Lords Chamber
Wednesday 5th March 2025
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
(began 8 months, 2 weeks ago)
Watch LiveSkip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
11:09
Baroness Manningham-Buller (Crossbench)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Motioned Motioned to Motioned to agree Motioned to agree the Motioned to agree the reports Motioned to agree the reports of the conduct committee review of the code of conduct and a guide to the code of conduct. code of conduct. code of conduct. My Lords, I rise to raise the fourth report, move the fourth report from the conduct committee be agreed to. This report is the culmination of the conduct committee's review of the code of conduct and the guides to the code of conduct launched in spring last year.
We chose to embark on this review and sometimes I have wondered whether that was a wise move. We were not asked to do so by mems at the house and we were not required to do so by others. But we felt that it was the right thing to do. The existing code is 15 years old and I hope the house will agree that we have made a number of improvements to it. I would like to start by thanking the committee hears and lay members for their work on the report, and of course, the staff of the house who gave us wonderful help.
What was clear to us as we began to take evidence that many peers had not actually read the code. And I don't altogether blame them. It was too long, a bit repetitive, and parts of it were very unclear. But we have been very much helped by comments and thoughts from the debate in the Moses room in October and from extensive evidence given to us by noble Lords in person or in writing. And I'm not just being polite, that has been immensely helpful to us, although I'm going to continue to try to be polite.
I'm also grateful for the feedback we have had since the report was published. I have spoken to many noble Lords individually and the main parties. Now, of course, we aren't satisfying everybody. We can't. There is a price paid when you try to achieve compromise but I sense from the feedback I have had their is widespread understanding and support for the report. I would like, at this stage, to remind the Lords that our aim was to simplify and clarify the rules.
What we have tried to do is make them shorter, clearer, and less bureaucratic. We have also sought to uphold the current codes, twin objectives, and these are to provide guidance for members of the House of Lords on the standards of conduct expected of them, and I think this is an important one which has sometimes been overlooked, to reinforce public confidence in the way in which members of the House of Lords perform their parliamentary duties. These two objectives whether test for every change we considered.
We asked ourselves is this helpful to members? And secondly, does it reinforce public confidence in the house? Sometimes, the answers to those questions yielded different answers and we have to strike a balance. Let me give you one example. Non-financial interests. Public confidence in the house requires transparency over members outside financial interests. I think we are probably all agreed on that. And if members failed to disclose outside employment or other major financial interests, it would undermine public trust and confidence of the house.
But the public interest in requiring disclosure of members and paid wells, for example, with voluntary organisation is far less clear. The rules have become more wider and more complex resulting in several members falling into inadvertent breach and we want members in this house to have a wide-ranging interests, and therefore, this is quite a difficult area. And we concluded that the bureaucratic burden of the rules of declaring non-financial interests where disproportionate when compared with the small potential benefit to transparency.
We recommended ending the register and declare non- financial interests. Members will still be able to declare them in debate if they are relevant. This is not an enforceable rule in our view. I dwelt on this example of the thought processes to try to help the house understand why we have made the changes we have. We went back first principles, stated the most important rules of conduct as clearly and succinctly as we could and you will notice the code and the guide is substantially shorter.
While stripping away rules that we consider disproportionate. Noble Lords had the chance to read the report so we can touch on a few key points. On enforcement, we have introduced a minor cases procedure to allow the commissioners quickly to dispose of allegations of minor technical breaches, the details of which have been published only once a case has been resolved. We have restated on the face of the code that the commission on the conduct committee in investigating alleged breaches must act in accordance with the principle of natural justice and fairness.
And we made it clear which has been the case for many years, that members under investigation are entitled to consult friends or advisers including legal advisers. The noble Viscount of Hailsham would go further, requiring the conduct committee to reverse its conclusion in paragraph 38 of the report and instead oppose a wholly independent investigation progress with no member of this house or conduct I'm grateful to the noble Viscount for letting me know last year that he was going to raise this issue, but my view and that of the Committee is that this proposal strikes upon the House's culture of self-regulation.
It would take the issue of conduct away from peers and instead to a judicial process with full cross-examination by lawyers, presumably representing both sides. The process would be long and costly The process would be long and costly and would stop victims of bullying and misconduct from coming forward. Over the years, many eminent embers of this House, former Lord chancellors and Supreme Court justices have sat on the Conduct Committee and its predecessor Committee and its predecessor committee.
This includes two former chairs. The Committee that undertook chairs. The Committee that undertook the review also included three KCs. The Committee -- these committees over the years all rejected calls for a fully adversarial system and the House is just right has just as consistently agreed with its Committee. I haven't got much more to say because I know the time is tight today. The Committee resisted calls to extend the Code further into members and non-parliamentary lives.
We understand that a small handful of cases, mentors -- members behaviour has hit the headlines, creating a perception that the House's reputation has been damaged. We need to be clear that the Code is to help the House in regulating numbers parliamentary -- members parliamentary conduct. Members have lives and jobs outside of the House and we need to accept that separation. Similarly, we have reinstated again the existing protections for members freedom of speech. The code is clear and the constitutional freedom of speech is a primary consideration and the enforcement procedure underlines that.
Policy matters and members opinions were ever expressed outside the House were not within the commissioners remit. I turn to the amendment tabled by Lord Hamilton of Epsom. Doesn't seek to reject the report in its entirety but to instruct the Conduct Committee to bring forward proposals and remove entitlement of members of either House to bring complaints of harassment against the House of Lords. The amendment would therefore exclude a relatively small group of people, members of one or other house from an impossibility of making a complaint of alleged harassment by a member of this House.
Now, this strikes at the heart of the changes and improvements in the culture of Parliament that have been made since 2017 when the then Minister, the noble Baroness Lady Mae of Maidenhead personally intervened to support the establishment of an independent complaints and grievance independent complaints and grievance process -- Baroness Lady May. It protects everyone who works here. I remind the noble Lords of the original mandate which applies to all persons working for or within Parliament.
Lord Hamilton's amendment created a situation in which members of this House could still bring complaints of harassment against their peers -- MPs but MPs against their peers -- MPs but MPs could not a clue -- complain against peers. MPs will not stand for that. Harassment in the workplace is unlawful. The offence as defined in section 26 of the Equality Act 2010. I do not believe that a member of this house who are subject to harassment by another member should be deprived of the right to complain about behaviour that is unlawful.
I shall listen to the noble Lord but if he presses his amendment to division, I hope the House was strongly rejected. Finally, what will happen after today's debate. If they are agreed, the new rules will come into play after 25 April. Members entries in the register of interest will be automatically dated to reflect the simplification of the registration categories. No action is needed by members at this point. I look forward to the debate and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
with that, I beg to move. The question is that this motion be agreed to. Amendment, Viscount
Baroness Manningham-Buller (Crossbench)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Motioned Motioned to Motioned to agree Motioned to agree the Motioned to agree the reports Motioned to agree the reports of the conduct committee review of the code of conduct and a guide to the code of conduct. code of conduct. code of conduct. My Lords, I rise to raise the fourth report, move the fourth report from the conduct committee be agreed to. This report is the culmination of the conduct committee's review of the code of conduct and the guides to the code of conduct launched in spring last year.
We chose to embark on this review and sometimes I have wondered whether that was a wise move. We were not asked to do so by mems at the house and we were not required to do so by others. But we felt that it was the right thing to do. The existing code is 15 years old and I hope the house will agree that we have made a number of improvements to it. I would like to start by thanking the committee hears and lay members for their work on the report, and of course, the staff of the house who gave us wonderful help.
What was clear to us as we began to take evidence that many peers had not actually read the code. And I don't altogether blame them. It was too long, a bit repetitive, and parts of it were very unclear. But we have been very much helped by comments and thoughts from the debate in the Moses room in October and from extensive evidence given to us by noble Lords in person or in writing. And I'm not just being polite, that has been immensely helpful to us, although I'm going to continue to try to be polite.
I'm also grateful for the feedback we have had since the report was published. I have spoken to many noble Lords individually and the main parties. Now, of course, we aren't satisfying everybody. We can't. There is a price paid when you try to achieve compromise but I sense from the feedback I have had their is widespread understanding and support for the report. I would like, at this stage, to remind the Lords that our aim was to simplify and clarify the rules.
What we have tried to do is make them shorter, clearer, and less bureaucratic. We have also sought to uphold the current codes, twin objectives, and these are to provide guidance for members of the House of Lords on the standards of conduct expected of them, and I think this is an important one which has sometimes been overlooked, to reinforce public confidence in the way in which members of the House of Lords perform their parliamentary duties. These two objectives whether test for every change we considered.
We asked ourselves is this helpful to members? And secondly, does it reinforce public confidence in the house? Sometimes, the answers to those questions yielded different answers and we have to strike a balance. Let me give you one example. Non-financial interests. Public confidence in the house requires transparency over members outside financial interests. I think we are probably all agreed on that. And if members failed to disclose outside employment or other major financial interests, it would undermine public trust and confidence of the house.
But the public interest in requiring disclosure of members and paid wells, for example, with voluntary organisation is far less clear. The rules have become more wider and more complex resulting in several members falling into inadvertent breach and we want members in this house to have a wide-ranging interests, and therefore, this is quite a difficult area. And we concluded that the bureaucratic burden of the rules of declaring non-financial interests where disproportionate when compared with the small potential benefit to transparency.
We recommended ending the register and declare non- financial interests. Members will still be able to declare them in debate if they are relevant. This is not an enforceable rule in our view. I dwelt on this example of the thought processes to try to help the house understand why we have made the changes we have. We went back first principles, stated the most important rules of conduct as clearly and succinctly as we could and you will notice the code and the guide is substantially shorter.
While stripping away rules that we consider disproportionate. Noble Lords had the chance to read the report so we can touch on a few key points. On enforcement, we have introduced a minor cases procedure to allow the commissioners quickly to dispose of allegations of minor technical breaches, the details of which have been published only once a case has been resolved. We have restated on the face of the code that the commission on the conduct committee in investigating alleged breaches must act in accordance with the principle of natural justice and fairness.
And we made it clear which has been the case for many years, that members under investigation are entitled to consult friends or advisers including legal advisers. The noble Viscount of Hailsham would go further, requiring the conduct committee to reverse its conclusion in paragraph 38 of the report and instead oppose a wholly independent investigation progress with no member of this house or conduct I'm grateful to the noble Viscount for letting me know last year that he was going to raise this issue, but my view and that of the Committee is that this proposal strikes upon the House's culture of self-regulation.
It would take the issue of conduct away from peers and instead to a judicial process with full cross-examination by lawyers, presumably representing both sides. The process would be long and costly The process would be long and costly and would stop victims of bullying and misconduct from coming forward. Over the years, many eminent embers of this House, former Lord chancellors and Supreme Court justices have sat on the Conduct Committee and its predecessor Committee and its predecessor committee.
This includes two former chairs. The Committee that undertook chairs. The Committee that undertook the review also included three KCs. The Committee -- these committees over the years all rejected calls for a fully adversarial system and the House is just right has just as consistently agreed with its Committee. I haven't got much more to say because I know the time is tight today. The Committee resisted calls to extend the Code further into members and non-parliamentary lives.
We understand that a small handful of cases, mentors -- members behaviour has hit the headlines, creating a perception that the House's reputation has been damaged. We need to be clear that the Code is to help the House in regulating numbers parliamentary -- members parliamentary conduct. Members have lives and jobs outside of the House and we need to accept that separation. Similarly, we have reinstated again the existing protections for members freedom of speech. The code is clear and the constitutional freedom of speech is a primary consideration and the enforcement procedure underlines that.
Policy matters and members opinions were ever expressed outside the House were not within the commissioners remit. I turn to the amendment tabled by Lord Hamilton of Epsom. Doesn't seek to reject the report in its entirety but to instruct the Conduct Committee to bring forward proposals and remove entitlement of members of either House to bring complaints of harassment against the House of Lords. The amendment would therefore exclude a relatively small group of people, members of one or other house from an impossibility of making a complaint of alleged harassment by a member of this House.
Now, this strikes at the heart of the changes and improvements in the culture of Parliament that have been made since 2017 when the then Minister, the noble Baroness Lady Mae of Maidenhead personally intervened to support the establishment of an independent complaints and grievance independent complaints and grievance process -- Baroness Lady May. It protects everyone who works here. I remind the noble Lords of the original mandate which applies to all persons working for or within Parliament.
Lord Hamilton's amendment created a situation in which members of this House could still bring complaints of harassment against their peers -- MPs but MPs against their peers -- MPs but MPs could not a clue -- complain against peers. MPs will not stand for that. Harassment in the workplace is unlawful. The offence as defined in section 26 of the Equality Act 2010. I do not believe that a member of this house who are subject to harassment by another member should be deprived of the right to complain about behaviour that is unlawful.
I shall listen to the noble Lord but if he presses his amendment to division, I hope the House was strongly rejected. Finally, what will happen after today's debate. If they are agreed, the new rules will come into play after 25 April. Members entries in the register of interest will be automatically dated to reflect the simplification of the registration categories. No action is needed by members at this point. I look forward to the debate and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
with that, I beg to move. The question is that this motion be agreed to. Amendment, Viscount
11:21
Viscount Hailsham (Conservative)
-
-
Viscount Hailsham (Conservative)
Hailsham.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I rise to speak to the motion standing in my name. May I begin by saying that it is not my intention saying that it is not my intention to divide the house. The report to divide the house. The report before the house reaffirms the house's commitment to the inquisitorial asset of dealing with inquisitorial asset of dealing with complaints. The report projects the complaints. The report projects the adversarial system. Its position is summarised in paragraph 36, to which summarised in paragraph 36, to which I shall very shortly return.
I disagree with that conclusion. My Lords, the report was my conclusion is entirely inconsistent with the procedures that Parliament has by statutory instrument imposed on all the professions that I have ever encountered. My Lords, since 2010, I have practised exclusively as a legal assessor, that is a legal adviser, to the panels which regulate doctors, nurses, midwives, social workers, and all the professions which fall under the supervision of the health care professions Council. I have done hundreds of days of that work since 2010, all duly registered.
There is no serious distinction to be made between the regulation of the conduct of members of this house and the regulation of the conduct of members of both professions. -- Those professions. All of those professions are required by Parliament to use as an essential part of their regulatory procedures the adversarial system, which is rejected in the report. The decisions as to fact and sanction in those jurisdictions are all made by an independent tribunal. The respondent in all of those jurisdictions is entitled to full legal representation, including the right for the representative to cross examine and to make submissions.
The role of the regulator, my Lords, is a limited one. The regulator acts as an investigator into the complaint, and that if the regulator concludes that that if the regulator concludes that there is the -- there is a case, the role of the regulator is to present the case before an independent tribunal, often by the means of a lower -- lawyer. The regulator is not the arbiter either of fact or sanction. And in my view, the Commissioner plus macro should be similar.
In rejecting the report, the report suggests that the adversarial system, in particular the cross-examination of parties and witnesses would result in a long, drawnout process. My Lords, that sounds to me awfully like an argument for putting convenience before justice. And to be fair, there are other criticisms made in paragraph 36 to 38. The problems that are encountered with regard to complaints and with regard to the proceedings against members of this house, they are precisely the same as those that are encountered in all the jurisdictions to which I have returned.
Indeed, and most other legal interparty proceedings, relevant concerns, and there are concerns, can and are met by a number of special measures, which I will not articulate due to time. In all of those other jurisdictions, complaints are often made by one colleague against another or by an employee against a superior, but such problems are not a barrier to an effective regulation. There is no time in this debate to argue in detail the merits of the adversarial system. Therefore, I'm going to conclude with this general assertion.
My Lords, there must be a presumption, I suggest, in favour of a house, following in its own procedures, the first is the procedures that Parliament has imposed on everybody else. -- The procedures that Parliament has imposed on everybody else. I cannot identify those arguments and therefore, I believe that this house should adopt the procedures that Parliament has imposed on everybody else. I do not intend to divide the house, but I beg to move the amendment standing in my name.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The original question was that the motion in the name of Baroness Manningham-Buller be agreed to. Insert the words set out on the Order Paper. The question I therefore had to put is that the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I rise to speak to the motion standing in my name. May I begin by saying that it is not my intention saying that it is not my intention to divide the house. The report to divide the house. The report before the house reaffirms the house's commitment to the inquisitorial asset of dealing with inquisitorial asset of dealing with complaints. The report projects the complaints. The report projects the adversarial system. Its position is summarised in paragraph 36, to which summarised in paragraph 36, to which I shall very shortly return.
I disagree with that conclusion. My Lords, the report was my conclusion is entirely inconsistent with the procedures that Parliament has by statutory instrument imposed on all the professions that I have ever encountered. My Lords, since 2010, I have practised exclusively as a legal assessor, that is a legal adviser, to the panels which regulate doctors, nurses, midwives, social workers, and all the professions which fall under the supervision of the health care professions Council. I have done hundreds of days of that work since 2010, all duly registered.
There is no serious distinction to be made between the regulation of the conduct of members of this house and the regulation of the conduct of members of both professions. -- Those professions. All of those professions are required by Parliament to use as an essential part of their regulatory procedures the adversarial system, which is rejected in the report. The decisions as to fact and sanction in those jurisdictions are all made by an independent tribunal. The respondent in all of those jurisdictions is entitled to full legal representation, including the right for the representative to cross examine and to make submissions.
The role of the regulator, my Lords, is a limited one. The regulator acts as an investigator into the complaint, and that if the regulator concludes that that if the regulator concludes that there is the -- there is a case, the role of the regulator is to present the case before an independent tribunal, often by the means of a lower -- lawyer. The regulator is not the arbiter either of fact or sanction. And in my view, the Commissioner plus macro should be similar.
In rejecting the report, the report suggests that the adversarial system, in particular the cross-examination of parties and witnesses would result in a long, drawnout process. My Lords, that sounds to me awfully like an argument for putting convenience before justice. And to be fair, there are other criticisms made in paragraph 36 to 38. The problems that are encountered with regard to complaints and with regard to the proceedings against members of this house, they are precisely the same as those that are encountered in all the jurisdictions to which I have returned.
Indeed, and most other legal interparty proceedings, relevant concerns, and there are concerns, can and are met by a number of special measures, which I will not articulate due to time. In all of those other jurisdictions, complaints are often made by one colleague against another or by an employee against a superior, but such problems are not a barrier to an effective regulation. There is no time in this debate to argue in detail the merits of the adversarial system. Therefore, I'm going to conclude with this general assertion.
My Lords, there must be a presumption, I suggest, in favour of a house, following in its own procedures, the first is the procedures that Parliament has imposed on everybody else. -- The procedures that Parliament has imposed on everybody else. I cannot identify those arguments and therefore, I believe that this house should adopt the procedures that Parliament has imposed on everybody else. I do not intend to divide the house, but I beg to move the amendment standing in my name.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The original question was that the motion in the name of Baroness Manningham-Buller be agreed to. Insert the words set out on the Order Paper. The question I therefore had to put is that the
11:26
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Conservative)
therefore had to put is that the amendment be agreed to. Lord Hamilton.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My first of all congratulate the Conduct Committee for reducing the Conduct Committee for reducing the gap. I think if this lesson was followed by other areas and Whitehall, we would have less legislation to worry about and perhaps the team that have done this perhaps the team that have done this might offer their services to other departments. It is also very sensible, I think that the Code of Conduct has decided not to compel people to register their interest people to register their interest when they are unpaid or charitable.
However, I sincerely hope that members of Your Lordships' House will actually declare their interest if they are trustees of the charity because it adds to authority when speaking on the subject. I hope that people will continue to do that. I'd like to move my amendment, which is basically designed to remove harassment from the charges that can be brought against one member of Parliament against another. The noble Lady Baroness Manningham- Buller has made the point that this would then be a member of Your Lordships' House could sue somebody in the Commons.
Well, I hope that if by the use of this for party political purposes, it completely discredits the code which might actually see the other place amending their way of business in the same way that I hope we would amend our way of doing business. The wording of this amendment is completely excluding members of staff and it doesn't include sexual harassment and bullying. These are very important. But the real problem, my Lords, is that when it comes to the ward harassment, the Oxford dictionary is quite clear in that it says that harassment means trouble by repeated attacks.
And that means there has to be more than one occasion when the particular offence is committed. And although the noble Lady has made a point that much of this code is lifted from the equality act, there is no mention of the fact that the act of redefining harassment as in the Code of Conduct down to an isolated incident, and therefore, I think we have a problem here with actually the definition of the word harassment in the beginning. The recent case, which has been alluded to by my noble has been alluded to by my noble friend Lady Mayor -- Maher was a single incident and I don't think we can apply the definition of harassment to that case.
Top of that, I talked to a number of lawyers in Your Lordships' House and they think that that haze -- case would have been dismissed by the court of law as trivial. I don't think we are in the business of actually treating members of Your Lordships' House more harshly than a court of law would actually do. But I'm not here to actually reopen the case. I'm not going to try to do that. I hope we have learned lessons from the cases that have happened.
To my mind, the Code of Conduct as is now awarded is leading to miscarriages of justice and I think we should be very mindful of this. And also, the problems, actually come in our party political politicians in Your Lordships' House. I was recently told of the case by a noble friend when actually there are people refusing to go on parliamentary trips now or indeed share a taxi with a member of the opposition party in case that can be used against them.
And this is the problem. Of the owners is actually put on the complainant to say that they have been upset by some remark that somebody has made then this can be exploited very much in terms of be exploited very much in terms of Indeed, under the code of conduct, complaints can be bought for four years to the Commissioner for standards, and therefore, it could be possible to stack up a number of cases which then emerge just before the general election and can be used for party political advantage.
And I don't think that is how the code of conduct should be abused and that is why I put my amendment to the house today, and I hope that the noble Lady would seriously consider the dangers of the wording of the code of conduct as it now is as I think it be badly abused in the future. I beg to move. beg to move.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My first of all congratulate the Conduct Committee for reducing the Conduct Committee for reducing the gap. I think if this lesson was followed by other areas and Whitehall, we would have less legislation to worry about and perhaps the team that have done this perhaps the team that have done this might offer their services to other departments. It is also very sensible, I think that the Code of Conduct has decided not to compel people to register their interest people to register their interest when they are unpaid or charitable.
However, I sincerely hope that members of Your Lordships' House will actually declare their interest if they are trustees of the charity because it adds to authority when speaking on the subject. I hope that people will continue to do that. I'd like to move my amendment, which is basically designed to remove harassment from the charges that can be brought against one member of Parliament against another. The noble Lady Baroness Manningham- Buller has made the point that this would then be a member of Your Lordships' House could sue somebody in the Commons.
Well, I hope that if by the use of this for party political purposes, it completely discredits the code which might actually see the other place amending their way of business in the same way that I hope we would amend our way of doing business. The wording of this amendment is completely excluding members of staff and it doesn't include sexual harassment and bullying. These are very important. But the real problem, my Lords, is that when it comes to the ward harassment, the Oxford dictionary is quite clear in that it says that harassment means trouble by repeated attacks.
And that means there has to be more than one occasion when the particular offence is committed. And although the noble Lady has made a point that much of this code is lifted from the equality act, there is no mention of the fact that the act of redefining harassment as in the Code of Conduct down to an isolated incident, and therefore, I think we have a problem here with actually the definition of the word harassment in the beginning. The recent case, which has been alluded to by my noble has been alluded to by my noble friend Lady Mayor -- Maher was a single incident and I don't think we can apply the definition of harassment to that case.
Top of that, I talked to a number of lawyers in Your Lordships' House and they think that that haze -- case would have been dismissed by the court of law as trivial. I don't think we are in the business of actually treating members of Your Lordships' House more harshly than a court of law would actually do. But I'm not here to actually reopen the case. I'm not going to try to do that. I hope we have learned lessons from the cases that have happened.
To my mind, the Code of Conduct as is now awarded is leading to miscarriages of justice and I think we should be very mindful of this. And also, the problems, actually come in our party political politicians in Your Lordships' House. I was recently told of the case by a noble friend when actually there are people refusing to go on parliamentary trips now or indeed share a taxi with a member of the opposition party in case that can be used against them.
And this is the problem. Of the owners is actually put on the complainant to say that they have been upset by some remark that somebody has made then this can be exploited very much in terms of be exploited very much in terms of Indeed, under the code of conduct, complaints can be bought for four years to the Commissioner for standards, and therefore, it could be possible to stack up a number of cases which then emerge just before the general election and can be used for party political advantage.
And I don't think that is how the code of conduct should be abused and that is why I put my amendment to the house today, and I hope that the noble Lady would seriously consider the dangers of the wording of the code of conduct as it now is as I think it be badly abused in the future. I beg to move. beg to move.
11:32
11:32
Lord Newby (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Lord Newby (Liberal Democrat)
I would like to begin by congratulating the noble Baroness for the work they have done in reviewing the code of conduct and the manner in which they did it. It was a privilege to give evidence to the committee and I was extremely impressed though not surprised by the care with which the committee approached its work. It had two overlapping tests. 1st to streamline the code and guides to make them clearer and less ambiguous. And by reducing its length by 30% and simplifying the language, they have clearly achieved this.
It also had to deal with several substantive issues on which there is no consensus in the house. Here, it was impossible for them to please everybody. For myself, I wish they dropped the reference to personal honour and bought in an offence of bringing the house into disrepute. I was one of those who thought that the term was hard to understand and archaic. But I was given the chance to argue that case before the committee and I simply failed to convince them.
So it was with other peers and other topics. That the committee weighed my evidence and all the evidence they had to reach their own conclusions as a task by the house today. That is why I will vote for the report and don't support the amendments in front of us today. Lord Hailsham has argued for a tribunal and legal representation. The report, having considered the case for the system rejects it on the case that it would resolve in a long drawnout and expensive process undermining the principles of natural justice and fairness, and I do agree with that conclusion, and so I can't support his amendment.
The noble Lord wishes to amend to bring members complaints of harassment against other members for the reasons which he is just enumerating. I completely disagree with him. Harassment is a serious offence and standards of behaviour and what constitutes harassment have changed for the better over recent years. To accept the noble Lords amendment and tolerate behaviour which is intolerable and it would be extremely retrograde warehouse to agree to it. Neither do I recognise that there have then any miscarriages of justice in the past relating to this issue.
The suggestion that the code can be abused is simply implausible. If anyone were to try this, I'm sure that they would be given extremely short shrift. So, I would urge the House to support the motion to approve this report, reject the amendments and thanked the noble Baroness for her extremely distinguished extent as chair of the committee.
It also had to deal with several substantive issues on which there is no consensus in the house. Here, it was impossible for them to please everybody. For myself, I wish they dropped the reference to personal honour and bought in an offence of bringing the house into disrepute. I was one of those who thought that the term was hard to understand and archaic. But I was given the chance to argue that case before the committee and I simply failed to convince them.
So it was with other peers and other topics. That the committee weighed my evidence and all the evidence they had to reach their own conclusions as a task by the house today. That is why I will vote for the report and don't support the amendments in front of us today. Lord Hailsham has argued for a tribunal and legal representation. The report, having considered the case for the system rejects it on the case that it would resolve in a long drawnout and expensive process undermining the principles of natural justice and fairness, and I do agree with that conclusion, and so I can't support his amendment.
The noble Lord wishes to amend to bring members complaints of harassment against other members for the reasons which he is just enumerating. I completely disagree with him. Harassment is a serious offence and standards of behaviour and what constitutes harassment have changed for the better over recent years. To accept the noble Lords amendment and tolerate behaviour which is intolerable and it would be extremely retrograde warehouse to agree to it. Neither do I recognise that there have then any miscarriages of justice in the past relating to this issue.
The suggestion that the code can be abused is simply implausible. If anyone were to try this, I'm sure that they would be given extremely short shrift. So, I would urge the House to support the motion to approve this report, reject the amendments and thanked the noble Baroness for her extremely distinguished extent as chair of the committee.
11:36
Baroness Donaghy (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Donaghy (Labour)
I chair the steering group for change which advises and supports the House of Lords committee and the management board on continued efforts to improve the workplace culture of the house. We create a space where members and staff can work together in an open and collaborative way and the effectiveness of the House of Lords relies on strong working relationships. Between members of the house and the administration. To strengthen the house as an institution. It also has the potential to build a positive public perceptions of this house.
The steering group consider the recommendations of the review and we are grateful to the chair of the committee for attending our meeting last week, and the conduct committee and its officers for the enormous amount of work carried out to produce this substantial report. We see this as a protection for members and not a threat. It will reassure staff that everyone on the estate will be treated equally and will be a signal to members of the public that we have a fair independent and robust system for dealing with conduct issues.
The Right Reverend Prelate who is a member of our steering group and who had originally intended to speak was unable to because a family health has asked for a to say on her behalf that my own expectation that in this place of work, that having a robust code backed up by clear guidance is really important for the expression of culture of who we want to be expressed in the way of how we are going to do it. And that is important for every person at every point of this organisation and it should be just a given.
The amendment by Lord Hamilton to prevent peers from submitting complaints against each other would go against the grain of equal treatment for all on this Parliamentary Estate. It would drive a coach and horses through the behaviour code. Of course there are risks that a complainant might be playing politics. That is why we have independent and impartial commissioners. Members of the conduct committee are not naive about the political nature of our work. That is why the three main parties and crossbenchers are represented on the conduct committee.
Finally, the amendment by the noble and Lord Hailsham to introduce an adversarial system to deal with conduct issues has been considered many times before and rejected consistently by this house. It would put us at answered the House of Commons, the Scottish Parliament Senate and the Northern Ireland Assembly. And my concern is also echoed in the words that it would increase the length and the expense of investigation. I hope very much that we will give wholehearted support to the conduct committees report and our thanks to Lady Bull for the distinguished chairing of this committee in the last few years.
The steering group consider the recommendations of the review and we are grateful to the chair of the committee for attending our meeting last week, and the conduct committee and its officers for the enormous amount of work carried out to produce this substantial report. We see this as a protection for members and not a threat. It will reassure staff that everyone on the estate will be treated equally and will be a signal to members of the public that we have a fair independent and robust system for dealing with conduct issues.
The Right Reverend Prelate who is a member of our steering group and who had originally intended to speak was unable to because a family health has asked for a to say on her behalf that my own expectation that in this place of work, that having a robust code backed up by clear guidance is really important for the expression of culture of who we want to be expressed in the way of how we are going to do it. And that is important for every person at every point of this organisation and it should be just a given.
The amendment by Lord Hamilton to prevent peers from submitting complaints against each other would go against the grain of equal treatment for all on this Parliamentary Estate. It would drive a coach and horses through the behaviour code. Of course there are risks that a complainant might be playing politics. That is why we have independent and impartial commissioners. Members of the conduct committee are not naive about the political nature of our work. That is why the three main parties and crossbenchers are represented on the conduct committee.
Finally, the amendment by the noble and Lord Hailsham to introduce an adversarial system to deal with conduct issues has been considered many times before and rejected consistently by this house. It would put us at answered the House of Commons, the Scottish Parliament Senate and the Northern Ireland Assembly. And my concern is also echoed in the words that it would increase the length and the expense of investigation. I hope very much that we will give wholehearted support to the conduct committees report and our thanks to Lady Bull for the distinguished chairing of this committee in the last few years.
11:40
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Conservative)
It is a pleasure to follow the lady who is wise and to echo her remarks about Baroness May. She is a glutton for punishment. She extended her term of office in order to deal with this issue and it is a very important one. I'm sorry we only have four minutes. We have do discuss very important questions. I have a number of comments which I hope the committee might give consideration to. The first is what exactly is the definition of a minor case.
It is not clear from the report of what this would relate to. The second is the ideal extending of the appointment. I think that is undesirable, but my main concern is the extension of the committee remit into social media. And in particular, looking at the report. Some of the comments which are made I find quite worrying, for example, on paragraph 24, the House of Lords has the right to determine the offensive statements made by its members on public facing media may fall within the scope of the code.
It is hard to argue with that in principle, but getting involved in what people say on social media, I don't do social media because I think it is revolting as a place and what people say about each other is certainly not to my taste, the idea that the committee should get involved in social media is a very big step indeed. It is hedged around the circumstances of it, and I think it needs to have careful consideration, and the other point which I find fantastic, that the report makes it quite clear that getting up and saying I refer to my interest in the register which people do every day at question time in this place is a breach of the code and they are required to continue to do that where they have a financial interest.
I do not think that is practical. Question time is already difficult because people make very long questions and some give very long answers. Will certainly give long responses to questions. And it does seem to me that having to declare an interest at question time and not being able to say I refer to the register, which I think is a waste of time anybody because nobody has a clue what is on the register just extends the length of question time, and I think that should be given further consideration.
On paragraph 49, no disrespect to our distinguished clerk of the house, which relates to those members who have left the house, the suggestion is that if a former member were to breach the rules, it would be for the commission or the clerk of Parliament to use their powers. I think it should be for the commission and not the Clerk of the Parliaments. I have to say the noble Lady and her committee, they have produced a document which I can pick holes in but it is such a great leap forward from what I had before.
They took evidence, I gave evidence, they considered that evidence carefully. I think it would be quite wrong for the house not to support this unanimously and with great gratitude to the noble Lady and her committee for the work done which cannot have been easy.
It is not clear from the report of what this would relate to. The second is the ideal extending of the appointment. I think that is undesirable, but my main concern is the extension of the committee remit into social media. And in particular, looking at the report. Some of the comments which are made I find quite worrying, for example, on paragraph 24, the House of Lords has the right to determine the offensive statements made by its members on public facing media may fall within the scope of the code.
It is hard to argue with that in principle, but getting involved in what people say on social media, I don't do social media because I think it is revolting as a place and what people say about each other is certainly not to my taste, the idea that the committee should get involved in social media is a very big step indeed. It is hedged around the circumstances of it, and I think it needs to have careful consideration, and the other point which I find fantastic, that the report makes it quite clear that getting up and saying I refer to my interest in the register which people do every day at question time in this place is a breach of the code and they are required to continue to do that where they have a financial interest.
I do not think that is practical. Question time is already difficult because people make very long questions and some give very long answers. Will certainly give long responses to questions. And it does seem to me that having to declare an interest at question time and not being able to say I refer to the register, which I think is a waste of time anybody because nobody has a clue what is on the register just extends the length of question time, and I think that should be given further consideration.
On paragraph 49, no disrespect to our distinguished clerk of the house, which relates to those members who have left the house, the suggestion is that if a former member were to breach the rules, it would be for the commission or the clerk of Parliament to use their powers. I think it should be for the commission and not the Clerk of the Parliaments. I have to say the noble Lady and her committee, they have produced a document which I can pick holes in but it is such a great leap forward from what I had before.
They took evidence, I gave evidence, they considered that evidence carefully. I think it would be quite wrong for the house not to support this unanimously and with great gratitude to the noble Lady and her committee for the work done which cannot have been easy.
11:44
Baroness Deech (Crossbench)
-
-
Baroness Deech (Crossbench)
Even for the best behaved of us, the mention of the code of conduct investigation sends a shiver down the spine because there are grave consequences in the world these days in relation to offences that might have been settled privately and amicably years ago. There is great publicity and the damage is long lasting. Incidentally, I was once chair of the standards Board for barristers. It was a complex nuance layered procedure but for those reasons, I quite agree with Viscount Hailsham that regulations need more independence than is being granted in this revised charter.
As foreign substance goes, I am puzzled that lien, harassment and sexual misconduct are regarded as so much more serious than other offences they get separate treatment in the code and there is no longer any limit at all on reporting sexual misconduct even years ago. Are these offences really worth the violence lobbying financial misconduct and lying, especially as the latter is more likely to affect people in the more likely to affect people in the Having reference to my time as chair of the past standard support.
The definitions of justice are wider than those in the report. Full disclosure of all the interest of the commissioners and that the person complained against should be able to challenge the evidence and have access to all the documents involved. The case for legal representation is difficult but I think it is today much stronger than it used to be. Just above because -- just because the committee took a narrower review doesn't mean it was the right outcome and I don't see why we should be more hesitant of facing up to challenges of all sorts than the public are expected to be, so I would suggest that adding an explicit right to see all the documents and have a lawyer speak to documents and have a lawyer speak to you.
The problem with the system now compared to natural justice is that it is one commissioner only who decides whether or not to investigate, carries out investigation and decides like a judge what the consequences should be and the punishment. There is time be and the punishment. There is time -- it is time now to bring those procedures into line with natural justice to a greater extent. One ambiguity needs to be clarified. That relates to the rule about the use of facilities, such as one's office, primarily, whatever that amounts to, for parliamentary amounts to, for parliamentary purposes.
One would hope one gets to use one's own facilities for parliamentary duties and people may be paying of researchers and assistance from the personal income because if you live out of London, the daily allowance won't stretch that far. As a reciprocal measure, I would have thought it permissible to use one's office here for office purposes whether parliamentary or otherwise, especially when one has no other office facilities to hand. I hope that there are some sympathy for broad definition of what may be allowed in one's office on the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Parliamentary Estate. I won't repeat what the noble
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I won't repeat what the noble Lady Manningham Buller has already
As foreign substance goes, I am puzzled that lien, harassment and sexual misconduct are regarded as so much more serious than other offences they get separate treatment in the code and there is no longer any limit at all on reporting sexual misconduct even years ago. Are these offences really worth the violence lobbying financial misconduct and lying, especially as the latter is more likely to affect people in the more likely to affect people in the Having reference to my time as chair of the past standard support.
The definitions of justice are wider than those in the report. Full disclosure of all the interest of the commissioners and that the person complained against should be able to challenge the evidence and have access to all the documents involved. The case for legal representation is difficult but I think it is today much stronger than it used to be. Just above because -- just because the committee took a narrower review doesn't mean it was the right outcome and I don't see why we should be more hesitant of facing up to challenges of all sorts than the public are expected to be, so I would suggest that adding an explicit right to see all the documents and have a lawyer speak to documents and have a lawyer speak to you.
The problem with the system now compared to natural justice is that it is one commissioner only who decides whether or not to investigate, carries out investigation and decides like a judge what the consequences should be and the punishment. There is time be and the punishment. There is time -- it is time now to bring those procedures into line with natural justice to a greater extent. One ambiguity needs to be clarified. That relates to the rule about the use of facilities, such as one's office, primarily, whatever that amounts to, for parliamentary amounts to, for parliamentary purposes.
One would hope one gets to use one's own facilities for parliamentary duties and people may be paying of researchers and assistance from the personal income because if you live out of London, the daily allowance won't stretch that far. As a reciprocal measure, I would have thought it permissible to use one's office here for office purposes whether parliamentary or otherwise, especially when one has no other office facilities to hand. I hope that there are some sympathy for broad definition of what may be allowed in one's office on the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Parliamentary Estate. I won't repeat what the noble
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I won't repeat what the noble Lady Manningham Buller has already
11:48
Lord Garnier (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Garnier (Conservative)
Lady Manningham Buller has already said in opening this debate, nor do I have time, sadly, to comment on the two amendments moved by my noble friend Lord Hailsham and Lord Hamilton. That said, I doubt that the noble Lady elbowed her way to the front of the queue to chair the Conduct Committee but we should be grateful to her that she was persuaded to take on the job. As a member of the Conduct Committee, I saw firsthand her skills as a leader, as a negotiator, as a manager of expectations, and as a catalyst for consensus and perhaps more importantly, I saw her as someone who cares deeply about fairness and justice.
This new shorter de-cluttered compensable Code of Conduct and the guide are as good as they are very largely because of the noble Lady. I must also expressly thank the clerks to the committee whose advice and drafting skills were of the highest quality and this house is in there quality and this house is in there As a member of the Conduct Committee from January 2020 20 until January of this year, I heard many anxious but also perplexing contribution to the debate outside the committee's formal sessions about the rules of conduct for this House.
The evidence we received in committee and before the general election last year, chaired some of the evidence session, from the party group, including my noble friend Lord Forsyth and from the convener of the crossbenches. It was universally thoughtful and helpful in informing our deliberations and conclusions. Revising the Code of Conduct is not mass participation activity. Despite affecting everyone of us, the revision excited relatively little interest, perhaps because very few members of this house breached the code. Most of us don't know who the commissioners are, be the's are members.
It was therefore unsurprising that despite reminders, only a handful of your Lordships responded to the call for evidence, but we were very grateful to those that did. In my time on the Committee, we had to deal with only a very small number of breaches of the code. The overwhelming majority of members of this house are kind towards each other. The exceptions were rare but even then, we are not dealing with people who were irredeemably bad. Mistakes happen, technical breaches of the code occur, things are said which on reflection would not have been said.
Most who were found to have broken the code, admitted they were wrong and were apologetic. I doubt they would do it again. On those occasions when we were concerned with more serious breaches, the problems not infrequently rose from diminished capacity and the deflections of the day rather than malice. Quite a few complaints made about members of Your Lordships' House were trivial and vexatious. If the new code is approved, we will have a better way of allowing the commissioners to deal with those, which doesn't affect innocent peers or peers who have committed only minor or technical infractions, which can be dealt with by correction of the register.
Overall, my Lords, the new shorter code is such an improvement on its predecessor that it will not I hope attracted criticism that the earlier version experience. I do not have time to identify the new changes, but I want to, finally, to turn to the question of the membership of the Conduct Committee. There are strong views for and against there being on the committee and I will speak to the question now. Lay members are appointed for six years, twice as long as our own three-year term limit.
That needs to be changed. I found the lay members to be dedicated people who took their work seriously and responsibility but I don't understand why their
**** Possible New Speaker ****
terms should be twice the length of our own. My Lords, I also welcome the
This new shorter de-cluttered compensable Code of Conduct and the guide are as good as they are very largely because of the noble Lady. I must also expressly thank the clerks to the committee whose advice and drafting skills were of the highest quality and this house is in there quality and this house is in there As a member of the Conduct Committee from January 2020 20 until January of this year, I heard many anxious but also perplexing contribution to the debate outside the committee's formal sessions about the rules of conduct for this House.
The evidence we received in committee and before the general election last year, chaired some of the evidence session, from the party group, including my noble friend Lord Forsyth and from the convener of the crossbenches. It was universally thoughtful and helpful in informing our deliberations and conclusions. Revising the Code of Conduct is not mass participation activity. Despite affecting everyone of us, the revision excited relatively little interest, perhaps because very few members of this house breached the code. Most of us don't know who the commissioners are, be the's are members.
It was therefore unsurprising that despite reminders, only a handful of your Lordships responded to the call for evidence, but we were very grateful to those that did. In my time on the Committee, we had to deal with only a very small number of breaches of the code. The overwhelming majority of members of this house are kind towards each other. The exceptions were rare but even then, we are not dealing with people who were irredeemably bad. Mistakes happen, technical breaches of the code occur, things are said which on reflection would not have been said.
Most who were found to have broken the code, admitted they were wrong and were apologetic. I doubt they would do it again. On those occasions when we were concerned with more serious breaches, the problems not infrequently rose from diminished capacity and the deflections of the day rather than malice. Quite a few complaints made about members of Your Lordships' House were trivial and vexatious. If the new code is approved, we will have a better way of allowing the commissioners to deal with those, which doesn't affect innocent peers or peers who have committed only minor or technical infractions, which can be dealt with by correction of the register.
Overall, my Lords, the new shorter code is such an improvement on its predecessor that it will not I hope attracted criticism that the earlier version experience. I do not have time to identify the new changes, but I want to, finally, to turn to the question of the membership of the Conduct Committee. There are strong views for and against there being on the committee and I will speak to the question now. Lay members are appointed for six years, twice as long as our own three-year term limit.
That needs to be changed. I found the lay members to be dedicated people who took their work seriously and responsibility but I don't understand why their
**** Possible New Speaker ****
terms should be twice the length of our own. My Lords, I also welcome the
11:52
Lord Lilley (Conservative)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I also welcome the report both for its levity and for report both for its levity and for its rejection of the idea of introducing an offence of bringing introducing an offence of bringing the house into disrepute, but I do want to raise some questions, which I hope will be considered in any future review, although I don't want to go as far as directing the committee to do so in the way of one of the amendments before the house.
I sympathise -- even though I sympathise with some of its spirit. I supported the original purpose of having a procedure to deal with complaints about harassment and complaints about harassment and bullying. The purpose was to support staff. One would hope it would never happen but if it does happen comment on the right that staff should be protected. I doubt if the aim was originally or the expectation was it would be used to police verbal exchanges between noble Lords.
Surely the presumption is that we are old enough and sensible enough to deal with offensive remarks made by other colleagues without running "Please, "Please, miss, "Please, miss, Jimmy "Please, miss, Jimmy called "Please, miss, Jimmy called me "Please, miss, Jimmy called me a name on the playground. " It's particularly wrong because the procedure itself can be long and damaging. So you will have from a minor case, a major punishment, even if the outcome is to ultimately exonerate the person concerned.
