact on our court recovery programme. It will mean that defendants are waiting longer than necessary for trial, more complainers are waiting longer than necessary for justice and the bereaved are waiting longer than necessary for inquests. Therefore, we cannot, I submit, allow these powers to lapse. A maximum six-month extension will enable a smooth transition and avoid any disruption to service before replacement primary legislation comes into force. The provisions we are discussing today will be repealed once this new primary legislation is in force.
I turn to address a provision at Section 43 which relates to statutory sick pay in Northern Ireland. Section 43 is extended by this statutory instrument for a period of six months. This enables statutory sick pay to be paid from day one in Northern Ireland for absences relating to Covid-19. While statutory sick pay is ordinarily a transferred matter in Northern Ireland, Section 43 confers on the Secretary of State the power to make regulations in respect of this provision. In this provision, the UK Government are facilitating the extension of Section 43 on the formal request of the Department for Communities in Northern Ireland.
I take the opportunity today on behalf of the Government to note an addendum in the 12th two-monthly report of the Act, which was published on 24 March. This addendum addresses omission of status updates for two temporary provisions in previous reports. These are Sections 42 and 43 that relate to statutory sick pay and extend to Northern Ireland only. On behalf of the Government, I apologise for this omission and welcome the opportunity to correct it. The addendum provides information about the status of these provisions over the course of the pandemic. I have made inquiry of the Bill team about the way in which this addendum is promulgated and I am told that it together with an accompanying apology is placed in prominent view in the report.
I reassure the Committee and the House in general on behalf of the Government that the reporting omission has not impacted the policy relating to these provisions. The addendum provides information about the status of these provisions over the course of the pandemic.
On behalf of the Government, I thank all front-line workers and those working in our courts, tribunals and coroner services for the sterling work they have done to keep the system running.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this statutory instrument. It is fairly technical in the sense that it is a six-month extension of the current emergency provisions —starting from 25 March—to cover the coming into effect and Royal Assent for the two Bills which the Minister mentioned. In that spirit, we do not oppose this statutory instrument.
The Minister set out the importance of this emergency legislation in dealing with the situation we were in during the pandemic. I remind the Committee that I sit as a magistrate in the adult, youth and family jurisdictions, and have sat in a lot of these courts over that two-year period. I have been active in the two Bills the Minister mentioned, in trying to take the best of that experience and use it in continuing to work with an overburdened court system. I accept the points that he made that we are dealing with 10,000 hearings a week that have some form of remote technology in them and that we should do what we can to do hearings remotely, because it frees up court rooms to try to address the backlog.
Understandably, given the nature of this statutory instrument, the Minister did not address the BBC’s headline news today about the continuing and worsening backlogs for sexual offences. I was just looking up the statistics while waiting for this debate and the figures are getting worse: the average case length for sexual offences is 266 days—nine months waiting for suitable cases to come to court. This is getting worse, so I ask the Minister what the nature of the bottleneck is. Is it, as the criminal barristers are saying, that the number of criminal barristers has fallen over recent years? Is it because the number of judges’ sitting days has reduced? Or is it, as I have also heard, that there is a difficulty and a bottleneck in recruiting a sufficient number of judges to deal with these backlogs, that of sexual offences in particular? The Minister’s predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, made the point in previous debates that the lack of availability is not of courts as such but of appropriate judges. I would be interested to hear from the Minister whether that is still the case.
The Minister talked about Section 43 of the Coronavirus Act 2020 and statutory sick pay provision in Northern Ireland. I noted the correction that he highlighted, which I am happy to take as read; I do not want to go into that any further.
As I opened, we support this statutory instrument. It is a technical measure as provisions within other Bills come into place. Nevertheless, I think the Minister should say something about the seriously bad figures that were produced in BBC programmes and made headline news today.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his contribution and the spirit in which he framed his remarks, acknowledging the justification for this measure to extend the powers brought in under the peculiar and unique circumstances of Covid and the value that they had. As always with the noble Lord, he speaks from a position of expertise and experience of the value of such measures from his position as a magistrate—or, rather, his position as a magistrate informs his remarks.
The noble Lord posed a question on the figures. He sought an answer on the bottleneck and advanced a number of potential causes for it. I can tell the Committee something of the scale of the investment that the Government are making in the criminal justice system over the next three years. The sum of £477 million is to be invested in the system overall, which will allow us to reduce the Crown Court backlog to an estimated 53,000 by March 2025.
To provide additional capacity in the Crown Court, we are extending the sentencing powers in the magistrates’ courts from six to 12 months’ imprisonment for a single triable-either-way offence to allow more cases to be heard at that level in the magistrates’ court and drive down the backlog of cases over the coming years.
The figures we have indicate that these measures are already having a beneficial effect in that the case load in the Crown Court reduced from around 61,000 cases in June 2021 to around 58,500 at the end of February 2022. As a result, we expect to get through 20% more Crown Court cases this financial year than we did pre-Covid. The figures would be 117,000 in 2022-23, compared to 97,000 in 2019-20.
Licensing Act 2003 (Platinum Jubilee Licensing Hours) Order 2022
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That the Grand Committee do consider the Licensing Act 2003 (Platinum Jubilee Licensing Hours) Order 2022.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move the instrument before the Committee today to extend the licensing hours in recognition of Her Majesty the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee. I am asking the Committee to support the instrument to extend licensing hours on Thursday 2 June, Friday 3 June and Saturday 4 June. Section 172 of the Licensing Act 2003 allows the Secretary of State to make an order relaxing opening hours for licensed premises to mark occasions of
“exceptional international, national or local significance”.
The Government consider the Platinum Jubilee to be such an occasion. This will be a period in which we celebrate Her Majesty the Queen’s incredible service and remarkable dedication, and many people will want to gather with their family and friends and raise a glass to mark this historic milestone.
The extension will apply to premises licences and club premises certificates in England and Wales, which license the sale of alcohol for consumption on the premises. These premises will be allowed to remain open until 1 am without having to notify the licensing authority and police via a temporary event notice, as would usually be the case. Premises that are licensed to provide regulated entertainment will be able to do so until 1 am on the nights covered by the order, even where those premises are not licensed to sell alcohol. This includes, for example, venues holding musical events or dances as well as theatres and cinemas.
The order does not extend to premises which sell alcohol for consumption off the premises, such as off-licences and supermarkets. Premises which provide late-night refreshment, which is the supply of hot food or hot drinks to the public, between the hours of 11 pm and 5 am, but do not sell alcohol for consumption on the premises will not be covered by the order; such premises will only be able to provide late-night refreshment until 1 am if their existing licence already permits this.
The Home Office conducted a public consultation, which ran for a month and concluded on 26 January this year. The majority of respondents agreed with the extension for the three-day period and that it should apply to England and Wales. The consultation also received responses from numerous trade organisations, which were supportive of the extension of licensing hours. The National Police Chiefs’ Council, the Local Government Association and the National Association of Licensing and Enforcement Officers were all in agreement with the proposed extension to licensing hours for Her Majesty the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee.
I am sure the Committee will support this order to help celebrate a special and historic moment in our national history. I beg to move.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on bringing forward the order, which I entirely endorse. It recognises and reflects that there is a willingness, as we come out of the pandemic, to celebrate such an auspicious occasion. It has been a particularly tough time for the hospitality sector over the last two years or so.
I refer briefly to my chairmanship of PASS, the Proof of Age Standards Scheme, where I work closely with the hospitality sector. Not having to pay the TEN fee, as referred to in the Explanatory Memorandum, will be very welcome in saving not just the fee but the time that would have had to be spent.
I have one hesitation. I am sure my noble friend will be aware of the agent of change issues that have been flagged up. She will be aware that we are just concluding a follow-up report to our previous Select Committee inquiry on the Licensing Act 2003. I am not yet at liberty to say what our recommendations will be because we have not yet concluded that, but there is an issue where there may have been a recent application for an outlet in the hospitality sector to open its doors in an area that has previously been primarily residential. Is that something that both the Government and those acquiescing to these licences will be mindful of, given that it will be, as my noble friend said, a four-day bank holiday? That is my only reservation. Otherwise, I entirely endorse the order.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this instrument. If ever there was an occasion of exceptional national significance, surely it must be Her Majesty the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee. Therefore, we are generally supportive.
However, my concern is over the fact that the Government listened to the consultation that was run and, according to what they have published:
“Out of the 74 respondents, 58 agreed that the extension should only apply to on sales”,
not to off-sales. As a consequence, this instrument does not apply to off-sales.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My concern is Section 11 of the Business and Planning Act 2020, which allowed on-licence premises to sell alcohol as an off-licence for a period of time, because of the Covid pandemic. That included sales in open containers and alcohol for delivery to residential or work premises. Effectively, on-licence premises could act as off-licences. The ability of on-licence premises to act as off-licences does not cease until 30 September. That is my understanding of the legislation.
As I said, of the 74 respondents, 58 agreed that the extension should apply only to on-sales, presumably because they were concerned about disorder in the streets if people were allowed to buy alcohol in off-licence premises and take it away, rather than consume alcohol in regulated on-licence premises. Therefore, there is a flaw in the instrument, in that the concern about increased alcohol-related crime and disorder as a result of the extension being applied to off-licence premises has not taken into account that all on-licence premises are, until 30 September this year, able to act as off-licence premises. What does the Minister have to say about that?
Other than that concern, I hope that people will celebrate in a manner fitting with the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, we in the Labour Party also support this statutory instrument and wish the Queen a happy birthday. I hope that the country enjoys a weekend to celebrate this happy occasion.
This is a usual extension of licensing hours, if I can put it like that, for royal events and major sporting events. For example, we did this for the wedding of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, for that of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, and for the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee.
We have heard about the consultation. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, was kind enough to mention his concern before today’s debate, and I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response to the point he raised. It is a fair question.
Finally, my question to the Minister is this: does she propose raising a glass until 1 am, as a fitting tribute to mark the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. On that very tricky question, I might raise a glass beyond 1 o’clock, but in my own home. I am very much looking forward to the weekend, as I am sure all noble Lords are, and I am reassured by the general consensus.
On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, we gave careful consideration to the responses that raised concerns about the potential for a rise in crime and disorder as a result of the extension, and any impact on public resources, including policing requirements. As I said, the National Police Chiefs’ Council raised no concern about the proposed extension. The police have been given early notice of the Government’s plans and have a range of mitigating actions available to them to prevent and to deal with any isolated problems, should they arise.
The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, drew attention to previous extensions: namely, for the royal wedding, the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee in 2012 and Her 90th birthday in 2016. We are not aware of any increased crime or disorder during those occasions. The SI itself specifically excludes sale for consumption off the premises. It is for a short duration, and many people will want to celebrate the Platinum Jubilee together in their local pub. Pubs may also wish to put on special celebrations for the occasion.
I agree with my noble friend Lady McIntosh that the potential boost to trade is very welcome, given the financial pressures that businesses have been under. She also pointed out the cost saving of £21 for a temporary event notice. I am very much looking forward to reading the agent of change report that she referred to, and we will comment on it in due course.
On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, about off-sales for the coronavirus period interacting with this, this is purely for premises licences which establishments have in ordinary times, but I have asked those in the Box behind me what this will mean for off-sales, so I shall get back to him on that. In the meantime, I beg to move, and God save the Queen.
Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
That the Grand Committee do consider the Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022.
Relevant documents: 29th and 34th Reports from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, the regulations before the Committee today meet a commitment made by the Prime Minister in the 2020 policy statement Gear Change: A Bold Vision for Walking and Cycling to give local authorities outside London powers conferred in Part 6 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 to enforce contraventions of moving traffic restrictions. These powers are being commenced to coincide with these regulations, which are due to come into force on 31 May. The regulations before the Committee today form part of a package: an affirmative statutory instrument and a negative one. I shall refer to the former as the appeals regulations, and it is these are being considered by the Committee today.
The appeals regulations consolidate the rights of representation and appeal which have been in place England-wide since 2007 for vehicle owners who are or may be liable to pay penalty charge notices—PCNs—in respect of parking contraventions. They also extend those rights to disputed bus lane and moving traffic PCNs outside London. However, noble Lords should also note the negative procedure instrument: the Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Approved Devices, Charging Guidelines and General Provisions) (England) Regulations 2022. This instrument includes wider provisions for evidence, penalty charge notices, adjudication, penalty charge levels, and income and expenditure.
This regulatory package, introduced under Part 6 of the Traffic Management Act 2004, consolidates existing legislation. At the same time, it makes powers available to local authorities outside London to issue PCNs for contraventions of safety-critical moving traffic restrictions, such as no entry, banned turns and unlawful entry into box junctions. From now on, local authorities wanting to undertake moving traffic enforcement may apply for formal designation of these powers to enable enforcement to begin in practice by using CCTV cameras that have been certified by the Secretary of State. We plan to lay an order designating the first group of LAs as soon as practicable and will lay further orders as demand dictates.
When using these powers, local authorities have a duty to act fairly. These regulations therefore make provisions entitling drivers who are or may be liable to pay penalty charges for contravening certain traffic restrictions, including the moving traffic restrictions, to make representations to the enforcement authority and, if their case is rejected, to appeal to an independent adjudicator against the penalty charge. The regulations prescribe the information that must be given when a penalty charge is imposed about the right to make representations or appeal against that charge. The regulations also prescribe time limits for each stage of these processes, within which both the motorist and the local authority must respond, and create an offence of knowingly or recklessly making false representations under these regulations or in connection with an appeal.
I assure noble Lords that these regulations merely extend long-established provisions for motorists wishing to dispute parking penalties to the forthcoming civil enforcement regime for moving traffic contraventions. To create parity across the board outside London, we have also used this opportunity to repeal the bus lane enforcement regime, in place since 2005 under the Transport Act 2000, to create a single enforcement regime under the 2004 Act; that includes bus lane enforcement. It was always envisaged that this would happen soon after the 2004 Act was introduced.