The process can be the punishment. I think it was the noble Baroness Donohue who I always assume is right in most cases, but she did say, or thought she said it was unlikely that these procedures would ever be used for party political reasons. I'm afraid that shows how good- natured, if it was her, but I'm afraid it is the sort of thing. In the other place, with different roles but nevertheless the procedures are interest. And Labour member went through every interest held by every Conservative member and so they were mentioned in debate where there is a possibility there might be a conflict of interest and scores of people were brought before the Commission.
I was one because I had not mentioned I had an interest in the company which operated exclusively in Central Asia in a debate which was about domestic energy because. Didn't mention it because it and think it was relevant. The commissioner said she accepted I have no conflict of interest but I should have declared it because somebody might have thought I had a conflict of interest. Unless I apologise to the house, she would take it to the full Committee. I had no intention of apologising for not realising that the commission could invent new rules that we had to declare an interest we don't have.
This is the problem that rules constantly -- roles constantly expand. I was entirely exonerated by the committee for the first time in their history. But it was brought for party political reasons. And there have been two cases recently before the house where I understand that originally the person offended by an accidental insult. Graciously accepted the apology from the person who perpetrated that insult. But then subsequently, withdrew the apology, and issued a complaint. Now, the suspicion must arise that they have been pressed by a rather more party political colleagues to do so.
We must not allow the situation to exist where party politics can be used to abuse the system, which is ideally there to protect staff, not ourselves.
Lord Lilley (Conservative)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I also welcome the report both for its levity and for report both for its levity and for its rejection of the idea of introducing an offence of bringing introducing an offence of bringing the house into disrepute, but I do want to raise some questions, which I hope will be considered in any future review, although I don't want to go as far as directing the committee to do so in the way of one of the amendments before the house.
I sympathise -- even though I sympathise with some of its spirit. I supported the original purpose of having a procedure to deal with complaints about harassment and complaints about harassment and bullying. The purpose was to support staff. One would hope it would never happen but if it does happen comment on the right that staff should be protected. I doubt if the aim was originally or the expectation was it would be used to police verbal exchanges between noble Lords.
Surely the presumption is that we are old enough and sensible enough to deal with offensive remarks made by other colleagues without running "Please, "Please, miss, "Please, miss, Jimmy "Please, miss, Jimmy called "Please, miss, Jimmy called me "Please, miss, Jimmy called me a name on the playground. " It's particularly wrong because the procedure itself can be long and damaging. So you will have from a minor case, a major punishment, even if the outcome is to ultimately exonerate the person concerned.
The process can be the punishment. I think it was the noble Baroness Donohue who I always assume is right in most cases, but she did say, or thought she said it was unlikely that these procedures would ever be used for party political reasons. I'm afraid that shows how good- natured, if it was her, but I'm afraid it is the sort of thing. In the other place, with different roles but nevertheless the procedures are interest. And Labour member went through every interest held by every Conservative member and so they were mentioned in debate where there is a possibility there might be a conflict of interest and scores of people were brought before the Commission.
I was one because I had not mentioned I had an interest in the company which operated exclusively in Central Asia in a debate which was about domestic energy because. Didn't mention it because it and think it was relevant. The commissioner said she accepted I have no conflict of interest but I should have declared it because somebody might have thought I had a conflict of interest. Unless I apologise to the house, she would take it to the full Committee. I had no intention of apologising for not realising that the commission could invent new rules that we had to declare an interest we don't have.
This is the problem that rules constantly -- roles constantly expand. I was entirely exonerated by the committee for the first time in their history. But it was brought for party political reasons. And there have been two cases recently before the house where I understand that originally the person offended by an accidental insult. Graciously accepted the apology from the person who perpetrated that insult. But then subsequently, withdrew the apology, and issued a complaint. Now, the suspicion must arise that they have been pressed by a rather more party political colleagues to do so.
We must not allow the situation to exist where party politics can be used to abuse the system, which is ideally there to protect staff, not ourselves.
11:57
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
-
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
My Lords, congratulations to Baroness Manningham-Buller on accepting -- restoring sanity. I'm disappointed that the replication of disappointed that the replication of existing rules on bullying and harassment were fairly lumped in with sexual misconduct. What's more, all three are singled out as especially egregious, as referred. We are left with definitions of bullying and harassment that are unduly subjective, explicitly based on the perception of the person experiencing the conduct, and that conduct can be unintended, isolated incident that may be hidden or insidious.
Surely, we can see the dangers of such vagueness and the potential -- and the potential for unjust accusations. For example, to quote, a person can be harassed even if they are not the intended target of the harassment. This perversely creates a non-victim victim and creates a non-victim victim and There are numerous recent examples were accusations have been made based on the feelings of victims. But actually the allegations themselves were the real perpetrators of bullying and harassment.
Employees being forced to apologise or pay damages but this redress is not open to those found guilty by this code. I'm glad the committee conceded the significant told that even investigations can have on members. So often, the process is indeed the punishment, as process is indeed the punishment, as evidenced by the hell that those affected can testify. But when the committee concludes that a minor case procedure can now be used and guess what? Bullying and harassment are excluded.
Why? It's implied it's related to power imbalances. Interestingly, in the definition of bullying, we are told that our can equate to coercion through a fear of intimidation. Can be a knowledge that we live in a society that further rises victimhood? Council culture that promiscuously demonises others by labelling them as bullies and harassers. As such, the real power can reside in the hands at hands of would-be accusers. Even the threat of an allegation of bullying can be a career or reputation destroying and it certainly intimidating.
I'm not even sure about saying this year. A measure that denying the right to cross- examine the accuser helps and therefore I have some sympathy with viscounts amendment. The Code of Conduct deals with the distinction between parliamentary and between parliamentary and unparliamentary conduct. There seems a fudge on social media as referred. And worried about the recommendations that text should be written that will state in terms of what activity on social media may be dubbed parliamentary. What will our text say? This combined with the way that definitions of bullying and harassment include that both can happen online via social media means that, as Lord Forsyth has indicated, this could be a Trojan horse to drag public common unparliamentary speech into spoke the microscope.
-- Into
Surely, we can see the dangers of such vagueness and the potential -- and the potential for unjust accusations. For example, to quote, a person can be harassed even if they are not the intended target of the harassment. This perversely creates a non-victim victim and creates a non-victim victim and There are numerous recent examples were accusations have been made based on the feelings of victims. But actually the allegations themselves were the real perpetrators of bullying and harassment.
Employees being forced to apologise or pay damages but this redress is not open to those found guilty by this code. I'm glad the committee conceded the significant told that even investigations can have on members. So often, the process is indeed the punishment, as process is indeed the punishment, as evidenced by the hell that those affected can testify. But when the committee concludes that a minor case procedure can now be used and guess what? Bullying and harassment are excluded.
Why? It's implied it's related to power imbalances. Interestingly, in the definition of bullying, we are told that our can equate to coercion through a fear of intimidation. Can be a knowledge that we live in a society that further rises victimhood? Council culture that promiscuously demonises others by labelling them as bullies and harassers. As such, the real power can reside in the hands at hands of would-be accusers. Even the threat of an allegation of bullying can be a career or reputation destroying and it certainly intimidating.
I'm not even sure about saying this year. A measure that denying the right to cross- examine the accuser helps and therefore I have some sympathy with viscounts amendment. The Code of Conduct deals with the distinction between parliamentary and between parliamentary and unparliamentary conduct. There seems a fudge on social media as referred. And worried about the recommendations that text should be written that will state in terms of what activity on social media may be dubbed parliamentary. What will our text say? This combined with the way that definitions of bullying and harassment include that both can happen online via social media means that, as Lord Forsyth has indicated, this could be a Trojan horse to drag public common unparliamentary speech into spoke the microscope.
-- Into
12:01
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Conservative)
My few remarks are, based on the work I did in the city, where I was involved in the first introduction of statutory regulation, and for over 30 years, the self-regulatory system was driven out and I think there were some lessons and portents of what may lie ahead of your Lordships house. I want to make two very short points. The first is that we found very early on that as far as codes and guides were concerned, less is more.
People in the city are busy making money, busy holding the government to account. They do not have time to read codes so the shorter the better. I expect my support to the Baroness Flather reduction in code length and guide lengths they have taken and focusing them but I have to say gently, distill over 60 pages long. My second point is slightly less obliging. I hadn't email exchange with the noble Baroness so she is aware of what I'm going to say.
Nothing I am saying is about her personally. She has an unenviable role which was carried out with dignity, nor my attacking the manners of the committee. I want to look at the direction of travel in the code we are discussing today. And the challenge as I see it in paragraphs 3 and four. It says upholding the codes to objectives and the guide to phase 2 way. It is self-regulating and exists to serve the public.
Immediately, one has to realise that anything facing two ways will inevitably have some tensions between the two functions and in the city, we found that maintaining a self regulatory ailment was impossible. We squeezed out self-regulation, and that is the view that was slowly happening in the system of your Lordships house. Some members of the house believe that it is desirable, inevitable, and indeed, I think the noble Viscount takes us a further step down that road. But others may think that an element of self-regulation, of input, makes things more relevant and effective, and further, we believe that it is true of a house of parliament, a major part of whose role is undertaking the delicate task of balancing conflicts of interest.
In 240 seconds, I cannot hope to explain this, but if I had one sentence only, it would be that. That we may have forgotten the importance of the presumption, a point made by my noble friend, that guide as a protector of the members of the Lordship, the code is the protector of the reputation of the house and has to be Obeid. The guide is the protection of your Lordships house needs to carry with it that assumption. Without it, members of the house and up the worst of all words.
The system of the fuzzy nature of the guide is investigated and enforced as if it were on a statutory basis, and that is not a helpful way to proceed. I am not attacking anybody. I draw the attention to the direction of travel which has its downside, and if we were to decide, I would be inclined to support it.
People in the city are busy making money, busy holding the government to account. They do not have time to read codes so the shorter the better. I expect my support to the Baroness Flather reduction in code length and guide lengths they have taken and focusing them but I have to say gently, distill over 60 pages long. My second point is slightly less obliging. I hadn't email exchange with the noble Baroness so she is aware of what I'm going to say.
Nothing I am saying is about her personally. She has an unenviable role which was carried out with dignity, nor my attacking the manners of the committee. I want to look at the direction of travel in the code we are discussing today. And the challenge as I see it in paragraphs 3 and four. It says upholding the codes to objectives and the guide to phase 2 way. It is self-regulating and exists to serve the public.
Immediately, one has to realise that anything facing two ways will inevitably have some tensions between the two functions and in the city, we found that maintaining a self regulatory ailment was impossible. We squeezed out self-regulation, and that is the view that was slowly happening in the system of your Lordships house. Some members of the house believe that it is desirable, inevitable, and indeed, I think the noble Viscount takes us a further step down that road. But others may think that an element of self-regulation, of input, makes things more relevant and effective, and further, we believe that it is true of a house of parliament, a major part of whose role is undertaking the delicate task of balancing conflicts of interest.
In 240 seconds, I cannot hope to explain this, but if I had one sentence only, it would be that. That we may have forgotten the importance of the presumption, a point made by my noble friend, that guide as a protector of the members of the Lordship, the code is the protector of the reputation of the house and has to be Obeid. The guide is the protection of your Lordships house needs to carry with it that assumption. Without it, members of the house and up the worst of all words.
The system of the fuzzy nature of the guide is investigated and enforced as if it were on a statutory basis, and that is not a helpful way to proceed. I am not attacking anybody. I draw the attention to the direction of travel which has its downside, and if we were to decide, I would be inclined to support it.
12:05
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Labour)
-
-
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Labour)
I welcomed the report and support the recommendation. The commissioners as well as the committee are doing a good job, and in particular, the chair has been exceptional and will be a very hard act to follow. That brings me to 1 of the recommendations on the rotation of members. I believe the automatic rotation of members with all committees on a three-year basis is generally unhelpful to members but a gift to the establishment. However, on the conduct committee, it is especially damaging to the work of the committee as outlined in the report, and I do hope that the procedures and privileges committee will accept the recommendation that it should be rescinded.
I also support the view that it wouldn't be appropriate to whiten the application of the code beyond our parliamentary activities, in particular, rejects the suggestion that it should be extended generally to a post on social media. I welcome this as I know there have many complaints against me and others about activists who I have designated as cyber men because they disagree with my point of view. The irony is that my posts have all avoided any personal comments whereas the responses have been full of abuse, so I hope the committee will be careful in relation to any exception, and on this occasion, I agree with Lord Forsyth and Baroness Fox.
I may be the friend that Baroness Fox was speaking about their. All through the code, the correct assumption that membership is a part-time activity regrettably. I believe that the house is not a second chamber with properly resourced full-time members able to deal effectively with legislation and hold government to account as is the case in Canada, France, where the Senate do that. But that is an issue for another day. However, the nature of this house does make it strange that we have a code covering members where there is no specific provision in the house for us to employ anyone.
Although some of us do use our part-time allowance to do so. It is not easily done. Lastly, I would like to support the recommendation on keeping the inquisitorial system, the introduction of an adversarial system would not only deter victims from making legitimate complaints but would also significantly lengthen the process and turn it into another goldmine for lawyers, and I wonder if we should have declared the interest when he moved his amendment. Incidentally, I was wondering if some of the members who spoke on Mondays debate were in breach of section 14 B of the code by not declaring their interest in doing so.
No doubt, that can be looked at. But can I conclude well looked at. But can I conclude well within the time, my Chief Whip, restate the recommendation and hope they will be agreed unanimously.
I also support the view that it wouldn't be appropriate to whiten the application of the code beyond our parliamentary activities, in particular, rejects the suggestion that it should be extended generally to a post on social media. I welcome this as I know there have many complaints against me and others about activists who I have designated as cyber men because they disagree with my point of view. The irony is that my posts have all avoided any personal comments whereas the responses have been full of abuse, so I hope the committee will be careful in relation to any exception, and on this occasion, I agree with Lord Forsyth and Baroness Fox.
I may be the friend that Baroness Fox was speaking about their. All through the code, the correct assumption that membership is a part-time activity regrettably. I believe that the house is not a second chamber with properly resourced full-time members able to deal effectively with legislation and hold government to account as is the case in Canada, France, where the Senate do that. But that is an issue for another day. However, the nature of this house does make it strange that we have a code covering members where there is no specific provision in the house for us to employ anyone.
Although some of us do use our part-time allowance to do so. It is not easily done. Lastly, I would like to support the recommendation on keeping the inquisitorial system, the introduction of an adversarial system would not only deter victims from making legitimate complaints but would also significantly lengthen the process and turn it into another goldmine for lawyers, and I wonder if we should have declared the interest when he moved his amendment. Incidentally, I was wondering if some of the members who spoke on Mondays debate were in breach of section 14 B of the code by not declaring their interest in doing so.
No doubt, that can be looked at. But can I conclude well looked at. But can I conclude well within the time, my Chief Whip, restate the recommendation and hope they will be agreed unanimously.
12:08
Lord Balfe (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Balfe (Conservative)
Maybe I could start off by pointing out that both the chief whips have disappeared. That may be a reflection on this part of the speakers list. Can I thank Baroness Manningham-Buller for the report and for the courtesy she showed me when we met to discuss certain issues. Anything I said is not a criticism of her. The redraft and the shortening overall is a very good thing. The trouble with current documents is that they get longer and longer and more and more difficult, so I do welcome that.
I also support the points made because these reports get published and then they go immediately on the internet and this is how people are then defined. One noble Lord who were sanctioned said to me that when he went for an interview, he was confronted with the fact that he had supposedly, the conduct committee had found that he had breached the rule of conduct. So, it is not a sure thing, and I think the point being made is a very sound one as backup by the Baroness.
I also think that the point of Lord Hamilton is a very sound one. I was appalled at the report on Baroness May where really it seems that a playground scrap had been elevated into a great travesty. It really did strike me that it was way beyond where the rules should have been applied. I wonder how many members of the staff of the House of Lords have been suspended for offences against the code and how many of them have suspended without any pay because that is what suspension does here.
I would like to just briefly mention the point of the house being in disrepute. I have also been on the receiving end of this, regular group of people out in the community, many of them with surnames that look very Ukrainian who regularly protest when I speak about Russia. And on occasions, I have even written to the leader of my group asking that I be thrown out. The credit of the leader of my group, he refused to do leader of my group, he refused to do so.
But if I could, I think the whole committee needs reviewing. I would like to see an independent members services committee of which this was part of their remit. The more we build up committees that have nothing better to do than employ for experts on six-year contracts to look at the details of members behaviour, I just don't think it is worth it. What we should doing is making much greater use of mediation. The Baroness report need never have been written.
The king could have been solved by a process of mediation. And we also, I believe, need to open hearings. I can see the danger of having them on the floor of the house, and I can see the danger of having journalists there, but why shouldn't members of the house be entitled to attend hearings affecting their own colleagues? That seems to me quite reasonable. Particularly if you have a confidentiality clause. So I would like the new committee to look at the impossible task of abolishing itself, and the not too impossible task of looking to use more mediation and other skills to solve problems.
I also support the points made because these reports get published and then they go immediately on the internet and this is how people are then defined. One noble Lord who were sanctioned said to me that when he went for an interview, he was confronted with the fact that he had supposedly, the conduct committee had found that he had breached the rule of conduct. So, it is not a sure thing, and I think the point being made is a very sound one as backup by the Baroness.
I also think that the point of Lord Hamilton is a very sound one. I was appalled at the report on Baroness May where really it seems that a playground scrap had been elevated into a great travesty. It really did strike me that it was way beyond where the rules should have been applied. I wonder how many members of the staff of the House of Lords have been suspended for offences against the code and how many of them have suspended without any pay because that is what suspension does here.
I would like to just briefly mention the point of the house being in disrepute. I have also been on the receiving end of this, regular group of people out in the community, many of them with surnames that look very Ukrainian who regularly protest when I speak about Russia. And on occasions, I have even written to the leader of my group asking that I be thrown out. The credit of the leader of my group, he refused to do leader of my group, he refused to do so.
But if I could, I think the whole committee needs reviewing. I would like to see an independent members services committee of which this was part of their remit. The more we build up committees that have nothing better to do than employ for experts on six-year contracts to look at the details of members behaviour, I just don't think it is worth it. What we should doing is making much greater use of mediation. The Baroness report need never have been written.
The king could have been solved by a process of mediation. And we also, I believe, need to open hearings. I can see the danger of having them on the floor of the house, and I can see the danger of having journalists there, but why shouldn't members of the house be entitled to attend hearings affecting their own colleagues? That seems to me quite reasonable. Particularly if you have a confidentiality clause. So I would like the new committee to look at the impossible task of abolishing itself, and the not too impossible task of looking to use more mediation and other skills to solve problems.
12:13
Lord Skidelsky (Crossbench)
-
-
Lord Skidelsky (Crossbench)
I commend the efforts of the noble Lady and her committee to shorten and simplify the code and guide, that they are not altogether freedom from the bureaucracy involved in all of this, and it is more a sign of the times than any lack of effort on their part. But I would like to make the following points. First, I welcome the obligation to register non-financial interest and reduce interest from 10 to 7. But I still struggle to understand the purpose of the register.
So, what is a relevant financial interest. The only guidance we are given is what a reasonable person might find relevant, but that is very vague. For example, in what way might a reasonable member of the public think that my own occasional income from writing or lecturing might constitute a financial motive strong enough to influence my parliamentary activities, except of course for the better. So, with the noble Lord consider moving income from category 1 to miscellaneous financial interest in category seven.
That is my first point. Second, the conduct committee is taken on-board criticisms of the privilege committee standing orders 68 dated 2019, mandating that reports on sanctions from the conduct committee decided without debate in this House. Conduct committee reports say that it is considered whether to limit this prohibition to cases arising from bullying, harassment, and sexual misconduct. And that is a step forward. Allowing the house to question the judgement of the conduct committee in a particular case puts teeth into the otherwise empty declaration that the decision whether to impose sanctions rests with this house.
Unless you can debate it properly, it is an empty Could noble Lady tell us whether the committee is in fact asking the committee on privileges to scrap the prohibition on debating its reports in this house? Third, contrary to what noble Lords may believe, the Commissioner for Standards is not limited to investigating complaints. We have complaints, complaints, complaints, but it can investigate disclosures. That's wrong. And anonymous disclosure may trigger process which ends in a sanction without any complaint being made to the commissioner of standards.
The investigatory procedures should be exclusively triggered by a complaint. Number four, the report acknowledges that doesn't resolve the potential contradiction between the requirement for members to act on their sense of personal honour and the reputational damage role, a point raised by Lord Newton. Now, behaviour which members consider Honourable may breach the sense and culture of the House. I repeat my complaint of October that the appeal to personal honour does now work in the code at all.
Members required to follow the code irrespective of whether they think it is honourable for them to do so. If the committee wants to preserve the personal honour requirement, it must state what their personal honour tells them to do. Harassment would depend on the person -- the perception of the person experiencing it. We had an example of this recently and in this, I agree with Lord Hamilton.
So, what is a relevant financial interest. The only guidance we are given is what a reasonable person might find relevant, but that is very vague. For example, in what way might a reasonable member of the public think that my own occasional income from writing or lecturing might constitute a financial motive strong enough to influence my parliamentary activities, except of course for the better. So, with the noble Lord consider moving income from category 1 to miscellaneous financial interest in category seven.
That is my first point. Second, the conduct committee is taken on-board criticisms of the privilege committee standing orders 68 dated 2019, mandating that reports on sanctions from the conduct committee decided without debate in this House. Conduct committee reports say that it is considered whether to limit this prohibition to cases arising from bullying, harassment, and sexual misconduct. And that is a step forward. Allowing the house to question the judgement of the conduct committee in a particular case puts teeth into the otherwise empty declaration that the decision whether to impose sanctions rests with this house.
Unless you can debate it properly, it is an empty Could noble Lady tell us whether the committee is in fact asking the committee on privileges to scrap the prohibition on debating its reports in this house? Third, contrary to what noble Lords may believe, the Commissioner for Standards is not limited to investigating complaints. We have complaints, complaints, complaints, but it can investigate disclosures. That's wrong. And anonymous disclosure may trigger process which ends in a sanction without any complaint being made to the commissioner of standards.
The investigatory procedures should be exclusively triggered by a complaint. Number four, the report acknowledges that doesn't resolve the potential contradiction between the requirement for members to act on their sense of personal honour and the reputational damage role, a point raised by Lord Newton. Now, behaviour which members consider Honourable may breach the sense and culture of the House. I repeat my complaint of October that the appeal to personal honour does now work in the code at all.
Members required to follow the code irrespective of whether they think it is honourable for them to do so. If the committee wants to preserve the personal honour requirement, it must state what their personal honour tells them to do. Harassment would depend on the person -- the perception of the person experiencing it. We had an example of this recently and in this, I agree with Lord Hamilton.
12:17
Baroness Hoey (Non-affiliated)
-
-
Baroness Hoey (Non-affiliated)
I welcome this version of the code and the replacement of the original appendix B which had ridiculous definitions which may just seem like we were living in some kind of red light district. Could the noble Lady clarify whether the Commissioner will still be able to refer to appendix B if needed and if so, why? On bullying come harassment and sexual misconduct, I want to separate out immediately staff from members. None of us want to ever allow someone in the position of power to be able to get away with that kind of behaviour on those people who are employed here and do such a good job.
But surely any idea of bullying or sexual harassment or misconduct in this place could be dealt with the member who is a target of such behaviour. If any of us is not capable to call someone out who behaves like that. I'm from an older generation who is used to dealing with unwelcome advances simply by telling a person were to go. To members of this house need all this bureaucracy to deal with such behaviour? I appreciate that times have changed but if these clauses were Tuesday, can I ask why it states why the person may even be harassed even if they were not the intended target of harassment? What does this mean question marks of someone harassing me and I tell them where to go and the person sitting beside me can say that they felt harassed? This is just getting ridiculous.
I do welcome what needs -- seems to be a strong commitment to freedom of speech but others have said that paragraph 24 says egregiously offensive statement made by members of social media may in certain circumstances for within the scope of the code. Who is going to decide that they are offensive? I fear this could be part of a mission fear this could be part of a mission fear this could be part of a mission I don't want people to be stopped by -- from doing that because I want them to be judged by their peers.
This is what we should have. Lay members, and I want to stress this, it is said in paragraph 26 that they bring a different perspective to the deliberations of the Conduct Committee, drawing on experience derived outside the house. It does mean that all the lay members seem to come from that same kind of human resources background, some of them are living out of HR and their everyday language can be alien to the experiences of many of us here as members of the house.
We are not a multinational business listed on the stock exchange. Human resources and business are not the same. Can the noble Lady explain how these independents are selected? Many are from non-academic backgrounds who have perhaps worked from manual jobs. We might perhaps get some commonsense. Is the reason why we cannot know how much the independence are paid? I hope that we will continue to review this code to ensure that we do not have huge numbers of fixated complaints, and what we must avoid is creating an atmosphere in this house of mistrust and undermining free speech.
But surely any idea of bullying or sexual harassment or misconduct in this place could be dealt with the member who is a target of such behaviour. If any of us is not capable to call someone out who behaves like that. I'm from an older generation who is used to dealing with unwelcome advances simply by telling a person were to go. To members of this house need all this bureaucracy to deal with such behaviour? I appreciate that times have changed but if these clauses were Tuesday, can I ask why it states why the person may even be harassed even if they were not the intended target of harassment? What does this mean question marks of someone harassing me and I tell them where to go and the person sitting beside me can say that they felt harassed? This is just getting ridiculous.
I do welcome what needs -- seems to be a strong commitment to freedom of speech but others have said that paragraph 24 says egregiously offensive statement made by members of social media may in certain circumstances for within the scope of the code. Who is going to decide that they are offensive? I fear this could be part of a mission fear this could be part of a mission fear this could be part of a mission I don't want people to be stopped by -- from doing that because I want them to be judged by their peers.
This is what we should have. Lay members, and I want to stress this, it is said in paragraph 26 that they bring a different perspective to the deliberations of the Conduct Committee, drawing on experience derived outside the house. It does mean that all the lay members seem to come from that same kind of human resources background, some of them are living out of HR and their everyday language can be alien to the experiences of many of us here as members of the house.
We are not a multinational business listed on the stock exchange. Human resources and business are not the same. Can the noble Lady explain how these independents are selected? Many are from non-academic backgrounds who have perhaps worked from manual jobs. We might perhaps get some commonsense. Is the reason why we cannot know how much the independence are paid? I hope that we will continue to review this code to ensure that we do not have huge numbers of fixated complaints, and what we must avoid is creating an atmosphere in this house of mistrust and undermining free speech.
12:21
Lord Shinkwin (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Shinkwin (Conservative)
I thank the noble Baroness for the review of the code and the guide. I wanted to pick up on an issue which the other noble Baroness issue which the other noble Baroness touched on when she said that this sends shivers down the spine. I refer to the clause which affects many of us at some point in our lives, are mental health. And how it is addressed in the review. It's touched on briefly both in Section 58 and Annex three of the review relating to the enforcement procedure general and section 54 around enforcement procedures specifically for bullying come harassment and sexual misconduct.
Both state members can contact the parliamentary health and well-being service for advice, guidance and support. This is with regards to mental and physical health. My Lords, my question is this, is this really adequate or appropriate when a member is perhaps experiencing a mental health crisis at the prospect of their reputation being effectively trashed in the media or indeed as a result of that having happened by virtue of their high public profile as a member of Your public profile as a member of Your As negative behaviour? This As negative behaviour? This is As negative behaviour? This is the last thing that some members would want to do.
For example, when mulling over whether they have the mental resilience to make an appeal against the Commissioner's findings. This is important because to do so can count against them and imply an admission of guilt. I therefore wonder if that has been given to establishing a source of support that is completely independent to Parliament from the outset. I make the suggestion not to imply that any of us are more important but because that high public profile increases our vulnerability to mental health challenges.
Both state members can contact the parliamentary health and well-being service for advice, guidance and support. This is with regards to mental and physical health. My Lords, my question is this, is this really adequate or appropriate when a member is perhaps experiencing a mental health crisis at the prospect of their reputation being effectively trashed in the media or indeed as a result of that having happened by virtue of their high public profile as a member of Your public profile as a member of Your As negative behaviour? This As negative behaviour? This is As negative behaviour? This is the last thing that some members would want to do.
For example, when mulling over whether they have the mental resilience to make an appeal against the Commissioner's findings. This is important because to do so can count against them and imply an admission of guilt. I therefore wonder if that has been given to establishing a source of support that is completely independent to Parliament from the outset. I make the suggestion not to imply that any of us are more important but because that high public profile increases our vulnerability to mental health challenges.
12:25
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (Liberal Democrat)
My Lords, a heartfelt thanks to Baroness Manningham-Buller and her committee. I'm really pleased that the code has been revised in this way. It's in God -- in -- it is in such good plain English. I'm grateful to her introductory speech describing some of the tensions in reaching the conclusions. The code is important in protecting staff and peers and protecting the reputation of the House of Lords. But in order to fulfil these functions, we need to do -- we need to know when behaviour does not comply with the code which is why I was so disappointed but perhaps not surprised by the Conservative peer Lord Hammonton -- Hamilton's mention.
It is suggested that when a colleague suffers something like harassment, we should just keep quiet. Now, that sounds to me, and his noble friend Lord Lily did talk about the schoolyard, of the world's -- worst aspects of English public school I. Hopefully, a thing of the past in schools now but in Lord Hamilton's mind, not grassing on one's fellows is more important than ensuring that intimidating behaviour is stop. Cruel or bad behaviour thrives in a culture of secrecy and we shall have none of it in this house.
The code rightly plays down the need for transparency and due process and I welcome that, and I welcome the presence of the members of the Conduct Committee bringing in outside perspective to the House. Training is important because times Training is important because times in social behaviour change. If we fail to do so, like any other workplace, we should offer training. I do wish, though, that the code would replace the wording of the first row, personal honour. My noble friend Lord Newby mentioned this as well.
My understanding from paragraphs 56 to 60 of the review that this was an unbalanced decision but I feel the code would be less subject give for each pair and subject give for each pair and stronger if it used integrity in 10B which is then further defined in 12B. But we have our work cut out to restore public confidence. I would agree with the points made by the noble Baroness lady Deitch when she talked about the issue of financial impropriety being equally important to our own behaviour because actually that is the issue that the public outside are more concerned about.
Now, I probably can't talk about one of the ongoing investigations into a very serious, possibly criminal issue, but I'm sure noble Lords will know what I'm referring to. The general point I would make about this, though, is that when there appears to have been a breach of the code, a member should not be able to avoid the processes by the code by quickly taking leave of absence. Leave of absence as for illness, caring for loved ones and not for avoidance of sanctions.
There is a lot more that I might set about lobbying on the line between profiting from being a member of the house by being offered directorships. If we had proper reform and an elected house, that would deal with much of the issue, but in the meantime, I hope that the committee will take on the very complicated issue and address some of these matters of financial of these matters of financial , all the nuances around financial implications that we haven't had time to touch on today.
In the meantime, this revised code is very helpful and I hope all members will do their utmost to see it is a bit on.
It is suggested that when a colleague suffers something like harassment, we should just keep quiet. Now, that sounds to me, and his noble friend Lord Lily did talk about the schoolyard, of the world's -- worst aspects of English public school I. Hopefully, a thing of the past in schools now but in Lord Hamilton's mind, not grassing on one's fellows is more important than ensuring that intimidating behaviour is stop. Cruel or bad behaviour thrives in a culture of secrecy and we shall have none of it in this house.
The code rightly plays down the need for transparency and due process and I welcome that, and I welcome the presence of the members of the Conduct Committee bringing in outside perspective to the House. Training is important because times Training is important because times in social behaviour change. If we fail to do so, like any other workplace, we should offer training. I do wish, though, that the code would replace the wording of the first row, personal honour. My noble friend Lord Newby mentioned this as well.
My understanding from paragraphs 56 to 60 of the review that this was an unbalanced decision but I feel the code would be less subject give for each pair and subject give for each pair and stronger if it used integrity in 10B which is then further defined in 12B. But we have our work cut out to restore public confidence. I would agree with the points made by the noble Baroness lady Deitch when she talked about the issue of financial impropriety being equally important to our own behaviour because actually that is the issue that the public outside are more concerned about.
Now, I probably can't talk about one of the ongoing investigations into a very serious, possibly criminal issue, but I'm sure noble Lords will know what I'm referring to. The general point I would make about this, though, is that when there appears to have been a breach of the code, a member should not be able to avoid the processes by the code by quickly taking leave of absence. Leave of absence as for illness, caring for loved ones and not for avoidance of sanctions.
There is a lot more that I might set about lobbying on the line between profiting from being a member of the house by being offered directorships. If we had proper reform and an elected house, that would deal with much of the issue, but in the meantime, I hope that the committee will take on the very complicated issue and address some of these matters of financial of these matters of financial , all the nuances around financial implications that we haven't had time to touch on today.
In the meantime, this revised code is very helpful and I hope all members will do their utmost to see it is a bit on.
12:29
Lord Swire (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Swire (Conservative)
With your indulgence, I would like to raise a narrow point, point I have already raised privately with the noble Lady Baroness Manningham- Buller. It is on... I did make this point to the committee in evidence. It calls -- it falls under the category of natural justice and fairness. In the interests of transparency I should say from first hand experience that is something that happened to me virtually as soon as I came into this house. In fact, a colleague was absolutely amazed it took me so long for it to be reported.
Another was amazed that I had been reported so early on. It was a vexatious complaint and I will name names because this is a complaint from someone who complains exclusively about Conservative peers in this place. He made a complaint that I failed to register an that I failed to register an It was deemed of sufficient importance that it was escalated to the conduct committee and the complaint was inevitably subsequently completely dismissed and it was found that I had no case to answer.
My point is it is about the natural justice of this process. It is my contention that in order to avoid vexatious complaints, when these complaints are handled by the appropriate powers that be, they should be handled in privacy. Inheriting that is a presumption of guilt. Where is the presumption of innocence? By all means, that is only right and proper, but only when the natural justice has taken place and the committee has found the person in question to be guilty should that announcements been made and found guilty.
If the individual and found guilty. If the individual is not found guilty, then there is no need to mention it at all. So in the natural course of justice and the presumption of innocence, I would ask the noble Lady if she would look again at having these investigations in private until an announcement is made if the individual concerned is judged to have fallen foul of any of the existing wounds. existing wounds.
Another was amazed that I had been reported so early on. It was a vexatious complaint and I will name names because this is a complaint from someone who complains exclusively about Conservative peers in this place. He made a complaint that I failed to register an that I failed to register an It was deemed of sufficient importance that it was escalated to the conduct committee and the complaint was inevitably subsequently completely dismissed and it was found that I had no case to answer.
My point is it is about the natural justice of this process. It is my contention that in order to avoid vexatious complaints, when these complaints are handled by the appropriate powers that be, they should be handled in privacy. Inheriting that is a presumption of guilt. Where is the presumption of innocence? By all means, that is only right and proper, but only when the natural justice has taken place and the committee has found the person in question to be guilty should that announcements been made and found guilty.
If the individual and found guilty. If the individual is not found guilty, then there is no need to mention it at all. So in the natural course of justice and the presumption of innocence, I would ask the noble Lady if she would look again at having these investigations in private until an announcement is made if the individual concerned is judged to have fallen foul of any of the existing wounds. existing wounds.
12:32
Baroness Manningham-Buller (Crossbench)
-
-
Baroness Manningham-Buller (Crossbench)
Thank you for all those comments and I will try to answer them all, and if I fail, it won't be deliberate. Thank you for the personal comments. I am bathing in the plaudits and I appreciate that, but it is very much for the manners of the committee. I will start with the comments and I will cover things that haven't been covered on social media and other issues as we go through. I am grateful to noble Lords for taking these issues seriously.
The concern of Lord Hamilton, the complaints of harassment by members of either House may be politically motivated and used to embarrass opponents and other people. I would like to assure the House that the members of the conduct committee are fully alive to the possibility of politically motivated complaints by the commissioners. We understand that we work in a political environment and we have robust processes for identifying and rejecting frivolous or vexatious complaints. But in truth, I suggest at the risk identified by the noble Lord is more imaginary than substantial.
I quote from the enforcement process that no information will be made public unless or until a report is published. Even if the Commissioner launches an investigation, no details are made public unless a report is public. It is a confidential process. If the complainant were to breach this potentiality, we will be committing contempt of the house. When the commissioners report is ultimately published. It will uphold or withstand the complaint. If it is been dismissed, or if they decide not to publish a report at all, this has happened but for obvious reasons, I cannot go into details, so I would argue that the scope to cause political mischief is in practice very small indeed.
There is only political damage if the complaint is upheld, if a member is in fact guilty of harassment. And at this stage, and it also goes to the point, remind people that in the definitions of harassment, we are following section 26 of the Equality Act which defines it as unwanted conduct which has the purpose or a fact so it can be unintentional, of violating a person's dignity or creating a hostile degrading humiliating or offensive environment for them.
When the mums of the house like that or not, that is the law. So, I suggest that all Lord Hamilton's assessment would achieve this to prevent genuine victims of harassment from complaining, and let me be clear, there are victims. Even though allegations by members of either House against noble Lords are extremely rare, there have been some cases where serious misconduct has occurred, and some cases, the details are not in the public domain because the complainant wishes to remain anonymous, but I can assure the house of their having serious cases involving noble Lords.
To go back to my opening remotes, the principles of respect and courtesy are therefore the entire Parliamentary community. The ladies are not just there for the staff although that is an important. If we have covered for particular groups, we risk unravelling the code. I hope that if the noble Lord does press the amendment, the house will reject it. The noble viscount has clearly stated his case and talked to me about things beforehand that he has been consistent in so doing.
He has been supported by others. Nobody can doubt the advocacy with a strong legal favour. At the end, it is up to the house to decide. It is not for the conduct committee. The conduct committee is view is clear. What he is suggesting is very different from the Commons procedures where you have three layers, the commissioners deciding whether the code looks as though it has been broken, the standards committee, and then you have the independent expert with no members of the House of Commons on it.
We could go that way. My view is that the existing system is fair and natural justice, and I dispute that it has been otherwise. It again, whether or not the noble viscount wishes to withdraw his amendment is up to him. I will try to read my scribbles on what other things were said and try to answer them correctly. I hope the advance of the points made by the noble Viscount Hailsham. I contest his view that there has been a serious miscarriage of justice.
Lord Forsyth had questions to answer to in his four minutes that he raised. I will start with social media that was picked up by others. What we think we are trying to achieve here, we think we have done is actually just saying what the existing arrangements are. I don't want to get into particular cases, but I will mention the case of Lord Ranger which some of you may remember where he carried on a parliamentary discussion with somebody he met on social media, and the view of the committee that this was Parliamentary activity in an unusual situation.
In most cases, the vast majority of complaints we get, it is not by definition be part of the comments for the concern where it could be said to be part of Parliamentary activity. Then we have to go on to say is this freedom of speech, is this honest robust opinions? The ability to offend, insult, whatever. Unless it is covered by the definitions of harassment and it is Parliamentary, the code won't engage, so I suggest that all we have actually done is put on the face of the code the current practice.
We have not been on part of any code, number of peers are concerned we might have been. Minor cases, I don't have a description of that, but we try wherever possible to keep out the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
.$$NEWLINE On points made about
**** Possible New Speaker ****
.$$NEWLINE On points made about social media, can we take it that what she has told the house on record will be used by the commission and the committee going forward because the clarification she has provided is fundamentally important.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
important. Yes. I like short answers. On the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yes. I like short answers. On the point of the declaration of interest, at the end of the day, failure to declare a financial interest in the debate is a matter for the committee, but it seems to us that the privileges committee and processes of the house need to decide whether you do it at question time or more broadly, but we all think that I refer to my register of interest is sort of meaningless and it doesn't really help, but again, that is for others.
I would like to contradict her view that the committee or our procedures regard sexual harassment, sexual misconduct is more important than serious financial misconduct. Of course, there is not a competition. There are different sorts of breaches of the code and some of the most egregious that this house sees, are financial ones, and so I would just like to confirm and I hope she will accept that. It is not a competition between the two of them. In terms of offices, we all deal with emails in our offices because back to my earlier point, many members of this House have other jobs.
What I can't allow is the office to become used for other business to be the route of a charity being based there, so there is a distinction. I do assure you that the house, the committee is not going to be concerned about people using their offices to catch
**** Possible New Speaker ****
up with our work in other areas. I am worried about who is
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I am worried about who is checking our offices and who is checking our offices and who is checking our emails. I am not referring to Hancock -type activity referring to Hancock -type activity in offices, but the general running of one's business. Whether it's a blur between private and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Parliamentary. Did I understand the lady to say
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Did I understand the lady to say that people were checking your emails?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I don't understand how one would investigate where a complaint would come from in relation to being told come from in relation to being told that one was using one's office for the wrong sort of activity. How would anybody know?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
would anybody know? We have had complaints that we have acted on in this area before from information from people
**** Possible New Speaker ****
involved. It was meant to cover everybody, the behaviour code, I hope I have answered your question on politics. The rules don't expand but they are treated on this one. By removing non-financial, we have reduced. Lady Fox, I have written down fudge and I can't remember why. Perhaps you could remind me what your question
**** Possible New Speaker ****
was. That was specifically on social media.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
media. I hope the noble Lady is content with what I have now said. Lord Hodgson, with whom I have had a Hodgson, with whom I have had a helpful correspondence talked about the direction of travel moving towards the noble viscounts possibility. He also mentioned the possibility. He also mentioned the tension between facing two ways. tension between facing two ways. That is absolutely recognised and as I said in my opening speech, we have That this is a playground scrap was certainly not my view.
At the end of the day, were working on the resumption of innocence and that is very important. Equally, I would also agree that were mediation can be achieved, it is infinitely preferable. I'm not going to be recommending to my successor that he seeks to abolish himself. That is a matter for the house. The noble Lord raised a point about standing order 68. All the committee is saying is that should the house decide and should the usual channels, the privileges committee, decide that this was no longer tenable, complaints under the behaviour code would still need not to be debated but complaints of say financial impropriety could be if the house wanted to go down that route.
But the committee is not asking for that. The committee is just raising it as something that the house might want to consider. The noble Lady was concerned about appendix B. Many of the rest of you were, which had all the definitions of sexual harassment. Those definitions stand as part of the behaviour code. They are not a matter for this house to change and the Commissioner will refer to them when making investigations under those headings. I've read out the bit from the equality act to try to reassure her that I have commented on social media.
Recruitment of independent members of the committee is entirely open and the sort of person you describe, who you would regard as being more commonsense than an HR person could easily apply if they wish to do so. At this stage, I would really like to say, as my noble friend Lord Gurney has said, that external members of the committee offer real help in value to us in our deliberations, and I think we should be extremely grateful to them and I regard that as important.
The noble Lord has a really important point. I acknowledge that going through this process is distressing and concerning for even the most robust concerning for even the most robust of us. And therefore giving support, we have specified in the new code that people can bring friends, they should be supported throughout, they can bring one peer, not a great gang of them. We do recognise that, were possible, we've got to be compassionate and want to be two people who find themselves in this position, certainly until they are found against.
I hope I've answered that intervention on whether we can look at ensuring that the damage done by being investigated is not public. The Commissioner goes through a preliminary assessment and then has to decide whether there is of enough evidence that there may be of enough evidence that there may be a case to answer and at that stage things begin to become public. I hope I have covered all of the comments of people but thank you very much for the useful...
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Would she agree, perhaps she could confirm that the committee is could confirm that the committee is very much boxed in by the rules that it is provided with. If, for it is provided with. If, for example, Commissioner makes finding both as to fact and sanction, and both as to fact and sanction, and that set of findings is not appealed, the committee has no remit appealed, the committee has no remit to reinvestigate. Therefore, I think it ought to be more widely it ought to be more widely understood that the Committee is ambient of our and relatively restrictive when it comes to that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
sort of case. I'm certainly happy to confirm
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'm certainly happy to confirm that. If people appeal, which many do, the Committee then engages fully do, the Committee then engages fully in the angles of that appeal and whether in fact they wish to fully endorse the Commissioner's findings. Again, it is a bit different in the Again, it is a bit different in the Commons but if the House wants to change that, they would need to change that, they would need to consider it in the whole issue of process but thank you for that intervention.
The concern of Lord Hamilton, the complaints of harassment by members of either House may be politically motivated and used to embarrass opponents and other people. I would like to assure the House that the members of the conduct committee are fully alive to the possibility of politically motivated complaints by the commissioners. We understand that we work in a political environment and we have robust processes for identifying and rejecting frivolous or vexatious complaints. But in truth, I suggest at the risk identified by the noble Lord is more imaginary than substantial.
I quote from the enforcement process that no information will be made public unless or until a report is published. Even if the Commissioner launches an investigation, no details are made public unless a report is public. It is a confidential process. If the complainant were to breach this potentiality, we will be committing contempt of the house. When the commissioners report is ultimately published. It will uphold or withstand the complaint. If it is been dismissed, or if they decide not to publish a report at all, this has happened but for obvious reasons, I cannot go into details, so I would argue that the scope to cause political mischief is in practice very small indeed.
There is only political damage if the complaint is upheld, if a member is in fact guilty of harassment. And at this stage, and it also goes to the point, remind people that in the definitions of harassment, we are following section 26 of the Equality Act which defines it as unwanted conduct which has the purpose or a fact so it can be unintentional, of violating a person's dignity or creating a hostile degrading humiliating or offensive environment for them.
When the mums of the house like that or not, that is the law. So, I suggest that all Lord Hamilton's assessment would achieve this to prevent genuine victims of harassment from complaining, and let me be clear, there are victims. Even though allegations by members of either House against noble Lords are extremely rare, there have been some cases where serious misconduct has occurred, and some cases, the details are not in the public domain because the complainant wishes to remain anonymous, but I can assure the house of their having serious cases involving noble Lords.
To go back to my opening remotes, the principles of respect and courtesy are therefore the entire Parliamentary community. The ladies are not just there for the staff although that is an important. If we have covered for particular groups, we risk unravelling the code. I hope that if the noble Lord does press the amendment, the house will reject it. The noble viscount has clearly stated his case and talked to me about things beforehand that he has been consistent in so doing.
He has been supported by others. Nobody can doubt the advocacy with a strong legal favour. At the end, it is up to the house to decide. It is not for the conduct committee. The conduct committee is view is clear. What he is suggesting is very different from the Commons procedures where you have three layers, the commissioners deciding whether the code looks as though it has been broken, the standards committee, and then you have the independent expert with no members of the House of Commons on it.
We could go that way. My view is that the existing system is fair and natural justice, and I dispute that it has been otherwise. It again, whether or not the noble viscount wishes to withdraw his amendment is up to him. I will try to read my scribbles on what other things were said and try to answer them correctly. I hope the advance of the points made by the noble Viscount Hailsham. I contest his view that there has been a serious miscarriage of justice.
Lord Forsyth had questions to answer to in his four minutes that he raised. I will start with social media that was picked up by others. What we think we are trying to achieve here, we think we have done is actually just saying what the existing arrangements are. I don't want to get into particular cases, but I will mention the case of Lord Ranger which some of you may remember where he carried on a parliamentary discussion with somebody he met on social media, and the view of the committee that this was Parliamentary activity in an unusual situation.
In most cases, the vast majority of complaints we get, it is not by definition be part of the comments for the concern where it could be said to be part of Parliamentary activity. Then we have to go on to say is this freedom of speech, is this honest robust opinions? The ability to offend, insult, whatever. Unless it is covered by the definitions of harassment and it is Parliamentary, the code won't engage, so I suggest that all we have actually done is put on the face of the code the current practice.
We have not been on part of any code, number of peers are concerned we might have been. Minor cases, I don't have a description of that, but we try wherever possible to keep out the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
.$$NEWLINE On points made about
**** Possible New Speaker ****
.$$NEWLINE On points made about social media, can we take it that what she has told the house on record will be used by the commission and the committee going forward because the clarification she has provided is fundamentally important.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
important. Yes. I like short answers. On the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yes. I like short answers. On the point of the declaration of interest, at the end of the day, failure to declare a financial interest in the debate is a matter for the committee, but it seems to us that the privileges committee and processes of the house need to decide whether you do it at question time or more broadly, but we all think that I refer to my register of interest is sort of meaningless and it doesn't really help, but again, that is for others.
I would like to contradict her view that the committee or our procedures regard sexual harassment, sexual misconduct is more important than serious financial misconduct. Of course, there is not a competition. There are different sorts of breaches of the code and some of the most egregious that this house sees, are financial ones, and so I would just like to confirm and I hope she will accept that. It is not a competition between the two of them. In terms of offices, we all deal with emails in our offices because back to my earlier point, many members of this House have other jobs.
What I can't allow is the office to become used for other business to be the route of a charity being based there, so there is a distinction. I do assure you that the house, the committee is not going to be concerned about people using their offices to catch
**** Possible New Speaker ****
up with our work in other areas. I am worried about who is
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I am worried about who is checking our offices and who is checking our offices and who is checking our emails. I am not referring to Hancock -type activity referring to Hancock -type activity in offices, but the general running of one's business. Whether it's a blur between private and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Parliamentary. Did I understand the lady to say
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Did I understand the lady to say that people were checking your emails?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I don't understand how one would investigate where a complaint would come from in relation to being told come from in relation to being told that one was using one's office for the wrong sort of activity. How would anybody know?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
would anybody know? We have had complaints that we have acted on in this area before from information from people
**** Possible New Speaker ****
involved. It was meant to cover everybody, the behaviour code, I hope I have answered your question on politics. The rules don't expand but they are treated on this one. By removing non-financial, we have reduced. Lady Fox, I have written down fudge and I can't remember why. Perhaps you could remind me what your question
**** Possible New Speaker ****
was. That was specifically on social media.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
media. I hope the noble Lady is content with what I have now said. Lord Hodgson, with whom I have had a Hodgson, with whom I have had a helpful correspondence talked about the direction of travel moving towards the noble viscounts possibility. He also mentioned the possibility. He also mentioned the tension between facing two ways. tension between facing two ways. That is absolutely recognised and as I said in my opening speech, we have That this is a playground scrap was certainly not my view.
At the end of the day, were working on the resumption of innocence and that is very important. Equally, I would also agree that were mediation can be achieved, it is infinitely preferable. I'm not going to be recommending to my successor that he seeks to abolish himself. That is a matter for the house. The noble Lord raised a point about standing order 68. All the committee is saying is that should the house decide and should the usual channels, the privileges committee, decide that this was no longer tenable, complaints under the behaviour code would still need not to be debated but complaints of say financial impropriety could be if the house wanted to go down that route.
But the committee is not asking for that. The committee is just raising it as something that the house might want to consider. The noble Lady was concerned about appendix B. Many of the rest of you were, which had all the definitions of sexual harassment. Those definitions stand as part of the behaviour code. They are not a matter for this house to change and the Commissioner will refer to them when making investigations under those headings. I've read out the bit from the equality act to try to reassure her that I have commented on social media.
Recruitment of independent members of the committee is entirely open and the sort of person you describe, who you would regard as being more commonsense than an HR person could easily apply if they wish to do so. At this stage, I would really like to say, as my noble friend Lord Gurney has said, that external members of the committee offer real help in value to us in our deliberations, and I think we should be extremely grateful to them and I regard that as important.
The noble Lord has a really important point. I acknowledge that going through this process is distressing and concerning for even the most robust concerning for even the most robust of us. And therefore giving support, we have specified in the new code that people can bring friends, they should be supported throughout, they can bring one peer, not a great gang of them. We do recognise that, were possible, we've got to be compassionate and want to be two people who find themselves in this position, certainly until they are found against.
I hope I've answered that intervention on whether we can look at ensuring that the damage done by being investigated is not public. The Commissioner goes through a preliminary assessment and then has to decide whether there is of enough evidence that there may be of enough evidence that there may be a case to answer and at that stage things begin to become public. I hope I have covered all of the comments of people but thank you very much for the useful...
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Would she agree, perhaps she could confirm that the committee is could confirm that the committee is very much boxed in by the rules that it is provided with. If, for it is provided with. If, for example, Commissioner makes finding both as to fact and sanction, and both as to fact and sanction, and that set of findings is not appealed, the committee has no remit appealed, the committee has no remit to reinvestigate. Therefore, I think it ought to be more widely it ought to be more widely understood that the Committee is ambient of our and relatively restrictive when it comes to that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
sort of case. I'm certainly happy to confirm
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'm certainly happy to confirm that. If people appeal, which many do, the Committee then engages fully do, the Committee then engages fully in the angles of that appeal and whether in fact they wish to fully endorse the Commissioner's findings. Again, it is a bit different in the Again, it is a bit different in the Commons but if the House wants to change that, they would need to change that, they would need to consider it in the whole issue of process but thank you for that intervention.
12:51
Viscount Hailsham (Conservative)
-
-
Viscount Hailsham (Conservative)
My Lords, the debate has been a very full one and the points have been articulated in respect of the point I moved. I understand that the house is currently not in favour of the point I have moved and I do not want to trouble the house any further. With that in mind, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
12:51
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Conservative)
Is at your Lordships pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn? The
**** Possible New Speaker ****
amendment is therefore withdrawn. I don't think that the noble Lady wouldn't expect me to agree with her wouldn't expect me to agree with her about the political nature of recent cases, but let's face it, that could cases, but let's face it, that could be interpreted as being political and therefore, it is very difficult and therefore, it is very difficult to forecast in the future that there won't be any other politically motivated measures brought before motivated measures brought before her committee, and I think even she her committee, and I think even she might acknowledge that.
But I can see your Lordships sitting here thinking, we've got a Conduct Committee that clears up disagreeable things, never going to affect me as an individual, and that them get on with it and do the job they've been doing so far. I would hesitate before I made that assumption because I think that there should be a note of caution about that assumption. The bar is very, very low to bring complaints against fellow members, particularly in Your Lordships' House, and there are politically motivated people in this house.
It is very easy to bring a complaint against somebody because the onus is on the complainant and the complainant's view of whether they have been persecuted are not has been taken up by the Committee. And when you end up in front of the Commissioner for Standards, he assumes that you are guilty because the complainant has brought the case to you, rather than innocent. And that is one of the problems that we are dealing with. My advice your Lordships, if this does ever happen to you, is the key is who you get to advise you.
You've got to have somebody who you totally trust. And I would be a little bit wary about hiring any old lawyer because lawyers deal with the law of the land and the powers of the conduct of committee are much greater than the laws of the land. And therefore, you want somebody who has a deep understanding of the Code of Conduct and this is one of the lessons we've learned from people who suffered and had their reputations shredded by the findings of this committee in the past.
So I just end up quoting John Donne. Ask not for whom the bell tolls. You know how it ends. I
**** Possible New Speaker ****
withdraw my amendment. Is it your Lordships pleasure amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is by leave withdrawn. The amendment is by leave withdrawn. The question is that the motion in the name of Baroness Manningham-Buller name of Baroness Manningham-Buller be agreed to. All of those in favour say, "Content". Those in the contrary say, "Not content". The
**** Possible New Speaker ****
contents have it. I beg to move that the house do
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I beg to move that the house do
**** Possible New Speaker ****
now adjourn until 3:00pm. The question is that the house do
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that the house do now adjourn until 3:00pm. All of those in favour say, "Content". Those in the contrary say, "Not
**** Possible New Speaker ****
amendment is therefore withdrawn. I don't think that the noble Lady wouldn't expect me to agree with her wouldn't expect me to agree with her about the political nature of recent cases, but let's face it, that could cases, but let's face it, that could be interpreted as being political and therefore, it is very difficult and therefore, it is very difficult to forecast in the future that there won't be any other politically motivated measures brought before motivated measures brought before her committee, and I think even she her committee, and I think even she might acknowledge that.
But I can see your Lordships sitting here thinking, we've got a Conduct Committee that clears up disagreeable things, never going to affect me as an individual, and that them get on with it and do the job they've been doing so far. I would hesitate before I made that assumption because I think that there should be a note of caution about that assumption. The bar is very, very low to bring complaints against fellow members, particularly in Your Lordships' House, and there are politically motivated people in this house.
It is very easy to bring a complaint against somebody because the onus is on the complainant and the complainant's view of whether they have been persecuted are not has been taken up by the Committee. And when you end up in front of the Commissioner for Standards, he assumes that you are guilty because the complainant has brought the case to you, rather than innocent. And that is one of the problems that we are dealing with. My advice your Lordships, if this does ever happen to you, is the key is who you get to advise you.
You've got to have somebody who you totally trust. And I would be a little bit wary about hiring any old lawyer because lawyers deal with the law of the land and the powers of the conduct of committee are much greater than the laws of the land. And therefore, you want somebody who has a deep understanding of the Code of Conduct and this is one of the lessons we've learned from people who suffered and had their reputations shredded by the findings of this committee in the past.
So I just end up quoting John Donne. Ask not for whom the bell tolls. You know how it ends. I
**** Possible New Speaker ****
withdraw my amendment. Is it your Lordships pleasure amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is by leave withdrawn. The amendment is by leave withdrawn. The question is that the motion in the name of Baroness Manningham-Buller name of Baroness Manningham-Buller be agreed to. All of those in favour say, "Content". Those in the contrary say, "Not content". The
**** Possible New Speaker ****
contents have it. I beg to move that the house do
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I beg to move that the house do
**** Possible New Speaker ****
now adjourn until 3:00pm. The question is that the house do
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that the house do now adjourn until 3:00pm. All of those in favour say, "Content". Those in the contrary say, "Not
12:55
12:55
House Adjourned During Pleasure Until 15:00
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My My Lord, My Lord, first My Lord, first oral My Lord, first oral question.
House Adjourned During Pleasure Until 15:00
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My My Lord, My Lord, first My Lord, first oral My Lord, first oral question.
15:02
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Labour)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I beg leave to ask the question standing in my name on the Order Paper. On International Women's Day and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
On International Women's Day and in fact on every day of the year, this government has accelerated action under our Plan for Change, to action under our Plan for Change, to put more money in the pockets of working women, create more opportunity in the workplace, and to ensure women are safe on our streets and in their communities. We will be calling upon employers to take action, to help tackle the barriers that still prevent too many women from succeeding in the workplace.
All government departments have a key role to play in delivering a key mission for the team.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Labour)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I beg leave to ask the question standing in my name on the Order Paper. On International Women's Day and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
On International Women's Day and in fact on every day of the year, this government has accelerated action under our Plan for Change, to action under our Plan for Change, to put more money in the pockets of working women, create more opportunity in the workplace, and to ensure women are safe on our streets and in their communities. We will be calling upon employers to take action, to help tackle the barriers that still prevent too many women from succeeding in the workplace.
All government departments have a key role to play in delivering a key mission for the team.
15:02
Baroness Nye (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Nye (Labour)
I thank my noble friend for that answer. The House will know it is now 50 years since the Equal Pay Act was implemented. But recent figures from the PwC index of OECD countries show the UK has the lowest ranking for a decade. And on that trend, it will take another 50 years to achieve equality. Does the noble Lady, the minister, not agree that one of the most important ways to have economic growth to accelerate action to close the gender pay gap? action to close the gender pay gap?
15:03
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Labour)
Can I start by thanking my noble friend, particularly for all the work she has done in this area over many years. This government is committed to strengthening equal pay and ending pay discrimination. Will make the right to equal pay effective by putting in place measures to ensure that outsourcing of services can no longer be used by employers to avoid paying equal pay, and we will implement a regulatory and enforcement unit for equal pay. My noble friend is right about the importance of closing the gender pay gap.
Which is why, as part of the employment rights Bill, we are taking the first steps towards requiring large employers to produce action plans, covering steps they are taking on the gender pay gap and menopause support.
Which is why, as part of the employment rights Bill, we are taking the first steps towards requiring large employers to produce action plans, covering steps they are taking on the gender pay gap and menopause support.
15:04
Baroness Hussein-Ece (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Baroness Hussein-Ece (Liberal Democrat)
Declaring I am the co-chair of the APPG on global sexual reproductive health rights. Women and girls are all too often at the frontline of conflict and humanitarian crises. Apparently, approximately 800 women die every day from preventable causes related to pregnancy and childbirth. In Afghanistan, that would be a woman dying every two hours from this. Sexual violence and attacks, resisting access to healthcare. Can I ask the Minister, with a proposed reduction in these vital services due to the proposed cuts, will the government emphasise its commitment to privatising and ring fencing these programs for women and girls, as a hallmark of commemorating this International Women's Day?
15:05
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Labour)
Can I thank the noble Lady for her question, she raises an incredibly important area. I think as the House knows, we have already debated and discussed and I am sure we will come back more and more again about the decision. It unfortunate, in the international circumstances we have now faced ourselves in. But with particular reference to the point she makes, I want to reassure her that we will still be taking part in the international conferences, so the commission on the status of women, which is taking place very soon.
My noble friend, Lord Collins, will be going to represent. Administer -- And the Minister as well will be going. These are issues that we committed to discussing as we go forward, deciding how the cat is going to be implemented. -- How the cut.
My noble friend, Lord Collins, will be going to represent. Administer -- And the Minister as well will be going. These are issues that we committed to discussing as we go forward, deciding how the cat is going to be implemented. -- How the cut.
15:06
15:06
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Labour)
Can I thank the noble Lady for her question and just say, of course, the normal issues will be covered by my noble friend, Lord Collins, in this House, and the Minister in the other house. And the important, I think one of the important aspects of the commission is that as well as the high-level ministerial input, there will be a large civil society presence, which I believe is the way forward, demonstrating just how gender equality fits into the U.K.'s modernised approach to development.
Broadening partnerships with the global South, to counter the rollback of rights, as she quite rightly highlights. And building the effectiveness of international delivery. On the government's mission. In ensuring that gender lens is going to be absolute crucial to our leadership in this space and the commission will give us the opportunity to meet with other participants and to discuss how we move forward in this very difficult global time.
Broadening partnerships with the global South, to counter the rollback of rights, as she quite rightly highlights. And building the effectiveness of international delivery. On the government's mission. In ensuring that gender lens is going to be absolute crucial to our leadership in this space and the commission will give us the opportunity to meet with other participants and to discuss how we move forward in this very difficult global time.
15:07
Baroness Prosser (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Prosser (Labour)
My Lords, can I bring the question back to its original point, which was about equal pay. Under the last Labour government, we had a very successful co-operative association with employers across many sectors, where it was agreed and indeed, it happened. That many women were re-skilled and upscaled, to bring them into a position of being able to come up the ladder. Has the government got any plans on this front to take positive action on that? Because without positive action, nothing is going to happen.
action, nothing is going to happen.
action, nothing is going to happen.
15:08
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Labour)
My noble friend raises a very important point. I do not have the exact details in front of me. With regard to the issues she is raising. And where it is going to go next. But I know that she will be absolutely critical as we take the employment rights Bill forward. She will make sure the concerns she has absolutely front and centre of the work we do. work we do.
15:08
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (Crossbench)
-
-
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (Crossbench)
Religion still plays an important part in many lives. And religious texts written centuries ago often denigrate women. Most people learn to skip over those bits. But the extremists latched onto them. Isn't extremists latched onto them. Isn't it time to ask religious leaders to interpret those texts in the context of today's times for guidance to their followers? Because that is the only way forward to get away from Afghanistan.
15:09
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Labour)
The noble Lord raises an important point. I am not sure I am fully qualified to answer the points that he raises. However, I am always intrigued by translations of religious texts, how certain aspects have been accepted but actually, there is a lot motivated to have on this. I am proud, and particularly the city I come from, our religious leaders work tirelessly together to come forward with common understandings and common means to moving forward, with achieving equality for all.
15:10
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Conservative)
-
-
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Conservative)
Does the noble Baroness, the minister, agreed that my noble friend's, Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge, and Baroness Burt in, have been leading the way with their campaigns and reports on deep fake images in pornography? Will the baroness join me, and indeed the whole house join me, in congratulating them on their important work, and advisers when the government will respond to the review of pornography.
15:10
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Labour)
Can I thank the noble Lady for that very timely question. We are struggling to see each other! That's an equality issue. That we need to address. But seriously, this has been such an important piece of work, and I would like absolutely to commend all of those who have put so much time and energy in full of course, the independent review is an independent and wide-ranging piece of work. We are looking forward to a written ministerial statement.
There will be a joint letter going out. And I honestly believe there needs to be a significant amount of time around assessing how we take this
There will be a joint letter going out. And I honestly believe there needs to be a significant amount of time around assessing how we take this
15:11
Baroness D'Souza (Crossbench)
-
-
Baroness D'Souza (Crossbench)
My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister would agree that one way to change the attitude towards girls and women would be to educate boys. As this would be particularly important, in a country like Afghanistan, where girls often didn't have an education, or at least at secondary school level. But educating boys, which might be
**** Possible New Speaker ****
permissible, could actually help to change their attitudes towards the future. And partners and wives. The noble Lady raises a point
**** Possible New Speaker ****
permissible, could actually help to change their attitudes towards the future. And partners and wives. The noble Lady raises a point
15:12
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Labour)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The noble Lady raises a point very dear to my heart, and I think we have to really think seriously about how we take this piece of work forward. Obviously, she raises an international context. But I have to say, one of the most empowering pieces of work I have been involved in is involving young men, when their partner becomes pregnant for example, to help them understand the stresses and difficulties that they will both face as they go forward. There is so much scope in this area.
Willing to do more in our schools. And we are committed to taking this
**** Possible New Speaker ****
forward. I beg leave to ask the question
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I beg leave to ask the question standing in my name on the order
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Labour)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The noble Lady raises a point very dear to my heart, and I think we have to really think seriously about how we take this piece of work forward. Obviously, she raises an international context. But I have to say, one of the most empowering pieces of work I have been involved in is involving young men, when their partner becomes pregnant for example, to help them understand the stresses and difficulties that they will both face as they go forward. There is so much scope in this area.
Willing to do more in our schools. And we are committed to taking this
**** Possible New Speaker ****
forward. I beg leave to ask the question
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I beg leave to ask the question standing in my name on the order
15:13
Baroness Smith of Malvern, Lords Spokesperson (Equalities) (Labour)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
paper. My Lords, the government is committed to commencing the equality act 2010's provision, requiring act 2010's provision, requiring registered political parties to publish anonymized data relating to the diversity of their candidate selections. We are currently exploring when and how to condense that provision under section 106. Implementing this policy would, through increased transparency, have a tangible progress towards better representation of candidates, of the publishing they seek to serve, and thereby increasing the involvement
**** Possible New Speaker ****
process. I thank my noble friend for her reply and I am quite encouraged by
Baroness Smith of Malvern, Lords Spokesperson (Equalities) (Labour)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
paper. My Lords, the government is committed to commencing the equality act 2010's provision, requiring act 2010's provision, requiring registered political parties to publish anonymized data relating to the diversity of their candidate selections. We are currently exploring when and how to condense that provision under section 106. Implementing this policy would, through increased transparency, have a tangible progress towards better representation of candidates, of the publishing they seek to serve, and thereby increasing the involvement
**** Possible New Speaker ****
process. I thank my noble friend for her reply and I am quite encouraged by
15:13
Baroness Gale (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Gale (Labour)
reply and I am quite encouraged by what she had to say. But would she agreed with me that having a diversity of candidates means that the elected representatives will look like the people they represent and that will give more authority to our elected institutions. Because people will be able to relate to the much better. But can she say, when will it be implemented? We have been waiting 15 years for it now. So, I think that is quite some time.
And I know the party opposite, the now shadow ministers, will know that I ask this question numerous times to them. And I'm hoping I don't have to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
do the same to my noble friend. I have enormous respect for my noble friend and the leadership role she has played in political parties and of course, in ensuring diversity as well. And I also hope that she will not need to ask this government
And I know the party opposite, the now shadow ministers, will know that I ask this question numerous times to them. And I'm hoping I don't have to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
do the same to my noble friend. I have enormous respect for my noble friend and the leadership role she has played in political parties and of course, in ensuring diversity as well. And I also hope that she will not need to ask this government
15:14
Baroness Smith of Malvern, Lords Spokesperson (Equalities) (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Smith of Malvern, Lords Spokesperson (Equalities) (Labour)
will not need to ask this government as often or as many times as she had to ask the last government. Because we have made clear our commitment to implementing section 106. We do need to work through how we are going to do that, who will be included. And I think it is right that something as important as this is done properly and I look forward to her challenge and her supporters were to come forward. forward.
15:15
Baroness Burt of Solihull (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Baroness Burt of Solihull (Liberal Democrat)
We do need to understand the picture folly, and while I am sure we are all gratified at the number of women members of Parliament that we have now, I believe that other protected characteristics, including disability, race, and sexual orientation, the story is not so rosy. In answer to a very similar question to Anneliese Dodds in January, she responded by saying the government were looking at when they might be able to introduce this data, much as the noble Lady, the Minister, has done today.
And if the Minister can't tell us today when this date will be, can she reassure the House at what approximate date we will be able to introduce this
And if the Minister can't tell us today when this date will be, can she reassure the House at what approximate date we will be able to introduce this
15:15
Baroness Smith of Malvern, Lords Spokesperson (Equalities) (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Smith of Malvern, Lords Spokesperson (Equalities) (Labour)
Noble Lady I think has found an interesting way to ask the same question again, and I will try to find an interesting way to give the same answer again, but I also recognise her point that of course, Section 106 requires us to think carefully in the regulations. Actually, exactly about which tactic -- protected characteristics will be included in those regulations. I think it is important we give that sufficient thought and we think alongside political parties how we will implement that.
There is nothing to stop political parties at this point in the light of transparency publishing information about their own candidates but, of course, the reasoning behind this piece of legislation is to ensure we get consistency and in doing that, we challenge ourselves as politicians, we challenge our parties, and we show to the country that those people who represent them reflect those that they are speaking on behalf of. on behalf of.
There is nothing to stop political parties at this point in the light of transparency publishing information about their own candidates but, of course, the reasoning behind this piece of legislation is to ensure we get consistency and in doing that, we challenge ourselves as politicians, we challenge our parties, and we show to the country that those people who represent them reflect those that they are speaking on behalf of. on behalf of.
15:17
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-affiliated)
-
-
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-affiliated)
Before International Women's Day, it is important we reflect on this issue and I wanted to ask the Minister if there was a need to engage with political parties across the United Kingdom to enable them to empower women to look at politics as an honourable profession because we know that there are many perceived barriers that women, when the look at political life, see -- when they look at political life, see. What look at political life, see.
What can we do to try and assist with that?
What can we do to try and assist with that?
15:17
Baroness Smith of Malvern, Lords Spokesperson (Equalities) (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Smith of Malvern, Lords Spokesperson (Equalities) (Labour)
I think the noble Lady makes a very important point. Some of that, of course, is the responsibility of political parties themselves but I think particularly in areas where we have both previously shared some views and some work, like the abuse and intimidation that is impact thing all elected politicians but disproportionately impacting women, there is work that the government can do, building on work done outside displays, for example by the outside displays, for example by the Jo Cox Commission on precisely this issue.
It is something that the government is working with the Electoral Commission to take forward in terms of practical actions that will help to overcome some of these barriers as the noble Lady says which might put people off coming into democratically elected life and into democratically elected life and in doing that, make us all poorer.
It is something that the government is working with the Electoral Commission to take forward in terms of practical actions that will help to overcome some of these barriers as the noble Lady says which might put people off coming into democratically elected life and into democratically elected life and in doing that, make us all poorer.
15:18
15:18
Baroness Smith of Malvern, Lords Spokesperson (Equalities) (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Smith of Malvern, Lords Spokesperson (Equalities) (Labour)
My noble friend the Leader assures me that the frontbench is pretty good. Frontbench on this site. I'm afraid it is not within my power. I do see in the other place considerable progress, of course, has been made since 1997 when I was elected, which was equally a big jump in women's representation, but even then it was just over 18% of women and that now stands at 40%, which is a sort of progress we would like to see.
15:19
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Conservative)
-
-
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Conservative)
Does the noble Baroness the Minister agree that the Conservative party have led the way on diversity when it comes to our party leaders? I know we've had a few. But the Labour Party have had none. Our first Asian leader, when Labour have had none, our first Black leader, when Labour have had none, and all, might I add, chosen on merit.
15:20
Baroness Smith of Malvern, Lords Spokesperson (Equalities) (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Smith of Malvern, Lords Spokesperson (Equalities) (Labour)
The noble Lady is right. There has been an enormous diversity of leaders in the Conservative party, some of it good and some of it less good. Given the noble Lady's understandable wish to talk about the diversity of leaders, I find it slightly more difficult to understand why the party opposite haven't during the 14 years have -- 14 years been as keen to enable that through the equality act to be something that all political parties should do and why they are not willing to say more about their candidates and the diversity there.
And of course what we know is that when it comes to real progress in broader representation, the fact that there are now more Labour Party women in the House of Commons than their Conservative MPs in total tells us something about which party has made the most progress on gender. gender.
And of course what we know is that when it comes to real progress in broader representation, the fact that there are now more Labour Party women in the House of Commons than their Conservative MPs in total tells us something about which party has made the most progress on gender. gender.
15:21
15:21
15:21
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (Plaid Cymru)
-
-
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (Plaid Cymru)
Thank you. Ahead of the elections next year, my own party has made the next year, my own party has made the decision to reserve the first position for half of the constituencies for women. With the noble Baroness the Minister share some more ideas for what other parties could do to ensure we have a gender equal Parliament in Wales but also here in Westminster?
15:22
Baroness Smith of Malvern, Lords Spokesperson (Equalities) (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Smith of Malvern, Lords Spokesperson (Equalities) (Labour)
Well, I know that our colleague Jane Hart has written to the Secretary of State to talk about the action being taken in advance of the action being taken in advance of the macro Senate - Senedd elections next year. I suspect it is dependent on year. I suspect it is dependent on the last Labour government's putting into law the ability to take that sort of positive action and it's because of doing that that we have seen the progress that we have seen up until this point.
Better representation in our politics doesn't happen by accident, it happens with people being willing to take action, being willing to be transparent and that is what parties who are really serious about it will do.
Better representation in our politics doesn't happen by accident, it happens with people being willing to take action, being willing to be transparent and that is what parties who are really serious about it will do.
15:23
15:23
Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
I beg to leave I beg leave to ask the question standing in my name on
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the Order Paper. We could have done with a bit of diversity in those answering the diversity in those answering the questions today. The Turing scheme questions today. The Turing scheme provides funding for adults to do international study and work basements. It also provides funding basements. It also provides funding for staff accompanying school trips and offers several exchange and offers several exchange opportunities, including the UK German connection and language assistance programs. Additionally, assistance programs. Additionally, DCMS will be publishing a new new strategy which will rebuild a thriving and sustainable sector.
thriving and sustainable sector.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the Order Paper. We could have done with a bit of diversity in those answering the diversity in those answering the questions today. The Turing scheme questions today. The Turing scheme provides funding for adults to do international study and work basements. It also provides funding basements. It also provides funding for staff accompanying school trips and offers several exchange and offers several exchange opportunities, including the UK German connection and language assistance programs. Additionally, assistance programs. Additionally, DCMS will be publishing a new new strategy which will rebuild a thriving and sustainable sector.
thriving and sustainable sector.
15:23
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Labour)
I thank the Minister for that reply. Has her department look at what the Welsh government is doing in this area? There is a scheme which has developed into a program which for many works better than Erasmus. There is engagement from schools, youth organisations and colleges. And those who never previously considered international exchange as an option are applying for this funding. It provides more opportunities for those with the least access and the greatest barriers. What she agree to look at this excellent scheme?
15:24
Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
Yes, yes, I would agree. In fact, I acknowledge my noble friend recognition and explanation of the programme. My department and I have regular discussions with Welsh Government colleagues about a range of policies. This is a good example of our ability to learn from each other. I also note her important point about how the scheme, and I have to say also now the government Turing scheme, provides additional support for participants from disadvantaged backgrounds so they can participate in international placements, and we have made considerable progress in the Turing scheme to do that.
15:25
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Conservative)
There was a debate in the house recently on the restoration of the youth mobility scheme with our European partners. Shirley, it is now time for us to proceed with that in view of the fact that it has no negative impact on the freedom of movement issue or indeed or are -- on our immigration rules -- Surely. And all young people want to work and meet together towards the future of European peace.
15:25
Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
This government wants to ensure that we reset our relationship with the EU and that depends on a range of areas. The last time I was responding to questions about this issue, it feels appropriate to me to carry out that negotiation actually across that whole range of issues and it also feels appropriate to me to carry it out as my honourable friend is in detail and in breadth and that is what will we will be doing.
15:26
Lord Patel (Crossbench)
-
-
Lord Patel (Crossbench)
As their reason -- one of the reasons UK students to class advantage of the Erasmus scheme was because of language skills. The Turing scheme is global and that is the advantage. I think that our Turing scheme is working extremely Turing scheme is working extremely well and it should be given time to settle down.
15:26
Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
The noble Lord makes a very important point about the Turing Scheme. It is that, unlike Erasmus, extends beyond the European Union and in actual fact, some of the most popular destinations for people to go to have been outside the EU, and if we truly want people to have a global opportunity, I think that's an important element of it.
15:27
Baroness Smith of Newnham (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Baroness Smith of Newnham (Liberal Democrat)
My Lords, the Erasmus+ program is very often talked about as the higher education plan and I declare an interest as being on an advisory board for a cheque University. It also allows for vocational training opportunities for between two weeks opportunities for between two weeks and 12 months. -- Czech University. Can I suggest that she takes back to the Minister the idea that maybe we should be looking at some ways of re-engaging not just those in higher education but those in vocational training because they stand to gain a huge amount.
15:27
Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
I think the noble Lady makes a very important point. We work hard in order to ensure that international students can come and international students can come and contribute to and benefit from UK higher education, and when I talk to international counterparts, they also talk to me about the enormous value of our skills in vocational training and the need to ensure that there is shared learning and shared opportunities there. So I think in anything that happens in the future, we should make sure that it isn't only seen as something for higher education but also for further education and technical skills education as well.
15:28
The Lord Bishop of Norwich (Bishops)
-
-
The Lord Bishop of Norwich (Bishops)
My Lords, universities within the cathedral group, those 14 educational institutions founded by the church, have a higher proportion of students who progress to university when they are older and or students who are the first in their family to progress to university. How will the government ensure that all students who wish to, in particular those experiencing socio-economic disadvantage, that they are able to access the life changing opportunities afforded by studying abroad, given the loss to students of Erasmus funding?
15:29
Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
Well, I think that the Right Reverend Prelate and makes an important point about this being something, opportunity that people have -- need to have at all stages of their life. I think I'm right in saying that during -- the Turing Scheme does enable older students to benefit from it. And certainly, as I've already emphasised, it enables and has focused on ensuring that those people who come from more disadvantaged backgrounds have the opportunity to experience travelling, learning, visiting overseas in a way that they otherwise would not have been able to.
15:30
Baroness Barran (Conservative)
-
-
Baroness Barran (Conservative)
I wonder if I could pick up on the points raised by the noble Lord Lord Patel in terms of asking the noble Baroness the Minister if she can update the house on which countries are most popular for students undertaking the capturing Scheme -- the Turing Scheme and also the percentage of students engaging with the scheme as it compares with with the scheme as it compares with
15:30
Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
Yes, she can encourage me to and I hopefully will be able to. I think I'm right in saying that 5/10 of the most popular countries in the Turing scheme are actually outside the EU and as we have previously discussed, that important. And we are now at a situation where, in 2024-25, 53% of people who are expected to take part in the schema from disadvantaged backgrounds. And that I think, all people who have contributed so far have recognised, whatever scheme we have is a really important focus to put on that opportunity.
15:31
Lord Wigley (Plaid Cymru)
-
-
Lord Wigley (Plaid Cymru)
Warmly endorsing the comments on the subject and indeed, accepting the comments made by the noble Lord on the benefit of the Turing Scheme, will the Minister accept the status of the associated third countries, enjoyed by countries such as Norway and Serbia and Turkey, and not incompatible with these other schemes, might there be a way of
**** Possible New Speaker ****
looking to bring us together? I am not wholly clear which of the schemes the noble Lord is talking about but I'm happy to talking about but I'm happy to follow that up with him. I think if follow that up with him. I think if the point he is making is that we the point he is making is that we need to broaden, ensure that any scheme we support is as broad as scheme we support is as broad as possible in terms of the opportunities available to young people and in fact older people.
The DeVere suggesting that we also need DeVere suggesting that we also need to consider, as we do in fact have bilateral youth mobility schemes, with countries such as, for example, India, Canada, Australia, Iceland and Andorra, and keep thinking about that, I think that is a useful contribution and something we certainly should do.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
looking to bring us together? I am not wholly clear which of the schemes the noble Lord is talking about but I'm happy to talking about but I'm happy to follow that up with him. I think if follow that up with him. I think if the point he is making is that we the point he is making is that we need to broaden, ensure that any scheme we support is as broad as scheme we support is as broad as possible in terms of the opportunities available to young people and in fact older people.
The DeVere suggesting that we also need DeVere suggesting that we also need to consider, as we do in fact have bilateral youth mobility schemes, with countries such as, for example, India, Canada, Australia, Iceland and Andorra, and keep thinking about that, I think that is a useful contribution and something we certainly should do.
15:32
15:33
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (Crossbench)
-
-
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (Crossbench)
opposite was making the point that the Erasmus scheme takes in large the Erasmus scheme takes in large number of countries which are not in the European Union. Therefore, there the European Union. Therefore, there is no need to conduct this is no need to conduct this discussion as a competition between Turing and Erasmus. The best thing to do, surely, is for the government to try to get the best elements of to try to get the best elements of both schemes in one that we can now support in the future.
15:33
Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
support in the future. I don't think I have conducted it by competition between the two. I don't think it would be difficult for this House to work out, things had gone differently in 2016, what situation I would rather be in. But we are in the position we are reigneth of particular point -- We are in at this particular point. We have made clear we don't have plans to enter -- Enter the Erasmus scheme nor to reintroduce free movement, but I think what we have heard today is a general consensus that future schemes, whatever auspices they come under, that enable people to have experience of studying and working and living in other countries are important, and we should do all that we can to try and encourage particularly those people who wouldn't otherwise have those opportunities to be supported by whatever schemes we develop.
Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
support in the future. I don't think I have conducted it by competition between the two. I don't think it would be difficult for this House to work out, things had gone differently in 2016, what situation I would rather be in. But we are in the position we are reigneth of particular point -- We are in at this particular point. We have made clear we don't have plans to enter -- Enter the Erasmus scheme nor to reintroduce free movement, but I think what we have heard today is a general consensus that future schemes, whatever auspices they come under, that enable people to have experience of studying and working and living in other countries are important, and we should do all that we can to try and encourage particularly those people who wouldn't otherwise have those opportunities to be supported by whatever schemes we develop.
15:34
Baroness Twycross (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Twycross (Labour)
Fourth oral question, Baroness Stowell of Beeston.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lord, eyes stand to ask the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lord, eyes stand to ask the question standing in my name on the order paper. The intervention notice on the Telegraph sale, issued by the Telegraph sale, issued by the previous government, is still in place. This means the culture place. This means the culture secretary has decisions on this in a quasi traditional capacity and would therefore be inappropriate for me to comment on specifics. The Telegraph comment on specifics. The Telegraph has a long and proud position as a valued national newspaper and the government is committed to seeing it continue, and for the newspaper to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lord, eyes stand to ask the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lord, eyes stand to ask the question standing in my name on the order paper. The intervention notice on the Telegraph sale, issued by the Telegraph sale, issued by the previous government, is still in place. This means the culture place. This means the culture secretary has decisions on this in a quasi traditional capacity and would therefore be inappropriate for me to comment on specifics. The Telegraph comment on specifics. The Telegraph has a long and proud position as a valued national newspaper and the government is committed to seeing it continue, and for the newspaper to
15:34
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Conservative)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
thrive. My Lords, it's a year since this has voted to put beyond doubt the possibility of a foreign government or foreign power owning a British newspaper. Yet, 12 months on, ownership of Telegraph remains unresolved. The newspapers continue to function, and all credit to those involved. Where the situation is unsustainable, because the business is the freedom to move on. I hear what the noble Lady, the Minister, has just said but after all this time, when there is no sign of video, could I ask how long does the government intend to wait, before using its powers to intervene and force a sale.
however regrettable such a sale will be in full the government bring forward a second government bring forward a second legislation to put a cap which is important to the whole industry.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Conservative)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
thrive. My Lords, it's a year since this has voted to put beyond doubt the possibility of a foreign government or foreign power owning a British newspaper. Yet, 12 months on, ownership of Telegraph remains unresolved. The newspapers continue to function, and all credit to those involved. Where the situation is unsustainable, because the business is the freedom to move on. I hear what the noble Lady, the Minister, has just said but after all this time, when there is no sign of video, could I ask how long does the government intend to wait, before using its powers to intervene and force a sale.
however regrettable such a sale will be in full the government bring forward a second government bring forward a second legislation to put a cap which is important to the whole industry.
15:36
Baroness Twycross (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Twycross (Labour)
I Peter the noble Lady, I know she has been campaigning on this for some time, the government has not issued a foreign state influence notice, because Redbird IMA has signalled its intention to sell in compliance with the New Yorker prohibiting foreign state ownership of newspapers, so the government is allowing them to conduct the sale. In relation to the Esi, to which the nobility referred, there clearly was a general election in the interim, from under legislation passed by the previous government.
The government does recognise that the foreign state should not be allowed to influence the policy of UK newspapers, but there should be a balance with that, to encourage investment into the press sector,
The government does recognise that the foreign state should not be allowed to influence the policy of UK newspapers, but there should be a balance with that, to encourage investment into the press sector,
15:37
Lord Moore of Etchingham (Non-affiliated)
-
-
Lord Moore of Etchingham (Non-affiliated)
therefore, we are carefully considering responses to the consultation, we hope to publish this response very soon and lady SI short after that. short after that. short after that. short after that. As a member of the Telegraph group. I'm grateful to what the noble Lady, the Minister, is saying about the sense of urgency, but I must say it sense of urgency, but I must say it hasn't been apparent so far and has gone on a long time. Newspapers lived by deadlines, and that is not lived by deadlines, and that is not such familiar phenomenon in the quasi judicial capacity, and we do need, we really do need that line to be met.
But can I bring a further question, which is this effect, obviously, and most importantly, the newspaper. But actually ask whether the noble Lady or the Minister would agree it makes it quite difficult for potential buyers or the seller, because they don't understand the terms they are actually doing it. So, the delay is really quite fundamental to bowel problem. -- To fundamental to bowel problem. -- To the whole problem. I am not --
But can I bring a further question, which is this effect, obviously, and most importantly, the newspaper. But actually ask whether the noble Lady or the Minister would agree it makes it quite difficult for potential buyers or the seller, because they don't understand the terms they are actually doing it. So, the delay is really quite fundamental to bowel problem. -- To fundamental to bowel problem. -- To the whole problem. I am not --
15:37
Baroness Twycross (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Twycross (Labour)
I am not clear the company selling the Telegraph is unclear about the rules under which it is operating. We are allowing the company Redbird IMI to conduct the sale, DCMS meets regularly with representatives from the parties and we are monitoring this closely, but it is a clear intention of the it is a clear intention of the parties to sell as soon as possible.
15:38
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Labour)
My Lords, there is clearly a focus on national newspapers, but the fact is that many people rely on their news from local trusted media sources. I think of the Doncaster free press, but I am sure all members of your Lordships house will know their own local media source as well. And they have faced considerable pressures in recent years. Can my noble friend, the Minister, outlined what the government is doing to support local media outlets?
15:39
Baroness Twycross (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Twycross (Labour)
My noble friend makes a really important point. And particularly in this age where so many people find it difficult to know which media People get their local news from media sources. So, this is an area of particular concern for this government. We are developing a local media strategy in recognition of this vital sector. And reflecting the contribution perspective is -- Perspectives of local media, in which everyone feels their contribution and their area of the country is part of a inclusive national story.
15:39
15:40
Baroness Twycross (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Twycross (Labour)
The noble Lord betrays a very
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The noble Lord betrays a very bleak future in which we do not have the national newspapers which so many of us are proud of and clearly noble Lords from across the House built feel very passionate about. In built feel very passionate about. In relation to the Esi that the noble Lady mentioned in her initial Lady mentioned in her initial questions, this relates to NSI which has exceptions to the regime, which has exceptions to the regime, which is on foreign investment, but which does not go as far to allow foreign state ownership or influence on the policy of UK newspapers.
policy of UK newspapers.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The noble Lord betrays a very bleak future in which we do not have the national newspapers which so many of us are proud of and clearly noble Lords from across the House built feel very passionate about. In built feel very passionate about. In relation to the Esi that the noble Lady mentioned in her initial Lady mentioned in her initial questions, this relates to NSI which has exceptions to the regime, which has exceptions to the regime, which is on foreign investment, but which does not go as far to allow foreign state ownership or influence on the policy of UK newspapers.
policy of UK newspapers.
15:40
15:40
Baroness Twycross (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Twycross (Labour)
The noble Lord is right that the Prime Minister visited the UAE in December. I am not clear whether this particular issue was raised. But I am clear that we will continue to do whatever we can to enforce the UK, UAE partnership more generally. Separate entertainment, we are taking forward the legislation which I hope to bring before the House in the near future, that he laid on when the party opposite was in government.
15:41
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Labour)
-
-
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Labour)
My Lords, when we were in opposition, we were very concerned about the ownership of national titles in the newspapers and we made that very clear. But there is also another issue here. I would like to get the noble Lady, the Minister's view on it. That is the question of journalist safety. Continuing on widespread threats for journalists online and also physical threats, which were apparent in last year's riots. Here is my noble friend the Minister share my concerns, and I'm sure noble Lords concerns, about the safety of journalists and what more can we as a government do to make sure that part of the freedom of press is fully protected?