By doing so, we have removed some of the inconsistencies in the legislation. Motorists challenging bus lane penalties will therefore benefit from representations and appeals provisions not previously available to them. These will apply to all contraventions. For example, they can challenge a penalty charge on the grounds of “procedural impropriety”. There will also be an express duty on local authorities to consider any “compelling reasons” that the motorist gives for the cancellation of the charge; express powers for adjudicators to refer cases back to the local authority where there are no grounds to allow the appeal but the adjudicator considers that the authority should reconsider whether the appellant should pay all or some of the penalty; and a requirement for the authority to respond to representations within 56 calendar days.
Bringing bus lane powers under the 2004 Act also has an allied benefit, in that it enables Ministers to publish for local authorities, for the first time, statutory guidance to cover all contraventions to which local authorities must have regard. This will simplify the system for the local authority so that it does not have lots of different types of enforcement considerations when it plans how to operationalise them.
However, I am clear that civil enforcement of moving traffic contraventions—or, indeed, of any traffic contraventions —should be a last resort. If contraventions are preventable through other means, such as improvements to road layout or traffic signing, I expect this to be done before enforcement is considered. We will issue statutory guidance to ensure that local authorities use these powers correctly.
Before enforcement can begin in practice, local authorities must apply to the department for an order by means of a letter to the Secretary of State. To ensure due diligence, designation of a local authority will be conditional on them having already consulted local residents and businesses on where existing restrictions have been earmarked for enforcement, and due consideration must have been given to any legitimate concerns.
Local authorities will also be expected to issue warning notices for first-time moving traffic contraventions at each camera location for six months following enforcement going live. This will apply to any new camera location in the future. These requirements will be enshrined in the statutory guidance to ensure that enforcement is targeted only at problem sites, that road users clearly understand the new powers and that enforcement is carried out fairly.
I stress that traffic enforcement must be aimed at increasing compliance and not raising revenue. Local authorities will not have a free hand in how any resulting surplus is used, which will be strictly ring-fenced for covering enforcement costs or specified local authority funded local transport schemes or environmental measures. Neither will local authorities have a free hand in setting penalty charge levels for moving traffic contraventions, as these are banded and set out in the regulations in line with existing penalties for higher-level parking contraventions. As moving traffic and bus lane contraventions are of a type, we are increasing bus lane penalties by £10 to align with contraventions of moving traffic and higher-level parking contraventions —for example, parking in a disabled bay.
These regulations support the enforcement of moving traffic contraventions and play a key role in reducing congestion, with consequent benefits to air quality and to well-being. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I have just two brief points to make. I thank and congratulate my noble friend on bringing forward the regulations this afternoon. First, I understand that there was a delay and that the statutory instruments had to be withdrawn and re-laid. I would very much like to understand why that was the case and have an assurance that that will not happen with future SIs.
My second concern relates to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s 29th report, dated 10 February 2022. At paragraph 40 it says:
“To free up police officers’ time, these Regulations extend the range of offences that can be dealt with by civil enforcement officers acting on behalf of local authorities, or in some cases traffic cameras.”
I would like to understand from which budget the civil enforcement officers will be taking on this work. I am mindful of the extent to which local authorities’ budgets are under severe pressure at this time.
Who will be responsible for the traffic cameras? In north Yorkshire and County Durham we have very few fixed cameras; the traffic cameras are mostly mobile. When I was an MP in north Yorkshire, I was informed, on the quiet, that in many instances there is no film in static cameras in north Yorkshire—they are just there to alarm people, in the hope that their behaviour will be reformed because they see a traffic camera in front of them. Are we relying on mobile traffic cameras, which are still the province of the police, or are there some other traffic cameras of which I am not aware?
With those few remarks, I wish the SI good speed.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)
My Lords, on this side we very much support these measures; it would be odd if we did not, as my noble friend Lord Bradshaw has been arguing for this move for pretty much as long as I have been in the House, which is over 20 years now. Civil enforcement of moving traffic offences is, as he has argued, really important in improving the flow of traffic generally and particularly for buses. Bringing the rest of England in line with London is a welcome step. I also agree with the Government that we need better enforcement for safety reasons for cycle lanes, pedestrian crossings, and so on.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for bring forward these regulations, which I welcome. They will extend the rights of representations and appeals in parking, bus lane and moving traffic cases. I will not seek to detain the Committee for long, given that there is broad consensus on the basic principles. However, I welcome any details as to why it has taken so long to introduce these changes, given that they relate to a policy statement from two years ago.
A colleague was going to be doing this debate today so I came against the regulations only at 11.30 am. My understanding is that this is really a package made up of a commencement order that has no parliamentary procedures, a negative order that nobody has prayed against—so it will go through—and this measured affirmative order, or whatever the right term is. I hope that these regulations do a simple, uniform thing and bring the powers and appeal rights in England and Wales into a uniform piece of legislation. There are lots of nods but I would like to hear the Minister say yes to that because it would simplify how one thinks about this.
I wonder whether the Minister can offer a timeline for what flows from this package. I recognise that she may have done that in her speech but the impressive speed of her delivery was beyond my comprehension in places; I am not suggesting that she was not right and accurate, so I apologise for that. The reason I would like to see a timeline is because, as the Minister knows, the commencement of this order depends on the commencement of the negative order but I do not know when that is proposed to be. It would be useful to have on record when that will happen and when the consultation on the guidance will complete. I got the impression that the guidance might be published on the same day as the commencement. That would be unfortunate but it goes to the general issue of how motorists will know about both the offences and their appeal rights at the same time. I think the Minister said a little about how motorists will know about the offences, but knowledge about their appeal rights seems equally important.
The Committee hopes that these regulations will contribute to making the system of road traffic contraventions fairer and more effective. On broader road traffic issues, the Minister will be aware that the Government recently published an updated private parking code of practice, which caps fines at £80 in London and £50 elsewhere. Welcome as that is, unfortunately, the new code will not come into force fully until 2024. In the meantime, many parking firms are charging more than those caps permit. Does the Minister believe it is right that they are able to charge extortionate amounts before the new code of practice fully comes into force?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I thank noble Lords for contributing to this short debate. I apologise at the outset for my speed of delivery. I must slow down; I will slow down. I promise the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, that, next time I give an opening speech, I will slow down, enunciate and break for breath every now and again.
Some important points have been raised, which I hope to cover. I will write, of course, because I suspect that I will not be able to answer a couple of things in full. I am grateful for the broad welcome for these regulations. I accept that they have been a long time coming, particularly given that the Traffic Management Act was enacted in 2004. Then there was the issue of commencing Part 6. The delay in commencing that part and in putting these regulations before the Committee is partly down to the pressures of the pandemic; it has been a little busy in the Department for Transport. We wanted to get this right, recognising that it will be up to local authorities to put this into operation. They, too, have been suffering from a lack of time and resources during the pandemic.
We did crack on with it when we felt that things looked a little more positive but we had an issue with the JCSI, which was alluded to by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering. An error was discovered in the affirmative SI, which meant that we withdrew it and then re-laid it with the error resolved. It did not have an impact on the date of its coming into force, so it did not have an impact on the whole process of what was going to happen, but we are grateful to the JCSI for its work on finding the error because it would have been unforgivable for that to have got on to the statute book.
On the issues relating to the JCSI vires, I might write with a little more detail, perhaps to explain why we slightly differ from the JCSI and how we propose to respond to it. I believe that we will make some changes at the earliest opportunity; potentially, there is an opportunity to make a change in the first designation order, which will come soon.
On the point raised by my noble friend Lady McIntosh on resources, cameras and the gubbins that will have to be in place to operationalise these regulations, we know that some places have already put them in place. We know that London already does it but, let us face it, London is not really like everywhere else. But one might look at Cardiff. For example, in Wales, the Welsh Government commenced the Part 6 powers back in 2013 and, to date, Cardiff City Council and Carmarthenshire have acquired the designation of those powers. In Cardiff, we have a little bit of visibility about how they did it, how much it cost them and what the impact was on their budgets. The council’s latest Annual Park and Traffic Enforcement Report for 2018-19 confirms the following. For the first full year of enforcement, which was actually 2016-17—it is a little while ago, but that was its first full year, and it is the most up to date that we have—it ended up with a combined income of around £3.4 million and a total expenditure of £5.6 million, including parking. We estimate that it probably spent around £3.7 million on bus lane and moving traffic enforcement. So that was a deficit of about £0.3 million. We would expect that, in most circumstances, after the first year when things have settled down, you would end up with a surplus. As I explained in my opening remarks, that surplus can be used only on very specific things.
There is also the issue to consider, if a local authority is putting something in place, that we have said that within the first six months there will be warning notices rather than fines to be paid for any individual attracting a contravention at a particular camera. So that will reduce the income. It is also worth recognising that many of the set-up costs will be one-off costs. There will be ongoing maintenance costs for the CCTV, but they will usually be one-off costs, which can be met more than over just the first year. On the flip side, we know that costs will be mitigated somewhat by the slight increase to the bus lane penalties.
In general, in our new burdens assessment, we suggested that there was no additional burden to local authorities by implementing these regulations, and the Local Government Association did not object to the new burdens assessment. So I think either it will work out cost neutral or there will be a surplus which, as discussed, will be used only for certain areas. I take the point about some sites being very non-compliant and therefore attracting large numbers of fines. Of course, we will make it clear in the guidance how local authorities should deal with those sites. We want the cameras to be in problem sites but, clearly, there will be areas where they can improve their highways layout or, indeed, their traffic signage to make people understand exactly what has happened.
To go back to my noble friend’s question about cameras, those that are used for moving traffic contraventions must be certified by the Vehicle Certification Agency. We have very specific cameras that are certified by the VCA, and we certify cameras at no charge to the LA—the department bears the cost. We have a specific fund from which we draw down. But it is local authorities that are responsible for paying for the cameras and then putting them in place, so it is up to them.
That slightly leads on to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. The guidance that we will complete will set out all sorts of things in relation to operating these regulations appropriately. I have mentioned those areas where there is lots of contravention. We have worked closely with the sector on the development of the detailed statutory guidance. We have had input from a wide range of stakeholders, including the motoring groups—the RAC and the AA have been very involved—and local government: the Local Government Association and local councils. We have also been in touch with and talked to active travel groups, including Sustrans, British Cycling and Living Streets, as well as the British Parking Association and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal. Clearly, we have to get this guidance right. We need to make sure we have the right level of enforcement and in the right places.
Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing (High-Risk Countries) (Amendment) Regulations 2022
Baroness Penn
That the Grand Committee do consider the Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing (High-Risk Countries) (Amendment) Regulations 2022.
Instrument not yet reported by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the Government recognise the threat that economic crime poses to the UK and to our international partners, and are committed to combatting money laundering and terrorist financing.
Illicit finance causes significant social and economic costs through its links to serious and organised crime. It is a threat to our national security, and it risks damaging our international reputation as a fair and open rules-based economy. It also undermines the integrity and stability of our financial sector and can reduce opportunities for legitimate businesses in the UK.
That is why we are taking significant action to combat economic crime, including legislating for the economic crime levy and the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act, and progressing the Government’s landmark economic crime plan. We are also working closely with the private sector and our international partners to improve the investigation of economic crime, strengthen international standards on corporate transparency and crack down on illicit financial flows.
The money laundering regulations support our overall efforts. As the UK’s core legislative framework for tackling money laundering and terrorist financing, they set out various measures that businesses must take to protect the UK from illicit financial flows. Under the regulations, businesses are required to conduct enhanced checks on business relationships and transactions with high-risk third countries. These are countries that are identified as having strategic deficiencies in their anti-money laundering and counterterrorism financing regimes that could pose a significant threat to the UK’s financial system.
This statutory instrument amends the money laundering regulations to update the UK’s list of high-risk third countries by adding the United Arab Emirates and removing Zimbabwe from the list. This is to mirror lists published by the Financial Action Task Force, the global standard setter for anti-money laundering and counterterrorism financing. As the Financial Action Task Force carries out its periodic reviews and regularly updates its public lists of jurisdictions with strategic deficiencies, we also need to update our own. Updating our list shows that we are responsive to the latest economic crime threats and ensures that the UK remains at the forefront of global standards on anti-money laundering and terrorist financing.
This amendment will enable the money laundering regulations to continue to work as effectively as possible to protect the UK financial system. It is crucial for protecting UK businesses and the financial system from money launderers and terrorist financiers. I therefore hope that noble Lords will join me in supporting this legislation. I beg to move.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I support these measures. My noble friend Lady Kramer has been suffering from Covid, as, regrettably, are so many colleagues. She would ordinarily have been here, and I wish her the best and a speedy recovery and return as soon as possible. I spoke to the previous set of measures involving a change to the list when the orders were brought to remove Botswana, Ghana and Mauritius, and I took the opportunity to ask the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, questions about how robust our internal systems were with regard to organised financial crime and the interaction between drug trafficking, money laundering and terrorist activities.
At the time, I also asked when we were likely to get the register of beneficial ownership. It shows how fast time flies, as he is no longer the designated Minister for financial crime and we have moved ahead in so many of these areas. We may well do, but I should be interested to know whether, after the more recent changes in government, we have a Minister with a designated portfolio who has taken over from the noble Lord on money laundering and financial crime. I know it is normal practice that these instruments and schedules are signed off by Government Whips rather than Ministers—the previous ones were too—but I should be grateful to know how that is structured in government.
However, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing these regulations. If she will tolerate me asking a number of questions, I would like to do so because these measures make changes with regards to individual countries and are also a policy change. Apparently, the Government will now automatically use an external set of decision-making for the classification of countries in the grey category by the FATF, the Financial Action Task Force. We have also been told repeatedly that we are moving away from the European Union’s approach, in which we would take the Commission’s view, so that we have the freedom to set our own approach. However, it seems as if one of our very first acts in having that new freedom is to give it away to another organisation for it to make some decisions on our behalf. I would be interested to know the rationale for that. In the Explanatory Memorandum, the Government simply say that, because we are aligned to the FATF, it makes sense for us to copy it for efficiency purposes. However, we were previously aligned to our European colleagues; I am not really sure what has changed.
One consequence of this, of course, is the change of countries. In particular, there is a difference in Zimbabwe because, as has been stated, it has been removed. I would be interested to know what the Government’s representations are, or what the position of UK Ministers is, in the FATF. I understand that it met at a ministerial level last week; I was in Washington while that was taking place. Given that there is Russian investment in Zimbabwe, particularly in mining, and given our interaction with Russia in terms of our sanctions, I am interested to know why decisions have been made with regards to Zimbabwe that may have a negative effect on our reducing the possibility of money laundering—especially when it comes to those who are investing in mineral extraction in these countries—and on trading. I would hate to think that one of the first actions of this measure was to create potential loopholes for Russia.
In that regard, there are new countries on the list. I support that but I see that, for Haiti, Mali, Malta, the Philippines, South Sudan, Turkey and the UAE, there is a difference of approach. In a previous debate on our sanctions regime, I singled out a mercenary group that is under the pay of the Kremlin: the Wagner Group. I have seen it at first hand, on a visit to Khartoum. I know that it is active in Mali, Chad and the Central African Republic, but it also operates in other countries. I am on the record as asking for the process to be started to proscribe the Wagner Group as a terrorist organisation. It would then be under the proscription legislation and would come within this legislation. With Mali being a high-risk third country, I would be interested to know how that interacts with our work in seeking to reduce the scope of the mercenary operations from Russia. I hope that there are no gaps between the way we would operate under this approach and the FATF and our sanctions legislation. The destabilising work of that group in particular needs to be stopped; the UK can play a significant role in that.
With regard to the UAE, I am interested in the lack of information I have seen from the DIT on GOV.UK to inform those operating in our 19th-largest market that this measure is now in place. I understand that there will obviously be a lag in information when legislation has been put in place, but this had been signalled a fair bit in advance. I have seen plenty of government promotional material highlighting the £10 billion UK investment partnership with the UAE sovereign wealth fund, but there is a lack of information stating that the UAE is now in an at-risk category as far as doing trade in that area is concerned.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing these latest updates to the list of high-risk countries. She will know that we fully support mirroring the list produced by the Financial Action Task Force—the FATF—so we will not oppose these regulations remaining on the statute book beyond the 28-day scrutiny period. As has been outlined, the latest iteration of the FATF list sees the removal of Zimbabwe and the addition of the United Arab Emirates.
I wonder whether the Minister can provide a little more information on the FATF’s rationale for these changes. Although Zimbabwe is no longer listed in the schedule, can she confirm whether the UK has decided to maintain any specific enhanced measures relating to that country? If she is unable to provide these updates today, can she commit to writing and placing a copy of the correspondence in the Library?
The last time this list of high-risk countries was debated, in November 2021, there was much debate around the absence of both Afghanistan and Russia. Is the Minister able to provide any update on the situation regarding Afghanistan, including any steps taken by the UK outside the FATF framework? Just because there have been other geopolitical developments in recent times, we must not forget that Afghanistan continues to undergo significant social and economic change. Much of that is unrelated to this policy framework but some of it may be. Clearly, the events in Afghanistan do not currently meet the FATF’s threshold for the country to be included on this list. However, it would be comforting to know whether and how the UK is keeping these matters under review.
Turning to Russia, the conflict in Ukraine has altered the picture significantly. In response to the actions of Vladimir Putin, the UK Government and other nations have sanctioned a variety of Russian businesses and individuals. The Labour Party has supported this and will continue to do so. Sanctions may act as a brake on Russian money-laundering operations for the time being but can the Minister confirm how such matters will be factored into the eventual winding down of sanctions? We must not return to business as usual.
We all know that the UK has a reputation as a destination for dirty Russian money. After sustained pressure to act, the Government recently brought forward a limited economic crime Bill. That legislation facilitated the creation of a register of overseas entities but it is no secret that it will take time for such a register to be operational. Once it is, it will be a useful tool, but it is no silver bullet. Can the Minister provide any update on the implementation of that register?
The Government committed to a progress report to Parliament within eight weeks of Royal Assent. We have not quite reached that date but we are only a couple of weeks short and mere days away from Prorogation. I would hope that the Treasury and others have made great strides, but have any of the enabling regulations yet been laid? Can the Minister comment on what has become known as the economic crime Bill part II, which has been promised early in the new parliamentary Session? I know that the Government normally resist pre-empting the contents of Her Majesty’s most gracious Speech. However, we know that this Bill is coming, and it is vital to get that follow-up legislation right if we are truly to crack down on the illicit acts that the FATF was established to tackle.
I appreciate that these questions go slightly beyond the contents of this particular SI but I am sure that the Minister will agree they deserve to be asked. I look forward to her reply and to the House playing a constructive role in these matters in the months ahead.
I would like to bring up one or two issues that are related not particularly to the SI but to the Explanatory Memorandum. In the past, I have found the very last part of the memorandum, labelled “Contact”, a useful device when I was having trouble understanding SIs. The contact on this occasion is Stephanie, who has a surname that I fail to be able to pronounce; I hope she will forgive me for not doing so. She is at HM Treasury and
“can be contacted with any queries regarding the instrument.”
The ability to contact a relevant civil servant has been really helpful to me in the past but, on this occasion, there is neither a contact telephone number nor an email address. I put to the Minister that this is utterly unacceptable. It has crept into Treasury Explanatory Memorandums whereas many other departments—including the Department for Transport, which we previously had here today—have maintained the standard of a telephone number and an email address. I do not expect an answer now but I would like a written response.
The problem with reading paragraph 15.1 is that one is then tempted to read paragraph 15.2, which states:
“Emily Bayley, Deputy Director for Sanctions and Illicit Finance at HM Treasury can confirm that this Explanatory Memorandum meets the required standard.”
I am sure that this has appeared before but it is the first time my eyes have got this far through an Explanatory Memorandum. I have been campaigning for years to know what the standard for Explanatory Memorandums is, particularly in terms of the requirement I believe they should have that they can be understood by people other than those seeped in the detail of the subject. Can the Minister forward to me what the required standard is?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their contributions to this debate and join the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, in wishing his colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, all the best.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, started by asking about the change in approach from the UK Government to mirror the FATF’s list for high-risk countries after leaving the EU, rather than setting out our own list. The approach that the UK has taken, to align with the FATF, was first set out in an SI in April 2021. The reason for that approach is that the FATF is the international standard-setting and monitoring body for anti-money laundering, counterterrorist financing and counterproliferation financing. It has a detailed and extensive set of standards, which countries are monitored against using a transparent and rigorous peer-review mechanism.
By aligning the UK’s approach to the FATF, the UK is in line with international standards and the identification of countries is underpinned by the FATF’s consistent technical methodology and robust assessment processes. As a result, enhanced measures are implemented in a co-ordinated manner by the international community, thereby magnifying the preventive effect. I think that this approach to international standards is welcomed by noble Lords. However, it remains open to the UK to review and amend the list according to our own assessment of risks if necessary.
The noble Lord also referred to the EU’s procedures. The EU mostly follows the FATF, with some exemptions; it does not mirror it entirely. For example, EEA countries listed by the FATF are excluded from the EU’s list. Also, changes to the EU list happen less frequently than to the UK list, meaning that it is not reflective of geographic changes in risk profiles. That was an issue repeatedly raised by regulated entities in the UK when the EU list had legal effect in the UK. None the less, we will continue to work closely with European countries and the European Union on countering shared money laundering and terrorist financing risks to ensure a co-ordinated and targeted response.
The noble Lords, Lord Purvis of Tweed and Lord Tunnicliffe, both asked further questions as to why the FATF has added the UAE and removed Zimbabwe from its list. The FATF mutual evaluation of the UAE, adopted in February 2020, found significant deficiencies in the UAE’s illicit finance regime, with 10 of 11 measures of effectiveness rated low or moderate. As a result, the FATF placed the UAE under enhanced scrutiny. At the March 2022 FATF plenary, the FATF concluded that the UAE should be added to its list of jurisdictions, with significant weaknesses in its regimes for countering illicit finance. The UAE has expressed its high-level political commitment to making further reforms in a number of areas to exit the FATF list. Zimbabwe, following its evaluation in 2016, underwent a process of enhanced monitoring, similar to that of the UAE, but has now completed its FATF action plan to address the key deficiencies that had been identified in its anti-money laundering and terrorist financing regime back in 2016. Therefore, the FATF decided to remove Zimbabwe from its list.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, asked how the Government have informed those who may be affected by the changes to the list and, in particular, by the addition of the UAE to it. Her Majesty’s Treasury engaged with the sector ahead of adding the UAE to the list and published an advisory notice ahead of the change being made. Supervisors are also in communication with the regulated sector about the update to this list.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
The Minister is being very thorough in responding, and I am grateful. Could she write to me in answer to my next question? I do not expect her to reply now. It has been helpful for her to outline the FATF’s position on the UAE, but it is worrying if 10 out of the 11 are within this area of concern. Does the UK sovereign investment partnership with the UAE include elements seeking that the UAE makes progress on the areas that have been highlighted? It is worrying if a partnership investment worth £10 billion does not have within it mechanisms to make progress on areas where we have inserted that country into a high-risk category while having financial investment relationships with that very entity. The Minister does not have to answer that now if she does not want to. I do not expect to her to answer it now, but I shall be very happy if she wishes to write to me.
Baroness Penn (Con)
What I can do now is talk about the UK’s role and influence at the FATF, which in turn works with countries on the lists that we are discussing, to improve their performance. The UK as a founding member plays a leading role through its place on the FATF’s steering group, and makes significant voluntary financial contributions to the FATF and its global network on core projects and through extensive involvement in the FATF assessment. So the UK is absolutely committed through that channel to improving countries’ performances. I shall write to the noble Lord on his specific point about the UK’s sovereign investment partnership. If he will forgive me, I will also write to him on the specific points he raised in relation to Mali and other specifics in that area.
The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, asked about an update on the situation in Afghanistan and how the UK is keeping these matters under review. The UK is absolutely keeping the evolving situation in Afghanistan under review, and we continue to work with public and private sector partners to maintain an up-to-date understanding of money laundering and terrorist financing risks in that country.
The noble Lord also asked about how the current deterrents of sanctions on money laundering from Russia will be factored into the eventual winding down of sanctions. In lockstep with our allies, we are introducing the largest and most severe economic sanctions that Russia has ever faced to help to cripple Putin’s war machine. These co-ordinated sanctions go broader, deeper and sharper in punishing the actions of Putin and the Russian Government. They are having an impact on Russia’s economy; Putin has acknowledged the problems and difficulties caused by sanctions. Current estimates are that two-thirds of the assets available to the Russian Government have been frozen, strangling access to funding for military aggression.
We are particularly starving Russia’s access to finance, with asset freezes on major banks including Russia’s largest bank and the removal of selected banks from SWIFT. We have sanctioned Russia’s largest banks with global assets worth £500 billion pre-invasion. Since the invasion, we have also sanctioned well over 1,400 high-value individuals, entities and subsidiaries. However, we are not complacent and will continue to revise and reform our response to illicit finance to ensure that, as illicit finance threats evolve, our response does too. As the noble Lord noted, we brought forward the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act and we are preparing a wider economic crime Bill at pace. This is alongside a new kleptocracy cell in the National Crime Agency to target sanctions evasion and corrupt Russian assets hidden in the UK. That means that oligarchs in London will have nowhere to hide.
As I just touched on, the noble Lord asked about the implementation of the measures in the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act, specifically on the overseas entities register. Since the legislation received Royal Assent, the Government have been working at pace to ensure the register is in place as soon as reasonably practicable. The Companies House digital designs team is making strong progress in building the register for operational readiness.
The noble Lord also asked about the planned economic crime Bill part two. We have published details of upcoming legislation, including fundamental reform of Companies House, enhanced information-sharing powers and new powers to seize crypto assets which are designed to clamp down on money laundering and illicit finance. We do not have long to wait for the Queen’s Speech at this stage, when I am sure more information will then be made available.
The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, made a final point on Explanatory Memorandums. His point is well made that we often discuss quite technical matters in this Committee, sometimes at short notice, and therefore the Explanatory Memorandums are incredibly important to noble Lords. Of course, it was not the fault of the official named that their contact details were not there, and it is for Ministers to ultimately take responsibility for the information provided to Parliament. On the noble Lord’s specific question about the standards for Explanatory Memorandums, I will undertake to write to him if he permits me to. With that, I beg to move.
House of Lords
Oaths and Affirmations
Deaths of Former Members
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, I regret to inform the House of the death of the retired Member and former president of the European Parliament, the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, on 15 April. I also regret to inform the House of the death of the noble Baroness, Lady Knight of Collingtree, on 6 April. On behalf of the House, I extend our condolences to both noble Members’ families and friends.
Vaccine Manufacturing and Innovation Centre
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Bakewell
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they still intend to sell the Vaccine Manufacturing and Innovation Centre; and if so, what progress they have made.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, VMIC is a private company and, as such, decisions regarding the future of the facility were made by the VMIC board of directors, not the Government. As Minister Freeman set out in his letter to the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, Catalent announced that it had purchased the VMIC facility on 6 April. It plans to invest £120 million and envisages providing up to 400 additional jobs, which of course further strengthens the UK’s life science ecosystem.