15:42
Baroness Twycross (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Twycross (Labour)
My noble friend makes a really valid point and yesterday we spoke about Gaza and the horrendous number of journalists and media workers who have died in the course of that conflict. But even in this country, and my noble friend referred to the Southport riots in the wake of the attack in Southport. The harassment of journalists generally, but specifically reporting on those public order offences completely unacceptable and incompatible, in our view, with healthy functioning democracy.
We have to have a situation in which journalists can operate without fear of abuse and threats to intimidation. The government is committed to defending the role of free media that the safety of journalists and we continue to work on these important issues, including by delivering our national action point for the safety of journalists working with civil society and media partners.
We have to have a situation in which journalists can operate without fear of abuse and threats to intimidation. The government is committed to defending the role of free media that the safety of journalists and we continue to work on these important issues, including by delivering our national action point for the safety of journalists working with civil society and media partners.
15:43
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Conservative)
... The Secretary of State is acting within a quasi judicial capacity. Would the Minister or one of her colleagues perhaps endeavour to send a quasi judicial message to the Secretary of State that she needs to get on with it and might want to involve the competition of market authority and predictable market authority and predictable conclusion? -- And bring it to a conclusion? conclusion?
15:43
Baroness Twycross (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Twycross (Labour)
The noble Lord has clearly been engaged in this issue for some time. One of the really valuable things I would suggest we have in your Lordships house as this question time. And I have no doubt that the very fact I have been answering questions on this point today will But keeping in mind, the Secretary of State, she is not delaying but it is important these Issues are dealt with effectively, and I'm confident I will be able to report back to your Lordships house and hopefully
**** Possible New Speaker ****
bring forward some SIs. My Lords, that concludes oral
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My
**** Possible New Speaker ****
bring forward some SIs. My Lords, that concludes oral
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My
15:45
Business of the House
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My LordsChurch My LordsChurch of My LordsChurch of Scotland My LordsChurch of Scotland (Lord
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My LordsChurch of Scotland (Lord High Commissioner) Bill,, I beg to move this bill be read for the first
**** Possible New Speaker ****
time. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Business of house. Business of the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
House, the Lord Privy Seal. My Lords, I beg to move emotions
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I beg to move emotions standing in my name on the order
**** Possible New Speaker ****
paper. The question is that this motion be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
contrary, "Not content". The contents of it. Business of this House. My Lords, I beg to move the
Business of the House
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My LordsChurch My LordsChurch of My LordsChurch of Scotland My LordsChurch of Scotland (Lord
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My LordsChurch of Scotland (Lord High Commissioner) Bill,, I beg to move this bill be read for the first
**** Possible New Speaker ****
time. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Business of house. Business of the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
House, the Lord Privy Seal. My Lords, I beg to move emotions
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I beg to move emotions standing in my name on the order
**** Possible New Speaker ****
paper. The question is that this motion be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
contrary, "Not content". The contents of it. Business of this House. My Lords, I beg to move the
15:46
Baroness Smith of Basildon, Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal (Labour)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I beg to move the second motion standing in my name on the order paper. It might be helpful if I say a few words about this if I say a few words about this because this motion refers to a fast track to build, so I wanted to set out the opportunity to make the arrangements for the bill. They have been agreed in the usual channels previously. It had its first reading as noble Lords will have heard, the second reading on 19 March, and all of the Lord stages on 24 March.
Given the short gap between the second reading and remaining stages, noble Lords will be able to table amendments for committee stage from today after the bill has been met for the first time. And printed. The deadline for the first Marshalled list will be the usual time of 4pm on Thursday 20th March. If the amendment tabled, they will be debated in committee, further stages and tabling arrangements are needed, they will be announced by the Chief
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The questions that this motion be
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The questions that this motion be agreed to. All of those in favour say, "Content". Those in the say, "Content". Those in the contrary say, "Not content". The contents have it. Housing committee contents have it. Housing committee on the Universal Credit (Standard Allowance Entitlement of Care Leavers) Bill.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Leavers) Bill. Unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that the order of commitment be discharged. All of those in favour say, "Content". those in favour say, "Content". Those in the contrary say, "Not content". The contents have it. We now come to some instruments previously debated in committee. Social Security Benefits Up-rating Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order. The question is that the four motions in the name of Baroness motions in the name of Baroness Sherlock be agreed to. All of those in favour say, "Content".
Those in the contrary say, "Not content". The contents have it. Non-Domestic Rating (Levy and Safety Net) (Amendment) Regulations. Baroness
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Taylor of Stevenage. On behalf of my noble friend Lord
Baroness Smith of Basildon, Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal (Labour)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I beg to move the second motion standing in my name on the order paper. It might be helpful if I say a few words about this if I say a few words about this because this motion refers to a fast track to build, so I wanted to set out the opportunity to make the arrangements for the bill. They have been agreed in the usual channels previously. It had its first reading as noble Lords will have heard, the second reading on 19 March, and all of the Lord stages on 24 March.
Given the short gap between the second reading and remaining stages, noble Lords will be able to table amendments for committee stage from today after the bill has been met for the first time. And printed. The deadline for the first Marshalled list will be the usual time of 4pm on Thursday 20th March. If the amendment tabled, they will be debated in committee, further stages and tabling arrangements are needed, they will be announced by the Chief
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The questions that this motion be
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The questions that this motion be agreed to. All of those in favour say, "Content". Those in the say, "Content". Those in the contrary say, "Not content". The contents have it. Housing committee contents have it. Housing committee on the Universal Credit (Standard Allowance Entitlement of Care Leavers) Bill.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Leavers) Bill. Unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that the order of commitment be discharged. All of those in favour say, "Content". those in favour say, "Content". Those in the contrary say, "Not content". The contents have it. We now come to some instruments previously debated in committee. Social Security Benefits Up-rating Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order. The question is that the four motions in the name of Baroness motions in the name of Baroness Sherlock be agreed to. All of those in favour say, "Content".
Those in the contrary say, "Not content". The contents have it. Non-Domestic Rating (Levy and Safety Net) (Amendment) Regulations. Baroness
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Taylor of Stevenage. On behalf of my noble friend Lord
15:49
Business of the House
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
On behalf of my noble friend Lord Cam, I beg leave to move the motion standing in his name on the Order
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Paper. Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Visits) (England) (Amendment and Transitional Provision) Regulations. Baroness Taylor of Stevenage. A bid to move the motion standing
**** Possible New Speaker ****
A bid to move the motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. The question is that this motion be agreed to. All of those in favour say, "Content". Those in the contrary say, "Not content". The contrary say, "Not content". The contents have it. Child Benefit and Guardian's Allowance Up-rating Order Guardian's Allowance Up-rating Order And one other motion. Lord Livermore. The question is that the two motions in the name of Lord Livermore be agreed to unlock.
All of those in favour say, "Content". Those in the contrary say, "Not content". The contents have it. Question on an answer on an urgent question asked in the House of
Business of the House
**** Possible New Speaker ****
On behalf of my noble friend Lord Cam, I beg leave to move the motion standing in his name on the Order
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Paper. Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Visits) (England) (Amendment and Transitional Provision) Regulations. Baroness Taylor of Stevenage. A bid to move the motion standing
**** Possible New Speaker ****
A bid to move the motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. The question is that this motion be agreed to. All of those in favour say, "Content". Those in the contrary say, "Not content". The contrary say, "Not content". The contents have it. Child Benefit and Guardian's Allowance Up-rating Order Guardian's Allowance Up-rating Order And one other motion. Lord Livermore. The question is that the two motions in the name of Lord Livermore be agreed to unlock.
All of those in favour say, "Content". Those in the contrary say, "Not content". The contents have it. Question on an answer on an urgent question asked in the House of
15:50
Urgent Question Repeat: Situation in Gaza
Lord Callanan (Conservative)
-
Urgent Question Repeat: Situation in Gaza
Lord Callanan (Conservative)
the other place rightly referred to British citizen Emily and others and Emily has now shared the details of Emily has now shared the details of her dreadful ordeal in captivity in the hands of Hamas. I'm sure the whole House will join me in wishing her well and sending deepest her well and sending deepest condolences to the families of those hostages who sadly died whilst in captivity. I have two questions for the noble Lord the Minister. Firstly, what conversations has the noble Lord or the government had with US and Israeli allies on helping to ensure phase 2 of the ceasefire if it comes to -- when it comes to effect? Secondly, could we have an update on British aid in Gaza? Is it reaching its intended target and will it be affected by the 0.2% of GNI reductions announced by the government last week? by the government last week?
15:51
Lord Collins of Highbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)
-
-
Lord Collins of Highbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)
I hope -- I thank the noble Lord for his question. Can I just say that in relation to the next stages, we are putting forward a plan for the next phase. Recovery and reconstruction in Gaza. The UK stands ready to work with partners to develop these ideas and to support all parties to get behind a single viable plan for Gaza that meets the needs and aspirations of the civilian population and ensures a peaceful political framework for negotiating a two-state solution.
As I've said to the House before, we are very clear that Hamas cannot govern Gaza. Any plan must ensure Israeli security and should support the unity of the West Bank and Gaza under the PA's mandate. We have announced a further £70 million that is being committed to aid in Gaza. We've also announced 129 million so far for the financial year including 41 million. As the Prime Minister said in his statement, we are absolutely committed to ensuring continued support for the Palestinian Authority.
Can I also say the halt on hoods and supplies entering Gaza is a serious matter and risks -- Israel risks breaching its obligations under international humanitarian law, and I can say that today, together with friends in Germany, we have issued a statement expressing deep concern at Israel's halt on aid to Gaza and urged it to a -- lift all restrictions. It is vital that the ceasefire be vital that the ceasefire be sustained and aid resumed.
As I've said to the House before, we are very clear that Hamas cannot govern Gaza. Any plan must ensure Israeli security and should support the unity of the West Bank and Gaza under the PA's mandate. We have announced a further £70 million that is being committed to aid in Gaza. We've also announced 129 million so far for the financial year including 41 million. As the Prime Minister said in his statement, we are absolutely committed to ensuring continued support for the Palestinian Authority.
Can I also say the halt on hoods and supplies entering Gaza is a serious matter and risks -- Israel risks breaching its obligations under international humanitarian law, and I can say that today, together with friends in Germany, we have issued a statement expressing deep concern at Israel's halt on aid to Gaza and urged it to a -- lift all restrictions. It is vital that the ceasefire be vital that the ceasefire be sustained and aid resumed.
15:53
Lord Purvis of Tweed (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Lord Purvis of Tweed (Liberal Democrat)
I agree with every single word of that statement. These benches support the government statement, including the fact that the withholding of aid access to people who need it most is contrary to international humanitarian law and I'm glad the government has been clear on the statement. Given the United States and Israel have rejected the Arabic plan, the government will need to choose a side. Can I therefore ask a specific question. The UK has been the leading country in supporting the Palestinian Authority police force, training, the professionalisation and the funding for that.
Any police force in the new arrangement for Gaza is going to be a fundamental importance. Can the Minister reassure me that our support will be continuing for the professionalisation, training and support of a civilian police force, which is probably one of the strongest ways of preventing gangsterism and Hamas gaining a footing in that area. footing in that area.
Any police force in the new arrangement for Gaza is going to be a fundamental importance. Can the Minister reassure me that our support will be continuing for the professionalisation, training and support of a civilian police force, which is probably one of the strongest ways of preventing gangsterism and Hamas gaining a footing in that area. footing in that area.
15:54
Lord Collins of Highbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)
-
-
Lord Collins of Highbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)
I could say to the noble Lord he is absolutely right. We will continue to support the Palestinian Authority, not only in the training that he mentioned, but with other support to enable them to be able to take part positively in that plan and, of course, we have insisted that any dialogue should include Palestinians. Certainly, we will continue with that. Can I just say that the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister has obviously been in dialogue with all partners on this and we will continue to work with Israel, the Palestinian Authority, the US and regional partners to build a consensus on post-conflict Gaza and the security framework that supports the conditions for a permanent and sustainable peace.
15:55
15:55
Lord Collins of Highbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)
-
-
Lord Collins of Highbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)
I would say to my noble friend, and I will repeat, we made our position very clear ourselves to the Israeli authorities about their actions are risking a breaching its obligations under international humanitarian law. But we have gone further and as the noble Lord Lord Purvis has had, we issued a statement this afternoon together with France and Germany, again, are strong allies in this, making it absolutely clear that blocking aid is unacceptable and should be stopped.
We are monitoring the situation. We know that substantial amount of aid is trying to get in and we will continue to pressure Israel to remove that block. Israel to remove that block.
We are monitoring the situation. We know that substantial amount of aid is trying to get in and we will continue to pressure Israel to remove that block. Israel to remove that block.
15:56
Lord Robathan (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Robathan (Conservative)
Would it be possible for the Minister to explain if there is any interrelationship between the American plan for the rather unusual large golden statue of Donald Trump, but the American plan and the Egyptian and Arab plan so that those could work a little bit together? could work a little bit together?
15:56
Lord Collins of Highbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)
-
-
Lord Collins of Highbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)
Obviously, the situation is incredibly complex but I would say one thing that I think will be key to finding a solution, and that is the normalisation of relationships between Israel and Saudi Arabia. I think that is key and there must be a Palestinian component in that, and we will present to achieve that and we will work alongside the US president Donald Trump and his team in the coming weeks to bring that about. I think that is key. Our long-standing position has been that long-standing position has been that we will recognise a Palestinian state is a time that is most conducive to the peace process but we are absolutely certain that if we can ensure that that normalisation between the Saudis and Israel takes
**** Possible New Speaker ****
place, we can move more rapidly. As the Minister describes it, exclude Hamas...
**** Possible New Speaker ****
exclude Hamas... I made the -- I made it absolutely clear we are supporting
**** Possible New Speaker ****
place, we can move more rapidly. As the Minister describes it, exclude Hamas...
**** Possible New Speaker ****
exclude Hamas... I made the -- I made it absolutely clear we are supporting
15:58
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Conservative)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the Palestinian Authority and there is no place for Hamas and governance of Gaza. Since the outset of this
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Since the outset of this horrendous conflict, Israel has horrendous conflict, Israel has provided 25,000 trucks and 57,000 tons of aid which has gone into Gaza. It is quite clear that Hamas continue to renege on the agreement that they have made so far, which leaves phase 2 in an extremely difficult situation. There are 47 organisations that provide aid to Gaza, not only UNRWA. Can the noble Lord please respond to the question by my noble friend on the frontbench to what oversight is being provided to ensure that the £41 million of British taxpayers money is going to the correct people?
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Conservative)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the Palestinian Authority and there is no place for Hamas and governance of Gaza. Since the outset of this
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Since the outset of this horrendous conflict, Israel has horrendous conflict, Israel has provided 25,000 trucks and 57,000 tons of aid which has gone into Gaza. It is quite clear that Hamas continue to renege on the agreement that they have made so far, which leaves phase 2 in an extremely difficult situation. There are 47 organisations that provide aid to Gaza, not only UNRWA. Can the noble Lord please respond to the question by my noble friend on the frontbench to what oversight is being provided to ensure that the £41 million of British taxpayers money is going to the correct people?
15:58
Lord Collins of Highbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)
-
-
Lord Collins of Highbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)
Well, I think I have assured the house all the way through that our purpose is to ensure that we get aid to those needed. We have had undertakings from UNRWA about the accusations about Hamas involvement in their work, we have supported the recommendations and we have even financially supported that. There is no doubt that UNRWA remains key but it is not the sole purpose. We are working with all agencies, all allies, to ensure that aid gets through to the people that needed the most.
-- Need it the most. It is a very complex situation at the moment and that is why we are working incredibly hard with all allies to make sure the peace process and the ceasefire and the agreement that was reached continues. I'm not going to use the term phases. At the end of the day, we want sustainable peace, security for Israel and a home for the Palestinians.
-- Need it the most. It is a very complex situation at the moment and that is why we are working incredibly hard with all allies to make sure the peace process and the ceasefire and the agreement that was reached continues. I'm not going to use the term phases. At the end of the day, we want sustainable peace, security for Israel and a home for the Palestinians.
16:00
16:00
Lord Collins of Highbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)
-
-
Lord Collins of Highbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)
One thing we are absolutely clear about is that there should be international cooperation to ensure the full restoration of Gaza and that doesn't mean primarily the leading regional players playing their part, and I think we will work with all of our allies support that so I won't predict what that might mean in terms of financial terms, but at this stage, it's working hard
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Product Product Safety Product Safety and Product Safety and Metrology.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Product Product Safety Product Safety and Product Safety and Metrology.
16:01
Lord Leong (Labour)
-
-
Lord Leong (Labour)
Product Safety and Metrology. debate on this bill be now considered a further report.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is this bill be no
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is this bill be no further considered on... The question is that this bill be now question is that this bill be now further considered on report. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is this bill be no
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is this bill be no further considered on... The question is that this bill be now question is that this bill be now further considered on report. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not
16:01
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
"Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Clause 2, amendment 15. Lord Sharpe.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I rise to speak to amendment 15 in my name which seeks to leave out paragraph K of clause 2, concerning the concept of unauthorised represented. The introduction of unauthorised represented of a critical concept, but at the moment, this provision remains too vague and ill-defined in remains too vague and ill-defined in the bill. The business is this lack of clarity leads to uncertainty, of clarity leads to uncertainty, especially when it comes to the exact role and responsibilities of exact role and responsibilities of an authorised representative.
Businesses require certainty when it comes to compliance and this comes to compliance and this uncertainty may hinder their ability to plan, operate or expand. By removing paragraph K, we remove confusion, ensuring businesses do not place burdens or legal risks. Amendment 2022 addresses the issue this power could allow ministers to align law with EU regulations, to diversion them in significant ways. With a ministers choose to follow EU rules or set our own clause, these substantial provisions could have an impact on future consumers.
What is particularly troubling as these decisions could be made for delegating legislation and as the DPRRC, has said, it would only be subject to a relatively low level of parliamentary scrutiny for top bylaws, we have rehearsed these arguments in previous debates and I won't rehash them at length now, my noble friend, Lord Frost, address this point in the first of report, the risk of dynamic alignments within the EU, which was stated was not possible, however he did not explain why. I beg to move amendment
**** Possible New Speaker ****
15. Amendment proposed under clause 2, page 2, line 43, leave out
**** Possible New Speaker ****
paragraph K. Referring to the provisions of
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I rise to speak to amendment 15 in my name which seeks to leave out paragraph K of clause 2, concerning the concept of unauthorised represented. The introduction of unauthorised represented of a critical concept, but at the moment, this provision remains too vague and ill-defined in remains too vague and ill-defined in the bill. The business is this lack of clarity leads to uncertainty, of clarity leads to uncertainty, especially when it comes to the exact role and responsibilities of exact role and responsibilities of an authorised representative.
Businesses require certainty when it comes to compliance and this comes to compliance and this uncertainty may hinder their ability to plan, operate or expand. By removing paragraph K, we remove confusion, ensuring businesses do not place burdens or legal risks. Amendment 2022 addresses the issue this power could allow ministers to align law with EU regulations, to diversion them in significant ways. With a ministers choose to follow EU rules or set our own clause, these substantial provisions could have an impact on future consumers.
What is particularly troubling as these decisions could be made for delegating legislation and as the DPRRC, has said, it would only be subject to a relatively low level of parliamentary scrutiny for top bylaws, we have rehearsed these arguments in previous debates and I won't rehash them at length now, my noble friend, Lord Frost, address this point in the first of report, the risk of dynamic alignments within the EU, which was stated was not possible, however he did not explain why. I beg to move amendment
**** Possible New Speaker ****
15. Amendment proposed under clause 2, page 2, line 43, leave out
**** Possible New Speaker ****
paragraph K. Referring to the provisions of
16:04
Lord Fox (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Referring to the provisions of this group, removing specifics and close to, including a paragraph on authorised representative, subsection providing products, which subsection providing products, which The Lord mentioned, and the subject of environmental considerations before introducing regulations. My Lords, we strongly oppose these changes, particularly as we emphasise the importance of environmental considerations for products during the committee stage. And I would remind the noble Lord Sharpe that since the DPRRC's report, we had the last report stage, where the government took on board amendment nine, under which there were statements which has a statutory consultation process, therefore such regulations were laid.
So, the idea that somehow there is no accountability has somehow been set aside, so with those provisions, we would not be conducive to supporting those amendments. amendments.
Lord Fox (Liberal Democrat)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Referring to the provisions of this group, removing specifics and close to, including a paragraph on authorised representative, subsection providing products, which subsection providing products, which The Lord mentioned, and the subject of environmental considerations before introducing regulations. My Lords, we strongly oppose these changes, particularly as we emphasise the importance of environmental considerations for products during the committee stage. And I would remind the noble Lord Sharpe that since the DPRRC's report, we had the last report stage, where the government took on board amendment nine, under which there were statements which has a statutory consultation process, therefore such regulations were laid.
So, the idea that somehow there is no accountability has somehow been set aside, so with those provisions, we would not be conducive to supporting those amendments. amendments.
16:05
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, Minister of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Labour)
-
-
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, Minister of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Labour)
I am very grateful to both noble Lords further contribution to this debate. As the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, said, amendments 15 and 16. He, I think, was pushing for more clarification. The fact is, that by accepting them, we think it would significantly impact our ability to update regulations, protecting consumers from product -related risk. Because they remove the part of the clause that makes clear we can introduce regulations on a range of different actors involved in supplying a product.
And of course, my Lords, those actors may change from time to time. On the whole construct of this bill is to give us flexibility to reflect on the changes that will occur in the changes that will occur in the future. My Lords, the product regulations will have no impact on a reply to the range of actors involved in producing, importing and marketing a product to consumers. My Lords, on the issue of the complexity or extent of the existing product regulations, our simply say again -- I would simply say again because of this the breadth of clause 2 is necessary to ensure all matters involved in ensuring product safety can be adequately covered now and in the future.
And on the point of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, raises about certainty for business. It does seem to me, my Lords, the flexibility that this bill allows us is that we can respond to events as they happen. The adverse of that is that further primary legislation would be required, which I would argue would produce more uncertainty for business, then the kind of approach we are taking. My Lords, in approach we are taking. My Lords, in relation to the issue of amendment 22, we have always agreed on the need for guardrails in the bill.
An intimate 22 in the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe's name, would remove one of the existing guardrails. Required at close to eight that the government must have regard to the social, environmental and economic impact of making regulations, which recognise provisions of EU law. My notes, we oppose removing this requirement. We are already amending the bill to put more guardrails in place. This includes existing -- Specifically clause 2H, on what can be imposed in particular actors. We are increasing scrutiny through the affirmative procedure, whenever regulations seek to place requirements for the first time on a new categories of actors in the supply chain.
At the affirmative resolution procedure will also apply when opposing product requirements for the first time on online marketplaces. My Lords, we have also published a code of conduct which will set out the statutory and nonstatutory roles in place, to make sure it is proportionate and evidence-based. My notes, I would also like to take the opportunity to update noble Lords on the matter of inclusive by design, on which we had a very good discussion I have a last day on Been a number of discussions which have taken place with the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, we want to thank him for the constructive dialogue we have had alongside the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, who elegantly invited himself to the meeting.
Milos, committee, we discussed it, and indeed last week, we discussed the existing inclusive design standard, produced by the British standards institution. But as I said last week, having a voluntary standard is one thing, but ensuring producers and manufacturers take account of it is another. Now of course gets to the heart of product safety. Our existing law sets a baseline safety requirement for product, according to their recently -- Reasonably seen to their recently -- Reasonably seen use.
Those products are self- evidently not on the safety regime. As we look to update our Revelation frame, there is Mobic and duty consider how regulations can best ensure safety for all users. Following discussions with the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, we have therefore agreed that we will update the code of conduct when product safety, to highlight the importance of inclusive by design. And we can also ensure the code reflects when the government considers product regulations, the role regulations regulations, the role regulations can take in ensuring safety for all people.
I hope this ensures noble Lords, in particular, the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, that we do take very seriously the points he raised, and indeed, with a noble Lords of the impact regulations have on UK businesses. My Lords, this is not the effort to put a lot of additional regulatory burdens onto businesses. What we seek to do here is to protect consumers from product risk, that the right actors are covered by regulations and, my Lords, when change occurs, when issues need to be discussed and considered and actions need to be taken, we have come through this bill and act I hope, effectively deal with them.
Dogma can I thank the noble Lord and the Minister for his remarks, it was remiss of me earlier to not acknowledge again at earlier to not acknowledge again at Addressing the various... What is the word I'm looking for? I was going to say complaints but that may be overstating the case slightly. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, consultation is, by definition as I said earlier, a relatively low level of not necessarily parliamentary scrutiny. The DPRRC were still not happy with the levels of scrutiny, but that is an argument we have already had.
And I think it has reasonably been dealt with in a reasonable way for SAP so I appreciate the points the noble Lord made, especially about respond to events as they happen. I'm very grateful for the fact he spent time with my noble friend, Lord Holmes, and did, that offers me A-level of reassurance that the government is listening this. They are aware of all the concerns that have been laid before them by the DPRRC and others. And for that reason, I'm content to withdraw.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Is at your Lordships pleasure this amendment be withdrawn? Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Amendment 16, my Lords, if amendment 16 is a great you, I cannot call 16 is a great you, I cannot call amendment 17 by reason of pre- emption. Not moved? Not moved. Amendment 17, already debated. Moved Amendment 17, already debated. Moved formally? The question is that formally? The question is that amendment 17 B agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content".
Of the contrary, "Not content". The Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Amendment 18, my Lords, if amendment 18 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 19, 21, 22, 24, 32, 56, 59, by reason of pre- emption. Lord Frost. Not moved? Amendment 19, already debated. Lord Frost, not moved? Amendment 19, Lord Frost. Not moved. Amendment 20, Lord Lansley, already debated, not moved? Not moved. Amendment 21, already debated, Baroness Lawlor, not moved? Moved formally.
The question is that amendment 20 1B agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not
And of course, my Lords, those actors may change from time to time. On the whole construct of this bill is to give us flexibility to reflect on the changes that will occur in the changes that will occur in the future. My Lords, the product regulations will have no impact on a reply to the range of actors involved in producing, importing and marketing a product to consumers. My Lords, on the issue of the complexity or extent of the existing product regulations, our simply say again -- I would simply say again because of this the breadth of clause 2 is necessary to ensure all matters involved in ensuring product safety can be adequately covered now and in the future.
And on the point of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, raises about certainty for business. It does seem to me, my Lords, the flexibility that this bill allows us is that we can respond to events as they happen. The adverse of that is that further primary legislation would be required, which I would argue would produce more uncertainty for business, then the kind of approach we are taking. My Lords, in approach we are taking. My Lords, in relation to the issue of amendment 22, we have always agreed on the need for guardrails in the bill.
An intimate 22 in the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe's name, would remove one of the existing guardrails. Required at close to eight that the government must have regard to the social, environmental and economic impact of making regulations, which recognise provisions of EU law. My notes, we oppose removing this requirement. We are already amending the bill to put more guardrails in place. This includes existing -- Specifically clause 2H, on what can be imposed in particular actors. We are increasing scrutiny through the affirmative procedure, whenever regulations seek to place requirements for the first time on a new categories of actors in the supply chain.
At the affirmative resolution procedure will also apply when opposing product requirements for the first time on online marketplaces. My Lords, we have also published a code of conduct which will set out the statutory and nonstatutory roles in place, to make sure it is proportionate and evidence-based. My notes, I would also like to take the opportunity to update noble Lords on the matter of inclusive by design, on which we had a very good discussion I have a last day on Been a number of discussions which have taken place with the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, we want to thank him for the constructive dialogue we have had alongside the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, who elegantly invited himself to the meeting.
Milos, committee, we discussed it, and indeed last week, we discussed the existing inclusive design standard, produced by the British standards institution. But as I said last week, having a voluntary standard is one thing, but ensuring producers and manufacturers take account of it is another. Now of course gets to the heart of product safety. Our existing law sets a baseline safety requirement for product, according to their recently -- Reasonably seen to their recently -- Reasonably seen use.
Those products are self- evidently not on the safety regime. As we look to update our Revelation frame, there is Mobic and duty consider how regulations can best ensure safety for all users. Following discussions with the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, we have therefore agreed that we will update the code of conduct when product safety, to highlight the importance of inclusive by design. And we can also ensure the code reflects when the government considers product regulations, the role regulations regulations, the role regulations can take in ensuring safety for all people.
I hope this ensures noble Lords, in particular, the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, that we do take very seriously the points he raised, and indeed, with a noble Lords of the impact regulations have on UK businesses. My Lords, this is not the effort to put a lot of additional regulatory burdens onto businesses. What we seek to do here is to protect consumers from product risk, that the right actors are covered by regulations and, my Lords, when change occurs, when issues need to be discussed and considered and actions need to be taken, we have come through this bill and act I hope, effectively deal with them.
Dogma can I thank the noble Lord and the Minister for his remarks, it was remiss of me earlier to not acknowledge again at earlier to not acknowledge again at Addressing the various... What is the word I'm looking for? I was going to say complaints but that may be overstating the case slightly. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, consultation is, by definition as I said earlier, a relatively low level of not necessarily parliamentary scrutiny. The DPRRC were still not happy with the levels of scrutiny, but that is an argument we have already had.
And I think it has reasonably been dealt with in a reasonable way for SAP so I appreciate the points the noble Lord made, especially about respond to events as they happen. I'm very grateful for the fact he spent time with my noble friend, Lord Holmes, and did, that offers me A-level of reassurance that the government is listening this. They are aware of all the concerns that have been laid before them by the DPRRC and others. And for that reason, I'm content to withdraw.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Is at your Lordships pleasure this amendment be withdrawn? Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Amendment 16, my Lords, if amendment 16 is a great you, I cannot call 16 is a great you, I cannot call amendment 17 by reason of pre- emption. Not moved? Not moved. Amendment 17, already debated. Moved Amendment 17, already debated. Moved formally? The question is that formally? The question is that amendment 17 B agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content".
Of the contrary, "Not content". The Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Amendment 18, my Lords, if amendment 18 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 19, 21, 22, 24, 32, 56, 59, by reason of pre- emption. Lord Frost. Not moved? Amendment 19, already debated. Lord Frost, not moved? Amendment 19, Lord Frost. Not moved. Amendment 20, Lord Lansley, already debated, not moved? Not moved. Amendment 21, already debated, Baroness Lawlor, not moved? Moved formally.
The question is that amendment 20 1B agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not
16:13
Division
-
Division
content". I think the question will be decided by a division. I will advise the House when voting is Voting Voting is Voting is now Voting is now open, Voting is now open, clear Voting is now open, clear the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The The question The question is The question is that The question is that amendment The question is that amendment 21
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that amendment 21
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that amendment 21 be agreed to. All of those in favour say, "Content". The contents will go say, "Content". The contents will go say, "Content". The contents will go The not contents to the left by the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The The question The question is The question is that The question is that amendment The question is that amendment 21 My My Lords, My Lords, they My Lords, they have My Lords, they have voted , , 167, , 167, not , 167, not contents, , 167, not contents, 258. , 167, not contents, 258. The , 167, not contents, 258. The not contents have it.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom, not moved. Amendment 23, already debated, largely on -- Lord Amendment 24, already debated, Lord Frost. Not moved. Amendment 25, already debated, Lord Frost. Not moved. Amendment 26, Baroness Penn it, already debated.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The The question The question is The question is that The question is that amendment The question is that amendment 21
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that amendment 21
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that amendment 21 be agreed to. All of those in favour say, "Content". The contents will go say, "Content". The contents will go say, "Content". The contents will go The not contents to the left by the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The The question The question is The question is that The question is that amendment The question is that amendment 21 My My Lords, My Lords, they My Lords, they have My Lords, they have voted , , 167, , 167, not , 167, not contents, , 167, not contents, 258. , 167, not contents, 258. The , 167, not contents, 258. The not contents have it.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom, not moved. Amendment 23, already debated, largely on -- Lord Amendment 24, already debated, Lord Frost. Not moved. Amendment 25, already debated, Lord Frost. Not moved. Amendment 26, Baroness Penn it, already debated.
16:27
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
I've put on the record my thanks to the Minister and his team for taking extensive time to speak to me about the safety of period products. I thank the noble Lord for acknowledging from the dispatch box and in meetings that there is a need for action in this area. But the reality is that if we leave this to the general consideration and the broader consideration of product safety, this will take a considerable period of time when there are people right now today who are working into shops and buying products that are going to do them harm and will do harm to the environment.
What this amendment does, debated a week ago, is say that there will be government action within one year. In the interest of public safety and environmental safety, I ask to test the opinion of the House.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that amendment 26
What this amendment does, debated a week ago, is say that there will be government action within one year. In the interest of public safety and environmental safety, I ask to test the opinion of the House.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that amendment 26
16:28
Division
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that amendment 26 be agreed to. All of those in favour say, "Content". Those in the say, "Content". Those in the contrary say, "Not content". The question will be decided by division. I will inform the house when the voting is open. Voting is
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The The question The question is The question is that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that amendment The question is that amendment 26 The question is that amendment 20 6B agreed to, As many as are of that agreed to, As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contest contrary, "Not content". The contest will go to the right by the throne,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question The question is The question is amendment The question is amendment 26, The question is amendment 26, B
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is amendment 26, B
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My My Lords, My Lords, they My Lords, they have My Lords, they have voted, content's 86, not contents, 159, not content's 86, not contents, 159, not Amendment 27, already debated, Lord Holmes of Richmond, not moved? Amendment 27, A, Baroness Bennett, Amendment 27, A, Baroness Bennett, not moved. Amendment 28, already debated, Lord Lansley, not moved. In clause 4, amendment 29, Lord Sharpe of Epsom.
Division
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that amendment 26 be agreed to. All of those in favour say, "Content". Those in the say, "Content". Those in the contrary say, "Not content". The question will be decided by division. I will inform the house when the voting is open. Voting is
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The The question The question is The question is that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that amendment The question is that amendment 26 The question is that amendment 20 6B agreed to, As many as are of that agreed to, As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contest contrary, "Not content". The contest will go to the right by the throne,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question The question is The question is amendment The question is amendment 26, The question is amendment 26, B
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is amendment 26, B
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My My Lords, My Lords, they My Lords, they have My Lords, they have voted, content's 86, not contents, 159, not content's 86, not contents, 159, not Amendment 27, already debated, Lord Holmes of Richmond, not moved? Amendment 27, A, Baroness Bennett, Amendment 27, A, Baroness Bennett, not moved. Amendment 28, already debated, Lord Lansley, not moved. In clause 4, amendment 29, Lord Sharpe of Epsom.
16:39
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
My Lords, once again I would like to take this opportunity to thank the government for their response to the committee and the office of public safety and standards will be publishing an outline of procedures for using emergency powers under clause 4, however we feel it is vital that such a framework as discussed in Parliament. The use of emergency powers must be subject to scrutiny, transparency, and democratic accountability. Parliament must have the opportunity to assess the scope, necessity and potential consequences of these powers before they are enacted.
Otherwise, we risk allowing changes to be made without sufficient oversight which potentially impacts business, consumers, and public confidence in the regulatory system. Just like the rest of the clauses in this bill, there is A-level of vagueness in clause 4. And once again, as the delegated rent regulated reform committee has stated, that does represent an unacceptable shift in power to the executive. Emergency power should not be granted on broad and undefined terms without proper safeguards and clear limitations. My Lords, also revisiting amendment 30 which seeks to limit emergency modifications to an initial period of three months.
Not only do we need a clear understanding of what could constitute an emergency, but even though we acknowledge that emergencies can be, by their very nature, unpredictable, there is undeniable value in debating this in Parliament. My Lords, we saw this during COVID-19 one additional emergency measures had to be quickly defined but over time, continue justification and scrutiny to become essential. Three months is more than enough time to assess an emergency, determine whether modifications are still needed, and if so, bring forward a proper review process with stakeholder consultation.
Furthermore, clause 4 states that this application or modification may be made subject to conditions. That of course raises the question, what conditions? My Lords, I would urge the government to accept these amendments to enhance transparency, ensure accountability and reaffirm the role of Parliament in overseeing
**** Possible New Speaker ****
emergency decision-making. And I beg to move. Amendment proposed, clause 4,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amendment proposed, clause 4, page 5, line 30, and end, insert the words as printed on the Marshalled list.
Otherwise, we risk allowing changes to be made without sufficient oversight which potentially impacts business, consumers, and public confidence in the regulatory system. Just like the rest of the clauses in this bill, there is A-level of vagueness in clause 4. And once again, as the delegated rent regulated reform committee has stated, that does represent an unacceptable shift in power to the executive. Emergency power should not be granted on broad and undefined terms without proper safeguards and clear limitations. My Lords, also revisiting amendment 30 which seeks to limit emergency modifications to an initial period of three months.
Not only do we need a clear understanding of what could constitute an emergency, but even though we acknowledge that emergencies can be, by their very nature, unpredictable, there is undeniable value in debating this in Parliament. My Lords, we saw this during COVID-19 one additional emergency measures had to be quickly defined but over time, continue justification and scrutiny to become essential. Three months is more than enough time to assess an emergency, determine whether modifications are still needed, and if so, bring forward a proper review process with stakeholder consultation.
Furthermore, clause 4 states that this application or modification may be made subject to conditions. That of course raises the question, what conditions? My Lords, I would urge the government to accept these amendments to enhance transparency, ensure accountability and reaffirm the role of Parliament in overseeing
**** Possible New Speaker ****
emergency decision-making. And I beg to move. Amendment proposed, clause 4,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amendment proposed, clause 4, page 5, line 30, and end, insert the words as printed on the Marshalled list.
16:41
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
list. I rise to support the amendment, both 29 and 30, in the name of my both 29 and 30, in the name of my noble friend, Lord Sharpe of Epsom. I think this is a very helpful amendment. Helpful to live a bit. -- Helpful to the government. And I again put on record I believe the minutes engage, both ministers, whatever you say about them, whether we don't necessarily agree other time, but they engage with the argument and they respond properly.
And respectfully. And I think that speaks well of them and their front page and their party on this bill. Even though we may disagree. I am moving this amendment, because I think that it speaks to a need for flexibility. The course we know there will be occasions where there are emergencies which we cannot foresee in any reasonable timescale. My noble friend has reference COVID of course, the most of your example of recent years. But one of the issues running through this bill has been business certainty for the businesses having the opportunity to understand the legislation and make the measures necessary to remediate any impact on the legislation of their businesses.
And I think that these two very sensible amendments to act because they give business a proper framework and a reference point for the sort of emergency legislation, secondary legislation, that may occur as a result of unforeseen circumstances. My Lords, it addresses the imperative of course, that has also been a major theme of this bill, given the reservations of the committee on delegated legislation. The imperative for proper scrutiny and oversight, because we have so many enabling powers. But it gives flexibility.
But I would also say it is not prescriptive. Seeking a proper outline of conditions and procedures for the use of emergency powers actually doesn't directly enforce a fairer ministers. It doesn't direct ministers and it doesn't fetter the discretion in acting appropriately in the national interest. In the case of emergencies. But it nevertheless is away for Parliament to have an understanding of the actions the government is taking. So as your Lordships house knows, we are looking really at both rationale definition in amendment 29 and in amendment 30, clarity and certainty.
And my final point is that this will no doubt, because all legislation is, be in the future litigated. And the more certainty and clarity that we put on the face of the bill, the less chance there is to be vexatious litigation arising from the use of the discharging of those regulatory powers and unforeseen emergencies. So, for those reasons, and I know the government is committed to having a proper debate and discussion on the regulations that they tend -- They intend to use, I do think ministers should look more favourably on these two amendments, because they are seeking to be helpful.
And I don't think, as I have said before, they fundamentally alter the raison d'etre of the bill. And with that, I am pleased to support my noble friends two amendments, 29 and 30. amendments, 29 and 30.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
list. I rise to support the amendment, both 29 and 30, in the name of my both 29 and 30, in the name of my noble friend, Lord Sharpe of Epsom. I think this is a very helpful amendment. Helpful to live a bit. -- Helpful to the government. And I again put on record I believe the minutes engage, both ministers, whatever you say about them, whether we don't necessarily agree other time, but they engage with the argument and they respond properly.
And respectfully. And I think that speaks well of them and their front page and their party on this bill. Even though we may disagree. I am moving this amendment, because I think that it speaks to a need for flexibility. The course we know there will be occasions where there are emergencies which we cannot foresee in any reasonable timescale. My noble friend has reference COVID of course, the most of your example of recent years. But one of the issues running through this bill has been business certainty for the businesses having the opportunity to understand the legislation and make the measures necessary to remediate any impact on the legislation of their businesses.
And I think that these two very sensible amendments to act because they give business a proper framework and a reference point for the sort of emergency legislation, secondary legislation, that may occur as a result of unforeseen circumstances. My Lords, it addresses the imperative of course, that has also been a major theme of this bill, given the reservations of the committee on delegated legislation. The imperative for proper scrutiny and oversight, because we have so many enabling powers. But it gives flexibility.
But I would also say it is not prescriptive. Seeking a proper outline of conditions and procedures for the use of emergency powers actually doesn't directly enforce a fairer ministers. It doesn't direct ministers and it doesn't fetter the discretion in acting appropriately in the national interest. In the case of emergencies. But it nevertheless is away for Parliament to have an understanding of the actions the government is taking. So as your Lordships house knows, we are looking really at both rationale definition in amendment 29 and in amendment 30, clarity and certainty.
And my final point is that this will no doubt, because all legislation is, be in the future litigated. And the more certainty and clarity that we put on the face of the bill, the less chance there is to be vexatious litigation arising from the use of the discharging of those regulatory powers and unforeseen emergencies. So, for those reasons, and I know the government is committed to having a proper debate and discussion on the regulations that they tend -- They intend to use, I do think ministers should look more favourably on these two amendments, because they are seeking to be helpful.
And I don't think, as I have said before, they fundamentally alter the raison d'etre of the bill. And with that, I am pleased to support my noble friends two amendments, 29 and 30. amendments, 29 and 30.
16:45
Lord Fox (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Lord Fox (Liberal Democrat)
My Lords, as we have heard of the amendments in this group, concerning these emergency powers under the act, amendment 29 requires the Secretary of State to prevent -- Present a framework to Parliament outlining their use. Amendment 30 limits the use of emergency modifications of three months and requires a review of any extension to those modifications. My Lord, I have to confess, and I was listening to the noble Lord just now, using the word flexibility on several occasions.
I thought I was listening to the Minister who is essentially putting forward the need for legislation that is fixable enough to be able to manage things. I don't see how these amendments deliver flexibility or of the sort that I think I heard the noble Lord Jackson outline. My Lords, from these benches, we recognise the intent behind these amendments. But we do believe the issue was thoroughly debated in the committee stage, does the noble Lord Sharpe himself acknowledged, there was some movement and a response to our I will support the Lord Sharpe if he feels the need to move these amendments.
amendments.
I thought I was listening to the Minister who is essentially putting forward the need for legislation that is fixable enough to be able to manage things. I don't see how these amendments deliver flexibility or of the sort that I think I heard the noble Lord Jackson outline. My Lords, from these benches, we recognise the intent behind these amendments. But we do believe the issue was thoroughly debated in the committee stage, does the noble Lord Sharpe himself acknowledged, there was some movement and a response to our I will support the Lord Sharpe if he feels the need to move these amendments.
amendments.
16:46
Lord Leong (Labour)
-
-
Lord Leong (Labour)
My Lords, I thank the Lord Sharpe for returning to these amendment. I also express my thanks to my noble friend. As discussed at committee this is an important point around emergency powers to ensure proper oversight while maintaining the ability to respond quickly in emergency situations. Calls for provides the government with the provides the government with the ability to modify or supply appropriate products. This includes streamlining assessments or adjusting regulatory requirements to reach the market more quickly while ensuring public safety remains paramount.
This clause is not about removing oversight. It's about ensuring that in genuinely urgent situations, we can profound product shortages while ensuring that parliamentary scrutiny remains central to the support. Appeal -- peers will also be aware that this is central to procedure meaning that they must be laid before Parliament before coming into force. This ensures both houses have full oversight and provide full scrutiny on emergency measures. In relation to amendment 29, which we discussed at Committee, it seeks to require the government to lay a comprehensive framework before Parliament outlining how clause 4 powers will be used.
As I stated then at committee, the government has already committed to developing a clear framework is in consultation with stakeholders. Indeed, as noble Lords will now, the government has published a code of conduct on product safety which sets up how our product regulation system currently works and to support the use of the powers in this bill. Regarding this amendment, the code sets out the government's proposal on how we expect the emergency powers to work. To summarise a few points and outline below, first, a derogation will only be made available if there was a serious risk of harm to people, businesses, or the environment, and would be in compliance with the U.K.'s international obligations.