Baroness Bakewell (Lab)
My Lords, within days of my tabling the Question, I discovered that this jewel in the crown of our vaccine policy had been sold off to a major American pharmaceutical company for a great deal of money. The process was not made public. Can the Government assure me that taxpayers will get a benefit from the £200 million that they invested in this enterprise? What safeguards exist against the exploitation of the UK talent and workforce by a company run according to the profit-led motives of American pharmaceuticals?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I am sorry but a number of assumptions behind the noble Baroness’s question are wrong. First, this is a private company that sold off its facilities to a very successful US manufacturer that produced virtually all the Moderna vaccine, with great success. The vast majority of the vaccines that we have used and successfully deployed were also rolled out by private companies. All the employees who work there are being guaranteed their jobs, on the same terms and conditions, and indeed the facility will be expanded. She needs to rethink her questions on this.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I think that everyone across the House agrees that we were ill prepared when this pandemic arrived, and planning for future pandemics is very important. The security and investment Bill was intended to secure private facilities that might be needed to secure the future of this country. Was that legislation applied, and was this sale evaluated by the unit in the Minister’s department? If not, why not?
Lord Callanan (Con)
Of course the legislation applies, as it does to all transactions that have taken place in this country since 1 January, so we would bear any appropriate security considerations in mind in any potential call-in. I obviously cannot comment on any particular circumstances, as the noble Lord will understand, but we are happy for this transaction to proceed.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
Could the noble Lord explain whether we would be able to contain vaccines in this country from the centre in the event of us needing mass inoculation again?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The centre has not been completed —it is still under construction—so it has not produced any vaccines yet. Obviously whether it does so will be a matter for its new owners. But the Government have a wide range of emergency powers that we may need to deploy in the event of any future pandemic.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, the sale of the Vaccine Manufacturing and Innovation Centre has been described as akin to defunding fire brigades after they have extinguished a major blaze. Can the Minister tell us in detail what steps the Government have taken with the sale to ensure that this is not the case and that the UK remains well prepared for any future pandemics?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I assure the noble Baroness that this is indeed not the case. Her question is fundamentally misconstrued. The centre was originally set up a number of years ago to look at the development of vaccines for Ebola; it was a private company then and remains a private company now. It was grant-aided during the pandemic as a precautionary measure in case we needed additional facilities. All the facilities which delivered vaccines were also all delivered by private companies. I am not sure where the Opposition are going with this question. Of course, the facility remains in the UK. It will expand its production and another £120 million will be invested in the facility; it will be able to contribute to vaccine production in the future if we need it.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, if the Government do this, can the Minister guarantee, first, that if there is a need for a mass vaccination programme, we will have the ability to do it? Secondly, can he guarantee that it will be in the same cost frame as we have seen recently? When compared with the Americans, it seems a very cost-effective way of delivering things.
Lord Callanan (Con)
As I said, there are a number of other sites in the UK which also manufacture vaccines. If the Government need to procure vaccines for a future pandemic, I am sure that we will want to procure from this site, in addition to all the other sites which exist in the UK—all of which, I might add, are in private hands.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, in his response to my noble friend’s question, the Minister said that he could not give us any explanation of the process which had been followed for reasons which we would all understand. I did not understand why the Minister could not answer that question. I wonder if he could answer it now, as it seems to me that there are no reasons, in terms of commercial confidentiality, why he cannot answer that question.
Lord Callanan (Con)
The investment security unit looked at the transaction, as it does all transactions. Obviously, as the transaction has proceeded, we have decided not to intervene.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
The UK has an unfortunately long history of investing in research, developing products and then selling them and not getting the benefit of their extensive exploitation. Can the Minister say whether he thinks that there is any danger of that happening on this occasion? What efforts are the Government making to protect the research facilities which are, after all, the most remarkable thing about the way in which the vaccines were developed in the first place?
Lord Callanan (Con)
This received grant funding—as did a number of other R&D facilities. The noble Baroness makes an important point that we need to ensure that R&D funding is used to develop and benefit companies, individuals and employees in this country. This is one of a number of different vaccine manufacturing facilities and, as I said, it is not yet operational. When the additional investment goes in, I hope that it will be operational in the future. It will offer the UK another excellent, world-leading production platform for vaccines.
English Football: Independent Regulator
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ravensdale
To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they plan to introduce legislation to create an independent regulator for English football.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay) (Con)
My Lords, the Government have endorsed the principle that football requires a strong independent regulator to secure the future of our national game. I am pleased to say that we will publish the government response later today, where we will set out plans to reform radically the governance of men’s football in England, accepting the 10 strategic recommendations of the fan-led review. Any legislation required to put an independent regulator on a statutory footing is of course subject to parliamentary time.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, as a supporter of Derby County Football Club, who as a team have shown tremendous spirit again adversity in the past months, I followed the fan-led review closely. Does the Minister accept that the time to legislate for an independent regulator is now, in the forthcoming Queen’s Speech? Further delays will add to the risk that the proposals will be watered down or simply not happen. What plans do the Government have to introduce a shadow regulator before legislation takes effect, which was also one of the key recommendations in the fan-led review?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
As the noble Lord will know, the Government continue to engage closely with the English Football League about Derby County Football Club. Speaking so close to the gracious Speech, I hope that he will forgive me if I do not anticipate that, but the full government response to the fan-led review—which the Government commissioned —is published this afternoon. We have accepted all 10 of the strategic recommendations put forward by Tracey Crouch and the review. My honourable friend the Sports Minister will be setting out further detail in another place.
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, as a supporter of Aston Villa, who beat Derby County to return to Premier League three years ago, I tell the House that the Premier League has accepted the need for reform of football. Can the Government therefore reassure the House that nothing will be implemented that could damage the global success of the Premier League and, in so doing, undermine the rest of the football pyramid?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble Lord makes an important point. We want to make sure that those who generously invest in football are able to continue to do so, and to make sure that this investment flows right down the football pyramid so that it can be enjoyed by people, because football clubs are important to their local communities, as noble Lords know. We think that the owner and director test needs to be looked at, but we want to encourage investment across the whole of football.
Lord Flight (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister accept that history demonstrates the need for tough regulation? I am slightly worried about the wording here, which refers to creating an “independent regulator”. We need something stronger.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, the independence of the regulator is an important aspect of its work. The Government see the two key problems in English football as the significant risk of financial failure and the risk of harm to the cultural heritage of clubs. That is why we agree with the recommendations of the fan-led review and are setting out our details in another place.
Lord Woodley (Lab)
My Lords, today’s announcement on football governance is of course a very welcome step forward. Fans, when you talk to us all, are demanding more than just consultation about club colours and stadiums. It is the day-to-day running and ownership of clubs that makes a difference to fans’ real involvement, as with their counterparts in Germany, for example. Therefore, can the Minister give assurance that this first step is not the last, and that fans will at long last have real input and a say in the running of their clubs in their communities? As already mentioned, can he explain why we need a White Paper or another consultation when Tracey Crouch has already consulted so widely? The last thing that football needs is more dilly-dallying and delays on this really important matter for fans and clubs.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble Lord is right that the voices of fans need to be heard clearly. That is why this was a fan-led review and why we are grateful for all those who participated and gave their thoughts. The issues highlighted in the review are, in some areas, complex and the reforms need careful analysis to make sure that we get them right and safeguard the sustainable long-term future of the sector. My honourable friend the Sport Minister will set out further detail in another place.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that all professional sport has had problems? Community-based clubs representing us nationally in both forms of rugby, for example, have come under pressure and indeed collapsed or had to be reconstituted. Will the Government use this example as a way of making sure that all sports are better regulated? If they become successful, they become community assets, and all deserve to be looked after.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble Lord makes an important point. There are lessons to be learned for other sports from the work that is being done here. The fan-led review had its origins in some of the challenges facing a number of football clubs, which is why the Government set it up. We are grateful to Tracey Crouch and to everyone for their thoughts. This review does have a wider application.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for this government initiative. It is overdue. Will Ministers talk to people in Europe and around the world? Given the problems we have seen in recent years, the same regulation is needed for both the European and international game.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The focus of the fan-led review is on men’s football in England. This is where the Government’s response, which is being set out today, is focused. There is work to be done internationally. We are discussing this with the international bodies, as well as with those at home.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord’s ministerial colleagues will have heard the strength of feeling in this House about the need to legislate quickly and to include something in the Queen’s Speech. I understand that the Minister cannot give an answer now. I accept the very welcome commitment in the response published today, but what assurance can the Minister give that the excellent report by Tracey Crouch does not suffer the same fate as that of the Football Task Force, on which I served more than 20 years ago? Those recommendations were kicked into touch, in effect, by the Football Association and the Premier League. I urge the Minister not to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Austin. He certainly does not speak for fans on this matter; nor does he reflect the feeling in this House.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble Lord knows Tracey Crouch, the former Sport Minister, as well as I do. She has worked extremely hard in leading the review and is the greatest evidence that it will be followed through. She will see that action is taken. We are glad to accept all 10 strategic recommendations in her report.
Lord Trefgarne (Con)
My Lords, will the activities of the regulator be confined to football or might other sports be included; for example, cricket?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, at the end of March it was reported that DCMS had hired a New York consultancy firm, Oliver Wyman, to design the future independent regulator of English football. The department confirmed that but did not offer any further comment at the time. Can the Minister update your Lordships’ House on this contract today? Can he provide further information about, for example, the length of the contract, the terms of reference and its estimated value?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I cannot give the noble Baroness all these details, not least because my honourable friend the Sport Minister is setting out further detail in another place. I shall be glad to write to the noble Baroness to follow up on all these points.
Lord Jones (Lab)
My Lords, the running of the football league includes Welsh clubs. Under the new auspices, what do the Government intend regarding, for example, Swansea, Cardiff, Wrexham and Newport? In this sense the English football league is also the Welsh football league. Lastly, will the Minister use his considerable influence to persuade the Lords spiritual to pray hard for my own team, Everton FC? It is in trouble and may go down to a hotter place.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I cannot speak for the Lords spiritual, but I know that their prayers will be ecumenically directed. The noble Lord makes an important point. As with the application of the review to other sports, there are lessons to be learned for football internationally and elsewhere in the United Kingdom. We are discussing this with individual teams and with sports bodies.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that one of the problems with the Football League is that it never seems to have enough resources to conduct a proper fitness test on prospective owners and directors of football clubs? I realise that the Statement is yet to come. Is this issue being taken seriously enough to ensure that the regulator will have sufficient resources to do an effective job?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
As I said, the current tests for owners and directors do not go far enough in assessing the suitability for ownership of clubs. My honourable friend will set out more detail, following the recommendations made in Tracey Crouch’s fan-led review. I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me if I do not anticipate what he will say.
Humanist Marriages
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Burt of Solihull
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Statement by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice on 15 March (HCWS682) and the Written Answer on 24 March (142529), why they have legislated to permit religious and civil marriage ceremonies to take place outdoors, but not similarly legislated for humanist marriages.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Stewart of Dirleton) (Con)
My Lords, legislating to allow outdoor civil weddings on existing approved premises was a long-standing commitment, accelerated to respond to the highly exceptional circumstances created by the Covid-19 pandemic. Following public consultation, this was made permanent in April. Humanists seek fundamental changes to marriage law, which requires more detailed consideration. The Law Commission is reviewing the matter and is due to report in July. The Government are awaiting the results of that consultation before deciding how to proceed.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, it is very important to humanists that they marry in a place that is meaningful to them. Not only can Quakers, Jews, Church of England and Church of Wales couples have their own religious celebrant, they can marry wherever they want. In 2020 the High Court ruled that when the Law Commission has reported, the Government must carry out the High Court ruling to legally recognise humanist marriage. Can the Minister confirm that when the Government implement this ruling, humanists will join the groups able to marry in a location of their choice?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, at present in England and Wales, other groups—faith groups or secular people—cannot marry where they want: it is a matter of the venue, as opposed to the celebrant, and that, at present, restricts choice in that area. To establish where we go from here, we will, as I say, await the report of the Law Commission.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, the judge in the High Court also ruled that
“the present law gives rise to … discrimination.”
For how much longer are the Government prepared to allow this apparent breach of the law without any guarantee that it will be resolved?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, the High Court in its decision found that the Government were entitled to proceed by way of clarifying the law as it relates to all bodies, religious, secular or otherwise; albeit that there was a measure of discrimination against humanists, the Government’s course was appropriate.
Lord Pickles (Con)
My Lords, obviously we anticipate the advice of the Law Commission, but ultimately this is going to be a political decision made by the Government. Given the importance of humanism, in terms of both western civilisation and the British character, it would make enormous sense to end this rather silly discrimination and give humanists the right to get married in a ceremony and location of their choice.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, I repeat the answer I gave to the previous question.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 made provision for the Government to introduce legal recognition of humanist marriages by statutory instrument—as Quakers and Jews already have, in fact, despite the Minister’s earlier answer. Later this year, I understand, the Government are likely to give legal recognition to outdoor religious marriages by changing primary legislation, a vastly more complex process. Will the Minister please meet me to discuss how this very simple objective can be achieved for humanist marriages without further delay, there already being nine years since the primary legislation was passed?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, I am perfectly happy to arrange that someone from the relevant department should meet the noble Baroness—as, indeed, my colleague in the other place, Tom Pursglove MP, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice, has met representatives from Humanists UK, and Crispin Blunt MP. That took place on 24 March.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, the Liberal Democrats clearly support this change; the Labour Party supports this change; the Government in Wales support this change; the Government in Scotland support this change; and, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, it is ultimately going to be a political decision, so why are the Government waiting for the Law Commission’s report?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
Because, my Lords, the question of marriage is a complex one and the Government do not wish to act prematurely where to do so may be to the prejudice of one group at the expense of others.
Baroness Featherstone
My Lords, will the Government give an estimate of the timescale for reform after the Law Commission has reported favourably?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, that would again be premature until we see what the Law Commission recommends.
Lord Desai (Non-Afl)
My Lords, what is it about the humanists that obstructs the Government from doing them justice? Scotland allows it; Northern Ireland allows it; the Channel Islands allow it. What is it about the humanists that means they are discriminated against in England and Wales? It is because they are not Christians?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, precisely not. The situation is that in Scotland the rules of marriage are, as I said in an answer to another question, based on the identity of the celebrant. In England and Wales, they are based on the venue where the wedding ceremony is to take place. That is a complex matter that will take time to unpick; it is not a matter of prejudice against one group—and specifically not a matter of their not being Christians.
Baroness Blackstone (Ind Lab)
My Lords, nothing the Minister has said so far explains why humanists should be denied the right to a legal marriage while other religious groups have that right. Please could he explain to the House why that is the case?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, humanists advance a position as a belief system, as opposed to the simple negation of religious faith. We are advised that establishing a further category of wedding based on a belief system would be a profound change to the laws that bear on weddings. As a result, we are obliged to wait until the Law Commission has reported.
Lord Cashman (Lab)
My Lords, I refer to my registered interests and ask the Minister a simple question: does he believe that the lack of legally recognised humanist marriages is unfair and discriminatory? If he does not agree that it is unfair and discriminatory, why not?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, if the question is directed to the department that I represent from the Dispatch Box today, there is no question of consideration of a belief that any such discrimination is unfair. If it is directed to me, I decline to answer.
On the former point, as I said in answer to previous questions, there is an outstanding Law Commission report. There is a High Court decision which considered that the Government were correct and acting appropriately in awaiting the position from which a more fundamental reform could be properly considered.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, I feel for the Minister: he is struggling and I think he would just like to be able to say yes. The Minister is talking about a profound change. It is not a profound change for those of us with different beliefs who take marriage very seriously and want to be able to have our humanist views expressed. This is not profound; this is a human right. How about—just as with Covid, when outdoor marriages were allowed on an interim basis—we do this on an interim basis and then we can sort out the details after the Law Commission reports?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, the Government consulted in 2014 on making provision for non-religious belief marriages, including a choice of location, using an order-making power. The consultation concluded that the matter raised a number of complex issues, including that by allowing humanists to solemnise marriages in unrestricted locations, the Government would create a provision for humanists that would not be available to all groups. Therefore, it was necessary to consider carefully the legal and technical requirements of marriage ceremonies before or at the same time as making a decision on whether to take forward the specific proposal to permit non-religious belief marriages. The loosening of restrictions on marriages taking place outdoors applied to venues within the existing provisions. Applying this to a humanist belief system could not be done within the existing framework; it would require innovation, which cannot be made.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I speak as a Christian, but my noble and learned friend seems to be making a proverbial mountain out of a molehill here. Surely, if two people wish to commit themselves for life to each other and do not have religious beliefs, they ought to have the opportunity to do so in a solemn and seemly way.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, they do. My noble friend refers to the conduct of marriage in a solemn and seemly way. That is, of course, available outdoors, whether in a religious or civil setting. What is called for by reforming the law towards humanist weddings is a profound difference from that. Civil or religious marriages conducted indoors or outdoors can be as seemly as my noble friend wishes.
Malaria
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sugg
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to tackle malaria globally; and what assessment they have made of the findings of the World Health Organization’s World Malaria Report 2021, published on 6 December 2021, in particular that after years of steady progress towards elimination, malaria cases and deaths are rising.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and, in doing so, declare my interest as chair of the charity Malaria No More UK.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, first, I acknowledge and congratulate my noble friend on assuming the role of chair of Malaria No More UK, a charity we worked very closely with in the run-up to CHOGM in 2018. Turning to the specifics of the Question, the World Health Organization’s 2021 World Malaria Report notes that the Covid-19 pandemic contributed to an estimated 6% increase in malaria cases and a 12% increase in malaria deaths in 2020. The UK remains a very strong supporter of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, providing £4.1 billion to date. We also invest in research to help people to access new malaria treatments and diagnostics and support countries to strengthen their health systems.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, today is World Malaria Day. It is possible to end malaria within this generation, but we need continued UK leadership to do so, so I thank my noble friend the Minister for that Answer. My noble friend mentioned the Global Fund; does he agree that it is one of the most effective and best value for money investments we can make with UK aid? This year will see the Global Fund replenishment. Can my noble friend give me any reassurance that the UK will make an ambitious pledge, as the United States has just done, to help get progress back on track?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, as I have said, the United Kingdom has invested £4.1 billion in the Global Fund to date and during the last replenishment. My noble friend is correct: the Global Fund’s investment case for the seventh replenishment has been presented to the Government. We are looking at this and reviewing our support in line with our published approaches to health systems and our commitment to strengthen work to end preventable deaths. We will announce our commitment in the near future.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, may I put the question in another way? In the last replenishment of the Global Fund, we were the third biggest contributor. We have been its founder and strongest supporter, and what we need now is an early and strong pledge to show leadership. Will the Minister confirm that “global Britain”—as the Government put it—will keep its leadership position in support of the Global Fund?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord mentioned our commitment and our support and leadership. Whether we are second or third, depending on which criteria are used, we remain very much committed to the Global Fund. As I said, I cannot pre-empt the announcement that we will make about the current replenishment because that decision is being finalised, but I can reassure the noble Lord and your Lordships’ House that we remain very much committed to fighting malaria and to the Global Fund.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I was in Washington last week, and I met the US representative and board member of the Global Fund. She stressed to me very clearly that the Biden Administration’s earmark of $6 billion is part of the American approach of matching up to 30% as a percentage cap of the remainder of the contributions. So, if the UK cuts its support for the Global Fund, that will automatically cut American support, which would be devastating and a tragedy. The Americans have earmarked the funds—why can the British Government not state that they will not cut support for this crucial fund? It is over a number of years and the Government say they want to return to 0.7%, so why do they not make that announcement now?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I appreciate that the noble Lord is tempting me to make a specific commitment, but as I said already, I cannot give a commitment in terms of the actual amount. I can again reassure the noble Lord that we are committed to the fund. I agree, as my noble friend has illustrated and the noble Lord knows well himself, on the real impact the Global Fund has had in tackling malaria. Regrettably and tragically, the Covid-19 pandemic has seen a rise in cases—though not to pre-pandemic levels. Frankly, there has been a real challenge, particularly looking at young children and pregnant mothers, with the rise of cases of malaria, and these are preventable deaths. That is why we remain committed to fighting malaria.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, I draw attention to my interests in the register. The Minister is quite right to point out what has gone backwards during Covid in terms of malaria, but today there have been extremely promising results from the Jenner Institute in terms of the new R21 vaccine. Does the Minister agree with me that our investment in science is equally important and bore huge results in terms of Covid? Will the investment case for the Global Fund look at the possibilities of reversing that decline in progress through the new vaccine?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, again, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness’s work on this issue, but I share her commitment on the importance of the vaccine. She will be aware of recent trials that have taken place, including the World Health Organization’s approval of specific vaccines in key pilot countries. We are looking at that very closely. She is also right to point out the R21 vaccine being developed by the Jenner Institute in Oxford. As part of our focus on vaccines, I am also pleased that it now has an association with the Serum Institute to look at upscaling manufacturing of that vaccine once it has been tested. We are looking at working very closely with both those institutes.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, malaria deaths have risen year on year to the highest level in nearly a decade: 627,000 lives were lost to malaria in 2020. Could the Minister ensure that funding to the overseas aid budget is restored to 0.7% of GNI and that there is a successful seventh replenishment of the Global Fund? Could he indicate today when that announcement about the seventh replenishment will be made?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
The noble Baroness is right to make the point about the increases in deaths from malaria. We did see a real reduction from the estimated 896,000 to around 560,000 in 2015, but we have seen a rise in cases under Covid, so I accept that point. As I said earlier, I cannot give a commitment on the amount, but it will be during the course of this year, as we look to the deadline of the seventh replenishment, to ensure we make a sizeable contribution that reflects our continuing commitment to fighting malaria around the world.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, is it not imperative that, at this year’s summit, Commonwealth countries renew the commitment that they gave in 2018 to reduce malaria by half?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, as the Minister of State for the Commonwealth, I am working closely with our colleagues in Rwanda. Certainly, the United Kingdom was and is the biggest Commonwealth donor in fighting malaria, and we will be working closely with Rwanda to ensure this remains on the agenda for CHOGM in June.
Lord Turnberg (Lab)
My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord saw the encouraging report by Adrian Hill in the Times today about the vaccine trials. One of the things he said was that if the vaccine trial is successful, as it seems to be, it will cost a mere $3 per person to vaccinate the African population. That would require $600 million per year. Is the Minister aware of the cost of this scheme? Are the Government going to come forward with a response?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord is of course right to point out the impact of malaria, particularly on Africa. Indeed, when you look at the statistics, they are very stark: 95% of cases and 96% of deaths from malaria are on the African continent. I have not read the specific article, but I am aware of the support and the issue of having effective costs. I think the real progress will be made through the World Health Organization and ensuring that vaccines are made available to all those who need them at a cost which is acceptable, reasonable and sensible for those who require them.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, in October 2021, the WHO recommended the first malaria vaccine for children living in areas of high to moderate risk of malaria. The demand for the RTS,S malaria vaccine is estimated to be far greater than supply over the next few years. What is the FCDO doing to speed up equitable access to the vaccine?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
The specific vaccine that the noble Baroness refers to, the RTS,S malaria vaccine, is one of those which has just gone through the World Health Organization’s approval process. This was based on trials in three countries, I believe: Ghana, Kenya and Malawi. Some 800,000 children received that vaccine. The conclusions of that—this is why it is important to continue research on the vaccines, which we are certainly committed to—is that the vaccine supply is limited and there are costs, as was pointed out just now by the noble Lord, to ensuring equitable access. The noble Baroness is right to point this out and, as I said earlier, we will work with the World Health Organization on equitable and fair access to the vaccines once they are scaled up. We should be encouraged that the Covid experience, through partnerships such as those with the Serum Institute, lends itself to a proper scaling up of the vaccines once those initial trials have been proven.
UK-Rwanda Asylum Partnership Arrangement
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
To ask Her Majesty’s Government why the UK-Rwanda asylum partnership arrangement was concluded by a Memorandum of Understanding and was not therefore subject to parliamentary scrutiny requirements under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, the UK has entered into a memorandum of understanding with Rwanda, which has now been published on GOV.UK, for the provision of an asylum partnership arrangement and to address the shared challenge of illegal migration. The duty to lay before Parliament under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 applies only to treaties. However, the safety, security and dignity of and respect for those relocated is assured through the agreement and will be subject to monitoring. We comply fully with our legal and international obligations.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
The agreement will not be a treaty and it will not be enforceable. Given that the deal would end the Government’s legal obligation to certain refugee claimants and therefore reduce their rights, surely such a significant international agreement should be disclosed, debated and agreed by Parliament. Why have the Government tried to slip this agreement out as a memorandum of understanding, hindering Parliament’s ability to scrutinise it adequately? Does the Minister accept that important MoUs such as this with Rwanda that affect human rights should be routinely disclosed and debated by Parliament under the terms of the Ponsonby rule?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, as your Lordships’ House does, there will be ample opportunity to discuss the aspects of this agreement. It complies with our international and other obligations. There will be ongoing monitoring of the agreement, and there is nothing in the United Nations refugee convention that prevents this happening.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
Does my noble friend confirm that, in the face of legal challenge, the Government have withdrawn their turnabout policies? Does this not suggest that the legal advice from the Home Office that the Rwanda policy accords with our international obligations should be treated with a degree of caution?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, this provision has been in place since 1999. I do not know if it has been challenged before, but it is certainly a long-standing provision that we think meets our international obligations.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, the Government have clauses in the Nationality and Borders Bill to enable offshoring, which this House continues to oppose. If this legislation is necessary, why have the Government signed a memorandum with Rwanda before Parliament has approved it? If it is not necessary, why did the Government put it in the Bill in the first place?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I think I have explained the provisions in the Bill. They are underpinned by legislation going back over 20 years but, as I explained to the House during the passage of the Bill, it is the certification process that is now in play in the Bill.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
If, as they say, the Government see the need for new and innovative means of dealing with the migration crisis now, did they have any contact with any of the other signatories to the refugee convention about these new and innovative methods before taking action on their own?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I think it is quite clear why we are taking action now.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
No, absolutely not. This Bill has been going through both Houses of Parliament for some time. I am sure that noble Lords have observed that people are dying at sea because of the actions of criminals facilitating journeys to the UK.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, are the Government accountable to Parliament or not? If they are, why should an issue as important as this, the deporting of asylum seekers to a third country, not be subject to an affirmative vote in each House of Parliament?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I do not believe that MoUs are subject to a vote in both Houses of Parliament.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I am just going on what has been the convention over many years. Usually, the CRaG Act process that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, talked about is for treaties.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, first, why an MoU and not a treaty? I did not hear the answer to that. Secondly, why do the Government seek public interest immunity to protect the secrecy of the pushbacks policy and the fact that the policy could never have been used against asylum seekers? Finally, we hear from parts of the press that the Home Secretary thinks that criticism of the Rwandan deal is xenophobic. Therefore, can the Minister comment on the US State Department’s report on Rwanda of just last year? It reported significant human rights issues, including credible reports of unlawful or arbitrary killings by the Government, forced disappearance by the Government, torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment by the Government, and 10 other violations of that magnitude.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I acknowledge the US country report last year on Rwanda. Our own country policy and information team carried out an assessment on safety in Rwanda before we entered an agreement. That report is expected to be completed in the near future. I cannot remember the other questions that the noble Baroness asked because it was quite a long question.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, Section 25 of the CRaG Act defines the meaning of “treaty” and says that it is a “written agreement … between States”, as long as it is “binding under international law”. Given that the Minister has said that this is a written agreement between states, is she suggesting that the agreement with Rwanda is not binding in international law?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, it is an agreement which both parties have agreed to be bound by. I will leave it to greater heads to unpick the meaning of that.