Number two, it would only be granted for products deemed critical for emergency response when demand exceeds supply. Number three, in terms of emergency, the government may temporarily reduce or modify requirements for the product to meet essential health and safety requirements for use in certain settings, provided the market surveillance authority is satisfied with the product safety and traceability. A Code of Conduct alongside the government framework document provides just the sort of structure that the noble Lord appears to be seeking.
In addition, the government will commit to notifying members when the framework document is available and plays a copy in the library of the House of Lords and the House of Commons. We believe the existing oversight mechanism in place are sufficient without the need to formally lay the framework document before Parliament. Turning to amendment 30, which proposes a fixed three month sunset period, including a review prior to extension, this was debated at length in committee. As I said then, well we understand the importance of ensuring emergency measures do not remain in place indefinitely, a strict three month limit is not appropriate for all types of emergencies.
The major iteration of emergencies can vary significantly. Some will require short interventions while others will necessitate longer action. We believe it is the right approach to time-limit and unique circumstances of emergency within the associated secondary legislation. This approach, supplemented by the use of affirmative procedure, we believe provides proportionate safeguards enters the right level of parliamentary oversight. It is also important to emphasise that product regulation will only form one part of a broader national emergency response.
Clause number four is not a general power for deregulation. It's an exceptional provision strictly limited to emergency situations. These measures will always be taken with appropriate frameworks in place including time limits were appropriate ensuring that derogation does not compromise public safety. For those reasons, I must resist these amendments once again and I humbly ask the noble Lord to withdraw them.
This clause is not about removing oversight. It's about ensuring that in genuinely urgent situations, we can profound product shortages while ensuring that parliamentary scrutiny remains central to the support. Appeal -- peers will also be aware that this is central to procedure meaning that they must be laid before Parliament before coming into force. This ensures both houses have full oversight and provide full scrutiny on emergency measures. In relation to amendment 29, which we discussed at Committee, it seeks to require the government to lay a comprehensive framework before Parliament outlining how clause 4 powers will be used.
As I stated then at committee, the government has already committed to developing a clear framework is in consultation with stakeholders. Indeed, as noble Lords will now, the government has published a code of conduct on product safety which sets up how our product regulation system currently works and to support the use of the powers in this bill. Regarding this amendment, the code sets out the government's proposal on how we expect the emergency powers to work. To summarise a few points and outline below, first, a derogation will only be made available if there was a serious risk of harm to people, businesses, or the environment, and would be in compliance with the U.K.'s international obligations.
Number two, it would only be granted for products deemed critical for emergency response when demand exceeds supply. Number three, in terms of emergency, the government may temporarily reduce or modify requirements for the product to meet essential health and safety requirements for use in certain settings, provided the market surveillance authority is satisfied with the product safety and traceability. A Code of Conduct alongside the government framework document provides just the sort of structure that the noble Lord appears to be seeking.
In addition, the government will commit to notifying members when the framework document is available and plays a copy in the library of the House of Lords and the House of Commons. We believe the existing oversight mechanism in place are sufficient without the need to formally lay the framework document before Parliament. Turning to amendment 30, which proposes a fixed three month sunset period, including a review prior to extension, this was debated at length in committee. As I said then, well we understand the importance of ensuring emergency measures do not remain in place indefinitely, a strict three month limit is not appropriate for all types of emergencies.
The major iteration of emergencies can vary significantly. Some will require short interventions while others will necessitate longer action. We believe it is the right approach to time-limit and unique circumstances of emergency within the associated secondary legislation. This approach, supplemented by the use of affirmative procedure, we believe provides proportionate safeguards enters the right level of parliamentary oversight. It is also important to emphasise that product regulation will only form one part of a broader national emergency response.
Clause number four is not a general power for deregulation. It's an exceptional provision strictly limited to emergency situations. These measures will always be taken with appropriate frameworks in place including time limits were appropriate ensuring that derogation does not compromise public safety. For those reasons, I must resist these amendments once again and I humbly ask the noble Lord to withdraw them.
16:52
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
Once again, can I thank the noble Lord for his very detailed response. Can also thank the other two noble Lords who spoke on this brief -- in this debate, particularly Lord Jackson of Peterborough. I thought the points that he was making that these amendments afford the government still plenty of flexibility were extremely good ones and I would urge the government to consider that in future deliberations on these particular amendments and the subject under discussion. Of course, I understand where the noble Lord is coming from and I am reassured.
I accept that the clear framework as regards 29 is Comprehensive and I appreciate the offer of making sure that is available to other noble Lords to study. We will, of course, study it in some detail. I accept the points he was making. I think he has given me sufficient reassurance. I accept, of course, that the nature and duration of an emergency may vary. Of course they do. I still don't see how that precludes explanation in parliamentary scrutiny but because I am reassured by the noble Lords other remarks and his overall willingness to engage on the subject and others, more than happy to withdraw the amendments.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Is it your Lordships pleasure that this amendment be withdrawn? Amendment by leave withdrawn. Amendment by leave withdrawn. Amendment 30, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, not moved. After clause 4, amendment
I accept that the clear framework as regards 29 is Comprehensive and I appreciate the offer of making sure that is available to other noble Lords to study. We will, of course, study it in some detail. I accept the points he was making. I think he has given me sufficient reassurance. I accept, of course, that the nature and duration of an emergency may vary. Of course they do. I still don't see how that precludes explanation in parliamentary scrutiny but because I am reassured by the noble Lords other remarks and his overall willingness to engage on the subject and others, more than happy to withdraw the amendments.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Is it your Lordships pleasure that this amendment be withdrawn? Amendment by leave withdrawn. Amendment by leave withdrawn. Amendment 30, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, not moved. After clause 4, amendment
16:54
Lord Hope of Craighead (Crossbench)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
not moved. After clause 4, amendment 31, Lord Hope of Craighead. I'm grateful to the noble Lord
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'm grateful to the noble Lord
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'm grateful to the noble Lord Thomas and to the noble Lord Faulks. This amendment seeks to insert a new clause which has two objectives. The first is to ensure that the devolved administrations are consulted before any regulations are made under this power as to the impact of the effect of marketing and use of product in areas in which they have legislative competence. And second, to preserve agreements that have been made under the common framework system from being nullified under any of these regulations.
As far as the first objective is concerned, this bill, of course, extends to England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Product safety standards are reserved matters in relation to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. This has been acknowledged by the government as is noted in paragraph 10 of the explanatory notes. Well the bill makes provision as to what is to happen in each of the jurisdictions within the United Kingdom, it does not contain any provisions which require the consent of or at least consultation with the devolved administrations before the wide-ranging powers under clauses 1 and four are exercise.
The problem which comes up time and time again as bills passed through this house is that the Convention does not extend to delegated legislation so it cannot be said that the UK ministers are required by convention to seek the consent of the devolved administrations before exercising these powers. That is why the Constitution Committee, which always keeps a close eye on these matters, has recommended on numerous occasions that engagement with devolved administrations should be a formal requirement.
As far as this bill is concerned, there is a risk that product regulations made under section 1 engage matters which are not reserved to be UK managers in a manner which will affect significantly devolved administrations. That is why paragraph 34 suggest that -- as the committee conceded, seeks clarification. I suggest that my amendment offers a sensible solution to a point that is a real concern to the devolved administrations. It does not require the consent.
There is no need to go that far because close and timely consultation between Constitution Committee would be enough to sort out things in a way that satisfies both sides. Consultation, not consent, is what this legislation would require. And very grateful to the Minister and indeed to the bill team for the way in which they engaged with me when we discussed this issue a few days ago. I hope very much that the noble Lord will feel able to assure me that the government will take this point seriously and that they will bring forward the amendment that deals with it in their own words in due course.
I look forward to what he has to say in his reply but I would also welcome any guidance as to the extent of the legislative process with Wales, Northern Ireland or Scotland. That would be very helpful. As far as the second objective is concerned, that relates to the common frameworks. The frameworks were created to ensure that a common approach was taken to ensure some consistency was achieved across policy areas which intersect with devolved administrations. There engagement with devolved competence matters because one of the features in the way these matters were handled in the EU was that it enabled a devolved administration to diverged to other parts of the United Kingdom as to how matters United Kingdom as to how matters were dealt with.
The way the system works is that there is a process of consultation which enables divergence to be discussed to be effective in other parts of the United Kingdom to be identified and assessed. That is only if and when agreement has been reached, it would not disadvantage other parts of the UK. That system is already up and running. The market access principles which that act contains ensure that there is a single market across all parts of the UK, central to this is a principle that whatever is done by way of marketing of products that is compatible with the legislative framework and one part of the UK can be done everywhere else irrespective of what the framework elsewhere might provide.
So section 10 of that act was inserted into the bill to enable the Secretary of State to exclude the application of those principles to enable an agreement. Subsections are designed to give a common framework agreement against what product regulations of this bill may provide for. Without that protection, it seems to me that agreements of that kind run the risk of being enforceable. This should be at the discretion of the Secretary of State. It is a very light touch to what could be a problem.
I appreciate that the system which this bill seeks to introduced is not the same as done -- as that put forward by the Internal Markets Act. We must remember that this is a system that looks to the future as well as the present, as indeed this bill does as well. So we have to allow for what frameworks might be Under the previous Government. I beg to move.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
After close for insert the new clause as printed on the Marshall
Lord Hope of Craighead (Crossbench)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
not moved. After clause 4, amendment 31, Lord Hope of Craighead. I'm grateful to the noble Lord
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'm grateful to the noble Lord
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'm grateful to the noble Lord Thomas and to the noble Lord Faulks. This amendment seeks to insert a new clause which has two objectives. The first is to ensure that the devolved administrations are consulted before any regulations are made under this power as to the impact of the effect of marketing and use of product in areas in which they have legislative competence. And second, to preserve agreements that have been made under the common framework system from being nullified under any of these regulations.
As far as the first objective is concerned, this bill, of course, extends to England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Product safety standards are reserved matters in relation to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. This has been acknowledged by the government as is noted in paragraph 10 of the explanatory notes. Well the bill makes provision as to what is to happen in each of the jurisdictions within the United Kingdom, it does not contain any provisions which require the consent of or at least consultation with the devolved administrations before the wide-ranging powers under clauses 1 and four are exercise.
The problem which comes up time and time again as bills passed through this house is that the Convention does not extend to delegated legislation so it cannot be said that the UK ministers are required by convention to seek the consent of the devolved administrations before exercising these powers. That is why the Constitution Committee, which always keeps a close eye on these matters, has recommended on numerous occasions that engagement with devolved administrations should be a formal requirement.
As far as this bill is concerned, there is a risk that product regulations made under section 1 engage matters which are not reserved to be UK managers in a manner which will affect significantly devolved administrations. That is why paragraph 34 suggest that -- as the committee conceded, seeks clarification. I suggest that my amendment offers a sensible solution to a point that is a real concern to the devolved administrations. It does not require the consent.
There is no need to go that far because close and timely consultation between Constitution Committee would be enough to sort out things in a way that satisfies both sides. Consultation, not consent, is what this legislation would require. And very grateful to the Minister and indeed to the bill team for the way in which they engaged with me when we discussed this issue a few days ago. I hope very much that the noble Lord will feel able to assure me that the government will take this point seriously and that they will bring forward the amendment that deals with it in their own words in due course.
I look forward to what he has to say in his reply but I would also welcome any guidance as to the extent of the legislative process with Wales, Northern Ireland or Scotland. That would be very helpful. As far as the second objective is concerned, that relates to the common frameworks. The frameworks were created to ensure that a common approach was taken to ensure some consistency was achieved across policy areas which intersect with devolved administrations. There engagement with devolved competence matters because one of the features in the way these matters were handled in the EU was that it enabled a devolved administration to diverged to other parts of the United Kingdom as to how matters United Kingdom as to how matters were dealt with.
The way the system works is that there is a process of consultation which enables divergence to be discussed to be effective in other parts of the United Kingdom to be identified and assessed. That is only if and when agreement has been reached, it would not disadvantage other parts of the UK. That system is already up and running. The market access principles which that act contains ensure that there is a single market across all parts of the UK, central to this is a principle that whatever is done by way of marketing of products that is compatible with the legislative framework and one part of the UK can be done everywhere else irrespective of what the framework elsewhere might provide.
So section 10 of that act was inserted into the bill to enable the Secretary of State to exclude the application of those principles to enable an agreement. Subsections are designed to give a common framework agreement against what product regulations of this bill may provide for. Without that protection, it seems to me that agreements of that kind run the risk of being enforceable. This should be at the discretion of the Secretary of State. It is a very light touch to what could be a problem.
I appreciate that the system which this bill seeks to introduced is not the same as done -- as that put forward by the Internal Markets Act. We must remember that this is a system that looks to the future as well as the present, as indeed this bill does as well. So we have to allow for what frameworks might be Under the previous Government. I beg to move.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
After close for insert the new clause as printed on the Marshall
17:01
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (Crossbench)
-
-
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (Crossbench)
list.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I do not wish to add to the profoundly detailed and clear analysis that the noble and learned Lord Lord has given about the purpose of this clause and there are just three short points I wish to just three short points I wish to vision, particularly of the original part of the Conservative Government, to try to create common frameworks which would enable us to work as a co-operative union has not properly been realised.
Thirdly, it does seem to me that the machinery to make devolution work and to make the union work is really not implemented. And, finally, it seems to me that although this is not as we have explained the subject of the convention let us hope that the spirit of the Convention can be resurrected both as regards what it should apply to primary legislation but also the spirit applied to delegate and secondary legislation. Secondly, I do wish to thank the Secondly, I do wish to thank the Government for the very fine words it has spoken in relation to making devolution work and for the discussions it has obviously been having with what degree of success one cannot tell from what is available with the devolved Government.
And, thirdly, however, words are not enough. Men are judged by deeds and I would hope that this Government will, in the amendments it intends to bring forward, show that it really means what it says about the union, and what it says about devolution. One cannot underestimate the importance of action by deeds. We are only one year away, just over one year away from vitally important elections, both in Scotland and Northern Ireland and we must be clear when those countries go into this election that the union is seen to be strong and devolution is seen to work.
Both are vital for our future. That is what might seem at first sight a technical amendment met one
**** Possible New Speaker ****
of such importance. May I rise to intervene very
**** Possible New Speaker ****
May I rise to intervene very briefly? As the noble Lords and ladies will expect any matter related to devolution and support related to devolution and support the amendment put forward by the the amendment put forward by the Noble Lord and supported by Lord Thomas. The points that have been made are very relevant ones because
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I do not wish to add to the profoundly detailed and clear analysis that the noble and learned Lord Lord has given about the purpose of this clause and there are just three short points I wish to just three short points I wish to vision, particularly of the original part of the Conservative Government, to try to create common frameworks which would enable us to work as a co-operative union has not properly been realised.
Thirdly, it does seem to me that the machinery to make devolution work and to make the union work is really not implemented. And, finally, it seems to me that although this is not as we have explained the subject of the convention let us hope that the spirit of the Convention can be resurrected both as regards what it should apply to primary legislation but also the spirit applied to delegate and secondary legislation. Secondly, I do wish to thank the Secondly, I do wish to thank the Government for the very fine words it has spoken in relation to making devolution work and for the discussions it has obviously been having with what degree of success one cannot tell from what is available with the devolved Government.
And, thirdly, however, words are not enough. Men are judged by deeds and I would hope that this Government will, in the amendments it intends to bring forward, show that it really means what it says about the union, and what it says about devolution. One cannot underestimate the importance of action by deeds. We are only one year away, just over one year away from vitally important elections, both in Scotland and Northern Ireland and we must be clear when those countries go into this election that the union is seen to be strong and devolution is seen to work.
Both are vital for our future. That is what might seem at first sight a technical amendment met one
**** Possible New Speaker ****
of such importance. May I rise to intervene very
**** Possible New Speaker ****
May I rise to intervene very briefly? As the noble Lords and ladies will expect any matter related to devolution and support related to devolution and support the amendment put forward by the the amendment put forward by the Noble Lord and supported by Lord Thomas. The points that have been made are very relevant ones because
17:04
17:05
Lord Wigley (Plaid Cymru)
-
-
Lord Wigley (Plaid Cymru)
there may be delegations needed or changes or fine-tuning to the circumstances in Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland or whatever. In those areas which include products, those areas which include products, cultural products, they include literary products. There are a range of products where the linguistic dimension has in the past raised dimension has in the past raised questions as to what names were questions as to what names were acceptable and not acceptable on products in Wales. And there is a sensitivity on this and I have no doubt that the issues can be overcome if there was a mechanism for consultation, but if there is a danger of ignoring the possibility of things going wrong then things will go run and I think that now is the time to address these questions and I am very grateful for the amendment that has been put forward.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I was subject nearly to a
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I was subject nearly to a
17:05
Lord Fox (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I was subject nearly to a flashback at that point when the noble and learned Lord hope mentioned the Internal Market Act. mentioned the Internal Market Act. The memory of long hours spent deep into the night debating the short- term things -- my cummings that act has some extent created and it is in debt to the noble and learned Lord hope and the noble and learned Lord Lord Thomas that the framework arrangement was brought into that act in order to avoid the clashes that were almost certainly going to occur under the original drafting of that bill.
We are with them great debt and on that basis we should listen when they talk to us on these matters. That is why I was happy to sign that amendment. Happily, I do not have to add much to this except to add that this is necessary. And I that this consultation happens one way or another. And the noble minister will know that when we were talking, debating amendment nine I specifically asked from the despatch boxes the Minister to confirm the devolved authorities would be part of the consultation process as set out in the Secretary of State's statement that will arise from this act.
So, what I hope is that the spirit of what is in this amendment can be in that consultation process and in that statement so that the devolved authorities know that they are going to get the access that I think is very important for all the reasons that have been explained by the three noble Lords. One final point which is around the attempt by the Government which I think is sincere and has moved to try to bring the nations of this country back together again.
This is really important, for a lot of reasons. But it is also a think it calls into question how will the common frameworks be used going into the future and I do not expect minister to answer those questions now. But I do think either a letter or a meeting to actually set out as people may already know but I certainly not aware as to how those common frameworks will develop going forward because the future is changing, as we know. There are lots of things happening, and how will the common frameworks and central Governments and liaison with the DA adopt to deal with the changing trade environment that we see? With those provisos I am absolutely happy to support this amendment.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Just to start by saying I could not agree with the noble and learned not agree with the noble and learned Lord summation more forcefully. Very well put, indeed, I thought. I also, in general, find that improving on in general, find that improving on the noble and learned Lord Lord Hope the noble and learned Lord Lord Hope create heads with is nigh on impossible, so I will confine myself to saying at this point that I to saying at this point that I agree.
And I going to on this occasion also joined Lord Fox on his remarks on consultation, I hope it
Lord Fox (Liberal Democrat)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I was subject nearly to a flashback at that point when the noble and learned Lord hope mentioned the Internal Market Act. mentioned the Internal Market Act. The memory of long hours spent deep into the night debating the short- term things -- my cummings that act has some extent created and it is in debt to the noble and learned Lord hope and the noble and learned Lord Lord Thomas that the framework arrangement was brought into that act in order to avoid the clashes that were almost certainly going to occur under the original drafting of that bill.
We are with them great debt and on that basis we should listen when they talk to us on these matters. That is why I was happy to sign that amendment. Happily, I do not have to add much to this except to add that this is necessary. And I that this consultation happens one way or another. And the noble minister will know that when we were talking, debating amendment nine I specifically asked from the despatch boxes the Minister to confirm the devolved authorities would be part of the consultation process as set out in the Secretary of State's statement that will arise from this act.
So, what I hope is that the spirit of what is in this amendment can be in that consultation process and in that statement so that the devolved authorities know that they are going to get the access that I think is very important for all the reasons that have been explained by the three noble Lords. One final point which is around the attempt by the Government which I think is sincere and has moved to try to bring the nations of this country back together again.
This is really important, for a lot of reasons. But it is also a think it calls into question how will the common frameworks be used going into the future and I do not expect minister to answer those questions now. But I do think either a letter or a meeting to actually set out as people may already know but I certainly not aware as to how those common frameworks will develop going forward because the future is changing, as we know. There are lots of things happening, and how will the common frameworks and central Governments and liaison with the DA adopt to deal with the changing trade environment that we see? With those provisos I am absolutely happy to support this amendment.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Just to start by saying I could not agree with the noble and learned not agree with the noble and learned Lord summation more forcefully. Very well put, indeed, I thought. I also, in general, find that improving on in general, find that improving on the noble and learned Lord Lord Hope the noble and learned Lord Lord Hope create heads with is nigh on impossible, so I will confine myself to saying at this point that I to saying at this point that I agree.
And I going to on this occasion also joined Lord Fox on his remarks on consultation, I hope it
17:08
Lord Leong (Labour)
-
-
Lord Leong (Labour)
remarks on consultation, I hope it achieves the things that the Lord has settled, but with that I have nothing else to add and I look
**** Possible New Speaker ****
forward to the Minister's remarks. Firstly, I would like to thank the noble and learning Lord Hope, the noble and learning Lord Hope, the noble and learned Lord Thomas, and the Noble Lord Fox, for the and the Noble Lord Fox, for the amendment 31 consultation with the devolved Governments and common devolved Governments and common frameworks. And I know that I speak for the whole house when I say that for the whole house when I say that the noble and learned Lord brings to the for his knowledge and passion on the subject of devolution and the subject of devolution and illustrates the very best aspects of the scrutineer function of this House.
I certainly value his insight when we met to discuss his amendment on 30 January and as mentioned at this meeting before we address the substance of amendment 31 I want to reiterate that this Government is committed to working collaboratively with devolved Governments. I have met with my ministerial colleagues in all three devolved Governments and my officials are continuing to have discussions at official levels with their counterpoints. These have been extremely constructive and I would like to give my thanks to the devolved Government Ministers and officials for their constructive and positive way they have engaged with the Government on this important piece of legislation.
Noble Lords will appreciate that this bill deals with complex areas of regulation and consequently the Government is not in the position to bring forward the amendments at this time, while discussions are ongoing and this is not unprecedented or novel and in many devolution amendments put forward in the second house and the Government expects that this will be the case for this legislation. Referring to the amendment before us today. The amendment would ensure that the devolved Governments are consulted on matters of devolved competence under this bill.
And that the Secretary of State has the power to exclude the application of the application for matters covered by the common framework where the relevant agreement is reached. I want to reassure the House that the UK Government will continue to ensure the devolved Governments are properly consulted when discussing product matters that are devolved or impact with the devolved areas. For example, at Committee stage, we set out some of the ways to engage with devolved Governments already, including the Department for Business and Trade sport run goods regulation.
Which met recently on 9 January when this bill was discussed. No, amendment 35 also touches on common frameworks. It is unlikely that products affected by regulations made under this bill would fall under any extended common framework. This is because the tight scope of the common frameworks and therefore the specific subject matter currently covered by common frameworks is unlikely to intersect with the subject matter of this bill. However, the UK Government is actively considering its broader approach to common frameworks and will be under review.
As the noble and learned Lord hope set out so eloquently at Committee stage, the purpose of common frameworks is to facilitate a joint approach with devolved Governments where policy is GB Y. I want to assure that all noble Lords that working closely with all devolved Government is a priority and will take place regarding regulations made under this bill. Whether the products in question full under common framework or not. Consequently, while both the Minister and official level discussions are ongoing the House does not pre-empt the outcome of these discussions by accepting this amendment today.
I remain confident that through our continued positive engagement with devolved Governments we can reach a mutually beneficial solution. And I am happy to keep the House abreast of developments. In the light of this, I would respectfully ask that the amendment
**** Possible New Speaker ****
is withdrawn today. I am very grateful to all the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I am very grateful to all the noble Lords that had taken part in this short debate and especially to the Noble Lord the Minister for his the Noble Lord the Minister for his very helpful reply. As far as the first part of my amendment is first part of my amendment is concerned which is of course with the consultation with devolved administrations, I absolutely accept administrations, I absolutely accept this Governments commitment to close
**** Possible New Speaker ****
forward to the Minister's remarks. Firstly, I would like to thank the noble and learning Lord Hope, the noble and learning Lord Hope, the noble and learned Lord Thomas, and the Noble Lord Fox, for the and the Noble Lord Fox, for the amendment 31 consultation with the devolved Governments and common devolved Governments and common frameworks. And I know that I speak for the whole house when I say that for the whole house when I say that the noble and learned Lord brings to the for his knowledge and passion on the subject of devolution and the subject of devolution and illustrates the very best aspects of the scrutineer function of this House.
I certainly value his insight when we met to discuss his amendment on 30 January and as mentioned at this meeting before we address the substance of amendment 31 I want to reiterate that this Government is committed to working collaboratively with devolved Governments. I have met with my ministerial colleagues in all three devolved Governments and my officials are continuing to have discussions at official levels with their counterpoints. These have been extremely constructive and I would like to give my thanks to the devolved Government Ministers and officials for their constructive and positive way they have engaged with the Government on this important piece of legislation.
Noble Lords will appreciate that this bill deals with complex areas of regulation and consequently the Government is not in the position to bring forward the amendments at this time, while discussions are ongoing and this is not unprecedented or novel and in many devolution amendments put forward in the second house and the Government expects that this will be the case for this legislation. Referring to the amendment before us today. The amendment would ensure that the devolved Governments are consulted on matters of devolved competence under this bill.
And that the Secretary of State has the power to exclude the application of the application for matters covered by the common framework where the relevant agreement is reached. I want to reassure the House that the UK Government will continue to ensure the devolved Governments are properly consulted when discussing product matters that are devolved or impact with the devolved areas. For example, at Committee stage, we set out some of the ways to engage with devolved Governments already, including the Department for Business and Trade sport run goods regulation.
Which met recently on 9 January when this bill was discussed. No, amendment 35 also touches on common frameworks. It is unlikely that products affected by regulations made under this bill would fall under any extended common framework. This is because the tight scope of the common frameworks and therefore the specific subject matter currently covered by common frameworks is unlikely to intersect with the subject matter of this bill. However, the UK Government is actively considering its broader approach to common frameworks and will be under review.
As the noble and learned Lord hope set out so eloquently at Committee stage, the purpose of common frameworks is to facilitate a joint approach with devolved Governments where policy is GB Y. I want to assure that all noble Lords that working closely with all devolved Government is a priority and will take place regarding regulations made under this bill. Whether the products in question full under common framework or not. Consequently, while both the Minister and official level discussions are ongoing the House does not pre-empt the outcome of these discussions by accepting this amendment today.
I remain confident that through our continued positive engagement with devolved Governments we can reach a mutually beneficial solution. And I am happy to keep the House abreast of developments. In the light of this, I would respectfully ask that the amendment
**** Possible New Speaker ****
is withdrawn today. I am very grateful to all the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I am very grateful to all the noble Lords that had taken part in this short debate and especially to the Noble Lord the Minister for his the Noble Lord the Minister for his very helpful reply. As far as the first part of my amendment is first part of my amendment is concerned which is of course with the consultation with devolved administrations, I absolutely accept administrations, I absolutely accept this Governments commitment to close
17:13
Lord Hope of Craighead (Crossbench)
-
-
Lord Hope of Craighead (Crossbench)
this Governments commitment to close collaboration and assure that those in the devolved administrations are equally grateful for the way in which this Government is engaging and a considerable improvement from not so very long ago and we must that Governments change and they have undertaken things which have been generally given by this Government by the Noble Lord, they may not last forever. That is why the Noble Lord Thomas was emphasising the act of putting something into the legislation is so important and I sure that there will be careful consideration in the other house and on that basis I am happy to accept assurances that the Noble Lord has given me.
As far as common frameworks are concerned I was encouraged in the discussion to know that it will be overseen by the Cabinet which at this stage was not the case and the fact that it has been overseen there is itself an assurance that the matter is properly being looked after and they will think more carefully through this, bearing in mind the point of the Noble Lord Fox that we are looking into the future as well as to what the position is, that is an important factor.
With grateful thanks to the Noble Lord the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
amendment. Is it your pressure that the amendment be withdrawn? The amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is, by leave, withdrawn. Come now to equip amendments that have already been debated, 32, Lord Frost. Not moved. 33, Baroness Frost. Not moved. 33, Baroness Bennett. Not moved. 34, 35, 36, and Bennett. Not moved. 34, 35, 36, and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
37, not moved. In clause 5, amendment 30, shop at Epsom. I rise to speak to amendment 38
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I rise to speak to amendment 38 standing in my name. Now, as I stated in committee, this is not a bloodless, tangible item, a point of the others to it as tangible institution. This to our history and part of our heritage. The point is a well established unit of measurement in the UK that is recognised and understood by consumers and businesses alike. Removing or this applying the use of the point
As far as common frameworks are concerned I was encouraged in the discussion to know that it will be overseen by the Cabinet which at this stage was not the case and the fact that it has been overseen there is itself an assurance that the matter is properly being looked after and they will think more carefully through this, bearing in mind the point of the Noble Lord Fox that we are looking into the future as well as to what the position is, that is an important factor.
With grateful thanks to the Noble Lord the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
amendment. Is it your pressure that the amendment be withdrawn? The amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is, by leave, withdrawn. Come now to equip amendments that have already been debated, 32, Lord Frost. Not moved. 33, Baroness Frost. Not moved. 33, Baroness Bennett. Not moved. 34, 35, 36, and Bennett. Not moved. 34, 35, 36, and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
37, not moved. In clause 5, amendment 30, shop at Epsom. I rise to speak to amendment 38
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I rise to speak to amendment 38 standing in my name. Now, as I stated in committee, this is not a bloodless, tangible item, a point of the others to it as tangible institution. This to our history and part of our heritage. The point is a well established unit of measurement in the UK that is recognised and understood by consumers and businesses alike. Removing or this applying the use of the point
17:16
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
alcohol beverages would provide unnecessary confusion, sever a cultural and historical connection cultural and historical connection cultural and historical connection We must not Lucite of the crisis facing pubs, breweries and the wider hospitality industry. The budget announced has inflated more damage on an industry that was already on an industry that was already under enormous pressure. The U.K.'s call hospitality trade body, the British beer and pub Association, British beer and pub Association, the British Institute for innkeeping and hospitality Ulster have issued a stark warning.
Pubs, breweries and hospitality venues will be forced to make painful decisions to whether these new costs, which will have damaging impacts on buses, jobs and committees. There something else that deserves mention. Recently there were significant concerns over the forthcoming employment rights Bill and how it could force pub landlords to monitor patrons conversations to avoid any potential harassment of staff. In effect, harassment of staff. In effect, landlords may be asked to become the banter police. Forced to scrutinise and restrict what customers say to avoid lability.
So after all of that, protecting the British point is the very least that the government should do. I would urge the government to accept this amendment and protect the pint and more importantly to ensure our pubs and breweries remain places where our history, culture and heritage continue to flourish without unnecessary interference. I beg to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
move. Amendment proposed, clause 5, page 6, line 8, insert the words as printed in the marshalled list. Now we move straight to a manuscript amendment which may not be on your amendment which may not be on your printed list, amendment 38, Z, A, as an amendment to an amendment 38, Lord Sharpe of Epsom.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Lord Sharpe of Epsom. I beg to move the money script amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper. Leave out, from 2 to Order Paper. Leave out, from 2 to end, and insert, amend or repeal section 8, two, D, of part four of schedule one, to the weights and measures act of 1995., 85 and speaking to this amendment which is not just about protecting the pint in the bill but also ensuring the pint remains protected in law.
That is why this amendment is rooted in primary legislation. The weights and measures act of 1985, rather than being limited to the scope of this bill. By invading these protections in the broad legislative framework we ensure the pint remains a illegally defined unit of measurement safeguarded from regulatory drift ministerial discretion or future legislative changes that could weaken it. I'm very grateful to the noble Lord Lord Fox for adducing his amendment because, firstly it got me thinking about the broad and possibly forward drafting of my own amendment and secondly because Lord Fox's amendment is flawed.
Lord Fox fourth amendment addresses the marketing of the pint, it is important but doesn't mirror the words in the weights and measures act. If sales are banned, marketing is redundant. Amy definition of the pint within this bill does not ensure existing legally binding protections remain intact. That is where my amendment is different. The closing potential gaps, removing possible loopholes and ensuring the pint remains fully protected in a trade measurement and law and most importantly that there can be no future confusion with regard to existing legislation.
I noticed in the other House Daisy Cooper said that the pint is well and truly safe. This is scaremongering is total nonsense. My Lords, if that was true why the change in the Liberal Democrat parts? Why introduce their own amendment on this matter? It seems now they've had nice explicit legal protection is necessary. In tabling this amendment I understand the government was sympathetic to the purpose of my amendment 38 but were concerned about the drafting and various technical details.
I hope this addresses those concerns and call and will ensure the pint remains Britain's favourite. I hope the government will accept the amendment and I look forward to their support as well as of the support of the noble Lord Lord Fox and the Liberal Democrats. Fancy point? It remains one of the most pleasing questions in the English- language. Let's make sure it stays that way -- fancy a pint? Amendment proposed, I will read the text of that money script amendment again.
Leave out from 2 to end insert amend or repeal section 8, two, D, or part four of schedule one, to the weights four of schedule one, to the weights and measures act 1985.
Pubs, breweries and hospitality venues will be forced to make painful decisions to whether these new costs, which will have damaging impacts on buses, jobs and committees. There something else that deserves mention. Recently there were significant concerns over the forthcoming employment rights Bill and how it could force pub landlords to monitor patrons conversations to avoid any potential harassment of staff. In effect, harassment of staff. In effect, landlords may be asked to become the banter police. Forced to scrutinise and restrict what customers say to avoid lability.
So after all of that, protecting the British point is the very least that the government should do. I would urge the government to accept this amendment and protect the pint and more importantly to ensure our pubs and breweries remain places where our history, culture and heritage continue to flourish without unnecessary interference. I beg to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
move. Amendment proposed, clause 5, page 6, line 8, insert the words as printed in the marshalled list. Now we move straight to a manuscript amendment which may not be on your amendment which may not be on your printed list, amendment 38, Z, A, as an amendment to an amendment 38, Lord Sharpe of Epsom.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Lord Sharpe of Epsom. I beg to move the money script amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper. Leave out, from 2 to Order Paper. Leave out, from 2 to end, and insert, amend or repeal section 8, two, D, of part four of schedule one, to the weights and measures act of 1995., 85 and speaking to this amendment which is not just about protecting the pint in the bill but also ensuring the pint remains protected in law.
That is why this amendment is rooted in primary legislation. The weights and measures act of 1985, rather than being limited to the scope of this bill. By invading these protections in the broad legislative framework we ensure the pint remains a illegally defined unit of measurement safeguarded from regulatory drift ministerial discretion or future legislative changes that could weaken it. I'm very grateful to the noble Lord Lord Fox for adducing his amendment because, firstly it got me thinking about the broad and possibly forward drafting of my own amendment and secondly because Lord Fox's amendment is flawed.
Lord Fox fourth amendment addresses the marketing of the pint, it is important but doesn't mirror the words in the weights and measures act. If sales are banned, marketing is redundant. Amy definition of the pint within this bill does not ensure existing legally binding protections remain intact. That is where my amendment is different. The closing potential gaps, removing possible loopholes and ensuring the pint remains fully protected in a trade measurement and law and most importantly that there can be no future confusion with regard to existing legislation.
I noticed in the other House Daisy Cooper said that the pint is well and truly safe. This is scaremongering is total nonsense. My Lords, if that was true why the change in the Liberal Democrat parts? Why introduce their own amendment on this matter? It seems now they've had nice explicit legal protection is necessary. In tabling this amendment I understand the government was sympathetic to the purpose of my amendment 38 but were concerned about the drafting and various technical details.
I hope this addresses those concerns and call and will ensure the pint remains Britain's favourite. I hope the government will accept the amendment and I look forward to their support as well as of the support of the noble Lord Lord Fox and the Liberal Democrats. Fancy point? It remains one of the most pleasing questions in the English- language. Let's make sure it stays that way -- fancy a pint? Amendment proposed, I will read the text of that money script amendment again.
Leave out from 2 to end insert amend or repeal section 8, two, D, or part four of schedule one, to the weights four of schedule one, to the weights and measures act 1985.
17:21
Lord Fox (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Lord Fox (Liberal Democrat)
My Lords, when I manuscript amendment sometimes mid-morning, I was disappointed. I thought we weren't going to get a reprise of the noble Lord shop's speech which very few of you would have appreciated because it was at Committee but I am relieved he was able to give another rendition of that particular speech before speaking to the amendment. I understand he makes a tour to provincial theatres, if he can get the backing. My Lords, having tabled this amendment, we then find a manuscript amendment which I have to say, I have a dusty participated in the manuscript amendment before so it's good to the process in action.
type in the Commons to debate the noble Lord 's then amendment. He mentioned my colleague Daisy Cooper's speech. And I commend your Lordships to it because it was both engaging and very thorough in the weights at out all of the things the Conservative government did to make the job of public and much, much harder. On a serious note I would join the noble Lord, I would say the Minister please don't repeat those errors. Many pubs are teetering on the brink, and please don't be the government that makes the final
**** Possible New Speaker ****
push. But that, I would say, is a debate for another day. It's a debate for another day. It's a debate for another bill, which we will see soon. So the issue will see soon. So the issue described by this amendment is not that fatal push for those publicans. that fatal push for those publicans. For some inexplicable reason, no Lord Chartres to split his amendment Lord Chartres to split his amendment from my amendment 30 8A, 30 8B. But I will be giving the speech that I would have given if they had been in the same group but I will assure your Lordships that I'm not then going to repeat the speech when we get to the next group.
I do not believe that the noble Lord the Minister or his government have ever had any intention of banning the pint glass. And I'm sure the noble Lord shop doesn't believe that either. However, what we are talking now is some form of insurance, so whilst my friend Daisy Cooper talked about this being a -- unnecessary, we agree that this is an opportunity for the government to reassure people that they don't have any intention of doing it and as the noble and learned Lord Lord Hope mentioned, a future government in a different context, future government wouldn't have those options.
But I asked myself, if the noble Lord shop was so passionate about the pint, why did he not care about the pint? The iconic pint milk bottle is so prevalent of the UK and it deserves the same reassuring protection is the pint glass. This is why someone, and I have to say my father, milked cows. Milk flows through my veins. So I tabled amendment 38, A, and it ensures both the pint and the pinter enjoy the reassurance of this bill.
It was the tabling of this new amendment that caused the nobles Lord Sharpe to remember that perhaps that as well as the bars, the odd Alstom is. perhaps the two should not be mixed. He was in danger of proposing an amendment that forgets that milkmen and women on their predawn delivery rounds and so many of our streets the clink of the crates, there were of the float. The money script amendment was tabled this morning. I didn't know that the manuscript amendment could be used to completely change an amendment.
I thought they were sensually spelling errors and suchlike. I have to say, if my mother was still alive she would have deemed too clever by half. Sadly she's not. The purpose of this whole debate is to assure that the public of the continuation of the use of this iconic imperial measure for the purpose of we have discussed. I'm not entirely sure that the management amendment, amendment 38, Z, A, buttons down things in the way that Lord Sharpe asserts.
But I do know that amendment 38, A, does this and it does it in plain side with no cross-references. I think that the noble Lord the Minister and I see I noble Lord the Minister and I see I tied -- CRR2 ion this. That is why I'm hopeful the Minister will indicate support for my amendments, 30 8A and 38, B and the government will accept both of these. and in the event of this acceptance it is clear that the hastily amended effort is unnecessary and amendment 38, A, covers both alcohol and milk.
By persuading the government to accept it, we will have insured clear and overt reassurance of the preservation of both the pint and the pinter. We will support, we will not support the noble Lord shop's amendment, safe in the knowledge that we have rewritten the bill effectively and avoided any reverse or any ping-pong. -- Lord Sharpe.
type in the Commons to debate the noble Lord 's then amendment. He mentioned my colleague Daisy Cooper's speech. And I commend your Lordships to it because it was both engaging and very thorough in the weights at out all of the things the Conservative government did to make the job of public and much, much harder. On a serious note I would join the noble Lord, I would say the Minister please don't repeat those errors. Many pubs are teetering on the brink, and please don't be the government that makes the final
**** Possible New Speaker ****
push. But that, I would say, is a debate for another day. It's a debate for another day. It's a debate for another bill, which we will see soon. So the issue will see soon. So the issue described by this amendment is not that fatal push for those publicans. that fatal push for those publicans. For some inexplicable reason, no Lord Chartres to split his amendment Lord Chartres to split his amendment from my amendment 30 8A, 30 8B. But I will be giving the speech that I would have given if they had been in the same group but I will assure your Lordships that I'm not then going to repeat the speech when we get to the next group.
I do not believe that the noble Lord the Minister or his government have ever had any intention of banning the pint glass. And I'm sure the noble Lord shop doesn't believe that either. However, what we are talking now is some form of insurance, so whilst my friend Daisy Cooper talked about this being a -- unnecessary, we agree that this is an opportunity for the government to reassure people that they don't have any intention of doing it and as the noble and learned Lord Lord Hope mentioned, a future government in a different context, future government wouldn't have those options.
But I asked myself, if the noble Lord shop was so passionate about the pint, why did he not care about the pint? The iconic pint milk bottle is so prevalent of the UK and it deserves the same reassuring protection is the pint glass. This is why someone, and I have to say my father, milked cows. Milk flows through my veins. So I tabled amendment 38, A, and it ensures both the pint and the pinter enjoy the reassurance of this bill.
It was the tabling of this new amendment that caused the nobles Lord Sharpe to remember that perhaps that as well as the bars, the odd Alstom is. perhaps the two should not be mixed. He was in danger of proposing an amendment that forgets that milkmen and women on their predawn delivery rounds and so many of our streets the clink of the crates, there were of the float. The money script amendment was tabled this morning. I didn't know that the manuscript amendment could be used to completely change an amendment.
I thought they were sensually spelling errors and suchlike. I have to say, if my mother was still alive she would have deemed too clever by half. Sadly she's not. The purpose of this whole debate is to assure that the public of the continuation of the use of this iconic imperial measure for the purpose of we have discussed. I'm not entirely sure that the management amendment, amendment 38, Z, A, buttons down things in the way that Lord Sharpe asserts.
But I do know that amendment 38, A, does this and it does it in plain side with no cross-references. I think that the noble Lord the Minister and I see I noble Lord the Minister and I see I tied -- CRR2 ion this. That is why I'm hopeful the Minister will indicate support for my amendments, 30 8A and 38, B and the government will accept both of these. and in the event of this acceptance it is clear that the hastily amended effort is unnecessary and amendment 38, A, covers both alcohol and milk.
By persuading the government to accept it, we will have insured clear and overt reassurance of the preservation of both the pint and the pinter. We will support, we will not support the noble Lord shop's amendment, safe in the knowledge that we have rewritten the bill effectively and avoided any reverse or any ping-pong. -- Lord Sharpe.
17:27
Lord Leong (Labour)
-
-
Lord Leong (Labour)
First, may I thank the noble Lord Lord Sharpe for bringing forward this amendment. I managed amendment tabled this morning. And remind the House of the importance of pint measures, for certain alcoholic beverages. Will the noble Lord group amendment 38, it is the government's view that his amendment and the two similar amendments tabled by Lord Fox should be debated together. I will therefore make my substantive contribution on entire subject now. I reiterate the government has actually no plans to change the rules around the use of the point measurements.
-- Pint measurements. With the weather finally improving it is very much my hope that pubs up and down the country will be full of customers enjoying pints of refreshing beer and cider. While it remains our view that an amendment to the bill is not strictly necessary, because of the noble Lord shop's advocacy, -- noble Lord Lord Sharpe 's. The government agrees and accepts a provision in this area would offer reassurance to the important sector. I'm grateful to him for bringing this amendment back, and I recognise his efforts to improve through today's money script amendment.
However, doing so at such a late stage is not the way to develop effectively deflation. Particularly in a complex area like metrology. We have always been clear that we are committed to the use and through the continued use of the British pint and that regulations made using powers in this bill would continue to preserve them. Lord Sharpe's amendments are well- intentioned but lacking in a few key areas. Firstly, the effect of the amendment is not sufficient in scope to truly protect the pint.
It is focused on preventing powers under the bill from being used to amend the weights and measures act 1985, to remove the pint is a measurement, but it does not prevent the powers in the building used more generally to make that change. Whilst the government is clear, as I have said, that there will be no change to measurement of a pint, to truly protect the it, the government believes are more expensive view should be taken for amendment -- more expansive.
The difference between terminology referring to sale and marketing, but noble Lord Fox mentioning marketing alone, the government 's view is that amendment 38 puts in practice and our application therefore be less helpful in achieving the very noble Lord's game of safeguarding the pint. The noble Lord shop is trying that his amendment is consistent and the language used in the weights and measures act. However, this bill makes a number of changes to that legislation which I will come to shortly.
In the bill before us today shortly. In the bill before us today It is a defining term meaning making available on demand which is more expensive than sale or trade and may include, for example, making available without charge. There is an important link between the amendment and the later Government amendment 46 which was debated last week which will appeal one of the wards and measures act and remove the power that would have allowed secretary legislation to amend or remove other provisions of that act.