I have now remembered one of the questions asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, which was, “why not a treaty?” I do not know why, but it seems that it was appropriate to have an MoU. I am very happy to write to noble Lords with further detail on that. I hope that they will appreciate that I have not had much notice of this Question and am not going to be blag my way through it; I will write to the noble Baroness.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford
My Lords, Amnesty International’s latest annual report sets out that, in Rwanda:
“Violations of the rights to a fair trial, freedom of expression and privacy continued, alongside enforced disappearances, allegations of torture and excessive use of force.”
This came following the UK Government’s own concerns, raised in July 2021 at the UN Human Rights Council. In the context of these human rights concerns in respect of Rwanda, it is deeply worrying that the UK Government have now decided that it is a safe third country to which they can offshore asylum seekers. Can the Minister please set out how these conflicting descriptions of Rwanda’s human rights situation have been reconciled?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
Obviously, Rwanda has come on a very upward, positive trajectory since the genocide way back when. It is one of the fastest-growing economies in the world; it has a great equality record at the moment—certainly in its parliament —and it houses 130,000 asylum seekers. It also engages with both the EU and the UNHCR in placing asylum seekers.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, is not the real reason that the Minister is facing such anger in this Chamber today that, as everyone knows, the Government did it as a memorandum of understanding—not as a treaty—because they knew that the Rwanda deal would be extremely controversial, and that it would be raised by a number of noble Lords across this Chamber? It is of such significance that it should have been fully debated and discussed in both Chambers. Has it not come to something when a former Conservative Prime Minister stands up and says that this policy would have been found wanting on the grounds of legality, practicality, and efficacy? If the Minister will not listen to noble Lords in here, will she listen to the former Prime Minister? That is why people are so angry: there is a need for proper discussion and not for the Government to find some way of by-passing the process to slip through controversial policies.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I do not think that anyone would accuse me of trying to stifle debate or of not trying to answer noble Lords’ questions. I do try to answer them and, if I cannot, I will get back to them. As I said earlier, we are abiding by our international obligations. The EU and the UNHCR work with Rwanda to relocate refugees there.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, further to the question of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, I do not think that my noble friend has responded to that point. A memorandum of understanding can be defined as a treaty under CRaG if it is a written agreement between states and it is binding in international law. Why does the Minister not say that the Government will lay this memorandum of understanding before Parliament under CRaG?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I think I said to the noble Earl that I would clarify the point.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
Will the Minister comment on another possible reason, in addition to the one advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for this not being a treaty? If it were a treaty, it would have to be registered at the United Nations, and there might be some embarrassment in seeking to register a memorandum of understanding governing an arrangement that is clearly totally inconsistent with the refugee convention, for which the United Nations is responsible. Can the Minister tell us in addition, since the agreement says that it is not justiciable in international law, how is it to be justiciable?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I am sure that people will find ways and means of doing that should they be motivated to do so. I go back to the point about both the EU and UNHCR engaging with Rwanda on the relocation of asylum seekers and refugees.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister said that there would be ample opportunity to debate this issue. We do not have any ample opportunity; what assurance can we have? There are so many questions of detail to which we do not know the answer. It is just a con trick by the Government, and they should come clean on the details before they remove a single person to Rwanda.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I am not trying to con anyone. The beauty of your Lordships’ House is that it is self-governing. Debates can be brought to your Lordships’ House for full discussion.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)
My Lords, as we are struggling to defend democracy and democratic decisions, is it not totally opposed to that to try to sneak through an agreement without it being discussed and decided on in this Parliament? Why are the Government so adamant and reluctant to put such matters to a vote of Parliament?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, the Prime Minister announced it last week; I do not think that there was an attempt to sneak anything through. The Home Secretary stood in the House of Commons last week and made a Statement about it.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend knows that this is a very controversial area of the Nationality and Borders Bill. I have moved amendments to the Bill, and we have had long debates on this subject. Another Minister indicated that no further legislation would be required to proceed with these arrangements. Can my noble friend confirm that that is the case? Is she saying that the Nationality and Borders Bill is required, or is it the Government’s position that no legislation is required?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My noble friend is right on two counts. First, the provision is in long-standing legislation dating from 1999, 2002 and 2004. Under the Bill, the certification process would not be needed, so essentially the policy could proceed with or without the legislation.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, the Minister has said that some people will find ways and means to make this agreement justiciable. Under our dual system in our constitution, any agreement made by government has to be underpinned by domestic legislation. If this is to be a binding agreement, as the Minister said at the Dispatch Box, it will require ratification by Parliament. How will this agreement be ratified?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
It is a memorandum of understanding, as opposed to a treaty, which has been the subject of debate today.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Arrangement of Business
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, I would like to update the House on the arrangements for consideration of Commons amendments to Bills tomorrow. We have already announced consideration of Commons amendments to the Nationality and Borders Bill and the Building Safety Bill. It is also expected that the Commons will send back a message this evening on the Health and Care Bill and the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. We will also consider amendments to those Bills tomorrow. The deadline for noble Lords to table amendments relating to those Bills will be noon tomorrow. Peers can speak to the Public Bill Office for further advice. I will continue to make announcements on the approach to further consideration of Commons amendments throughout the week.
I also take the opportunity to remind the House that there will be a rehearsal of the new pass-reader voting system at 12.30 pm tomorrow. It will start in the Chamber, and it would help if as many Members as possible could attend in order to provide a robust and realistic test of how the new system will work.
Cultural Objects (Protection from Seizure) Bill
Monday 25th April 2022
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Cultural Objects (Protection from Seizure) Act 2022 View all Cultural Objects (Protection from Seizure) Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 28 January 2022 - (28 Jan 2022)
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, I will keep my remarks extremely brief. The Cultural Objects (Protection from Seizure) Bill amends Part 6 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, which provides immunity from seizure for cultural objects on loan from abroad in temporary exhibitions in public museums and galleries in the UK. Cultural objects on loan from abroad featuring in exhibitions held in UK museums and galleries approved under the Act are at the moment protected from a court order seizure for a period of 12 months from the time when the object comes into the UK.
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport is responsible for approving these institutions in England, which can come under this regime, and the devolved Administrations have similar powers in other parts of the UK. To gain approval under the Act, the institutions must demonstrate that their procedures for establishing the provenance and ownership of objects are of a high standard.
When this Act was passed, 12 months was considered to be a very adequate period for objects to arrive in the UK and to be returned. During the Bill’s Second Reading, I mentioned that unforeseen travel delays can now result in works not being returned on time, and that risks undermining the confidence of foreign lenders to lend their art treasures to the UK.
The measures in the Bill would allow the current period, therefore, to be extended beyond 12 months at the discretion of the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, or indeed Scottish Ministers when it comes to Scotland. That will ensure that this protection remains fit for purpose. The new power to extend would only apply following an application from the approved museum or gallery. Extensions would be granted for a further three months initially, with a possibility of a further extension if considered necessary.
I am pleased to inform noble Lords that guidance for approved museums and galleries on how they can submit an application for extension has now been published in draft by the department, so the process and the guidance to support it are now ready to go.
I am delighted that the Bill has received such strong support, and I thank everyone who has contributed, including the Member for Central Devon, Mel Stride, for his work steering the Bill through, and the civil servants in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. As the department’s Secretary of State pointed out in the newspapers only today, they are knocking it out of the park in DCMS—whether they are present at their desks or not. Finally, I thank my favourite cultural object, who is, of course, our wonderful Minister, my noble friend Lord Parkinson. I am delighted that, after his successful visit to the Venice Biennale, he was protected from seizure and has returned to our shores to give the Bill the final seal of approval.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay) (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend not just for bringing forward this Bill but for his kind words. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Sonia Boyce, who represented the United Kingdom at the UK Pavilion at the Venice Biennale, as well as Emma Ridgway, the curator, and everyone at the British Council who commissioned her work, which I am very pleased to report won the coveted Golden Lion for the first time since 1993. It is a tremendous achievement and everyone in the UK is very proud of them all.
I am pleased to reiterate the support of Her Majesty’s Government for this Bill. It is short and straightforward but will be of great benefit to the many approved museums and galleries in England and Scotland that rely on immunity from seizure protection when they borrow cultural objects from abroad. It will add an appropriate layer of flexibility to the existing legislation covering immunity from seizure. Currently, as my noble friend says, the maximum length of time an object can be protected from seizure while on loan is 12 months. As we learn and move on from the unprecedented challenges that museums and galleries have faced over the past two years in particular, the Bill rightly recognises that unpredictable delays do sometimes happen and that it may not always be possible for objects to be returned within that existing timeframe. The ability to extend the protection afforded to cultural objects is a sensible option to have. I am very grateful to my noble friend for presenting these helpful measures and for all his work in guiding the Bill through your Lordships’ House, to all noble Lords who have supported it, from all corners of the House, and, as my noble friend says, to the DCMS officials who have supported it.
As my noble friend says, the guidance for approved museums and galleries on how and when to apply for an extended period of protection has now been published in draft. The policy is therefore ready to be put into effect, subject to Royal Assent being granted. I am grateful to all those who helped the Bill speed on its way to the statute book.
Motor Vehicles (Compulsory Insurance) Bill
Monday 25th April 2022
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Motor Vehicles (Compulsory Insurance) Act 2022 View all Motor Vehicles (Compulsory Insurance) Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: HL Bill 104-I Notice for Committee - (4 Apr 2022)
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Motor Vehicles (Compulsory Insurance) Bill, has consented to place her interest, so far as it is affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Motion
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass, and that is probably quite enough from me.
Elections Bill
Monday 25th April 2022
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Elections Act 2022 View all Elections Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 141-II Second marshalled list for Report - (21 Apr 2022)
16:52 - Division on Amendment 45 - Ayes: 265 / Noes: 199 - Amendment 45 agreed.
19:17 - Division on Amendment 63 - Ayes: 194 / Noes: 220 - Amendment 63 disagreed.
20:00 - Division on Amendment 69A - Ayes: 169 / Noes: 209 - Amendment 69A disagreed.
Lord Judge
Lord Judge (CB)
My Lords—oh dear, I am sorry your Lordships are all departing. Maybe the Conservatives who are departing do not want to hear what I have to say.
Lord Judge (CB)
It is a very strange thing but, quite by accident—I promise it is by accident—I happen to have my copy of the Bill open at a part I have not really studied, called “Undue Influence”. Suddenly I find myself thinking, “What a very good thing to prevent that happening in this Bill.”
I have addressed your Lordships on a number of occasions about the Bill, particularly these clauses, including Clause 15, which we are discussing now. Noble Lords have listened with patience and courtesy and I have listened to the Minister with great patience. I regret that I am unconvinced by what he has said in the House so I intend to seek the opinion of the House at the end of this debate, but I intend to be brief.
I really do not think that anyone in your Lordships’ House can have the slightest doubt about the constitutional imperative that the Electoral Commission should be politically independent—independent of all political influence, whether direct or indirect, over the electoral process. If anyone disagrees with that, would they please say so? Any possibility that the party in government may have influence over the electoral process should be rejected.
Clauses 15 and 16 are repugnant to that foundational principle. They require the commission to have regard, at the very lowest, to pay close attention to the strategy and policy principles, and to follow the guidance, of the Government of the day. The importance of this feature of the language, which is tucked away but needs emphasis, is that the Electoral Commission will exercise its responsibilities in relation to the strategy and policy statement to enable Her Majesty’s Government to meet those priorities. If we rephrase that, it says that the Electoral Commission must enable the strategic and policy priorities of the Government to be met. That does not sound like independence. These are directive provisions. The word “duty” is used, imposing unequivocal statutory obligations on the commission that will govern—or, if not govern, will certainly influence —its own performance of its responsibility, and perhaps, dare I say it, is meant to influence it.
The commission, which everyone agrees—so far, at any rate—should be independent of government, is to be subject to a statutory duty to enable the Government to achieve their priorities: that is to say, their priorities, strategies and guidance to the extent that they relate to the electoral system. That is what the Bill says. This proposal came out of the blue without reference, consultation or, astonishingly—to me, at any rate, as someone who does not have a political background—for a proposal that has a constitutional impact, without cross-party discussion of any kind.
There is a problem with the Electoral Commission, as I have heard from all sides: it does not work as well as it should; it is inefficient; it does not do this, it does do this and it was wrong to do that. I have heard them all. Fine, but this proposal is not an answer to that problem. I simply ask us all to think: if this proposal had been included in the original Bill in 2000, outrage would have been expressed on all sides of the House of Commons. That is the problem.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, I support the noble and learned Lord in his amendments, to which I have added my name. We have a cross-party understanding, I believe, that, whatever their intentions, the Government have got this wrong. When the House has the kind of unanimity that it has in relation to the Electoral Commission’s powers and the strategy and policy statement process, it is incumbent on any Government to listen and to learn.
The noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, in his dignified and honourable resignation from the Front Bench—I believe we unanimously regret that he felt he needed to resign—said in his resignation letter that we have to take into account how others see us.