Including section 8 82 82D. We will have therefore already achieved the intention to prevent the repeal amendment of that section. Overall, the Government believes that while Lord Sharpe has been right to pursue this issue, his amendments do not quite do enough to achieve this objective and of ensuring no regulations could ever be used to restrict that use of the point. For example, banning the sale of 's in pubs. The noble Lords amendment would prevent such restrictions and better protect the point we all cherish.
For these reasons, in spite of the late administrative amendments to improve the drafting of the amendment in this group the Government will instead support the amendment 38 a and B which will formally debate in the next group. The pint is deeply ingrained in British culture, as mentioned by Lord Sharpe, closely tied to another national institution, the Pope. Both are essential aspects of our heritage. And for visitors, enjoying a pint and a traditional pub is a key part of experiencing our culture and heritage.
Beyond just a point, the point whole symbolic values in our language and social interaction. The Noble Lord mentioned earlier fancy a pint, let's go for a pint. Or I could murder a pint. Reflecting its significance every day. Even when praising customers we often say they are the kind of person you can have a pint with or I would like to buy them a pint. My Noble Friend has buy them a pint. My Noble Friend has received many accolades for his work for the national awards and has Campaign for Real Ale and he is a defender of pubs.
And the point is safe with us. And I once again not the contribution of Noble Lord shop and thank him for raising this issue. Indeed, I may well express my thanks by buying him one point later as I will definitely need one myself. With that offer and in the knowledge that the alternative amendments will provide stronger protections to the point than those he has proposed I ask the Noble Lord shop to draw his amendments.
-- Pint measurements. With the weather finally improving it is very much my hope that pubs up and down the country will be full of customers enjoying pints of refreshing beer and cider. While it remains our view that an amendment to the bill is not strictly necessary, because of the noble Lord shop's advocacy, -- noble Lord Lord Sharpe 's. The government agrees and accepts a provision in this area would offer reassurance to the important sector. I'm grateful to him for bringing this amendment back, and I recognise his efforts to improve through today's money script amendment.
However, doing so at such a late stage is not the way to develop effectively deflation. Particularly in a complex area like metrology. We have always been clear that we are committed to the use and through the continued use of the British pint and that regulations made using powers in this bill would continue to preserve them. Lord Sharpe's amendments are well- intentioned but lacking in a few key areas. Firstly, the effect of the amendment is not sufficient in scope to truly protect the pint.
It is focused on preventing powers under the bill from being used to amend the weights and measures act 1985, to remove the pint is a measurement, but it does not prevent the powers in the building used more generally to make that change. Whilst the government is clear, as I have said, that there will be no change to measurement of a pint, to truly protect the it, the government believes are more expensive view should be taken for amendment -- more expansive.
The difference between terminology referring to sale and marketing, but noble Lord Fox mentioning marketing alone, the government 's view is that amendment 38 puts in practice and our application therefore be less helpful in achieving the very noble Lord's game of safeguarding the pint. The noble Lord shop is trying that his amendment is consistent and the language used in the weights and measures act. However, this bill makes a number of changes to that legislation which I will come to shortly.
In the bill before us today shortly. In the bill before us today It is a defining term meaning making available on demand which is more expensive than sale or trade and may include, for example, making available without charge. There is an important link between the amendment and the later Government amendment 46 which was debated last week which will appeal one of the wards and measures act and remove the power that would have allowed secretary legislation to amend or remove other provisions of that act.
Including section 8 82 82D. We will have therefore already achieved the intention to prevent the repeal amendment of that section. Overall, the Government believes that while Lord Sharpe has been right to pursue this issue, his amendments do not quite do enough to achieve this objective and of ensuring no regulations could ever be used to restrict that use of the point. For example, banning the sale of 's in pubs. The noble Lords amendment would prevent such restrictions and better protect the point we all cherish.
For these reasons, in spite of the late administrative amendments to improve the drafting of the amendment in this group the Government will instead support the amendment 38 a and B which will formally debate in the next group. The pint is deeply ingrained in British culture, as mentioned by Lord Sharpe, closely tied to another national institution, the Pope. Both are essential aspects of our heritage. And for visitors, enjoying a pint and a traditional pub is a key part of experiencing our culture and heritage.
Beyond just a point, the point whole symbolic values in our language and social interaction. The Noble Lord mentioned earlier fancy a pint, let's go for a pint. Or I could murder a pint. Reflecting its significance every day. Even when praising customers we often say they are the kind of person you can have a pint with or I would like to buy them a pint. My Noble Friend has buy them a pint. My Noble Friend has received many accolades for his work for the national awards and has Campaign for Real Ale and he is a defender of pubs.
And the point is safe with us. And I once again not the contribution of Noble Lord shop and thank him for raising this issue. Indeed, I may well express my thanks by buying him one point later as I will definitely need one myself. With that offer and in the knowledge that the alternative amendments will provide stronger protections to the point than those he has proposed I ask the Noble Lord shop to draw his amendments.
17:34
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
I would like to congratulate both noble Lords on what were semantic masterpieces. The simple fact of the matter is the amendment that I have tabled transpose is that language of the bill, the weights and measures act of 1985, in a very similar way to the Noble Lord Fox. It does include the point of milk and by the way when he was saying that runs through his veins I am pretty sure I heard somebody behind me state is certainly not blood.
The fact remains that this is a complex area and I do not believe that these amendments are sufficient to save the point. The simple fact of the matter is that sales and marketing are not the same thing. There may often appear in the same job title but that does not give them weight or indeed equal measure. I am not satisfied with the unsubtle is I would like to test the opinion of the House.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that Manuscript
The fact remains that this is a complex area and I do not believe that these amendments are sufficient to save the point. The simple fact of the matter is that sales and marketing are not the same thing. There may often appear in the same job title but that does not give them weight or indeed equal measure. I am not satisfied with the unsubtle is I would like to test the opinion of the House.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that Manuscript
17:35
Division
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that Manuscript amendments 30 8Z a B read. As many of that company and say content, Of the contrary, "Not content", the question will be decided by a revision. I will inform the House when voting is open. Voting is open. The The question The question is The question is that The question is that Manuscript amendments 38 30 8Z AB agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content" of that opinion will say content, Of the contrary, "Not content", the contents will go to the right by the throne, the not the right by the throne, the not The The question The question is The question is that The question is that the The question is that the Manuscript
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My My Lords,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, they My Lords, they have My Lords, they have voted to content, one hundred and 74, not content, 207, and so the not content, 207, and so the not And now we return to amendment 38,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I beg to leave to withdraw amendment 38.
Division
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that Manuscript amendments 30 8Z a B read. As many of that company and say content, Of the contrary, "Not content", the question will be decided by a revision. I will inform the House when voting is open. Voting is open. The The question The question is The question is that The question is that Manuscript amendments 38 30 8Z AB agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content" of that opinion will say content, Of the contrary, "Not content", the contents will go to the right by the throne, the not the right by the throne, the not The The question The question is The question is that The question is that the The question is that the Manuscript
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My My Lords,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, they My Lords, they have My Lords, they have voted to content, one hundred and 74, not content, 207, and so the not content, 207, and so the not And now we return to amendment 38,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I beg to leave to withdraw amendment 38.
17:46
Lord Fox (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Is it your lordships' pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn? It is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 38, is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 38, A, Lord Fox. I rise to move amendment 38, A, and as noted I've already spoken largely to this amendment and I thank the Minister for indicating that the government will support this amendment and also 38, B, and it's this latter amendment I will say a couple of words. If 38, A, is there to reassure 38, B is there to define there been a number strategy instruments that define the measurements for use but 38, B, defines the volume of a pint as 0.56826125 0.56826125 cm.
-- Gas metres. For those of you querying the definition of a decimetre may I recommend the Strategy instrument, brought in 2020, then noble Lord Minister were some of the only peers physically in Parliament when he brought his amendment to the 1985 weights and measures act 1985, to Grand Committee. This enshrined an accurate definition of both the metre and the kilogram in law. And former Chelsea fans, -- and former Chelsea fans, it's a debate I thoroughly recommend.
I beg to leave to remove a member that 80.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Was five, page 6, 98, insert the words as printed in the marshalled
Lord Fox (Liberal Democrat)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Is it your lordships' pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn? It is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 38, is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 38, A, Lord Fox. I rise to move amendment 38, A, and as noted I've already spoken largely to this amendment and I thank the Minister for indicating that the government will support this amendment and also 38, B, and it's this latter amendment I will say a couple of words. If 38, A, is there to reassure 38, B is there to define there been a number strategy instruments that define the measurements for use but 38, B, defines the volume of a pint as 0.56826125 0.56826125 cm.
-- Gas metres. For those of you querying the definition of a decimetre may I recommend the Strategy instrument, brought in 2020, then noble Lord Minister were some of the only peers physically in Parliament when he brought his amendment to the 1985 weights and measures act 1985, to Grand Committee. This enshrined an accurate definition of both the metre and the kilogram in law. And former Chelsea fans, -- and former Chelsea fans, it's a debate I thoroughly recommend.
I beg to leave to remove a member that 80.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Was five, page 6, 98, insert the words as printed in the marshalled
17:48
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
list. Of a slew we don't have a huge
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Of a slew we don't have a huge amount to say at this precise moment but I would point out for the record that the money script amendment 38 did include the part about part four of the weights and measures act of 1985, which of course also specifies 0.568 0.56826125 of a cubic decimetre so I commend the noble Lord Fox and his masterclass in Lord Fox and his masterclass in summer -- in semantics. This is an entirely unnecessary amendment had you accepted mind.
you accepted mind.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
list. Of a slew we don't have a huge
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Of a slew we don't have a huge amount to say at this precise moment but I would point out for the record that the money script amendment 38 did include the part about part four of the weights and measures act of 1985, which of course also specifies 0.568 0.56826125 of a cubic decimetre so I commend the noble Lord Fox and his masterclass in Lord Fox and his masterclass in summer -- in semantics. This is an entirely unnecessary amendment had you accepted mind.
you accepted mind.
17:49
Lord Leong (Labour)
-
-
Lord Leong (Labour)
I thank the noble Lord Lord Fox for his amendment, and preserving the pointspread in relation to draft beer and cider, and also in returnable containers. As outlined in the last of the government proposals to accept these amendments, it would bring greater clarity and certainty to protect the use of the pint, delivering the intent of the noble Lord Lord Sharpe's amendment. I'm grateful the noble Lord Lord Fox for bringing these alternative amendments forward. I hope the House will forward.
I hope the House will accept amendments 38, A and B. Having this work of provisions in the bill will set a certain message that the pint is here to stay. So I look forward to racing a pint with both of Lord Sharpe and noble Lord both of Lord Sharpe and noble Lord
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Lord Fox in due course, and cheers. I move formally amendment 38, A. As many are of that opinion say,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not
**** Possible New Speaker ****
content". The contents have it. I move formally amendment 38, B. As many are of that opinion say,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. The content". The contents have it. The next group have already been next group have already been debated, amendment 39, Lord Jackson, not moved. Amendment 40 and 41, Lord Holmes of Richmond, not moved. After close aide, Lord long, amendment 42, moved formally. The question is that this amendment agreed to. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content".
The contents have it. Amendment 43, Lord Sharpe. Not moved. Amendment 43, A, Baroness Lawlor. 43, A, Baroness Lawlor.
I hope the House will accept amendments 38, A and B. Having this work of provisions in the bill will set a certain message that the pint is here to stay. So I look forward to racing a pint with both of Lord Sharpe and noble Lord both of Lord Sharpe and noble Lord
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Lord Fox in due course, and cheers. I move formally amendment 38, A. As many are of that opinion say,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not
**** Possible New Speaker ****
content". The contents have it. I move formally amendment 38, B. As many are of that opinion say,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. The content". The contents have it. The next group have already been next group have already been debated, amendment 39, Lord Jackson, not moved. Amendment 40 and 41, Lord Holmes of Richmond, not moved. After close aide, Lord long, amendment 42, moved formally. The question is that this amendment agreed to. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content".
The contents have it. Amendment 43, Lord Sharpe. Not moved. Amendment 43, A, Baroness Lawlor. 43, A, Baroness Lawlor.
17:51
Baroness Lawlor (Conservative)
-
-
Baroness Lawlor (Conservative)
I rise to speak to amendment 43, a. I do support the amendment of my noble friends Lord Sharpe and Lord Frost in this group, to 1 of which I have added my name. My amendment requires the government to place before Parliament a report on whether scientific, which includes technical, evidence supports the regulation covered by the bill, because assessment of risk and safety should be based on objective evidence, technical and scientific. Indeed the regulations for sanitary and phytosanitary SPS mention evidence and yet reference to science is not typically found in technical barriers to trade regulations.
Or in the chat -- chapters. They are often employed by wording, for example a requirement risk is based on documented and Galatians upon risk based on documented and objective evidence. For international trade agreements, such evidence is assumed. Either our goods and form with international agreed standards or if they derogate they should draw scientific and technical evidence to show they can form to an agreed standard. There are good reasons for this. Such objective evidence and assessment is not only needed to assess risk objectivity, it is employed in the WT framework.
In which many trade agreements are based. And have to be WTO compliant. WTO's own technical barriers to trade agree that where appropriate parties specify technical relations and standards in terms of performance, that rather than design or descriptive characteristics. One being to ensure that regulations, standards, testing and certification procedures followed by WTO members do not create unnecessary obstacles to trade. But it certainly one of this countries in during free-trade objects. My amendment would promote a number of benefits and aims, it would help focus attention on real risk, on the basis of provable evidence and that alone.
It will make for transparency, those who produce, market or byproduct, nowhere they stand and contrast the measures to sink risk. It avoids saddling producers and consumers with costs for unnecessary over burdensome obligations that result from the political attempt to tie the UK to unproven regulations and which may flout WTO international law to protect their own products against competition from another trading partner. In product, the contents of which may include some agricultural content, it will help the UK to keep it soiled the evidence and purpose, and I commend my noble friend Lord Sharpe's amendment which specifically requires that mistake need and purpose is made for regulations.
One example I have mentioned already at committee, which is the difference between UK reach and EU reach regulations, and the purpose is vital to the difference in how one is more burdensome than the other, stated purpose. My amendment would also reflect the way the UK has moved to make the most of International Trade Committee in our trade treaties, with four example the CPTPP. We can help, UK can help shape and lead, as one of the oldest rules-based international trade order, as a leader of the oldest rule-based International Trade Committee.
And as one of the world's oldest and most successful free- trade economies. Wonderful, it avoids obliging businesses to follow the EU's code based portion or principle that may be unrelated to evidence and often driven by officials, costly to producers and that raises prices skyhigh for consumers, making some countries uncompetitive in world markets. The product, not more but in many instances, less so. I therefore booked.
Or in the chat -- chapters. They are often employed by wording, for example a requirement risk is based on documented and Galatians upon risk based on documented and objective evidence. For international trade agreements, such evidence is assumed. Either our goods and form with international agreed standards or if they derogate they should draw scientific and technical evidence to show they can form to an agreed standard. There are good reasons for this. Such objective evidence and assessment is not only needed to assess risk objectivity, it is employed in the WT framework.
In which many trade agreements are based. And have to be WTO compliant. WTO's own technical barriers to trade agree that where appropriate parties specify technical relations and standards in terms of performance, that rather than design or descriptive characteristics. One being to ensure that regulations, standards, testing and certification procedures followed by WTO members do not create unnecessary obstacles to trade. But it certainly one of this countries in during free-trade objects. My amendment would promote a number of benefits and aims, it would help focus attention on real risk, on the basis of provable evidence and that alone.
It will make for transparency, those who produce, market or byproduct, nowhere they stand and contrast the measures to sink risk. It avoids saddling producers and consumers with costs for unnecessary over burdensome obligations that result from the political attempt to tie the UK to unproven regulations and which may flout WTO international law to protect their own products against competition from another trading partner. In product, the contents of which may include some agricultural content, it will help the UK to keep it soiled the evidence and purpose, and I commend my noble friend Lord Sharpe's amendment which specifically requires that mistake need and purpose is made for regulations.
One example I have mentioned already at committee, which is the difference between UK reach and EU reach regulations, and the purpose is vital to the difference in how one is more burdensome than the other, stated purpose. My amendment would also reflect the way the UK has moved to make the most of International Trade Committee in our trade treaties, with four example the CPTPP. We can help, UK can help shape and lead, as one of the oldest rules-based international trade order, as a leader of the oldest rule-based International Trade Committee.
And as one of the world's oldest and most successful free- trade economies. Wonderful, it avoids obliging businesses to follow the EU's code based portion or principle that may be unrelated to evidence and often driven by officials, costly to producers and that raises prices skyhigh for consumers, making some countries uncompetitive in world markets. The product, not more but in many instances, less so. I therefore booked.
17:56
Lord Frost (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Frost (Conservative)
Amendment post, articles 8, insert the new clauses is printed on the marshalled list.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Five Eyes to speak to amendment 56 -- I riotously to amendment six. Since the last time I will speak on Since the last time I will speak on this bill, can I just use the this bill, can I just use the opportunity to join others in saying thank you to noble Lord the Minister's for the willingness they Minister's for the willingness they have shown to meet us and to show X ability on parts of the bill even if ability on parts of the bill even if possibly that facts with the House been more evident on the marginal aspects of the bill than the core provisions which matter so much to us.
But I thank them anyway for it. One of those core provisions is of course, and we've debated it at course, and we've debated it at length, clause 2, subsection 7, the power this creates two line UK legislation with EU law. And my amendment, amendment 56, the effect amendment, amendment 56, the effect of it would be to ensure that the affirmative partnership procedure applies to such secondary under that provision. And I do think this is important, this procedure of legislating by cross-reference to the laws of another entity, is certainly tomorrow -- to borrow terminology from another sphere, it is novel and contentious, I think, and therefore if it happens, and I'm sure it is going to happen, and probably quite a lot, I fear, it really ought to only have the consciously -- only happen consciously and according to a procedure which gives both of the houses the maximum powers to be aware that it's happening and to influence it to the maximum possible, and of course that is what the affirmative procedure is about.
I hope even at this late stage ministers might look favourably on this and respecting the rights of this Parliament.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Five Eyes to speak to amendment 56 -- I riotously to amendment six. Since the last time I will speak on Since the last time I will speak on this bill, can I just use the this bill, can I just use the opportunity to join others in saying thank you to noble Lord the Minister's for the willingness they Minister's for the willingness they have shown to meet us and to show X ability on parts of the bill even if ability on parts of the bill even if possibly that facts with the House been more evident on the marginal aspects of the bill than the core provisions which matter so much to us.
But I thank them anyway for it. One of those core provisions is of course, and we've debated it at course, and we've debated it at length, clause 2, subsection 7, the power this creates two line UK legislation with EU law. And my amendment, amendment 56, the effect amendment, amendment 56, the effect of it would be to ensure that the affirmative partnership procedure applies to such secondary under that provision. And I do think this is important, this procedure of legislating by cross-reference to the laws of another entity, is certainly tomorrow -- to borrow terminology from another sphere, it is novel and contentious, I think, and therefore if it happens, and I'm sure it is going to happen, and probably quite a lot, I fear, it really ought to only have the consciously -- only happen consciously and according to a procedure which gives both of the houses the maximum powers to be aware that it's happening and to influence it to the maximum possible, and of course that is what the affirmative procedure is about.
I hope even at this late stage ministers might look favourably on this and respecting the rights of this Parliament.
17:58
Lord Lansley (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Lansley (Conservative)
May I just briefly intervene in this group. We had a substantive debate on Monday which I participated where we looked at the recommendations from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee who of course were, as we noted, welcomed some of the amendments, and then must we have technically not reached but the word debated, amendments 44 to 46. They have removed largely the Henry VIII powers, and to that extent, therefore, I note that although my noble friend may come on to speak about Amendment 48, in practice it is an amendment designed to prevent the use of Henry VIII powers but the government has amendments that have largely removed that risk.
So I wonder, and I must say I very much support amendment 56 in the name of my noble friend Lord Sharpe of and Lord Frost, insofar as the government has not done what the delegated look for, which was for all of these regulation making powers to be subject to the affirmative procedure, we should focus our attention on where there is still the most important deficiency. And it seems that especially for the reasons I won't repeat, that my noble friend Lord Frost said, the power in clause 2, subsection 7, and at its most extreme, it would literally be if the government put forward a regulation saying that all the product requirements in this country would be met, insofar as they corresponded to the general products regulation issued by the European Union which of course came out in December the European Union which of course came out in December 2024.
They can easily come forward with such a regulation. And that would be sweeping in its effect and it would be on a negative basis. And it seems to be essential that we should have something that says if we are going as we have heard, if you are going to adopt something which might be sweeping recognition of EU law, it should only be done with the affirmative consent of Parliament. So I support, if my noble friend were to be inclined to move amendment 56 I would certainly amendment 56 I would certainly
So I wonder, and I must say I very much support amendment 56 in the name of my noble friend Lord Sharpe of and Lord Frost, insofar as the government has not done what the delegated look for, which was for all of these regulation making powers to be subject to the affirmative procedure, we should focus our attention on where there is still the most important deficiency. And it seems that especially for the reasons I won't repeat, that my noble friend Lord Frost said, the power in clause 2, subsection 7, and at its most extreme, it would literally be if the government put forward a regulation saying that all the product requirements in this country would be met, insofar as they corresponded to the general products regulation issued by the European Union which of course came out in December the European Union which of course came out in December 2024.
They can easily come forward with such a regulation. And that would be sweeping in its effect and it would be on a negative basis. And it seems to be essential that we should have something that says if we are going as we have heard, if you are going to adopt something which might be sweeping recognition of EU law, it should only be done with the affirmative consent of Parliament. So I support, if my noble friend were to be inclined to move amendment 56 I would certainly amendment 56 I would certainly
18:01
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative)
I rise to support my honourable friend Lord Frost and I will speak very briefly. I am concerned about the government's resistance to this the government's resistance to this amendment being removed because this does go to the very heart of what this bill is about which is proper parliamentary scrutiny and oversight. We have had many debates about the delegated Legislation committee and their significant reservations that they have had about the enabling powers under Henry VIII powers that are potentially going to be discharged by Ministers.
In respect of this. I do think that the kernel of the debate is why should we of necessity default to just one regulatory regime? No, people like the Noble Lord Fox, of course, will say it is our closest economic partner and of course it is absolutely logical and I hesitate because I know I will be accused of litigating the Brexit battles of which I have many scars on my back. But the fact of the matter is rightly or wrongly we no longer have a direct input into the design and execution of those regulations.
On the face of primary legislation with the background of the delegated Legislation committee expressing those very significant reservations to put on the face of the bill a sub clause which defaults to that position that any regulations whatever they are because they come from the EU is of necessity the right regulation for our country, within the context as we have previously debated in the committee report of an expanding global economy where we will be trading with very many different countries outside different resumes, different regulatory regimes outside the European Union, it seems to me to be a mistake.
And on that basis it is evidently reasonable and sensible for Parliament to have the opportunity to in detail look at these regulations via the affirmative procedure. And for that reason I know that the hour is late and there is other pressing business in the House, I would ask Ministers to look at supporting or at least looking at this amendment third reading. It is a very important amendment and on that basis I am delighted to support my Noble Friend
In respect of this. I do think that the kernel of the debate is why should we of necessity default to just one regulatory regime? No, people like the Noble Lord Fox, of course, will say it is our closest economic partner and of course it is absolutely logical and I hesitate because I know I will be accused of litigating the Brexit battles of which I have many scars on my back. But the fact of the matter is rightly or wrongly we no longer have a direct input into the design and execution of those regulations.
On the face of primary legislation with the background of the delegated Legislation committee expressing those very significant reservations to put on the face of the bill a sub clause which defaults to that position that any regulations whatever they are because they come from the EU is of necessity the right regulation for our country, within the context as we have previously debated in the committee report of an expanding global economy where we will be trading with very many different countries outside different resumes, different regulatory regimes outside the European Union, it seems to me to be a mistake.
And on that basis it is evidently reasonable and sensible for Parliament to have the opportunity to in detail look at these regulations via the affirmative procedure. And for that reason I know that the hour is late and there is other pressing business in the House, I would ask Ministers to look at supporting or at least looking at this amendment third reading. It is a very important amendment and on that basis I am delighted to support my Noble Friend
18:04
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative)
delighted to support my Noble Friend What I think to tackle what might What I think to tackle what might befriend just said is we are befriend just said is we are reflecting at the moment on how this country is governed. The extent to which the executive can be held to which the executive can be held to account. And in many ways take pride in our committees and I do know from what he has said in the past about Government legislation Hunter Kings Heath has many times criticised what we describe in the bills.
In effect, the Government is saying please allow us to do whatever we eventually decide we would like to do. But give us that power now and then do it by secondary legislation. And speaking is the immediate past Chair of the secondary legislation Scrutiny Committee, I always worked very closely with my colleagues in the delegated committee. And although my Noble Friend Lord Helmsley said a few moments ago that the Government reduced the number of amendments they came back before the delegated of the committee and said that is not enough.
In a way there is a way to deciding whether the Government is right to ignore the unanimous report of the delegated and regulatory reform committee or not. And in moving amendment 48, and I rise to speak to 48, 57 and 58 standing in the name of my Noble Friend Lord Sharpe, I commend my Noble Friend Baroness Lawlor and Lord Frost and Lord Jackson of Peterborough for all they have said. But to summarise this is our last real opportunity to deal with what is in effect a skeleton bill that allows an unacceptable transfer of power from unelected legislature to the executive.
Now, although we have welcomed the amendments that the Government has put forward I quote from that unanimous view of the delegating powers regulatory reform committee when they said having considered this to their latest report from which I quoted for on 20 February, these are limited changes that do not address and I quote from paragraph 8 of the unanimous report these are limited changes that do not address the fundamental concern we have about the skeletal nature of this bill.
There is, of course, provision for consultation. Now, that is warmly to be welcomed. At the delegated and regulatory reform committee said consultation is not a substitute for parliamentary scrutiny. And we, as a house, must agree with that. It is not enough to simply engage stakeholders behind closed doors while sidelining proper legislative oversight. And the bill in its current form does create a dangerous precedent. One in which this Parliament is asked to cede control over critical regulatory decisions in favour of unchecked executive power.
And that is not, surely, how this democracy should function. If the Government is serious about ensuring transparency, accountability and oversight it has surely to go beyond mere consultation and commit to meaningful parliamentary scrutiny at every stage of the regulatory process. Now, in a moment we will hear from the Noble Lord. Will he allow me to quote from him in committee when he said this on 20 November. Some regulations will relate to very minor technical changes, so really would be taking up too much parliamentary time for that, whereas other regulations may need full scrutiny and we will have avenues for that.
But what I ask and I hope you will reply in a moment what are those avenues exactly? The Government is yet to provide any clarity at all on how they will distinguish between so-called minor technical changes and more significantly regulatory shifts. They have yet to explain why the Negative procedure will apply to all subsequent provisions. If some regulations will require full scrutiny, as the Minister acknowledged that writers his Government in this bill predetermine that any future provision beyond the first use of the power would require the negative procedure.
They cannot sit for effect that all future provisions would be technical, markets change, technology advances. Legal interpretations as all those in this House no will shift. This is precisely why proper parliamentary scrutiny must remain in place for all product and metrology applications as recommended by this committee of this House. If the Government concedes that some regulations may need full scrutiny then it follows that affirmative procedure should apply in all cases. Anything less is simply hounding -- handing Ministers a blank cheque to determine the level of scrutiny after-the-fact with Parliament left powerless to insist on proper oversight.
I did say that I refer to the Noble Lord Hunter Kings Heath because I remember he said this and I just looked it up and I heard when he was going to be here, he said this about the medicines and medical devices bill, admittedly, in 2021. And I quote, "We are increasingly seeing the use of skeleton hills and Henry VIII clauses. We really must come to a point where we say to this Government and any subsequent Governments, I would add, that we will not put this any longer.
" Well, as he reflects on his words, I do hope he will offer some wise advice to his good colleague. I urge the Government to reconsider its position. And accept the DPRRC recommendation that power should be constrained so that Product Regulation and Metrology Bill regulations are, in all cases, subject to affirmative procedure scrutiny. Surely, my lords, that is the very least that is required to ensure proper democratic ensure proper democratic accountability. I beg to move.
accountability. I beg to move.
In effect, the Government is saying please allow us to do whatever we eventually decide we would like to do. But give us that power now and then do it by secondary legislation. And speaking is the immediate past Chair of the secondary legislation Scrutiny Committee, I always worked very closely with my colleagues in the delegated committee. And although my Noble Friend Lord Helmsley said a few moments ago that the Government reduced the number of amendments they came back before the delegated of the committee and said that is not enough.
In a way there is a way to deciding whether the Government is right to ignore the unanimous report of the delegated and regulatory reform committee or not. And in moving amendment 48, and I rise to speak to 48, 57 and 58 standing in the name of my Noble Friend Lord Sharpe, I commend my Noble Friend Baroness Lawlor and Lord Frost and Lord Jackson of Peterborough for all they have said. But to summarise this is our last real opportunity to deal with what is in effect a skeleton bill that allows an unacceptable transfer of power from unelected legislature to the executive.
Now, although we have welcomed the amendments that the Government has put forward I quote from that unanimous view of the delegating powers regulatory reform committee when they said having considered this to their latest report from which I quoted for on 20 February, these are limited changes that do not address and I quote from paragraph 8 of the unanimous report these are limited changes that do not address the fundamental concern we have about the skeletal nature of this bill.
There is, of course, provision for consultation. Now, that is warmly to be welcomed. At the delegated and regulatory reform committee said consultation is not a substitute for parliamentary scrutiny. And we, as a house, must agree with that. It is not enough to simply engage stakeholders behind closed doors while sidelining proper legislative oversight. And the bill in its current form does create a dangerous precedent. One in which this Parliament is asked to cede control over critical regulatory decisions in favour of unchecked executive power.
And that is not, surely, how this democracy should function. If the Government is serious about ensuring transparency, accountability and oversight it has surely to go beyond mere consultation and commit to meaningful parliamentary scrutiny at every stage of the regulatory process. Now, in a moment we will hear from the Noble Lord. Will he allow me to quote from him in committee when he said this on 20 November. Some regulations will relate to very minor technical changes, so really would be taking up too much parliamentary time for that, whereas other regulations may need full scrutiny and we will have avenues for that.
But what I ask and I hope you will reply in a moment what are those avenues exactly? The Government is yet to provide any clarity at all on how they will distinguish between so-called minor technical changes and more significantly regulatory shifts. They have yet to explain why the Negative procedure will apply to all subsequent provisions. If some regulations will require full scrutiny, as the Minister acknowledged that writers his Government in this bill predetermine that any future provision beyond the first use of the power would require the negative procedure.
They cannot sit for effect that all future provisions would be technical, markets change, technology advances. Legal interpretations as all those in this House no will shift. This is precisely why proper parliamentary scrutiny must remain in place for all product and metrology applications as recommended by this committee of this House. If the Government concedes that some regulations may need full scrutiny then it follows that affirmative procedure should apply in all cases. Anything less is simply hounding -- handing Ministers a blank cheque to determine the level of scrutiny after-the-fact with Parliament left powerless to insist on proper oversight.
I did say that I refer to the Noble Lord Hunter Kings Heath because I remember he said this and I just looked it up and I heard when he was going to be here, he said this about the medicines and medical devices bill, admittedly, in 2021. And I quote, "We are increasingly seeing the use of skeleton hills and Henry VIII clauses. We really must come to a point where we say to this Government and any subsequent Governments, I would add, that we will not put this any longer.
" Well, as he reflects on his words, I do hope he will offer some wise advice to his good colleague. I urge the Government to reconsider its position. And accept the DPRRC recommendation that power should be constrained so that Product Regulation and Metrology Bill regulations are, in all cases, subject to affirmative procedure scrutiny. Surely, my lords, that is the very least that is required to ensure proper democratic ensure proper democratic accountability. I beg to move.
accountability. I beg to move.
18:12
Lord Leong (Labour)
-
-
Lord Leong (Labour)
Firstly, I thank all the Noble Lord who have spoken. I would firstly talk to the amendments as well as responding to debate. Again, I give thanks to all noble Lords who have contributed to the development of this Government amendment. And for raising the important matter of ensuring appropriate parliamentary scrutiny for regulations made under the bill at Committee stage. Let me touch first on affirmative procedure. In light of concerns from peers, the DPRRC, and the Constitution Committee, Amendment 55 increases the number of provisions which will be subject to affirmative procedure.
To include certain types procedure. To include certain types of new or novel provision. This provision product regulations made in relation to online marketplaces and where requirements are required in the first time on any new category in the market. This amendment ensures that appropriate parliamentary scrutiny applied to the new regulatory approaches or online marketplaces and regulations that replace duties and product requirements on new supply in actors for the first time. While maintaining the flexibility to make timely, uncontentious technical updates to existing regulations.
However, the Government accepts that making regulations for new or novel matters makes the higher level of parliamentary scrutiny more appropriate. Therefore, when product regulation meets under the bill, 60 impose that requirement in your type of supply actor that is an actor not otherwise listed in clause 2.3, the affirmative procedure will apply. The first time such requirements are laid. I turn now to amendment 14, 56, 57, and 58. I want to thank all noble Lords for their concerns regarding the formative procedure.
Regarding amendment 14, we discussed the importance of consultation last week. Particularly in relation to the statutory consultation amendment and I do not really want to repeat these arguments apart from saying that regulations brought forward under this bill will have been informed by consultation with key stakeholders. Specifically in Amendment 43.8, a recently published Code of Conduct set out the regulations under this bill that would be subject to assessment and engagement within an appropriate range of stakeholders, including scientific evidence when appropriate.
Further, Amendment 48, 56, 57 and 58 seek to expand the use of limited procedure and bringing forward Amendment 58, 55, the Government has recognised the need for greater parliamentary scrutiny in new or novel matters. But it is important that we maintain the flexibility to make timely, uncontentious technical updates to existing regulations also. And without delay. For example, regulations covering products such as cosmetics where we might need to amend quantities of different chemicals, where different quantities of different chemicals are set up in the collision schedule.
Or updating of regulation or the amount of noise a product Where experts would be asked for the detail of noise levels. Many of the provisions will relate to routine, highly technical and discreet up dates or changes were expert industry or independent scientific advice may be required. A recent example relating to pressure equipment requirements, I know I'm not allowed to use, but we have a copy of the regulation here I'm happy to share with all noble Lords who are interested in this technical regulation.
This particular regulation, amended requirements so that competent bodies certifying personnel and materials can be based either in the UK or in the European Economic Area. The equipment regulations comprise six parts, 12 schedules, totalling over 70 pages of technical detail. We envisage there will be properly about half a dozen to a dozen similar changes per year. In this technical cases, the government still considers the use of procedure the most appropriate use of Parliamentary time.
This is the final group will be discussing on this bill today and I really want to take the opportunity to thank all noble Lords for their considered an expert scrutiny of this bill. I'm aware that we have third reading of the bill still to come. But as we approach the end of the report, I would like to state how much the government has valued the contributions of every single noble Lords, to ensure the bill is as
**** Possible New Speaker ****
robust as possible and I thank all contributions. Can I just say, I'm not sure he
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Can I just say, I'm not sure he has explained why the regulations that allow UK product requirements that allow UK product requirements to be set by reference to European Union law is uncontentious and Union law is uncontentious and highly technical. It seems to me to be neither of those things.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
be neither of those things. Like I said, I really don't want to repeat what we debated last week. to repeat what we debated last week. But the whole purpose of where we are today, it has given us the freedom to either divert or actually some mirror any relation and physically product with, most of it comes from the European union. Either we follow it or we don't. That is the freedom we have got. As I said earlier, I'm aware we have the third reading still to come but as we approach the end of the report I want to thank all noble Lords for their contributions.
It will come as no surprise that for the reasons outlined earlier, I will ask the recommendations, amendments 48, 46, recommendations, amendments 48, 46,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
43, withdrawn. Is it your lordships' pleasure
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Is it your lordships' pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn. Is that the amendment be withdrawn. Is it your lordships' pleasure that that amendment be withdrawn? It is by leave withdrawn. Then we come to clause 9, amendment 44, Lord Leon, clause 9, amendment 44, Lord Leon, moved formally. Amendment proposed, clause 9, page 9, line 19. Leave out clause 9, page 9, line 19. Leave out subsection 1 and insert the words as printed in the marshalled list. The question is that the amendment be agreed to.
As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. It may be for the convenience of the House if amendments 45 to 47 and moved en bloc. Amendments 45, 46 and 47. The amendments be agreed to? As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. We moved to amendment 40, Lord Sharpe of Epsom.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I don't think there's any need to detain the House very much longer, except I will just say, because Lord except I will just say, because Lord Hunt of Kings Heath was, from a Hunt of Kings Heath was, from a sedentary position, shouting, when I was quoting him earlier. If I can just remind him, he said the only answer is the super affirmative procedure. Does he remember that? procedure. Does he remember that? And that's what he advocated, all And that's what he advocated, all I'm asking for, for this House to agree is that the affirmative procedure is the right.
And I just do so finally by quoting from a committee that I thought we all respected, that has actually looked at all the government amendments and concluded this. We would add, and this is a unanimous report from all the parties on the delegated powers, we would add that even if the House were to agree to those delegations of power in our view, those powers should be constrained. So that products regulations and metrology regulations are in all cases subject to affirmative procedure scrutiny.
That's why I have begged to amendment 48.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I wish to test the opinion of the House. The question is that the amendment be agreed to. As many are amendment be agreed to. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". I of the contrary, "Not content". I think the contents have it. The think the contents have it. The decision will be made by the House. I will inform the House when voting I will inform the House when voting is open. Voting is now open.
Clear
To include certain types procedure. To include certain types of new or novel provision. This provision product regulations made in relation to online marketplaces and where requirements are required in the first time on any new category in the market. This amendment ensures that appropriate parliamentary scrutiny applied to the new regulatory approaches or online marketplaces and regulations that replace duties and product requirements on new supply in actors for the first time. While maintaining the flexibility to make timely, uncontentious technical updates to existing regulations.
However, the Government accepts that making regulations for new or novel matters makes the higher level of parliamentary scrutiny more appropriate. Therefore, when product regulation meets under the bill, 60 impose that requirement in your type of supply actor that is an actor not otherwise listed in clause 2.3, the affirmative procedure will apply. The first time such requirements are laid. I turn now to amendment 14, 56, 57, and 58. I want to thank all noble Lords for their concerns regarding the formative procedure.
Regarding amendment 14, we discussed the importance of consultation last week. Particularly in relation to the statutory consultation amendment and I do not really want to repeat these arguments apart from saying that regulations brought forward under this bill will have been informed by consultation with key stakeholders. Specifically in Amendment 43.8, a recently published Code of Conduct set out the regulations under this bill that would be subject to assessment and engagement within an appropriate range of stakeholders, including scientific evidence when appropriate.
Further, Amendment 48, 56, 57 and 58 seek to expand the use of limited procedure and bringing forward Amendment 58, 55, the Government has recognised the need for greater parliamentary scrutiny in new or novel matters. But it is important that we maintain the flexibility to make timely, uncontentious technical updates to existing regulations also. And without delay. For example, regulations covering products such as cosmetics where we might need to amend quantities of different chemicals, where different quantities of different chemicals are set up in the collision schedule.
Or updating of regulation or the amount of noise a product Where experts would be asked for the detail of noise levels. Many of the provisions will relate to routine, highly technical and discreet up dates or changes were expert industry or independent scientific advice may be required. A recent example relating to pressure equipment requirements, I know I'm not allowed to use, but we have a copy of the regulation here I'm happy to share with all noble Lords who are interested in this technical regulation.
This particular regulation, amended requirements so that competent bodies certifying personnel and materials can be based either in the UK or in the European Economic Area. The equipment regulations comprise six parts, 12 schedules, totalling over 70 pages of technical detail. We envisage there will be properly about half a dozen to a dozen similar changes per year. In this technical cases, the government still considers the use of procedure the most appropriate use of Parliamentary time.
This is the final group will be discussing on this bill today and I really want to take the opportunity to thank all noble Lords for their considered an expert scrutiny of this bill. I'm aware that we have third reading of the bill still to come. But as we approach the end of the report, I would like to state how much the government has valued the contributions of every single noble Lords, to ensure the bill is as
**** Possible New Speaker ****
robust as possible and I thank all contributions. Can I just say, I'm not sure he
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Can I just say, I'm not sure he has explained why the regulations that allow UK product requirements that allow UK product requirements to be set by reference to European Union law is uncontentious and Union law is uncontentious and highly technical. It seems to me to be neither of those things.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
be neither of those things. Like I said, I really don't want to repeat what we debated last week. to repeat what we debated last week. But the whole purpose of where we are today, it has given us the freedom to either divert or actually some mirror any relation and physically product with, most of it comes from the European union. Either we follow it or we don't. That is the freedom we have got. As I said earlier, I'm aware we have the third reading still to come but as we approach the end of the report I want to thank all noble Lords for their contributions.
It will come as no surprise that for the reasons outlined earlier, I will ask the recommendations, amendments 48, 46, recommendations, amendments 48, 46,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
43, withdrawn. Is it your lordships' pleasure
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Is it your lordships' pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn. Is that the amendment be withdrawn. Is it your lordships' pleasure that that amendment be withdrawn? It is by leave withdrawn. Then we come to clause 9, amendment 44, Lord Leon, clause 9, amendment 44, Lord Leon, moved formally. Amendment proposed, clause 9, page 9, line 19. Leave out clause 9, page 9, line 19. Leave out subsection 1 and insert the words as printed in the marshalled list. The question is that the amendment be agreed to.
As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. It may be for the convenience of the House if amendments 45 to 47 and moved en bloc. Amendments 45, 46 and 47. The amendments be agreed to? As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. We moved to amendment 40, Lord Sharpe of Epsom.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I don't think there's any need to detain the House very much longer, except I will just say, because Lord except I will just say, because Lord Hunt of Kings Heath was, from a Hunt of Kings Heath was, from a sedentary position, shouting, when I was quoting him earlier. If I can just remind him, he said the only answer is the super affirmative procedure. Does he remember that? procedure. Does he remember that? And that's what he advocated, all And that's what he advocated, all I'm asking for, for this House to agree is that the affirmative procedure is the right.
And I just do so finally by quoting from a committee that I thought we all respected, that has actually looked at all the government amendments and concluded this. We would add, and this is a unanimous report from all the parties on the delegated powers, we would add that even if the House were to agree to those delegations of power in our view, those powers should be constrained. So that products regulations and metrology regulations are in all cases subject to affirmative procedure scrutiny.
That's why I have begged to amendment 48.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I wish to test the opinion of the House. The question is that the amendment be agreed to. As many are amendment be agreed to. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". I of the contrary, "Not content". I think the contents have it. The think the contents have it. The decision will be made by the House. I will inform the House when voting I will inform the House when voting is open. Voting is now open.
Clear
18:22
Division
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My My Lords, My Lords, I My Lords, I shall My Lords, I shall not
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I shall not continue until all noble Lords have resumed until all noble Lords have resumed their seats. The question is that the amendment be agreed to. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The contents will go to the right by The contents will go to the right by the bar. Not content to the left... the bar. Not content to the left... Sorry, but the ground.
Not content to the left by the bar. -- The
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The The question The question is The question is that The question is that the They They have They have voted. They have voted. Content, They have voted. Content, 146. They have voted. Content, 146. Not content, 189, so the not contents In clause In clause 10 In clause 10 Amendment In clause 10 Amendment 49, In clause 10 Amendment 49, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, not moved.
Amendment 15, Lord Leon, moved formally. Amendment proposed, clause 10, page 10, line 19, after service insert or feature of a service. The question is that the amendment be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The contents have it. Maybe for the convenience of the House if amendment 51 and 52 are moved on lock. The question is that these amendments are agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The contents have it.
53, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, not moved. Clause 11, Amendment 54, Baroness Lawlor, not moved. We then come to amendment 55, Lord Leon. Amendment proposed, clause 11, page 11, line 10. At the end insert the word is printed on the Marshall list. The question is that this amendment be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The contents have it. 56, Lord Frost. Not moved. Amendment 57, Lord Sharpe of Epsom. Not moved. 58, Lord Sharpe, not moved.
Baroness Lawlor, 59, not moved. Number 60, Lord Sharpe, not moved. We then come to amendment 61, Lord Leon, amendment proposed, clause 11, page 11, line 18. At the end insert that Woods is printed on the Marshall list. The question is that this amendment be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The contents have it. We then come to amendment 62 to 65. Again, possibly, on lock.
Great. I am sorry, 63, 62 and 63. The question is that these amendments be agreed to unlock. As many of that opinion say content. Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Lord shop of Epsom, 64. Amendment 63, Lord Leon. Sorry, I thought we said 65. I probably need to wear my glasses. I had been able to manage without them. 65. Moved formally. Yes. Amendment proposed, close 13, page 11, 922. At the beginning, insert the rest of.
The question is that the amendment be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The contents have it. Amendment 66 Baroness Bennett. Not moved. Amendment 67. Lord Leon, formerly moved. Amendment proposed. Schedule page 12 line 17, leave out paragraph 7 and insert the words as printed on the Marshall list. The question is that this amendment be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The contents have it.
That concludes this part of the business. It may be for the convenience of the House if I allow a short interval before we
Division
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My My Lords, My Lords, I My Lords, I shall My Lords, I shall not
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I shall not continue until all noble Lords have resumed until all noble Lords have resumed their seats. The question is that the amendment be agreed to. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The contents will go to the right by The contents will go to the right by the bar. Not content to the left... the bar. Not content to the left... Sorry, but the ground.
Not content to the left by the bar. -- The
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The The question The question is The question is that The question is that the They They have They have voted. They have voted. Content, They have voted. Content, 146. They have voted. Content, 146. Not content, 189, so the not contents In clause In clause 10 In clause 10 Amendment In clause 10 Amendment 49, In clause 10 Amendment 49, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, not moved.
Amendment 15, Lord Leon, moved formally. Amendment proposed, clause 10, page 10, line 19, after service insert or feature of a service. The question is that the amendment be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The contents have it. Maybe for the convenience of the House if amendment 51 and 52 are moved on lock. The question is that these amendments are agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The contents have it.
53, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, not moved. Clause 11, Amendment 54, Baroness Lawlor, not moved. We then come to amendment 55, Lord Leon. Amendment proposed, clause 11, page 11, line 10. At the end insert the word is printed on the Marshall list. The question is that this amendment be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The contents have it. 56, Lord Frost. Not moved. Amendment 57, Lord Sharpe of Epsom. Not moved. 58, Lord Sharpe, not moved.
Baroness Lawlor, 59, not moved. Number 60, Lord Sharpe, not moved. We then come to amendment 61, Lord Leon, amendment proposed, clause 11, page 11, line 18. At the end insert that Woods is printed on the Marshall list. The question is that this amendment be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The contents have it. We then come to amendment 62 to 65. Again, possibly, on lock.
Great. I am sorry, 63, 62 and 63. The question is that these amendments be agreed to unlock. As many of that opinion say content. Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Lord shop of Epsom, 64. Amendment 63, Lord Leon. Sorry, I thought we said 65. I probably need to wear my glasses. I had been able to manage without them. 65. Moved formally. Yes. Amendment proposed, close 13, page 11, 922. At the beginning, insert the rest of.
The question is that the amendment be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The contents have it. Amendment 66 Baroness Bennett. Not moved. Amendment 67. Lord Leon, formerly moved. Amendment proposed. Schedule page 12 line 17, leave out paragraph 7 and insert the words as printed on the Marshall list. The question is that this amendment be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The contents have it.
That concludes this part of the business. It may be for the convenience of the House if I allow a short interval before we
18:38
Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)
-
-
Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)
I beg to move that this bill be now read a second time. Can I start by declaring an interest? Namely that my son in law is an active reservist in the British Army. I baked it moved that the bill, as I say, now be read in second time. It is an honour to move the second reading of the Armed Forces Commissioner Hill. A bill that received cross-party parliamentary support in The Other Place. Noble Lords will know that the first duty of any Government is to keep nations safe, and that is why last week the Prime Minister announced an increase in the defence spending to 2.5% of GDP in 2027 ahead of a further anticipated rise to 3% of the next Parliament.
It is also where the premise has shown determined leadership in the search for and enter Russia's war of aggression in Ukraine. Because Ukraine's frontline in the defence of its sovereignty is also the frontline of our security. And can I thank the noble Lords for their many words of support at this challenging time for our nation and as we seek the best way forward. The unity and purpose rings out from this chamber, but at the heart of our diplomatic efforts to end the conflict for the men and women of our Armed Forces, the dedicated professionals will provide boots on the ground and aircraft overhead to support any such bestowal, behind whom are thousands of supportive families whose own sacrifice underpins military service.
I have had the privilege, as many noble Lords have, meeting service personnel both at home and overseas, from visiting troops on the frontline in Poland to those dismantling IED StatCounter poker her threat from Nigeria and those in training exercises in Bosnia as well as visiting the carrier the Prince of Wales and many other visitors have included to our magnificent training establishments, most recently RAF Cromwell. All sides of the House, we thank those men and women for such service and for working tirelessly to keep us safe.
And as the Prime Minister said today so movingly, to remind us, tomorrow marks 13 years since six young British soldiers were on patrol in Afghanistan when their vehicle was struck by an explosive. Tragically killing them all. The sergeant was 33. Corporal Jake Hartley was 20. Private Anthony France was 20. Private Daniel wins was 20. Private Daniel Wilford was 21. In private Christopher Kershaw was just 19, a teenager. Tomorrow also marks the 18th anniversary of the death of Benjamin reading, a 22-year-old serving with 42 commando Royal Marines who was killed in the province into thousand and seven.
These men fought and died for their country. Our country. Across the was in Afghanistan and Iraq, 642 individuals died fighting for Britain alongside our allies. Many more were wounded. We will never forget their bravery and their sacrifice. And I know that all of the House will join with me in remembering them and all of those who serve our country. As a number of you will know first hand, serving our Armed Forces is both challenging and rewarding for our serving personnel and their families.
It provides immense pride, satisfaction, and career prospects, the chance to see the world. However, there are all out undoubtedly challenges the service life. The recent harrowing enquiries to the death of the governor in 2021 highlighted a tragedy that should never have happened. Our thoughts remain with the loved ones at this difficult time. The army has accepted the feelings identified by the service enquiry and responded to the recommendations to improve service life across its culture, policies, and practices. We made it clear there is no place for any abuse or unacceptable behaviours within the military.
There have been other such reports with consequent recommendations and actions. And the Government is determined to do all that we can to make defence a self welcoming career for all. The Government acknowledge also the current crisis in recruitment, retention, and morale in our Armed Forces, at a time of increasing instability and tensions. Only 40% of our forces personnel report been satisfied with service life and 62% report they impact on families, on personal life, as a leading factor, influencing their decision to leave.
That is why the Government is determined to renew the nation's contract with those who serve and why it matters that this will represent the first time that the families of service personnel will have a mechanism by which they can recognise their life as a relative or the Armed Forces impacts their welfare. And looking at the continuous attitude service, this is where the crisis we are facing in the recruitment and that is. It is for this reason we have chosen not include vitamins.
Veterans face a very different set of issues and require specific support. Whereas the Commissioner is required to have a laser sharp focus on the welfare of persons and their families and the bill before the House marks a major shift in the approach to our serving personnel. It establishes for the first time a genuinely dependent jump into here first hand from our Armed Forces, including our reserve forces and their families. Through the commission's investigative powers and their ability to report to Parliament they will shine a light on welfare issues that impact our service personnel and their families the most.
And, crucially, what MoD needs to do to address this. And as is writing a democracy, elected Ministers ultimately must make the decisions, but the Commissioner will make it harder for them to claim ignorance and avoid scrutiny. The Commissioner will be a strong independent voice, holding both this and future Governments to account. And we believe derive meaningful change across the fence. The bill is inspired by that long established and successful German parliamentary for the Armed Forces who has been championing and providing a voice to their Armed Forces for almost 70 years and I pay tribute to her as a brilliant example of how to champion Armed Forces personnel to our work, including investigations, including site visits and the report and recommendations laid before the Germans.
Our proposed Armed Forces Commissioner, like the German Commissioner, will have the power to consider the full breadth of general welfare issues that lay in place -- impact service life. I know from my discussions with several nobles that there is an appetite to understand the types of issues that the Commissioner may investigate. The definition of general service welfare matters is deliberately brought in the bill, to allow the Commissioner to gather evidence and make an independent decision on the issues that are most important to our service personnel.
And their families. We have illustrative examples, we anticipate the general welfare matters should include issues such as service to accommodation. Mental health. Education, unacceptable behaviour, provision of services, and the provision of services, and the Conversely, issues such as the overall defence budget would not be considered to full within the remit. I would also like to reassure noble Lords that are reserved for would have the same access to the Commissioner as our regular forces and will be able to raise any welfare issues connected to this both at home when deployed.
I have noble Lords noted when we met last week, the bill also contains some exclusions which prevent the Commissioner from investigating certain matters. As well as the power for the Secretary of State to limit investigation on the basis of national-security and personal safety, it is also important the Commissioner does not cut across ongoing processes connected to specific cases such as criminal proceedings and service enquiry so as not to influence or undermine the outcome. Naturally individual cases or enquiry topics can be indicative of why the problems that the Commissioner may wish to look into four thematic reports for example the Commissioner would want to avoid investigating specific cases of sexual harassment was criminal investigations or the service enquiry were ongoing, however, that would not preclude them from investigating wider patterns of and appropriate sexual behaviour.
The bill provides the Commissioner with powers to access personal information and defence sites, reaching thousands of Armed Forces River they are serving. This will allow them to hear directly from service personnel and family members, they will have the power to demand access to information, to facilitate the investigations and access to service premises, and in the UK, to make these visits and announced, ensuring the commission against first hand insight into the realities of service life. We have given careful consideration to how the Commissioner's role will interact with the often very sensitive issues defence covers, national-security is of paramount importance and we will endeavour to take a balanced approach, and I refer to the ability of the Secretary of State to restrict the commissioners access to sites when there is a valid national-security or safety reasons and the ability to redact reports on national security grounds.
And our officials continue to work closely with partners across government to ensure Commissioner's ability to access sites without notice, is appropriately balanced, security considerations. The bill provides for the Commissioner to absorb the existing powers of the service complaints ombudsman for the Armed Forces, safeguarding the established independent oversight of these service complaints system. Can I take this opportunity to thank Mariette Hughes, the service complaints of batsmen for Armed Forces for the outstanding work she and her team have done to increase the efficiency and strengthen the independence, impartiality and integrity of the service complaints system.
At committee stage in the other place she explained her remit is to narrow, and does not allow her to explore the root causes behind the complaints she oversees. The new house of the Commissioner will do just that. Situating the service complaints ombudsman system in a wider landscape of service welfare, and providing that coherent independent view those issues facing our service personnel and their families. An increment agent team has been established to ensure a smooth transition of any live complaints from the existing ombudsman to the Commissioner's office and established an effective setup of that office and a full public appointments process.
The bill also provides the commissioners, that the commissioners powers to report to Parliament are evident in the bill. These reports will shine a light on issues facing personnel and their families and make recommendations to Parliament. They will be able to take on individual concerns from service personnel and their families and build on these to launch wide- ranging formatted investigations. While you do not wish to be to descriptive, we anticipate that the Commissioner will choose -- produce two different type of reports.
The first will cover the breath of the commissioners functions. This would include the efficiency and effectiveness and fairness of the complaints system. The commissioners functions exercised in that year, and any further matters that the Commissioner deems appropriate. The second will be in-depth reports including recommendations following the commissioners investigations into thematic general service welfare matters. These reports must file before Parliament by the Secretary of State within 30 sitting days of receiving them. Ensuring that this post is truly independent is of the utmost importance, not only to build the trust and confidence of the Armed Forces, but ultimately to guarantee its success.
As such, there are several safeguards in place within the bill. Notwithstanding important national security and safety measures that I have spoken about but I've already covered, the new powers in the bill will be created to ensure the Commissioner can work and conduct these enquiries separately from government. These include measures given indiscretion over the matters they investigate, the ability to access information, and enter defence sites, without notice, in some circumstances. An obligation on the Secretary of State to cooperate the Commissioner and as I say the ability to report their findings Parliament.
Any reductions to reports will be limited to issues infringing upon national-security and personal safety. This takes us back to the purpose of the bill, to establish a powerful independent voice, to hold this government and any future governments to account, to ensure we can affect real change for our serving personnel and fix the recruitment and retention crisis facing us today. The government are taking this land master of establishing a three independent Armed Forces commission, precisely because we must renew the nations contract with those who serve.
Armed Forces Commissioner is a major step in commencing that awesome work. We know our serving personnel and their families are Commissioner with a single mission which is to improve service life. And I look forward to what I know will be a rigourous and constructive debate at committee, and a report, which many will follow in both houses and also outside. Can I also say at this stage, I'm also physically looking forward to the maiden speech of my noble friend Baroness Carberry.
Some very grateful to noble Lords across the House for their ongoing support and interest in this bill, and with
**** Possible New Speaker ****
that, I beg to move. The question is that this bill be
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that this bill be narrowed second time. -- Be now read a second time.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
May I first place on record my admiration for appreciation of our
It is also where the premise has shown determined leadership in the search for and enter Russia's war of aggression in Ukraine. Because Ukraine's frontline in the defence of its sovereignty is also the frontline of our security. And can I thank the noble Lords for their many words of support at this challenging time for our nation and as we seek the best way forward. The unity and purpose rings out from this chamber, but at the heart of our diplomatic efforts to end the conflict for the men and women of our Armed Forces, the dedicated professionals will provide boots on the ground and aircraft overhead to support any such bestowal, behind whom are thousands of supportive families whose own sacrifice underpins military service.
I have had the privilege, as many noble Lords have, meeting service personnel both at home and overseas, from visiting troops on the frontline in Poland to those dismantling IED StatCounter poker her threat from Nigeria and those in training exercises in Bosnia as well as visiting the carrier the Prince of Wales and many other visitors have included to our magnificent training establishments, most recently RAF Cromwell. All sides of the House, we thank those men and women for such service and for working tirelessly to keep us safe.
And as the Prime Minister said today so movingly, to remind us, tomorrow marks 13 years since six young British soldiers were on patrol in Afghanistan when their vehicle was struck by an explosive. Tragically killing them all. The sergeant was 33. Corporal Jake Hartley was 20. Private Anthony France was 20. Private Daniel wins was 20. Private Daniel Wilford was 21. In private Christopher Kershaw was just 19, a teenager. Tomorrow also marks the 18th anniversary of the death of Benjamin reading, a 22-year-old serving with 42 commando Royal Marines who was killed in the province into thousand and seven.
These men fought and died for their country. Our country. Across the was in Afghanistan and Iraq, 642 individuals died fighting for Britain alongside our allies. Many more were wounded. We will never forget their bravery and their sacrifice. And I know that all of the House will join with me in remembering them and all of those who serve our country. As a number of you will know first hand, serving our Armed Forces is both challenging and rewarding for our serving personnel and their families.
It provides immense pride, satisfaction, and career prospects, the chance to see the world. However, there are all out undoubtedly challenges the service life. The recent harrowing enquiries to the death of the governor in 2021 highlighted a tragedy that should never have happened. Our thoughts remain with the loved ones at this difficult time. The army has accepted the feelings identified by the service enquiry and responded to the recommendations to improve service life across its culture, policies, and practices. We made it clear there is no place for any abuse or unacceptable behaviours within the military.
There have been other such reports with consequent recommendations and actions. And the Government is determined to do all that we can to make defence a self welcoming career for all. The Government acknowledge also the current crisis in recruitment, retention, and morale in our Armed Forces, at a time of increasing instability and tensions. Only 40% of our forces personnel report been satisfied with service life and 62% report they impact on families, on personal life, as a leading factor, influencing their decision to leave.
That is why the Government is determined to renew the nation's contract with those who serve and why it matters that this will represent the first time that the families of service personnel will have a mechanism by which they can recognise their life as a relative or the Armed Forces impacts their welfare. And looking at the continuous attitude service, this is where the crisis we are facing in the recruitment and that is. It is for this reason we have chosen not include vitamins.
Veterans face a very different set of issues and require specific support. Whereas the Commissioner is required to have a laser sharp focus on the welfare of persons and their families and the bill before the House marks a major shift in the approach to our serving personnel. It establishes for the first time a genuinely dependent jump into here first hand from our Armed Forces, including our reserve forces and their families. Through the commission's investigative powers and their ability to report to Parliament they will shine a light on welfare issues that impact our service personnel and their families the most.
And, crucially, what MoD needs to do to address this. And as is writing a democracy, elected Ministers ultimately must make the decisions, but the Commissioner will make it harder for them to claim ignorance and avoid scrutiny. The Commissioner will be a strong independent voice, holding both this and future Governments to account. And we believe derive meaningful change across the fence. The bill is inspired by that long established and successful German parliamentary for the Armed Forces who has been championing and providing a voice to their Armed Forces for almost 70 years and I pay tribute to her as a brilliant example of how to champion Armed Forces personnel to our work, including investigations, including site visits and the report and recommendations laid before the Germans.
Our proposed Armed Forces Commissioner, like the German Commissioner, will have the power to consider the full breadth of general welfare issues that lay in place -- impact service life. I know from my discussions with several nobles that there is an appetite to understand the types of issues that the Commissioner may investigate. The definition of general service welfare matters is deliberately brought in the bill, to allow the Commissioner to gather evidence and make an independent decision on the issues that are most important to our service personnel.
And their families. We have illustrative examples, we anticipate the general welfare matters should include issues such as service to accommodation. Mental health. Education, unacceptable behaviour, provision of services, and the provision of services, and the Conversely, issues such as the overall defence budget would not be considered to full within the remit. I would also like to reassure noble Lords that are reserved for would have the same access to the Commissioner as our regular forces and will be able to raise any welfare issues connected to this both at home when deployed.
I have noble Lords noted when we met last week, the bill also contains some exclusions which prevent the Commissioner from investigating certain matters. As well as the power for the Secretary of State to limit investigation on the basis of national-security and personal safety, it is also important the Commissioner does not cut across ongoing processes connected to specific cases such as criminal proceedings and service enquiry so as not to influence or undermine the outcome. Naturally individual cases or enquiry topics can be indicative of why the problems that the Commissioner may wish to look into four thematic reports for example the Commissioner would want to avoid investigating specific cases of sexual harassment was criminal investigations or the service enquiry were ongoing, however, that would not preclude them from investigating wider patterns of and appropriate sexual behaviour.
The bill provides the Commissioner with powers to access personal information and defence sites, reaching thousands of Armed Forces River they are serving. This will allow them to hear directly from service personnel and family members, they will have the power to demand access to information, to facilitate the investigations and access to service premises, and in the UK, to make these visits and announced, ensuring the commission against first hand insight into the realities of service life. We have given careful consideration to how the Commissioner's role will interact with the often very sensitive issues defence covers, national-security is of paramount importance and we will endeavour to take a balanced approach, and I refer to the ability of the Secretary of State to restrict the commissioners access to sites when there is a valid national-security or safety reasons and the ability to redact reports on national security grounds.
And our officials continue to work closely with partners across government to ensure Commissioner's ability to access sites without notice, is appropriately balanced, security considerations. The bill provides for the Commissioner to absorb the existing powers of the service complaints ombudsman for the Armed Forces, safeguarding the established independent oversight of these service complaints system. Can I take this opportunity to thank Mariette Hughes, the service complaints of batsmen for Armed Forces for the outstanding work she and her team have done to increase the efficiency and strengthen the independence, impartiality and integrity of the service complaints system.
At committee stage in the other place she explained her remit is to narrow, and does not allow her to explore the root causes behind the complaints she oversees. The new house of the Commissioner will do just that. Situating the service complaints ombudsman system in a wider landscape of service welfare, and providing that coherent independent view those issues facing our service personnel and their families. An increment agent team has been established to ensure a smooth transition of any live complaints from the existing ombudsman to the Commissioner's office and established an effective setup of that office and a full public appointments process.
The bill also provides the commissioners, that the commissioners powers to report to Parliament are evident in the bill. These reports will shine a light on issues facing personnel and their families and make recommendations to Parliament. They will be able to take on individual concerns from service personnel and their families and build on these to launch wide- ranging formatted investigations. While you do not wish to be to descriptive, we anticipate that the Commissioner will choose -- produce two different type of reports.
The first will cover the breath of the commissioners functions. This would include the efficiency and effectiveness and fairness of the complaints system. The commissioners functions exercised in that year, and any further matters that the Commissioner deems appropriate. The second will be in-depth reports including recommendations following the commissioners investigations into thematic general service welfare matters. These reports must file before Parliament by the Secretary of State within 30 sitting days of receiving them. Ensuring that this post is truly independent is of the utmost importance, not only to build the trust and confidence of the Armed Forces, but ultimately to guarantee its success.
As such, there are several safeguards in place within the bill. Notwithstanding important national security and safety measures that I have spoken about but I've already covered, the new powers in the bill will be created to ensure the Commissioner can work and conduct these enquiries separately from government. These include measures given indiscretion over the matters they investigate, the ability to access information, and enter defence sites, without notice, in some circumstances. An obligation on the Secretary of State to cooperate the Commissioner and as I say the ability to report their findings Parliament.
Any reductions to reports will be limited to issues infringing upon national-security and personal safety. This takes us back to the purpose of the bill, to establish a powerful independent voice, to hold this government and any future governments to account, to ensure we can affect real change for our serving personnel and fix the recruitment and retention crisis facing us today. The government are taking this land master of establishing a three independent Armed Forces commission, precisely because we must renew the nations contract with those who serve.
Armed Forces Commissioner is a major step in commencing that awesome work. We know our serving personnel and their families are Commissioner with a single mission which is to improve service life. And I look forward to what I know will be a rigourous and constructive debate at committee, and a report, which many will follow in both houses and also outside. Can I also say at this stage, I'm also physically looking forward to the maiden speech of my noble friend Baroness Carberry.
Some very grateful to noble Lords across the House for their ongoing support and interest in this bill, and with
**** Possible New Speaker ****
that, I beg to move. The question is that this bill be
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that this bill be narrowed second time. -- Be now read a second time.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
May I first place on record my admiration for appreciation of our
18:54
Baroness Goldie (Conservative)
-
-
Baroness Goldie (Conservative)
armed forces personnel. They are great. They make incredible sacrifices to keep us safe, as the noble Lord the Minister so eloquently and poignantly described, as to their families, and they deserve our unqualified gratitude and support. Let me say of this bill before the House, His Majesty opposition would adopt the same approach our colleagues in the other place, the bill is well intended, it is a government manifesto commitment, we respect that and we shall support it. But the sake of our Armed Forces Week over it to them to ensure the new position created by the bill, and Armed Forces Commissioner, does what it says on the tin and everyone is quite clear what the tent looks like.
So ask you to need will be diligent but I will be constructive. The abolition of one structure and the creation of another, neither creates gaps not unattended consequences, we must be sure of that. I want to thank noble Lord the Minister for his customary courtesy in engaging with myself and noble friend on the bill. I will start with a couple of process observations, clauses 1 and two, established what the Armed Forces Commissioner job spec is, and as the noble Lord the Minister has articulated already, these are important functions, personnel, and improving the public understanding of the welfare issues faced by service personnel and their families.
In clause 1 also contains extensive powers. Under clause 2 of course abolishes the previous service complaints ombudsman, so the new Armed Forces Commissioner is taking on a very big job. My Lords, I think there needs to be greater Parliamentary scrutiny of the initial appointment of the Commissioner. Interesting with the German model on which this is based, is a Parliamentary model and that has not been totally replicated by the provisions of this bill. Not quite sure why that is but perhaps the noble Lord the Minister can offer clarification in his windup.
As the noble Lord the Minister has said, this Commissioner is very freestanding, deliberately independent as far as possible, of the Ministry of Defence, and I think for these reasons the Select Committee should offer advice to read -- and advisory opinion for defence on the suitability of the candidate prior to any former convent. The bill makes it clear that the individual will be neither from the Armed Forces nor a civil from the Armed Forces nor a civil servants, and the obvious areas of expertise are excluded.
In principle that's fine, but there needs to be total transparency about the chosen candidate, the qualification to do the job, the relevant experience and their security suitability. And similarly, I think the commissioners accountability to Parliament needs to be more explicit about that is something we explore further as the bill proceeds. The one broad but I think important issue which I have identified emerging from the bill, and I share this with the noble Lord the Minister, it's quite simply the proper balance of power between the Secretary of State for defence and the Commissioner.
While the Commissioner must be independent, the MoD is one of the most sensitive departments in government proper and responsible regard must be had for the delicate security issues surrounding defence premises, widely defined under the bill, but that's could include nuclear facilities or flashlight to see the commissioners difference of the Secretary of State and issues of security and safety more fully spelled-out. There is recognition of this but for example a understandable correctly, if the Commissioner proposes to exercise his powerful provisions for entry to premises, notice must be given to the Secretary of State for the period determined by the commission and if the premises are in the United Kingdom, the Commissioner does not require to give any notice at all, if the Commissioner considers that would defeat the object of exercising the power.
While the bill says the Secretary of State can prevent or restrict the exercise of that power, on the grounds of National Security Law safety, he may not have received any notice from the Commissioner that entry on the premises is happening. A suggestion is that we did not mean more sensible to turn this round to require the Commissioner to give minimum period of notice of seven days of intended access to premises, unless the Commissioner considers there are extraordinary issues of potential loss of evidence, or usage of currently unsafe premises, by the notice requirement would be suspended, and Commissioner should be required to give an inflation in writing for proceeding without notice.
It seems that the advantage of that approach minimises compromise national security and safety and also avoids potential direct confrontation between the Commissioner and the chain of command. The Secretary of State at least will have knowledge of any intended access. The bill will achieve an amalgam of the service complaints ombudsman used to do and I also pay tribute to Marietta. That is a big block of work that will now allow with the new Commissioner, is briefly described. I think there needs to be in new separation -- clear separation of what the Armed Forces Commissioner in his annual report purporting on, there are two separate sets of distinct responsibilities here, we need to achieve clarity as to how these are being addressed under the new arrangements.
And that leads on to a question about the resource, and I'm sure the noble Lord will be able to reassure the House that proper thought has been given to that but if you look at the ombudsman's annual report from 2023, then the current workload is hefty so we are talking about a very significant volume of work, following upon this volume of work, following upon this On the issue of drafting, and I see the former chair of the constitution Committee Baroness Drake sitting in her place, and under her wise stewardship I became a member of that Committee and just how important drafting legislation is and how we should not be inhibited from those who have a responsibility such as the noble lady when pointing out that we think that there are issues.
This legislation achieves effect by changing them by means when you look at this bill it is quite difficult to get the whole picture. You need to do detective work behind-the-scenes and I think we need to live with that. I realise why that has been adopted as a mode of operation, but I have shared that that is quite extensive because he is aware of the various provisions in the act that provide for subordinate observation, the new section 341 a subsection 8, and the noble Lord can look at this and consider if there is not more information to put on the fate of the bill, and for example, the functions of the commissioner art the functions on justifying it as that.
It specifies what the Armed Forces investigator cannot. It is that, it is that. Surely, we can beam clearer about who they are. Immediate family members in the circle perhaps residing with the Armed Forces Bill would be likely to be included and I do not think it is meant to be a wider family connection, but I would not think it would be beyond drafting skill to be more explicit about that. I think the noble Lord is well placed to set an example and is a model minister in every respect and will not disappoint me and I look forward to hearing his thoughts on if we can make a better fist of trying to make the bill a bit more explicit.
We cannot anticipate the issues of general welfare that may arise that the commissioner will feel obliged the commissioner will feel obliged to investigate. The case of Jaesley Beck and her death reported on by the coroner was troubling. Our thoughts and sympathies are with her family. Since her death in December 2021, I am aware that far-reaching changes have been made in the MoD and the chain of command no longer investigates complaints and instructors have engaged in behaviour and will be immediately dismissed and where criminal activity is taking place it is seen as a serious unit and victim support unit.
The case demonstrated that she did not feel able to complain in the first place through fear of what that might mean for her career. No matter how effective other processes and procedures are, the only weight to address that fundamental fear is to have some type of anonymous whistleblower system. If the Minister is sympathetic to that, that function will sit well in the new Armed Forces Commissioner's office. If we need a statute of law, I don't know. It might be in the executive authority of the Secretary of State for defence to do it now, but I offer a serious suggestion and I welcome the Minister's comments in his windup.
I also look forward to the maiden speech of Baroness Carbery and may I say I look forward to the debate on this bill. These benches wish the bill well and I look forward to the Minister's response. response.
So ask you to need will be diligent but I will be constructive. The abolition of one structure and the creation of another, neither creates gaps not unattended consequences, we must be sure of that. I want to thank noble Lord the Minister for his customary courtesy in engaging with myself and noble friend on the bill. I will start with a couple of process observations, clauses 1 and two, established what the Armed Forces Commissioner job spec is, and as the noble Lord the Minister has articulated already, these are important functions, personnel, and improving the public understanding of the welfare issues faced by service personnel and their families.
In clause 1 also contains extensive powers. Under clause 2 of course abolishes the previous service complaints ombudsman, so the new Armed Forces Commissioner is taking on a very big job. My Lords, I think there needs to be greater Parliamentary scrutiny of the initial appointment of the Commissioner. Interesting with the German model on which this is based, is a Parliamentary model and that has not been totally replicated by the provisions of this bill. Not quite sure why that is but perhaps the noble Lord the Minister can offer clarification in his windup.
As the noble Lord the Minister has said, this Commissioner is very freestanding, deliberately independent as far as possible, of the Ministry of Defence, and I think for these reasons the Select Committee should offer advice to read -- and advisory opinion for defence on the suitability of the candidate prior to any former convent. The bill makes it clear that the individual will be neither from the Armed Forces nor a civil from the Armed Forces nor a civil servants, and the obvious areas of expertise are excluded.
In principle that's fine, but there needs to be total transparency about the chosen candidate, the qualification to do the job, the relevant experience and their security suitability. And similarly, I think the commissioners accountability to Parliament needs to be more explicit about that is something we explore further as the bill proceeds. The one broad but I think important issue which I have identified emerging from the bill, and I share this with the noble Lord the Minister, it's quite simply the proper balance of power between the Secretary of State for defence and the Commissioner.
While the Commissioner must be independent, the MoD is one of the most sensitive departments in government proper and responsible regard must be had for the delicate security issues surrounding defence premises, widely defined under the bill, but that's could include nuclear facilities or flashlight to see the commissioners difference of the Secretary of State and issues of security and safety more fully spelled-out. There is recognition of this but for example a understandable correctly, if the Commissioner proposes to exercise his powerful provisions for entry to premises, notice must be given to the Secretary of State for the period determined by the commission and if the premises are in the United Kingdom, the Commissioner does not require to give any notice at all, if the Commissioner considers that would defeat the object of exercising the power.
While the bill says the Secretary of State can prevent or restrict the exercise of that power, on the grounds of National Security Law safety, he may not have received any notice from the Commissioner that entry on the premises is happening. A suggestion is that we did not mean more sensible to turn this round to require the Commissioner to give minimum period of notice of seven days of intended access to premises, unless the Commissioner considers there are extraordinary issues of potential loss of evidence, or usage of currently unsafe premises, by the notice requirement would be suspended, and Commissioner should be required to give an inflation in writing for proceeding without notice.
It seems that the advantage of that approach minimises compromise national security and safety and also avoids potential direct confrontation between the Commissioner and the chain of command. The Secretary of State at least will have knowledge of any intended access. The bill will achieve an amalgam of the service complaints ombudsman used to do and I also pay tribute to Marietta. That is a big block of work that will now allow with the new Commissioner, is briefly described. I think there needs to be in new separation -- clear separation of what the Armed Forces Commissioner in his annual report purporting on, there are two separate sets of distinct responsibilities here, we need to achieve clarity as to how these are being addressed under the new arrangements.
And that leads on to a question about the resource, and I'm sure the noble Lord will be able to reassure the House that proper thought has been given to that but if you look at the ombudsman's annual report from 2023, then the current workload is hefty so we are talking about a very significant volume of work, following upon this volume of work, following upon this On the issue of drafting, and I see the former chair of the constitution Committee Baroness Drake sitting in her place, and under her wise stewardship I became a member of that Committee and just how important drafting legislation is and how we should not be inhibited from those who have a responsibility such as the noble lady when pointing out that we think that there are issues.
This legislation achieves effect by changing them by means when you look at this bill it is quite difficult to get the whole picture. You need to do detective work behind-the-scenes and I think we need to live with that. I realise why that has been adopted as a mode of operation, but I have shared that that is quite extensive because he is aware of the various provisions in the act that provide for subordinate observation, the new section 341 a subsection 8, and the noble Lord can look at this and consider if there is not more information to put on the fate of the bill, and for example, the functions of the commissioner art the functions on justifying it as that.
It specifies what the Armed Forces investigator cannot. It is that, it is that. Surely, we can beam clearer about who they are. Immediate family members in the circle perhaps residing with the Armed Forces Bill would be likely to be included and I do not think it is meant to be a wider family connection, but I would not think it would be beyond drafting skill to be more explicit about that. I think the noble Lord is well placed to set an example and is a model minister in every respect and will not disappoint me and I look forward to hearing his thoughts on if we can make a better fist of trying to make the bill a bit more explicit.
We cannot anticipate the issues of general welfare that may arise that the commissioner will feel obliged the commissioner will feel obliged to investigate. The case of Jaesley Beck and her death reported on by the coroner was troubling. Our thoughts and sympathies are with her family. Since her death in December 2021, I am aware that far-reaching changes have been made in the MoD and the chain of command no longer investigates complaints and instructors have engaged in behaviour and will be immediately dismissed and where criminal activity is taking place it is seen as a serious unit and victim support unit.
The case demonstrated that she did not feel able to complain in the first place through fear of what that might mean for her career. No matter how effective other processes and procedures are, the only weight to address that fundamental fear is to have some type of anonymous whistleblower system. If the Minister is sympathetic to that, that function will sit well in the new Armed Forces Commissioner's office. If we need a statute of law, I don't know. It might be in the executive authority of the Secretary of State for defence to do it now, but I offer a serious suggestion and I welcome the Minister's comments in his windup.
I also look forward to the maiden speech of Baroness Carbery and may I say I look forward to the debate on this bill. These benches wish the bill well and I look forward to the Minister's response. response.
19:05
Lord Stirrup (Crossbench)
-
-
Lord Stirrup (Crossbench)
Let me say at the outset I support the bill and I grateful to the Minister for the consultation already held in the background of legislation and I have a few concerns of what I should welcome in this clarification. With the issue raised, to the extent of which the proposal in the bill will lead to real change for our Armed Forces, let me take accommodation as an example. I would be surprised if the commissioner did not see the need to look into this aspect in service life.
Numerous attitude surveys have found for a number of years how the poor standard of housing for single people has affected morale and retention. Ice seen for myself some of the failures in this area and the desperate measures to which some local commanders have been driven. Having said of much -- as much, we do not need an Armed Forces Commissioner to Telus about them. Despite being all too aware, the problem remains. It is a matter of funding. It has little effect on the ground, but people might begin to wonder what the point was.
If this legislation is to be successful, it is essential that the circle be closed and identification lead to rectification. I note that the Minister shares this, but I wonder how the MoD will give effect to the intentions, and perhaps he can enlighten us. If not today, but when the bill continues its passage through the House. The second point I want to raise is the method by which people will engage with the commission. We had a Service Complaints Ombudsman, but a key driver of the current bill is the ombudsman's criticism of the complaints procedure.
This is part substance and part perception. I do not believe the chain of command is as protectionist as some proclaim. I accept there may be closing of ranks in some place, but commanders are in general anxious to ensure the welfare of their people. There is a sense that those same commanders are sometimes acting as judges and this gives rise to perception of unfairness and it can make subordinate feel complaining will damage career prospects, as the noble lady observed.
This is a much greater degree of dependence, but people need to be convinced the degree of independence is sufficient to protect them from what they might see as the risk. The commissioners independence will be compromised from the outset as they will be appointed, dismissed and reported to the Secretary of State. I do not share that view, but I will be grateful if the Minister could say the thought being given to the way complainants would gain entry to the system.
In the other place, the Minister responding for the government said it would be the commissioner to decide how people access them. That seems rather vague. Surely some consideration is given to an issue that will be essential to the success of a proposed arrangement. My final point is on the potentially vexed issue of the bill giving the commissioner power to new premises, observing activities, inspect, copy documents, inspect equipment, take measurements, photographs and so on. These are wide-ranging powers, and the bill goes on to say exercising on the commission should give notice to the Secretary of State, but only within a period commissioner deems reasonable and not if they consider giving up such notice would speak the purpose of an investigation.
-- Would defeat the purpose. The Secretary of State may restrict the exercise of power in the interest of national security. The Secretary of State will not always have the necessary details, or not in time in any rate, to exercise the veto effectively. Many misses, documents and equipment within the military are highly classified and access to them is very limited even amongst currently serving. It is inconceivable that a commissioner should be able to override such restrictions.
When I was a station commander along time ago, the Secretary of State would not have had a clue which part of my command were sensitive and which were not. What would have happened had a commissioner defended -- descended on me at short notice and demanded access to a certain area, as proposed I would have no power to deny them. I realise this will not be an issue in many cases, the example of accommodation as cited earlier, but there may be thematic issues raised to the commissioner with concerned working environment and security may well become a serious concern.
I understand the need to prevent people using security as a shield against investigation. On the other hand, security is one of the fundamental principles of war and we neglect it at our peril. Some might argue that we could leave this up to the good sense of the commissioner. Well, I do not suggest for one moment the commissioner would lack good sense, but I simply cannot accept that such an issue would be left to chance I agree with Baroness Goldie the bill needs to address this more effectively.
But let me stress that I make these comments with the intent of improving rather than undermining the very welcome bill that has my strong support and I know the Minister will work with me on these issues as the legislation goes forward.
Numerous attitude surveys have found for a number of years how the poor standard of housing for single people has affected morale and retention. Ice seen for myself some of the failures in this area and the desperate measures to which some local commanders have been driven. Having said of much -- as much, we do not need an Armed Forces Commissioner to Telus about them. Despite being all too aware, the problem remains. It is a matter of funding. It has little effect on the ground, but people might begin to wonder what the point was.
If this legislation is to be successful, it is essential that the circle be closed and identification lead to rectification. I note that the Minister shares this, but I wonder how the MoD will give effect to the intentions, and perhaps he can enlighten us. If not today, but when the bill continues its passage through the House. The second point I want to raise is the method by which people will engage with the commission. We had a Service Complaints Ombudsman, but a key driver of the current bill is the ombudsman's criticism of the complaints procedure.
This is part substance and part perception. I do not believe the chain of command is as protectionist as some proclaim. I accept there may be closing of ranks in some place, but commanders are in general anxious to ensure the welfare of their people. There is a sense that those same commanders are sometimes acting as judges and this gives rise to perception of unfairness and it can make subordinate feel complaining will damage career prospects, as the noble lady observed.
This is a much greater degree of dependence, but people need to be convinced the degree of independence is sufficient to protect them from what they might see as the risk. The commissioners independence will be compromised from the outset as they will be appointed, dismissed and reported to the Secretary of State. I do not share that view, but I will be grateful if the Minister could say the thought being given to the way complainants would gain entry to the system.
In the other place, the Minister responding for the government said it would be the commissioner to decide how people access them. That seems rather vague. Surely some consideration is given to an issue that will be essential to the success of a proposed arrangement. My final point is on the potentially vexed issue of the bill giving the commissioner power to new premises, observing activities, inspect, copy documents, inspect equipment, take measurements, photographs and so on. These are wide-ranging powers, and the bill goes on to say exercising on the commission should give notice to the Secretary of State, but only within a period commissioner deems reasonable and not if they consider giving up such notice would speak the purpose of an investigation.
-- Would defeat the purpose. The Secretary of State may restrict the exercise of power in the interest of national security. The Secretary of State will not always have the necessary details, or not in time in any rate, to exercise the veto effectively. Many misses, documents and equipment within the military are highly classified and access to them is very limited even amongst currently serving. It is inconceivable that a commissioner should be able to override such restrictions.
When I was a station commander along time ago, the Secretary of State would not have had a clue which part of my command were sensitive and which were not. What would have happened had a commissioner defended -- descended on me at short notice and demanded access to a certain area, as proposed I would have no power to deny them. I realise this will not be an issue in many cases, the example of accommodation as cited earlier, but there may be thematic issues raised to the commissioner with concerned working environment and security may well become a serious concern.
I understand the need to prevent people using security as a shield against investigation. On the other hand, security is one of the fundamental principles of war and we neglect it at our peril. Some might argue that we could leave this up to the good sense of the commissioner. Well, I do not suggest for one moment the commissioner would lack good sense, but I simply cannot accept that such an issue would be left to chance I agree with Baroness Goldie the bill needs to address this more effectively.
But let me stress that I make these comments with the intent of improving rather than undermining the very welcome bill that has my strong support and I know the Minister will work with me on these issues as the legislation goes forward.
19:12
The Lord Bishop of Norwich (Bishops)
-
-
The Lord Bishop of Norwich (Bishops)
... For his introduction. I saw it as a positive step that the Labour Party pledged in the general election manifesto in 2024 to establish an independent Armed Forces Commissioner to improve service life. I declare an interest as a father of a soldier. My own son is enjoying his army career and gaining much from it, previous speeches in the House and in the other place have cited record lows in morale and a crisis in recruitment and retention. As driving this need for a strong, independent voice to represent the needs of service personnel and their families.
So I see it as a very positive step forward that the bill will enable any personnel or their families to raise a general welfare, service welfare matter with the proposed commissioner wherever in the world the matter may have taken place. Service personnel and their families, as has already been said in your Lordships House, give much to this notion. Much of it is unseen and can impact on extended family members giving unstinting support to loved ones during deployment and at other times personnel and their families never know what is round the corner.
Or what might be expected of them. As we know all too well at present. One restriction of the present system with the independent Service Complaints Ombudsman is that families of personnel are currently unable to submit a complaint. I am pleased to see that the government are in the notes about the bill speaking about the new commissioner being a new, direct and independent contact point for serving personnel and their families, outside the chain of command, to raise issues impacting them.
The new commissioner rightly needs to champion our Armed Forces, but also for the first time to be a champion for the forces families. I am interested to see how the role of the commissioner will be different from the Service Complaints Ombudsman as far as families are concerned, especially where there may well be a culture of not wishing to report all concerns as it might impact negatively on a career, as has already been mentioned by Baroness Goldie and Lord Stirrup.
What will be key is the bill results in a culture change whereby reporting or raising concerns becomes recognised as a positive and constructive step, essential to the continuous improvement of the service and continuous improvement of welfare and well-being of personnel. As the Royal British Legion said, this is required for the new role and remit be fully understood by Armed Forces personnel and their families, and expectations are set at the correct level. I welcome the Minister has spoken about independence and I align with the comments made by Baroness Goldie.
About that independent role, but I would also be hopefully looking in the person specification for this new role for someone who has got good experience, well- qualified in handling dispute and qualified in handling dispute and The Commissioner must be resourced sufficiently to be reactive and responsive and the Commissioner also needs to work with compassion. It is from compassion that things will change on the ground. And that would involve the Commissioner working alongside a number of different others, both within the chain of command, but also welfare groups and chaplains.
And if I can offer a brief comment on the invaluable work of sources chaplains who are embedded with their deployment but also, living alongside them, perhaps with their families on the naval base, the army camp, or the Air Force Station. I had the immense privilege of spending the third anniversary of the terrible invasion of Ukraine with the chaplain of the Irish Guards, alongside Australian and Ukrainian chaplains, a service with a significant number of Ukrainians training in deepest Norfolk.
On a five-week course to go back to Ukraine. It was one of the most poignant and moving services. Ukrainians and their allies together, remembering the immense sacrifices that have already been. This is the bread and butter stuff of forces chaplains. They accompany an officer who has bad news for a family. They listen to a young recruit working out of this career is for them. They quietly let the commanding officer no that the person she has about as he has something going on in their private life.
They console personnel who has just lost a comrade and need to go back out on patrol. They anoint the injured and pray for the dead. The families have someone to turn to when the clay beneath their feet begins to wobble. And on this ash Wednesday, Christian chaplains will be marking the beginning of Lent. I hope the Minister would agree with me that the work of chaplains, of all faiths, is a crucial investment in the well-being of His Majesty is forces and their families.
How though does the Minister expect very -- Expect the opposed commissioner to work with chaplains as part of their brief. And secondly, how does the Minister expect the opposed minister -- Opposed commissioner to work with the families, 2022-32. Finally, as Baroness Goldie said, the bill does not give an exact definition of family members, so I asked the noble Lord, the Minister, quite what he thinks around that area, and for example, with the bereaved siblings of servicemembers but be appropriate to include.
My Lords, overall though I support and thank the noble Lord, the Minister, for bringing forward this bill.
So I see it as a very positive step forward that the bill will enable any personnel or their families to raise a general welfare, service welfare matter with the proposed commissioner wherever in the world the matter may have taken place. Service personnel and their families, as has already been said in your Lordships House, give much to this notion. Much of it is unseen and can impact on extended family members giving unstinting support to loved ones during deployment and at other times personnel and their families never know what is round the corner.
Or what might be expected of them. As we know all too well at present. One restriction of the present system with the independent Service Complaints Ombudsman is that families of personnel are currently unable to submit a complaint. I am pleased to see that the government are in the notes about the bill speaking about the new commissioner being a new, direct and independent contact point for serving personnel and their families, outside the chain of command, to raise issues impacting them.