The noble and learned Lord referred to the legislation in 2000. I was a Member of the Cabinet at the time. We had a majority of 179. We could have pushed anything through, but the outrage which would have emerged universally across our media, as well as from the Benches opposite, would have driven us back inevitably to a situation where we would have had to think again. I ask the Government, with less than half that majority, to think again. It is not what might be intended, it is how that intention might be perceived—as well as the real outcome. There is the potential for a Trojan horse to lead us down a path which could be regretted at length as part of our constitution. Crucially, this will be seen from outside the country in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, perceived in relation to the rule of law.
Gideon Rachman from the Financial Times has written a book called The Age of The Strongman. In it, like many others who have written on this subject, he poses the real and present challenge of the international democratic process being undermined by the clash between the strong autocratic leadership of those outside the democratic fold; those within the purview of the democratic fold who are leading their nations into autocracy and the diktat of the centre; and the participative democratic world, which involves people being listened to, not just in parliaments but across the nations, and taken notice of.
I am afraid to say that the clauses with which we are dealing this afternoon are a measure of a Government who have not understood that they should be on the side of the participative democratic processes which defend us against the creeping autocracy we see internationally at the moment. It is as serious as that. The Electoral Commission and the electorate as a whole, who were polled over the weekend, have demonstrated their concern. Most people will not understand the detail of the Electoral Commission—why would they? However, they do understand when a Government start to believe that their party and their place in government are one and the same thing—they are not.
I tried to put this across in recent legislation in other areas of public policy. The Government govern for the nation as a whole; they do not govern for a particular political party. Of course, they will want to implement their manifesto and the mandate they have been given by the electorate. By the way, there is no mandate at all on this; there is no suggestion, as there has been in other parts of the Bill, that the Government had indicated, in their manifesto and during the election, that they wished to deal with the Electoral Commission in this way. There have been suggestions from one or two Members of this House at Second Reading and at Committee that somehow the Electoral Commission attracted the notice of the Government—or the Conservative Party, I should say—in terms of what happened in the 2016 referendum. This was backed up by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox; I was sat next to her at the time, and it was a rather half-hearted effort to defend the Government on this particular set of clauses.
There is no argument for it; there is no problem, as the noble and learned Lord explained. What we have is a solution in pursuit of a problem which does not really exist. Fundamentally, we have a vision and message going out from this legislation that will be rued by us all if we do not get this right. I have a very simple appeal to the Government: take these amendments and accept them when they go back to the Commons tomorrow; withdraw the proposal because it does not have support anywhere in this House, in the other House, other than the three-line Whip, or across the country; and allow us to unify on consulting properly on whatever perceived problems the Government—or the Conservative Party—Labour, the Lib Dems or the Cross Benches might have about the operation of the Electoral Commission. Consult properly, undertake this in a democratic fashion, understand how we are seen as a country and get it right.
I ask the Government to please understand this afternoon that some of us, at least, will go to the wire on this one. So let us be prepared to go into next week if we have to, to ensure that we defend our democratic processes and practices. If we do not, somewhere in years to come, someone should ask each of us, “Where were you? What did you do? Did you understand what you were passing? Were you in favour of it? If you were not, why did you not vote against it?”
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I will make three brief points in support of the amendments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. The first follows a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, who has just made a forceful speech. As my noble friend Lord Cormack mentioned in an earlier debate, I was my party’s spokesman and I was in the shadow Cabinet of William Hague, now my noble friend Lord Hague, when the Bill establishing the Electoral Commission went through. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, implied, had the Blair Government sought to include these two clauses in that Bill, my party would have strongly opposed that. They conflict with the recommendation of the Neill commission’s report that
“An Election Commission in a democracy like ours could not function properly, or indeed at all, unless it were scrupulously impartial and believed to be so by everyone seriously involved and by the public at large.”
If it was right for my party to oppose those clauses then, it is right to oppose them today.
Secondly, I respectfully disagree with the argument in defence of the Government’s position put forward by my noble friend the Minister on March 10:
“It is entirely appropriate for the Government and Parliament to provide a steer on electoral policy … By increasing policy emphasis on electoral integrity … the Government are seeking to prevent interference in our democracy from fraud, foreign money and hostile state actors.”—[Official Report, 10/3/22; col. 1643.]
It is not the Electoral Commission that requires a steer, for example, on the importance of protecting our democracy from foreign money; it is the Government. The steer that my noble friend described—the statutory requirement to
“have regard to the statement”—
should be in precisely the opposite direction to the one in the Bill.
My third and final reason is related to the first. I have left the Government five times, which is more than anyone else in the Chamber—even the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. Once was at the request of the electorate in 1997 and three times were, sadly, at the request of the then Prime Minister, but the last was of my own volition, one month after the current Prime Minister took office, when he illegally prorogued Parliament. That was the first of a number of steps that injure out democratic institutions—in that case the House of Commons. It was followed by the failure to defend the judiciary from the “Enemies of the People” attack by the Daily Mail, the attempted interference with the verdict on Owen Paterson, the resignation of the Prime Minister’s independent adviser Alex Allan—instead of the Home Secretary—and the evident disregard, shown from time to time, for the role of your Lordships’ House and the Ministerial Code. These clauses are another step in the same direction; they are disrespectful of the ground rules of our constitution, and they should not be in the Bill.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, we have heard three splendid speeches, and I intend to be very brief. I will pick up on a comment made by my noble friend Lord Blunkett, who is of course quite right that the public will not be interested or involved in the details of this legislation. But I have no doubt whatever that they have an acute sense of fairness. In Committee, I suggested that, for the Government to give instructions to the Electoral Commission is akin to a party in a football match—one of the two teams—giving instructions and guidance to the referee prior to the match. I do not think that anyone in Britain would think that that was a fair situation. I do not think that anyone could seriously contend that that is not what would happen if these two clauses become law.
What I find particularly persuasive is that this letter from the Electoral Commission, which many of us have, is, unsurprisingly, signed by every single member bar the Conservative nominee—I make no criticism of the fact that he did not sign it, but it was signed by everyone else. It argues against these two clauses. As they say,
“It is our firm and shared view that the introduction of a Strategy and Policy Statement – enabling the Government to guide the work of the Commission – is inconsistent with the role”
of an “independent electoral commission”. If anyone is wavering on this, just substitute the words “Conservative Party” for “Government”. It is nothing to be ashamed of, and I strongly support political parties; I have been in one all my life and I would go as far as to say that they are the lifeblood of our democracy. I do not regard as superior human beings those people who have not joined political parties. If we substitute the word “Government” with “Conservative Party”—because of course Governments consist, in the main, of one political party—it reads as follows: “It is our firm and shared view that the introduction of a Strategy and Policy Statement – enabling the Conservative Party to guide the work of the Commission – is inconsistent with the role of an independent electoral commission.” Is there anyone here who could possibly dispute that statement? Forgetting about the Government for a moment, for one political party in a contested situation—which is precisely what elections are, which is why they can get fraught and need adjudicators—to give an instruction to the referee, or the Electoral Commission in this case, is clearly inconsistent and unacceptable as part of our electoral procedures. I urge everyone to see the fairness of that argument and to support the amendment from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I rise very briefly to support the amendment put forward by the noble and learned Lord, which has, if I may say so, attracted very wide support on all Benches of this House.
Others have already identified some of the aspects of Clause 15 that are truly objectionable, so I will not go into any great detail, save to say that, on any view, the powers given to the Secretary of State are very extensive. They are, as has been said by a number of your Lordships, designed to make the commission an implementer of government policy. The requirement on the Government to consult is extraordinarily limited, and the obligation on the commission to report compliance will expose the commission to the cry “Enemies of the People”, as happened in 2016 when the judges held that Brexit required the consent of Parliament. I might remember, too, that the Lord Chancellor of the day did not push back on that criticism. I acknowledge that the substantive statement is subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, but I also point out that, in the House of Commons at least, that will be the subject of the most strenuous whipping. In any event, of course, the statutory instrument procedure is not subject to amendment.
I have been in public life for 40 years—not as long as my noble friend Lord Cormack, but perhaps long enough—and I have come to a very settled conclusion: if you give powers to the Executive or to officials, in time they are certain to be abused or misused. That will certainly happen. As my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham—I have known him for over 60 years—rightly pointed out, the present Prime Minister illegally thought to prorogue Parliament. I am told by reading the newspapers that, at this moment, the Government are thinking of simply abrogating the Northern Ireland protocol—a treaty obligation to which the Prime Minister signed up very recently and on which, at the time, he incorrectly stated that it did not create a hard border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom.
As has been rightly said, in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, election law is extraordinarily sensitive. I for one am not prepared to give powers to a Government that, if used, misused or abused, will certainly damage yet further the respect for our democratic institutions. It is for that reason that if, as I hope, the noble and learned Lord moves to test the opinion of the House, I shall support him.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I would like to join in on all these comments about the Prime Minister’s failings, but I just do not think there is time in this debate.
I support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and will obviously support the amendments, but before I speak to those specifically, I hope noble Lords will not mind if I speak briefly about what we are facing this week—and possibly next week—because the Government have created a legislative deadlock. This was not the fault of your Lordships’ House; it was the fault of the Government, and if this legislation is not passed in the next few days, it falls completely. I have no problem with that—I would like to see it all fall—but the fact is that that probably is not a position your Lordships’ House can take. However, we can obtain very significant concessions from the Government. They will not want to lose all these Bills, and this is an opportunity for us to throw out the worst bits of the legislation that we have all argued about over the past few months.
I make a plea to the Labour Front Bench and the Cross-Benchers that we maintain the maximum amount of toughness in the face of what the Government are trying to push through this House. We should not fumble this opportunity to improve Bills that we have tried to improve, only for almost all those amendments to be ripped out by the other place. So, I am looking forward to today. I have sat here and listened to the speeches with a real smile on my face; it has been wonderful.
Amendments 45 and 46 are a perfect example of why we should not back down. We have to insist that we will not pass the Bill if Clauses 15 and 16 remain in it. The Electoral Commission, as we have heard, said it best, and I agree. It says that the proposals are
“inconsistent with the role that an independent commission plays in a healthy democratic system.”
This Government are trying to reduce the amount of democracy we have in Britain, and that is a terrible failing for a democratically elected Government.
The Greens are very grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, for leading on these essential amendments. I am sure he is going to carry the House with him, and we will obviously vote for them again and again—as many times as it takes to force the Government to drop them or lose the Bill entirely.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, it is always a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness. I frequently do not agree with her; today, I most certainly do and I think, to use the words of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, this is one that we take to the wire, because this is completely unacceptable in a Bill of this nature. In no circumstances could I possibly condone the Bill if it goes forward with these clauses in it.
As I was listening this afternoon to some excellent speeches, I thought of those famous words of Acton: “Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.” I am afraid we are in danger of our Government being corrupted. I use those words deliberately and slowly, but it is a real risk, because the arrogance that we see from this Government—my noble friend Lord Hailsham referred to this—is something that, in my 52 years in Parliament, I have not seen before. Coupled with it is a disinclination to disagree agreeably, and in a democracy it is very important to be able to do that.
For a Government to take these powers to themselves is something up with which we should not put. I referred to this in previous debates, at Second Reading and in Committee. We have here a potential seizure of power that, as my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham said, we would not have countenanced from the Labour Government, with their massive majority, 22 years ago, when he and I—he was leading—were dealing from the Front Bench with the Bill that established the Electoral Commission.
Lord Stunell (LD)
I thank the noble Lord for giving me a turn.
The case for removing these two clauses has been very powerfully made already and my point is a very simple one which will not take very long. These two clauses, if they remain in the Bill, will put in the hands of a successor Government the essential tools to immediately deliver the very first task set out in the autocrat’s playbook, which is, when you take power, make sure you keep it. In the UK, that means making sure that you have the Electoral Commission under your thumb.
I have only one question for the Minister. Taking him fully at his word that this Government would never in a million years use these powers to distort the actions of the Electoral Commission or to raise the bar for opposition candidates or opposition parties in any future election, what happens when the million years is up? What happens when another Government, less imbued with the deep ethical principles so clearly exhibited by the present Administration, less scrupulous about fair play and with less commitment to truth and accuracy, take office? Can the Minister say to your Lordships, in all honesty, that it will be safe to put these clauses on the statute book, just waiting for that ruthless successor Government to exploit? It could be an ultra-left Government with little regard for constitutional conventions, balancing the books or protecting industry from red tape, and perhaps ready to repudiate international treaties, undermining all those Conservative values that the Minister espouses so much.
Does the Minister think it is safe to leave these clauses in the Bill? I have seen the noble Lord in action. I do not believe that he is either so naive or so short-sighted as to believe it would be safe to do so, and it would not be in the long-term interests of the Conservative Party for these clauses to be in the Bill. I, my noble friends and other noble Lords all around the House have powerfully expressed the view that we are ready to help him get off the hook and to take these two clauses out of the Bill.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, and to the House, for having pushed him so rudely.
When one sees the way the tide of opinion is flowing strongly, it is very easy to think that it is best to keep one’s head down and not provide a cautionary word about being careful what we wish for in taking these amendments through—should the House so decide. I note and appreciate the concerns expressed in powerful speeches this afternoon. These are replicated in the briefing from the Electoral Commission referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott. Several letters in the correspondence columns of the broadsheets have carried an equivalent message.
I also recognise that the drafting of parts of these clauses can best be described as uncompromising. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, referred to this, though I think he was slightly dismissive about the consultation processes provided for in Clause 15, in new Sections 4C and 4D. He pointed out that the procedures for scrutinising secondary legislation are proving increasingly inadequate and ineffective for modern conditions. He knows that I agree with him. I am pleased to be able to tell him and the House that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which I chair, will publish a further end of term report at the end of this week. This will give grist to his mill—and indeed to mine.
Among the concerns raised is the use of what can be described as tertiary legislation. I spoke to the noble and learned Lord in advance of this debate, so he knows broadly what I shall say about creating bodies over which there is absolutely no parliamentary control but which, none the less, have powers that concern some of the most fundamental aspects of our society. One recent example is the College of Policing, an independent body able to introduce regulations and codes that affect every one of us.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and my noble friend Lord Blencathra have made common cause in attacking this. I entirely support them. To come to the point, I am not yet convinced that, if these two amendments were agreed, we would not be creating another body equivalent to the College of Policing, but this time for electoral purposes—an equally important part of our national life.
Am I enthusiastic about Clauses 15 and 16? Not at all, but I recognise that there is some parliamentary involvement and approval in this process. If these amendments were accepted, the Electoral Commission—with all the criticisms that have been made of it, fairly or unfairly—would float free from any even minor scrutiny or accountability. In my view, this would be even less desirable.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Hodgson. I wish him a very happy birthday.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
I wish to make two points about these amendments. I do so in the hope—but not the expectation—that noble Lords who have set their faces against these clauses will look at them in a more favourable light.
First, all public bodies must be accountable, whether they are independent regulators or carrying out other kinds of function. This should not be a controversial statement. The role of the Speaker’s Committee, as set out in PPERA, with its focus on budgets and plans rather than outcomes and actions, provides a weak accountability framework. Indeed, the report on election fraud from my noble friend Lord Pickles, who I am glad to see in his place, found it ineffective. Clauses 15 and 16 beef up the Speaker’s Committee so that it can hold the Electoral Commission to account on the basis of the policy and strategy statement, remembering, of course, that that statement is not just the creature of government and must be consulted on and approved by Parliament. Anyone who opposes Clauses 15 and 16 really should explain how they would ensure that the Electoral Commission will be properly accountable, because the current arrangements are simply not fit for purpose.
Secondly, there is a myth that the strategy and policy statement is a de facto power of direction or involves giving instructions—I think that was the phrase used by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott—to the Electoral Commission. Clause 15 could not be clearer. There is no obligation on the commission to follow the statement. There is no alteration of the core duties and obligations set out in PPERA. The commission’s only duty is to have regard to the statement and report annually on what it has done in consequence of it. That report might, in theory, say that it has done nothing in consequence of the statement, but given the generally bland nature of these policy and strategy statements, I think that would be unlikely.
The opponents of these clauses, however, say that the strategy and policy statements will influence the Electoral Commission, with the implication that influence is always malign. I believe that the independence of the Electoral Commission is founded in the independence of the thought and integrity of the commissioners themselves, and those commissioners are not appointed by the Government. Genuinely independent commissioners will do what they think is necessary in accordance with their statutory obligations, and they will do that whatever the Government tell them to do. The commissioners are the first line of defence against undue influence. Influence can be a positive thing, too. I hope noble Lords would have no problem if, for example, a statement influenced the commission to focus on important issues such as those that arose in relation to Tower Hamlets. I remind noble Lords that the Electoral Commission did not cover itself in glory when first encountering the issues there. I urge noble Lords not to support these amendments.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, I shall cover two or three points. I shall not go into detail about some of my concerns about the Electoral Commission, except to make a limited comment about difficulties I have at the moment. I will start by referring to comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, earlier in relation to referees. I wear my rugby referee’s tie with pride today because it is an indication of the impartiality one is required to have under all circumstances. No player or spectator ever accused me of not being impartial. They may have accused me of being incompetent, and did so volubly from the touchline, but they did not accuse me of not being impartial.
I must disagree with both my noble friends Lord Hodgson and Lady Noakes. As far as I am concerned, there are ways of dealing with the problems of the Electoral Commission. As I think many Members know, I have had more problems and more dealings with the Electoral Commission over the last 12 months than virtually anybody in this Chamber—and, my godfathers, does it not drive you barmy? I have sympathy with the Government because they are trying to tackle the problem. All I shall say on my latest difficulty, which has been running for four or five days, is: will the Electoral Commission please look at itself rather than passing to others the responsibility for policing matters—administering elections and the like? This problem has run since 2013 to my full knowledge. It keeps saying that other people need to deal with these matters but it does not look at itself.
These clauses are not a way of tackling the problems that I and others have faced with the Electoral Commission. As the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, said, in effect, they tell us that the home team at a rugby match shall have the right to speak to the referee and tell him how he will referee that game. I am sorry, but I disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes: if you are giving guidance, however softly and subtly you do it, you are influencing the Electoral Commission and not giving others that opportunity to influence it in the same way. We need to look at the way that the commissioners are appointed, and we may need to look at the way that other organisations around it operate, but the one thing we do not need to do is to tie the commission to guidance from the Government.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, my name is on these amendments. We have had a very powerful debate from all sides of the House, and I suggest that we now ought to move towards the Minister’s response.
I remind the Minister of the constitutional context we are in and of his responsibilities as, in effect, the only member of the Government with responsibility for the constitution and constitutional propriety. Noble Lords may not be fully aware that, since the last reshuffle, there is no longer any Minister within the Government who has been given the specific responsibility of being Minister for the Constitution. The responsibility for this Bill has been moved from the Cabinet Office to the department for levelling up, communities, local government and various other things which provide a very extensive portfolio for Michael Gove. That leaves the Minister in some ways stranded, but in other ways he is the only member of the Government—apart from the Prime Minister himself—who specifically has responsibility for constitutional propriety among his major responsibilities.
The Minister will be well aware that the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, referred to issues of constitutional principle in his resignation letter and that, before him, the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, also resigned on a matter of constitutional principle. I hope that the Minister will address the constitutional propriety of these two clauses in winding up. After all, we are in a wider constitutional crisis, both domestically—I have referred to the context of that—and internationally, given what is happening in Ukraine and the growth of autocracies around the world.
The noble Lord, Lord Finkelstein, who sadly is not in his place, addressed Britain’s constitutional crisis in his article in the Times last Wednesday. He reminded his readers:
“The British constitution, because it is unwritten, is particularly vulnerable to its limitations being resisted at the top of government … It is the responsibility of parliamentarians, and in particular Conservative ones, to insist”
that constitutional rules and conventions are followed. I welcome the reaffirmation made by the noble Lord, Lord Finkelstein, of the Conservative Party’s proud tradition as the constitutional party—from Burke through successive Salisburys to the noble Viscount’s father, Lord Hailsham—and I regret our current Government’s failure to maintain fully that tradition.
I invite the Minister to explain to the House how he considers these proposals to be compatible with Conservative principles of limited government and parliamentary sovereignty. If he cannot reconcile the tried and tested principles of Conservatism—about which he has often spoken eloquently—with these proposals, he should accept that they should be removed.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, we very much welcome these amendments. We thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, for tabling them and for his excellent and clear introduction on his concerns about the implications of leaving these clauses in the Bill. I will be brief, as he and many other noble Lords made excellent speeches today.
We have made it extremely clear on previous stages of the Bill’s consideration that we are extremely concerned about its intention to make provisions for a power to designate a strategy and policy statement for the Electoral Commission, drafted by government. As other noble Lords have said, this would allow political interference in the regulation of our elections and calls into question the independence of the Electoral Commission from government and political control. This simply cannot be allowed to happen. It is a dangerous precedent. If we look at similar democracies such as Canada, New Zealand or Australia, there is always a complete separation between government and the electoral commission. It is essential that our regulatory framework strikes the right balance between upholding the independence of the Electoral Commission and ensuring it is properly scrutinised and held to account. The noble Lord, Lord Hayward, made some good points about the fact that we need to look at how it operates, but this is absolutely not the way to go about it.
I remind those noble Lords who have said that this is not of any concern that new Section 4B(2) in Clause 15 says that:
“The Commission must have regard to the statement when carrying out their functions”—
“must”, not “may”. That is what really concerns us. We have had many excellent speeches, so I urge the Minister to listen very carefully to what has been said in the defence of our democracy. That is what we are talking about. We fully support these amendments and urge other noble Lords to do the same when this is put to the House.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, I have not detected universal enthusiasm for these clauses in the debate, but I will seek to persuade your Lordships that they should remain. Of course, in remaining, one of the things they do is provide a basis for further discussion.
Your Lordships’ House is a revising Chamber, but we do not have here amendments to revise. These amendments would simply remove clauses on the basis of arguments which, in my submission, are exaggerated in their concerns, although I understand and share the concerns for democratic responsibility and respect. We have even heard several threats to kill the whole Bill. I must remind noble Lords that this is a Bill that prevents election fraud and abuse; introduces the first controls on digital campaigning; cracks down in many ways on foreign spending; and improves the integrity of postal voting. These are matters which have wide assent across the Chamber and across both Houses. It would not be wise or proportionate for your Lordships to consider killing those proposals on the basis of this particular issue.
Lord Cormack (Con)
Would my noble friend accept that if the Government withdraw these clauses, on which there is a great deal of opposition, the Bill will go through? Several of us have said that it has many excellent features. We do not want to kill the Bill, but we do want to remove this anti-democratic element from it.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I can only respond to the language I heard in the debate and, of course, that will lie in Hansard. Of course I listen to the range of concerns set out by your Lordships. The main concern that I hear, and understand, is about the potential impact on the independence of the Electoral Commission.
I stated in Committee, and I do so again now, that the Government’s proposals take a proportionate approach to reforming the accountability of the commission to Parliament, which some who have spoken have admitted could be reviewed, while respecting its operational independence. I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and others that it is vital we have an independent regulator that commands trust across the political spectrum.
By the way, the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, asked would I worry if the Labour Party had such powers on the statute book. I remind your Lordships that the Labour Party is a great constitutional party, and I would trust it to use the responsibilities and powers that it had in an appropriate manner.
In previous debates, parliamentarians across both Houses identified areas of concern with the commission’s work. My noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts spoke to this. Under the existing accountability framework, in practice, parliamentarians are limited in their ability to scrutinise and hold the commission effectively accountable. The report by my noble friend Lord Pickles, whom I am pleased to see in his place, obviously alluded to certain issues that he felt had not been fully addressed. These measures will seek to remedy this by providing guidance, as approved by Parliament, for the commission to consider in the exercise of its functions, and by giving the Speaker’s Committee an enhanced role in holding the commission to account in how it has performed its duties in relation to the proposed statement.
It has been suggested, several times, that the “duty to have regard” to the strategy and policy statement placed on the commission in Clause 15 will weaken its independence and give Ministers the power to direct it. The Government strongly reject this characterisation of the measures. The Electoral Commission will remain operationally independent and governed by its Electoral Commissioners as a result of this measure, after as before. This duty does not allow the Government to direct the work of the commission, nor does it undermine the commission’s other statutory duties.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
I wonder, given what the Minister has just said, whether he could explain the purpose of new Section 13ZA, on the examination of the duty to have regard to the strategy and policy statement, which states:
“The Speaker’s Committee may examine the performance by the Commission of the Commission’s duty under section 4B(2) (duty to have regard to strategy and policy statement).”
What is the purpose of having the ability to examine the commitment to the policy statement? What would the Government do if it found that “have regard” had not been sufficient?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I say to the noble Baroness that it is not a power to direct. The Speaker’s Committee is not a government institution; it is part of the architecture that is there, and has been there, to oversee the work of the commission. That was inherent in previous legislation; this legislation seeks to improve its ability to do so. What the legislation means is that when carrying out its functions, yes, the commission will be asked to consider the statement, but weigh it up against any other relative considerations.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, knows the respect I have for him. I have enjoyed discussing this matter with him and no doubt may again if he has his way in your Lordships’ House today, which I hope he will not, but our contention is that there are a number of safeguarding provisions around parliamentary approval and consultation built into Clause 15. I outlined that at length in previous debates and will not repeat it here. I believe, notwithstanding the noble and learned Lord’s remarks, that those safeguarding provisions should reassure those who have expressed concerns about strategy and policy statements being drafted by future Governments that may have ill intent.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
Can the Minister list which Select Committees have Ministers as members?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, the Speaker’s Committee is sui generis. Obviously, it has senior representation from political parties in the House of Commons. I have enormous respect and affection for the noble Lord. It is not reasonable to impugn the integrity of a Speaker’s Committee and I do not think that he was doing so—
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
I was not, in any way, impugning the Speaker’s Committee. I was picking up the point that the Minister had just made about the corollary of a Select Committee.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord rose. I had started to make it clear that I was not making any such proposal. The analogy I was using is just a mechanism in terms of the way that the committee will be able to conduct its reviews, effectively holding the commission accountable on a broader range of its activities than is currently allowed in law. As I sought to explain to your Lordships, that remit is currently narrowly restricted.
For the reasons that I have set out, I urge that my noble friends and noble Lords across the House oppose the amendments put forward by the noble and learned Lord, and that Clauses 15 and 16 stand part of the Bill.
Lord Judge (CB)
My Lords, I thank everybody who has participated, including those Members of the House who do not agree with me. It is fun to listen to alternative arguments.
I have just a couple of points to make. The problem with these clauses is that they were inserted without any kind of discussion. When constitutional issues are being addressed, and when, in particular, the independence of the Electoral Commission and its performance are being addressed, surely, of all things, that is something for cross-party discussion, and it is for the cross-parties to make up their minds how to make the Electoral Commission do its job and perform its function better than it has. That is a matter for Parliament: I am not going to advance different solutions to this, but the problem is that nobody has asked anybody else. That is why I describe this proposal as “new minted”. It is “new minted”, and that is one of its problems.
The other p