The new commissioner rightly needs to champion our Armed Forces, but also for the first time to be a champion for the forces families. I am interested to see how the role of the commissioner will be different from the Service Complaints Ombudsman as far as families are concerned, especially where there may well be a culture of not wishing to report all concerns as it might impact negatively on a career, as has already been mentioned by Baroness Goldie and Lord Stirrup.
What will be key is the bill results in a culture change whereby reporting or raising concerns becomes recognised as a positive and constructive step, essential to the continuous improvement of the service and continuous improvement of welfare and well-being of personnel. As the Royal British Legion said, this is required for the new role and remit be fully understood by Armed Forces personnel and their families, and expectations are set at the correct level. I welcome the Minister has spoken about independence and I align with the comments made by Baroness Goldie.
About that independent role, but I would also be hopefully looking in the person specification for this new role for someone who has got good experience, well- qualified in handling dispute and qualified in handling dispute and The Commissioner must be resourced sufficiently to be reactive and responsive and the Commissioner also needs to work with compassion. It is from compassion that things will change on the ground. And that would involve the Commissioner working alongside a number of different others, both within the chain of command, but also welfare groups and chaplains.
And if I can offer a brief comment on the invaluable work of sources chaplains who are embedded with their deployment but also, living alongside them, perhaps with their families on the naval base, the army camp, or the Air Force Station. I had the immense privilege of spending the third anniversary of the terrible invasion of Ukraine with the chaplain of the Irish Guards, alongside Australian and Ukrainian chaplains, a service with a significant number of Ukrainians training in deepest Norfolk.
On a five-week course to go back to Ukraine. It was one of the most poignant and moving services. Ukrainians and their allies together, remembering the immense sacrifices that have already been. This is the bread and butter stuff of forces chaplains. They accompany an officer who has bad news for a family. They listen to a young recruit working out of this career is for them. They quietly let the commanding officer no that the person she has about as he has something going on in their private life.
They console personnel who has just lost a comrade and need to go back out on patrol. They anoint the injured and pray for the dead. The families have someone to turn to when the clay beneath their feet begins to wobble. And on this ash Wednesday, Christian chaplains will be marking the beginning of Lent. I hope the Minister would agree with me that the work of chaplains, of all faiths, is a crucial investment in the well-being of His Majesty is forces and their families.
How though does the Minister expect very -- Expect the opposed commissioner to work with chaplains as part of their brief. And secondly, how does the Minister expect the opposed minister -- Opposed commissioner to work with the families, 2022-32. Finally, as Baroness Goldie said, the bill does not give an exact definition of family members, so I asked the noble Lord, the Minister, quite what he thinks around that area, and for example, with the bereaved siblings of servicemembers but be appropriate to include.
My Lords, overall though I support and thank the noble Lord, the Minister, for bringing forward this bill.
19:19
Baroness Carberry of Muswell Hill (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Carberry of Muswell Hill (Labour)
My Lords. It is the honour of my life to be standing here this evening. And I still cannot believe that I am here. Speaking for the first time in your Lordships house is nerve wracking. But it has been made less so by the warm welcome and advice I have received from noble Lords and Baronesses across the House. I thank you all. I thank your Lordships for all the kindness and patience shown to me. And I'm particularly grateful for the generosity and support I have received from my supporters, my noble friends Baroness Prosser and Lord Monks, and my mentor, the noble Baroness, Lady Drake.
I also congratulate my noble friend, Lord Bach, in his excellent maiden speech last week. -- Lord Barber. And thank you for his friendship and encouragement over many years. On the subject of thanks, I hope the staff know fame goes before them. There helpfulness and sheer niceness are legendary, and my experience of them has exceeded all expectation. I thank all of them. It would be quite wrong to single out any individual. But my four-year-old grandchildren would not forgive me if I didn't mention the nice man with the big golden necklace who gave him a privateer of the roving room, on the day of my introduction.
-- Are private too. I'm very great to be able to speak in this debate this evening. My father was a soldier. In his late teens, he was rescued by the British Army from a future with very limited opportunities in Dublin. You left school at 14, started out as an Army cook and ended up with the offer of the commission. His experience gave him a lifelong love for and gratitude to this country sentiments he passed on to his six children, along with regular reminders to stay true to our roots, or's work hard,, respect the flag, and drink Guinness.
Other drinks are available, but your Lordships I hope that the general idea. My army parents would have warmly welcomed this new Armed Forces Commissioner, and so do I. I was a military child in another era. I lived with the rewards and drawbacks of life in a service family. But it is not so different today. Armed services families deal with unique stresses. Postings, deployments, separations, and disrupted children's educations. I myself went to 10 schools. In some myself went to 10 schools.
In some ways, it is worth now. -- Worse now. At least we didn't have to put up with substantive housing. This bill will give these families a powerful champion that can respond to concerns, investigate systemic problems and make recommendations that will lead to action. I spent my working life in the trade union movement. I saw the unsung operation between union officers and employers. To make workplaces fairer and more productive. This unglamorous work improves working conditions, heads of problems, solves problems as they arise, and gives union members independent representation.
These advantages are not open to Armed Forces personnel. And that is why I am so keen to see serving men and women having any independent authority with real power, who can look after their interests and speak up to them -- Speak up for them. My noble friend the Minister talked about the crisis in recruitment and intention. It is indeed alarming that only four in 10 regular personnel are satisfied with their service life. In most years over the last quarter century, more people left and joined the regular forces.
-- Van join. As my noble friend, the Minister, has reminded us, the main reason people leave the forces is the impact on family and personal life. The commissioners work can help make service life more attractive. But the commission's alone cannot carry the full weight . For example, I would suggest we don't need any more reports and inquiries to tell us that service women are not getting the basic protections they deserve. To put it mildly., noble friend, the Minister's remarks about this in his introduction and the comments on the same subject from the noble lady, Baroness Goldie.
Milos, our forces are under capacity. -- My Lords. The country is vulnerable and we cannot stay confident about our ability to respond to threats. Modernisation and technology can mitigate reduced personnel numbers. But not entirely. These are matters for the strategic defence review, and the government's border defence strategy. My Lords, 77 years ago, the great trade union leader, wartime minister and post- war Foreign Secretary, Ernest Bevan, said this in the other place. We must build up our own strength and our own Armed Forces, so that we can play our full part in the defence of democracy.
Who would argue with that today? He was speaking during the early Cold War, when Western allies were establishing the architecture of international law, and the world order that today looks increasingly fragile. I commend our government's response to rapidly increasing response to rapidly increasing global uncertainty. The Armed Forces Commissioner is one part of that Any debate about Armed Forces, readily defer to the expertise and experiences of noble Lords and Baronesses and of noble and gallant Lords across this House who have served in the forces.
I take this opportunity to pay tribute to them and thank them for their service to our country. It has been a privilege to speak in this debate. And I look forward to many more opportunities to work with noble Lords and Baronesses from all benches on many matters and to contribute widely to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the work of your Lordships house. My noble Lords, it is such a great honour and privilege to follow great honour and privilege to follow my noble friend, and to be the first person in this chamber to compliment her on this excellent maiden speech, which displayed much knowledge, based as we know, a St Andrews based as we know, a St Andrews Healthcare experience. And as she herself has told the House, she had a long career in the trade union a long career in the trade union movement.
She first became a teacher, was active in the NUT, and a joint department in 1978, 10 years later was appointed as the first head of his equal rights department. It doesn't three, she was appointed in the TUC and stayed there until she formally retired a year ago lips ISUOG 10 years ago. In a time as assistant general secretary, she served under my noble friend, who was sat in his place. And my noble friend, Baroness O'Grady, she served friend, Baroness O'Grady, she served in a -- In the TUC at the same time as my noble friend.
She was too modest in her speech. To tell the House about a range of other appointments that she has held. You have been a commissioner on equality and equal opportunities commission, in the low pay commission, member of Transport for London, trustee of the People's history Museum, director of trade union fund managers, and number of the takeover panel and honorary fellow of Saint Hugh's College Oxford. They do want to say this, the baroness has long been a model for an advocate of positive model for an advocate of positive trade unionism which adds value to the country, she has, over the years, earned the respect, both across the trade union movement, and with the employers, and with ministers of whatever kind, Labour and Conservative.
I think she is a great believer in partnership in time she was she will bring those values to bear to the business of this House for many years to come. Now, I rise to support the bill. But I do so with some trepidation. Because I'm conscious of the fact that many people taking part in tonight's debate have had, in some
I also congratulate my noble friend, Lord Bach, in his excellent maiden speech last week. -- Lord Barber. And thank you for his friendship and encouragement over many years. On the subject of thanks, I hope the staff know fame goes before them. There helpfulness and sheer niceness are legendary, and my experience of them has exceeded all expectation. I thank all of them. It would be quite wrong to single out any individual. But my four-year-old grandchildren would not forgive me if I didn't mention the nice man with the big golden necklace who gave him a privateer of the roving room, on the day of my introduction.
-- Are private too. I'm very great to be able to speak in this debate this evening. My father was a soldier. In his late teens, he was rescued by the British Army from a future with very limited opportunities in Dublin. You left school at 14, started out as an Army cook and ended up with the offer of the commission. His experience gave him a lifelong love for and gratitude to this country sentiments he passed on to his six children, along with regular reminders to stay true to our roots, or's work hard,, respect the flag, and drink Guinness.
Other drinks are available, but your Lordships I hope that the general idea. My army parents would have warmly welcomed this new Armed Forces Commissioner, and so do I. I was a military child in another era. I lived with the rewards and drawbacks of life in a service family. But it is not so different today. Armed services families deal with unique stresses. Postings, deployments, separations, and disrupted children's educations. I myself went to 10 schools. In some myself went to 10 schools.
In some ways, it is worth now. -- Worse now. At least we didn't have to put up with substantive housing. This bill will give these families a powerful champion that can respond to concerns, investigate systemic problems and make recommendations that will lead to action. I spent my working life in the trade union movement. I saw the unsung operation between union officers and employers. To make workplaces fairer and more productive. This unglamorous work improves working conditions, heads of problems, solves problems as they arise, and gives union members independent representation.
These advantages are not open to Armed Forces personnel. And that is why I am so keen to see serving men and women having any independent authority with real power, who can look after their interests and speak up to them -- Speak up for them. My noble friend the Minister talked about the crisis in recruitment and intention. It is indeed alarming that only four in 10 regular personnel are satisfied with their service life. In most years over the last quarter century, more people left and joined the regular forces.
-- Van join. As my noble friend, the Minister, has reminded us, the main reason people leave the forces is the impact on family and personal life. The commissioners work can help make service life more attractive. But the commission's alone cannot carry the full weight . For example, I would suggest we don't need any more reports and inquiries to tell us that service women are not getting the basic protections they deserve. To put it mildly., noble friend, the Minister's remarks about this in his introduction and the comments on the same subject from the noble lady, Baroness Goldie.
Milos, our forces are under capacity. -- My Lords. The country is vulnerable and we cannot stay confident about our ability to respond to threats. Modernisation and technology can mitigate reduced personnel numbers. But not entirely. These are matters for the strategic defence review, and the government's border defence strategy. My Lords, 77 years ago, the great trade union leader, wartime minister and post- war Foreign Secretary, Ernest Bevan, said this in the other place. We must build up our own strength and our own Armed Forces, so that we can play our full part in the defence of democracy.
Who would argue with that today? He was speaking during the early Cold War, when Western allies were establishing the architecture of international law, and the world order that today looks increasingly fragile. I commend our government's response to rapidly increasing response to rapidly increasing global uncertainty. The Armed Forces Commissioner is one part of that Any debate about Armed Forces, readily defer to the expertise and experiences of noble Lords and Baronesses and of noble and gallant Lords across this House who have served in the forces.
I take this opportunity to pay tribute to them and thank them for their service to our country. It has been a privilege to speak in this debate. And I look forward to many more opportunities to work with noble Lords and Baronesses from all benches on many matters and to contribute widely to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the work of your Lordships house. My noble Lords, it is such a great honour and privilege to follow great honour and privilege to follow my noble friend, and to be the first person in this chamber to compliment her on this excellent maiden speech, which displayed much knowledge, based as we know, a St Andrews based as we know, a St Andrews Healthcare experience. And as she herself has told the House, she had a long career in the trade union a long career in the trade union movement.
She first became a teacher, was active in the NUT, and a joint department in 1978, 10 years later was appointed as the first head of his equal rights department. It doesn't three, she was appointed in the TUC and stayed there until she formally retired a year ago lips ISUOG 10 years ago. In a time as assistant general secretary, she served under my noble friend, who was sat in his place. And my noble friend, Baroness O'Grady, she served friend, Baroness O'Grady, she served in a -- In the TUC at the same time as my noble friend.
She was too modest in her speech. To tell the House about a range of other appointments that she has held. You have been a commissioner on equality and equal opportunities commission, in the low pay commission, member of Transport for London, trustee of the People's history Museum, director of trade union fund managers, and number of the takeover panel and honorary fellow of Saint Hugh's College Oxford. They do want to say this, the baroness has long been a model for an advocate of positive model for an advocate of positive trade unionism which adds value to the country, she has, over the years, earned the respect, both across the trade union movement, and with the employers, and with ministers of whatever kind, Labour and Conservative.
I think she is a great believer in partnership in time she was she will bring those values to bear to the business of this House for many years to come. Now, I rise to support the bill. But I do so with some trepidation. Because I'm conscious of the fact that many people taking part in tonight's debate have had, in some
19:29
Viscount Stansgate (Labour)
-
-
Viscount Stansgate (Labour)
cases, enormous experience of the armed forces. Including those who served in office. I myself have had served in office. I myself have had none. My dad was an RAF pilot who got his wings just before the war ended. His brother, my Uncle Michael was a fighter pilot who was killed just after D-Day. His father, my grandfather, the original Viscount Stansgate, served in the Second World War as an air Commodore and World War as an air Commodore and saw active service in his 60s, and before that, he served in the First World War, before the RAF was even World War, before the RAF was even founded, flying missions and various theatres.
But by comparison, my Lords, I come to this subject completely afresh, although I hope to make a brief and worthwhile contribution. But before I come onto the bill, I must declare an interest. My noble friend, the minister, introduced in his own speech, declared an interest. I would not have been able to declare even one week ago. And my notes, I hope the House will understand when I say how happy I am that the interest I have to declare is that on Saturday, four days ago, my daughter Emilie announced her engagement to group Captain James Doyle who was a serving officer in the Royal Air Force.
So, as the House will understand, I suddenly find myself with a real interest in this bill. And I see it in a new light. Now, my noble friend has set out the nature of the bill in some of the reasons for it. And all members will have been aware of the years of incidents and situations that have occurred in the armed forces that have given rise to grave concern, and have needed to be investigated. I think the proposed commission of the Armed Forces and their families is important because it will provide an independent and impartial advocate to address concerns for their well-being, to ensure accountability and improve the overall well-being of servicemembers and their loved ones and I have compiled a list of several reasons why I think the role is crucial.
First, it will help protect rights and well-being. Servicemembers and families, may face challenges relating to pay, housing, mentioned by the noble and gallant Lord already. Healthcare, mental health support, unfair treatment. Secondly, I hope it will provide confidential and impartial support. It is possible many military personnel fear retaliation for speaking up. The new direct ways of contacting the Commissioner will I hope provide a safe and confidential way to report grievances without fear of consequences. Third, ensuring fair treatment because the Commissioner will now have a statutory authority under this bill to investigate cases of discrimination, harassment, or Families of service members as we have heard face unique challenges Frequent relocation and deployment.
Holding the leadership accountable, the commissioner will help ensure that military institutions hold up high standards of ethics, fairness and accountability. I think this is a key component of the bill, it is surely the case that when servicemembers have access to and confidence in a fair resolution, it reduces stress, increases morale and leads to a committed force and more likely to ensure we retain service personnel and we have invested so much in training. I think it will enhance public trust and I hope it will reassure the military community and the general public that concerns are taken seriously and addressed properly.
I had not fully realised the extent to which the morale of the Armed Forces declined and remained low. I'm grateful to the briefing that members would have seen and draws explicit attention to the fact that concerns have been raised about various aspects of service life, morale, pain, living conditions and cultural and behavioural issues. This is a manifesto on the bill and it is good to see it has a degree of cross- party support and passed through the other place in bipartisan spirit and I hope the case will be true today.
It is not always the case in manifesto bills like two days ago. There are a number of questions to be addressed but I'm sure my noble friend will say that some of these can be left to secondary legislation and I hope he can shed some light on some of them. I understand the commissioner will not be a serving member of the Armed Forces which is sensible, but would it help as they had military experience? Would they have available in Advisory Board of military experience and the younger generation might be more in tune with the purpose and spirit of the bill.
I've heard it said the military covenant is not worth the paper it is printed on without the resources to make it reality. Could they reassure the House that the allocated resources to increase the commissioner's budget in the light of proven need. What exactly will the definition of families be? Apart from those who are married or if I may say so engaged, to serve Armed Forces personnel, would that include those in civil partnership? Will it include those who are unmarried or informal relationships, the next- of-kin would include parents.
How would they be made aware of the issues to where they live in the world. Will families contact the commissioner on behalf of a serving member of the Armed Forces but also themselves. It appears to be the biggest development that they will bring about and will be commissioner consider complaints referred to by the superseded Ombudsman system, but the Minister indicated that that is probably the case. When I think about the bill and the ideas and good intentions, the more I think the key question of if it will work.
And whether the moral compass will benefit by this change. Will they be able to convey the necessary authority to do the job and how is Parliament going to know and ensure that progress is made. With recruitment and retention rates to be improved, this might be a sign of success. Will the new system be embedded in the training of recruits that is hardwired into the system because it is also about building new levels of trust. My time is nearly up and I will have to end by going to the end and saying I am not the only member that is aware of the fact our Armed Forces now and this bill has been brought in when they face challenges that have been faced for some time and they will be deployed in areas and in ways we have not seen for decades and I heard the phrase put in harm's way a quaint euphemism, but it is true there is a lot of harm out there now and I very much hope that this bill if it achieves anything can also develop our Armed Forces as the effective military force the country requires and we can play a part in improving morale and making the Armed Forces fit for the dangerous
**** Possible New Speaker ****
future that lies ahead. It is a pleasure to follow the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord stand skate and I have my noble Lord stand skate and I have my congratulations to Emily and James and I look forward to the engagement party next month. It will be fun. -- party next month. It will be fun. -- Stand skate. I also congratulate the Stand skate. I also congratulate the noble Lady on her maiden speech and I was given the same advice when I joined the army about drinking joined the army about drinking Guinness, and other drinks are available and we will hear from Lord
But by comparison, my Lords, I come to this subject completely afresh, although I hope to make a brief and worthwhile contribution. But before I come onto the bill, I must declare an interest. My noble friend, the minister, introduced in his own speech, declared an interest. I would not have been able to declare even one week ago. And my notes, I hope the House will understand when I say how happy I am that the interest I have to declare is that on Saturday, four days ago, my daughter Emilie announced her engagement to group Captain James Doyle who was a serving officer in the Royal Air Force.
So, as the House will understand, I suddenly find myself with a real interest in this bill. And I see it in a new light. Now, my noble friend has set out the nature of the bill in some of the reasons for it. And all members will have been aware of the years of incidents and situations that have occurred in the armed forces that have given rise to grave concern, and have needed to be investigated. I think the proposed commission of the Armed Forces and their families is important because it will provide an independent and impartial advocate to address concerns for their well-being, to ensure accountability and improve the overall well-being of servicemembers and their loved ones and I have compiled a list of several reasons why I think the role is crucial.
First, it will help protect rights and well-being. Servicemembers and families, may face challenges relating to pay, housing, mentioned by the noble and gallant Lord already. Healthcare, mental health support, unfair treatment. Secondly, I hope it will provide confidential and impartial support. It is possible many military personnel fear retaliation for speaking up. The new direct ways of contacting the Commissioner will I hope provide a safe and confidential way to report grievances without fear of consequences. Third, ensuring fair treatment because the Commissioner will now have a statutory authority under this bill to investigate cases of discrimination, harassment, or Families of service members as we have heard face unique challenges Frequent relocation and deployment.
Holding the leadership accountable, the commissioner will help ensure that military institutions hold up high standards of ethics, fairness and accountability. I think this is a key component of the bill, it is surely the case that when servicemembers have access to and confidence in a fair resolution, it reduces stress, increases morale and leads to a committed force and more likely to ensure we retain service personnel and we have invested so much in training. I think it will enhance public trust and I hope it will reassure the military community and the general public that concerns are taken seriously and addressed properly.
I had not fully realised the extent to which the morale of the Armed Forces declined and remained low. I'm grateful to the briefing that members would have seen and draws explicit attention to the fact that concerns have been raised about various aspects of service life, morale, pain, living conditions and cultural and behavioural issues. This is a manifesto on the bill and it is good to see it has a degree of cross- party support and passed through the other place in bipartisan spirit and I hope the case will be true today.
It is not always the case in manifesto bills like two days ago. There are a number of questions to be addressed but I'm sure my noble friend will say that some of these can be left to secondary legislation and I hope he can shed some light on some of them. I understand the commissioner will not be a serving member of the Armed Forces which is sensible, but would it help as they had military experience? Would they have available in Advisory Board of military experience and the younger generation might be more in tune with the purpose and spirit of the bill.
I've heard it said the military covenant is not worth the paper it is printed on without the resources to make it reality. Could they reassure the House that the allocated resources to increase the commissioner's budget in the light of proven need. What exactly will the definition of families be? Apart from those who are married or if I may say so engaged, to serve Armed Forces personnel, would that include those in civil partnership? Will it include those who are unmarried or informal relationships, the next- of-kin would include parents.
How would they be made aware of the issues to where they live in the world. Will families contact the commissioner on behalf of a serving member of the Armed Forces but also themselves. It appears to be the biggest development that they will bring about and will be commissioner consider complaints referred to by the superseded Ombudsman system, but the Minister indicated that that is probably the case. When I think about the bill and the ideas and good intentions, the more I think the key question of if it will work.
And whether the moral compass will benefit by this change. Will they be able to convey the necessary authority to do the job and how is Parliament going to know and ensure that progress is made. With recruitment and retention rates to be improved, this might be a sign of success. Will the new system be embedded in the training of recruits that is hardwired into the system because it is also about building new levels of trust. My time is nearly up and I will have to end by going to the end and saying I am not the only member that is aware of the fact our Armed Forces now and this bill has been brought in when they face challenges that have been faced for some time and they will be deployed in areas and in ways we have not seen for decades and I heard the phrase put in harm's way a quaint euphemism, but it is true there is a lot of harm out there now and I very much hope that this bill if it achieves anything can also develop our Armed Forces as the effective military force the country requires and we can play a part in improving morale and making the Armed Forces fit for the dangerous
**** Possible New Speaker ****
future that lies ahead. It is a pleasure to follow the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord stand skate and I have my noble Lord stand skate and I have my congratulations to Emily and James and I look forward to the engagement party next month. It will be fun. -- party next month. It will be fun. -- Stand skate. I also congratulate the Stand skate. I also congratulate the noble Lady on her maiden speech and I was given the same advice when I joined the army about drinking joined the army about drinking Guinness, and other drinks are available and we will hear from Lord
19:37
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Conservative)
Beamish in. I start by declaring my Beamish in. I start by declaring my interest as a humble reservist. The institution that is the army institution that is the army reserves and the proud reservist for 37 years. My early career was under 37 years. My early career was under the then group captain filling holes the then group captain filling holes in runways. I remember him and he won't remember me. I would like to won't remember me. I would like to make three brief points which I will expand on.
Whilst the service complaints system has had a troubled birth, it has evolved into a pretty good system and shifted into the new bill and I hope with some tinkering can be resisted and moving backwards. Let's be careful on that. I welcome the aspects of the family. I am a firm believer that we recruit the soldier and retain the family and I really welcome that. I'm slightly concerned we raise expectations as to what the commissioner will be able to deliver and I don't want to overpromise and under liver because at the end of the day it is about money and I fear we may not lead people down the garden path, but if we don't have the money to correct the problem, and this is a technical amendment when it comes to the government of Gibraltar.
We have made that mistake in the past and I will expand on that in time. What has not been fully described is whilst the ombudsman has an important role in the service complaints system, the majority of the work is done by the single services themselves. An awful lot of work goes on, hundreds of complaints each year, and it takes an awful lot of staff time. I will speak about the army because it is the service I know and they have recruited 22 extra posts to deal with the work and few of them get to the ombudsman.
Over previous years and I work closely with Nicola Williams when I was the veterans Minister, we made progress, but we effectively go through three tests efficient, effective, and fair. The army has done a lot of work and it is efficient and the target of 90% of service complaints being dealt with within 24 weeks. For years, we were stagnating around 44, but when the next results come out, we will be up to 70%. Progress is being made.
I emphasise how much work this takes to deliver. Is it effective on how you judge effective while 45% of career management complaints have been upheld and 40% of bullying, harassment and disco nation complaints have been upheld and 54% of pay and pension complaints have been upheld. They are being upheld and it looks like the system is getting more effective. I will highlight the case of an army reservists who won an employment tribunal over differential pay compared to his regular counterparts and not being able to access a pension until 2015 when the rules changed in 2005.
My concern is not the case itself because the MoD is looking to repeal it, but 200 reservists felt obliged to make a complaint on the back of that because they were concerned if they would not they would be timed out and that goes to port communication to the Ministry of Defence about what is required and what is not. Finally, is the process fair? Appeals are down which implies there seems to be greater fairness, but we still have concerns over bullying, harassment and discrimination and data suggests a higher propensity of complaints come from minority groups and women.
Following the report in 2019, 36 recommendations and as the Minister highlighted the tragic case of Gunner Beck in 2021 and clearly more work needs to be done. One of the concerns is the AC/DC report on women in the forces says there is a lack of trust in the process. 89% of women did not feel they could make a service complaint because it would not be taken seriously. I'm pleased progress has been made and now within the chain of command and often people did not want to complain to the commanding officer.
They go to the army service complaints secretary. 80%. That is a much better process where people are not feeling constrained, but as ever, there is an unintended consequence. That is that speed of resolution is now not as easy as it was and in some cases that is exactly what people want. That is because we have the complaints And better publicity. The fact that complaints are going up is not because the situation is worse, but people understand the system and probably that that is a good thing.
I wanted to talk about accommodation. We know accommodation is poor and we prioritise service accommodation over trading estate or the Army Reserve, but I do worry we are going to have lots of complaints about accommodation that we already know about, but unless we are prepared to commit the money to sort it out, we are raising rotation. This bill is due to come in in 2026, the increase in defence spending is due to come in 2027.
I wonder if we should delay a year to make sure we can meet expectations.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I would like to congratulate Baroness Carbery in her maiden speech and I look forward to being speech and I look forward to being involved in this topic when it goes
Whilst the service complaints system has had a troubled birth, it has evolved into a pretty good system and shifted into the new bill and I hope with some tinkering can be resisted and moving backwards. Let's be careful on that. I welcome the aspects of the family. I am a firm believer that we recruit the soldier and retain the family and I really welcome that. I'm slightly concerned we raise expectations as to what the commissioner will be able to deliver and I don't want to overpromise and under liver because at the end of the day it is about money and I fear we may not lead people down the garden path, but if we don't have the money to correct the problem, and this is a technical amendment when it comes to the government of Gibraltar.
We have made that mistake in the past and I will expand on that in time. What has not been fully described is whilst the ombudsman has an important role in the service complaints system, the majority of the work is done by the single services themselves. An awful lot of work goes on, hundreds of complaints each year, and it takes an awful lot of staff time. I will speak about the army because it is the service I know and they have recruited 22 extra posts to deal with the work and few of them get to the ombudsman.
Over previous years and I work closely with Nicola Williams when I was the veterans Minister, we made progress, but we effectively go through three tests efficient, effective, and fair. The army has done a lot of work and it is efficient and the target of 90% of service complaints being dealt with within 24 weeks. For years, we were stagnating around 44, but when the next results come out, we will be up to 70%. Progress is being made.
I emphasise how much work this takes to deliver. Is it effective on how you judge effective while 45% of career management complaints have been upheld and 40% of bullying, harassment and disco nation complaints have been upheld and 54% of pay and pension complaints have been upheld. They are being upheld and it looks like the system is getting more effective. I will highlight the case of an army reservists who won an employment tribunal over differential pay compared to his regular counterparts and not being able to access a pension until 2015 when the rules changed in 2005.
My concern is not the case itself because the MoD is looking to repeal it, but 200 reservists felt obliged to make a complaint on the back of that because they were concerned if they would not they would be timed out and that goes to port communication to the Ministry of Defence about what is required and what is not. Finally, is the process fair? Appeals are down which implies there seems to be greater fairness, but we still have concerns over bullying, harassment and discrimination and data suggests a higher propensity of complaints come from minority groups and women.
Following the report in 2019, 36 recommendations and as the Minister highlighted the tragic case of Gunner Beck in 2021 and clearly more work needs to be done. One of the concerns is the AC/DC report on women in the forces says there is a lack of trust in the process. 89% of women did not feel they could make a service complaint because it would not be taken seriously. I'm pleased progress has been made and now within the chain of command and often people did not want to complain to the commanding officer.
They go to the army service complaints secretary. 80%. That is a much better process where people are not feeling constrained, but as ever, there is an unintended consequence. That is that speed of resolution is now not as easy as it was and in some cases that is exactly what people want. That is because we have the complaints And better publicity. The fact that complaints are going up is not because the situation is worse, but people understand the system and probably that that is a good thing.
I wanted to talk about accommodation. We know accommodation is poor and we prioritise service accommodation over trading estate or the Army Reserve, but I do worry we are going to have lots of complaints about accommodation that we already know about, but unless we are prepared to commit the money to sort it out, we are raising rotation. This bill is due to come in in 2026, the increase in defence spending is due to come in 2027.
I wonder if we should delay a year to make sure we can meet expectations.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I would like to congratulate Baroness Carbery in her maiden speech and I look forward to being speech and I look forward to being involved in this topic when it goes
19:44
Baroness Hoey (Non-affiliated)
-
-
Baroness Hoey (Non-affiliated)
involved in this topic when it goes to Committee. I welcome the fact that the Minister gave a clear outline of the details of it and I genuinely think we couldn't have a better minister to take this through the House today. What I like about it is crucially it is on a statutory basis and that was absolutely key to making it clear to servicemen and women that they will have someone there that has real authority to initiate investigations into general service welfare matters.
It will be crucial to raise morale. As we have said, the government admitted it is about the demoralised Armed Forces. The right person in that job could really make a difference. I hope the right person will be appointed to that job. I appreciate it went through unamended, with cross-party support, and it will hear, but there might not be some amendments we might want to look at, but they will be in the context of making the bill better and stronger.
It is particularly important to be debating this given the pledge the Prime Minister made to send troops to Ukraine in the event of a ceasefire and agreement as a peacekeeping force. Many in the military followed in the footsteps of fathers and grandfathers, others do, but my concern is the younger generation will not be willing to join up when they see how their older relatives and retired military have been treated. That is why the link with Veterans Commissioners is That is why it is crucial that the job of veterans Commissioner is put on a statutory basis.
In Northern Ireland, we have lost veterans Commissioner fairly recently because he found the lack of independence in his role not just frustrating, but actually prevent health and support given to veterans. He spent far more given to veterans. He spent far more time than that on the job. But the way it is set up, it is not on a statutory footing and a Commissioner does not have the independence to do the job without constant interference, I have to say, from the Northern Ireland.
The staff report to the Northern Ireland, not to the Commissioner, which puts the staff in a difficult situation, wanting to cooperate with the Commissioner, wanting to help, to do something for veterans, as The Northern Ireland Office for other reasons wanting to stop it. So the restrictions proposed by the N I/O have made it into a figurehead. I know this particular minister, the noble Lord will understand Northern Ireland very well, and he knows there are a very large number of veterans living there.
And of course, despite the Belfast Agreemen, the changes that have come about, many of them still live in fear. And we also should remember, the noble Lord mentioned, the various soldiers that have been killed at different times. Around 1441 British military personnel died during the deployment in Northern Ireland. One year alone in 1972, 130 British soldiers died and we must never forget their sacrifice to keep people safe in Northern Ireland. The previous government abolished the veteran support office which helps coordinate all the veteran support services in Northern Ireland.
So, I'm afraid a lot of veterans in Northern Ireland do not trust the MoD, and have experienced decades of neglect and inertia in the provision of health. So, the independent body is essential. As the veterans welfare service and offers a veteran affairs are run by the MoD and are not independent. Then we have section 75 of the Belfast Agreemen which means no one can be picked out above or before anyone else, meaning Northern Ireland veterans can't be identified under and then effectively discriminated against their former colleagues living in GB, so there has to be a way found of working around section 5 so that veterans can be identified, understood and supported properly.
And I could talk quite a lot, but I will not, about the delays and In Northern Ireland. Which affect veterans even more, in acute need of physical and mental health support. And some of them have had to wait up to eight years. And this is factually correct. Eight years for operations of critical care. And I just do not think that across GB, their colleagues as veterans have to wait so long. An inability to understand the difficulties arising with veterans in Northern Ireland.
Not having suitable care means we really have to look at this, and unless we have veterans Commissioner that is able to stand up and really have the power and authority, then we will never change that. I do genuinely believe the Minister alone, going slightly wider from the details of this bill, in the second reading we can go wider. And I do believe this is something that must be looked into. And then, of course, we have, because the government are going to repeal the Northern Ireland Troubles and act, we are moving back into a phase we will see many many more veterans, instances from 30, 40, 50 years ago, dragged through our courts.
We saw the decision recently, 33 years later, some soldiers are likely, if the judge got what he wanted, to be prosecuted for something they did, under huge pressure. And actually doing what I think they were absolutely right to do which was shoot for people who had been out deliberately trying to kill civilians and police officers. But those are the kinds of issues of why veterans are incensed about the recent legal judgement and there also incensed about, I have to say it again, the possible compensation payments to Gerry Adams and I hope the Minister would do his bit from the MoD side to ensure that will never happen.
So, my message really is do not forget, if we are going to look at how we are treating our military service today and all these things in the bill are good. If we don't remember the service and the dedication of those veterans who in many cases are seemingly being abandoned, then we are not going to get new young people to feel that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
going into the on surfaces is worthwhile. -- Armed services. My Lords, there can be no doubt
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, there can be no doubt this is a necessary measure for the services complaints ombudsman who has limited powers has called for an effective and independent process, effective and independent process, as have others. My Lords, the level of morale goes to the heart of the success of all the activities of the success of all the activities of the Armed Forces. There has tended to be a traditional family is joining up. My uncles, my brother, two of my nephews recently served in the army.
There has also been a traditional friends encouraging one another to friends encouraging one another to brace a career in the services. But I think that becomes, to some degree, dependent on the overall
It will be crucial to raise morale. As we have said, the government admitted it is about the demoralised Armed Forces. The right person in that job could really make a difference. I hope the right person will be appointed to that job. I appreciate it went through unamended, with cross-party support, and it will hear, but there might not be some amendments we might want to look at, but they will be in the context of making the bill better and stronger.
It is particularly important to be debating this given the pledge the Prime Minister made to send troops to Ukraine in the event of a ceasefire and agreement as a peacekeeping force. Many in the military followed in the footsteps of fathers and grandfathers, others do, but my concern is the younger generation will not be willing to join up when they see how their older relatives and retired military have been treated. That is why the link with Veterans Commissioners is That is why it is crucial that the job of veterans Commissioner is put on a statutory basis.
In Northern Ireland, we have lost veterans Commissioner fairly recently because he found the lack of independence in his role not just frustrating, but actually prevent health and support given to veterans. He spent far more given to veterans. He spent far more time than that on the job. But the way it is set up, it is not on a statutory footing and a Commissioner does not have the independence to do the job without constant interference, I have to say, from the Northern Ireland.
The staff report to the Northern Ireland, not to the Commissioner, which puts the staff in a difficult situation, wanting to cooperate with the Commissioner, wanting to help, to do something for veterans, as The Northern Ireland Office for other reasons wanting to stop it. So the restrictions proposed by the N I/O have made it into a figurehead. I know this particular minister, the noble Lord will understand Northern Ireland very well, and he knows there are a very large number of veterans living there.
And of course, despite the Belfast Agreemen, the changes that have come about, many of them still live in fear. And we also should remember, the noble Lord mentioned, the various soldiers that have been killed at different times. Around 1441 British military personnel died during the deployment in Northern Ireland. One year alone in 1972, 130 British soldiers died and we must never forget their sacrifice to keep people safe in Northern Ireland. The previous government abolished the veteran support office which helps coordinate all the veteran support services in Northern Ireland.
So, I'm afraid a lot of veterans in Northern Ireland do not trust the MoD, and have experienced decades of neglect and inertia in the provision of health. So, the independent body is essential. As the veterans welfare service and offers a veteran affairs are run by the MoD and are not independent. Then we have section 75 of the Belfast Agreemen which means no one can be picked out above or before anyone else, meaning Northern Ireland veterans can't be identified under and then effectively discriminated against their former colleagues living in GB, so there has to be a way found of working around section 5 so that veterans can be identified, understood and supported properly.
And I could talk quite a lot, but I will not, about the delays and In Northern Ireland. Which affect veterans even more, in acute need of physical and mental health support. And some of them have had to wait up to eight years. And this is factually correct. Eight years for operations of critical care. And I just do not think that across GB, their colleagues as veterans have to wait so long. An inability to understand the difficulties arising with veterans in Northern Ireland.
Not having suitable care means we really have to look at this, and unless we have veterans Commissioner that is able to stand up and really have the power and authority, then we will never change that. I do genuinely believe the Minister alone, going slightly wider from the details of this bill, in the second reading we can go wider. And I do believe this is something that must be looked into. And then, of course, we have, because the government are going to repeal the Northern Ireland Troubles and act, we are moving back into a phase we will see many many more veterans, instances from 30, 40, 50 years ago, dragged through our courts.
We saw the decision recently, 33 years later, some soldiers are likely, if the judge got what he wanted, to be prosecuted for something they did, under huge pressure. And actually doing what I think they were absolutely right to do which was shoot for people who had been out deliberately trying to kill civilians and police officers. But those are the kinds of issues of why veterans are incensed about the recent legal judgement and there also incensed about, I have to say it again, the possible compensation payments to Gerry Adams and I hope the Minister would do his bit from the MoD side to ensure that will never happen.
So, my message really is do not forget, if we are going to look at how we are treating our military service today and all these things in the bill are good. If we don't remember the service and the dedication of those veterans who in many cases are seemingly being abandoned, then we are not going to get new young people to feel that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
going into the on surfaces is worthwhile. -- Armed services. My Lords, there can be no doubt
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, there can be no doubt this is a necessary measure for the services complaints ombudsman who has limited powers has called for an effective and independent process, effective and independent process, as have others. My Lords, the level of morale goes to the heart of the success of all the activities of the success of all the activities of the Armed Forces. There has tended to be a traditional family is joining up. My uncles, my brother, two of my nephews recently served in the army.
There has also been a traditional friends encouraging one another to friends encouraging one another to brace a career in the services. But I think that becomes, to some degree, dependent on the overall
19:52
Baroness O'Loan (Crossbench)
-
-
Baroness O'Loan (Crossbench)
quality of the experience in the Armed Forces by those serving today. The noble Baroness, in her excellent The noble Baroness, in her excellent maiden speech, focused on the morale levels, low morale levels, among levels, low morale levels, among those serving today. And we do know those serving today. And we do know that the morale has now decreased for the third year in a row, no morale is reported as running at morale is reported as running at 58%, up from 42% in 2001.
As far as general welfare goes, and we thank the library for their help in this matter, we know that housing maintenance, catering et cetera has levels of satisfaction of lower than 30%. My Lords, that would not be accepted in the private sector, and it should not be accepted for those who serve in our Armed Forces. And regrettably, we have to place those statistics within the wider context of satisfaction with processes of dealing with conduct complaints, the appalling reality of some of the reports of criminality, particularly physical and sexual abuse.
Traumatised, ruined lives, reporting of bullying of all kinds, are all part of this picture forced the government has observed there is a clear correlation between these matters and recruiting and maintaining personnel. Promoting the welfare of persons, subject to law and improving the public understanding of these matters, could result in an enhanced experience for serving personnel today. Thematic examination of matters such as the incidents of violence and harassment. The circumstances which enable such behaviour. The adequacy of the protections which are currently provided.
The nature of equipment provided to officers, the suitability of housing can be very helpful. As police ombudsman, we agreed to a process by which if an officer received three complaints, this was treated as a management issue, in addition to dealing with the complaints. Such management intervention can result in the identification of groups of officers who serving single do not get into trouble, but in serving in this particular group, fell into behaviour which is totally unacceptable. It can also identify health issues, such as post- traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, depression, alcohol and substance abuse, which can result in behaviour that would not normally occur.
One thematic report on the use of force by the police in Northern Ireland resulted in a dramatic decrease in the incidents -- In the incidents of force used. The factors were unavailable equipment and lack of management, the results when the act -- Recommendations were permitted, and increasing the number of incidents of the use of force can increase in the number of complaints made by police of assault, campaigns made by officers on duty, and a decrease in the level of sickness by officers.
Thematic research can undoubtedly be very valuable in identifying issues which materially affect welfare. My Lords, I endorse the words of the noble Baroness, Baroness Goldie, noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stone, in relation to the requirement in clause 4.3 to notify the Secretary of State in advance of any occasion on which the Commissioner proposes to enter Armed Forces premises, subject to the limitations. My Lords, the perception is enormously important and I do hope the noble Lord, the Minister, will find a better way to take care of national security and protection of life issues currently on the bill.
Now, the exclusion of particular service complaints, matters which were or are the subject of service enquiry criminal investigation, et cetera, very clearly limits the functions of the commission. The creation of this office may generate an expectation that the Commissioner will be unable to deal with individual service complaints. The Commissioner will be at the periphery, however, of the proceedings. Able to adjudicate on whether the service complain should have been omitted and to review a decision by the defence counsel but an appeal cannot be preceded ROTIMI AKINSETE:Proceeded for various reasons.
Determined by the defence It will only have ombudsman power to review the process by which the complete was determined. In terms of delay and maladministration and the ability to refer a matter back for further consideration. Really, no further powers are reported on the Commissioner in the bill, than those held by the ombudsman. The role will be particularly challenging, given the complexity of the delivery of Armed Forces activities across the world. And I think that flexibility and creativity and devising systems and protocols for the operation of the office will be absolutely necessary.
As will the cooperation of those in command, with whom the Commissioner engages. In the exercise of his or her functions. There is a vast range of issues, as the noble Lords have said. The limitations on the powers of the commission must be spelled-out or rejected attempts to raise issues with the new commission will be damaging to the reputation, which the commission will have to build. They should befor assumptions about the ability of the Commissioner to understand the realities of life in the armed services.
For preconceptions that the Minister will be naive or lack understanding of service law. No hostility, no unwritten policy team wine, dine and welcome the Commissioner, but give them little more, but rather general acceptance that the new system will operate for the benefit of all, and for the benefit of the Armed Forces and the security of the country. My Lords, the greatest tool for generating trust by this new Commissioner will be the communications which have enabled. It will be difficult, the Commissioner will need adequate resourcing to be able to meet with, face-to-face, personnel to explain what they can do and explain the limits.
It must be publicised and limited, so that officers and members of the Armed Forces can examine the integrity and the effectiveness of the new system. Decide whether they will use it, or in the most difficult of circumstances, will walk away from the services altogether. Above all, my Lords, if the government really want to make this work, it will be necessary to enhance the powers of the Armed Forces Commissioner.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I rise in support of the builder for your Lordships house today. It is legislation for which today. It is legislation for which the government has a direct mandate, the government has a direct mandate, meeting its manifesto commitment, to introduce independent Armed Forces Commissioner, to improve the well- being and conditions of service for
As far as general welfare goes, and we thank the library for their help in this matter, we know that housing maintenance, catering et cetera has levels of satisfaction of lower than 30%. My Lords, that would not be accepted in the private sector, and it should not be accepted for those who serve in our Armed Forces. And regrettably, we have to place those statistics within the wider context of satisfaction with processes of dealing with conduct complaints, the appalling reality of some of the reports of criminality, particularly physical and sexual abuse.
Traumatised, ruined lives, reporting of bullying of all kinds, are all part of this picture forced the government has observed there is a clear correlation between these matters and recruiting and maintaining personnel. Promoting the welfare of persons, subject to law and improving the public understanding of these matters, could result in an enhanced experience for serving personnel today. Thematic examination of matters such as the incidents of violence and harassment. The circumstances which enable such behaviour. The adequacy of the protections which are currently provided.
The nature of equipment provided to officers, the suitability of housing can be very helpful. As police ombudsman, we agreed to a process by which if an officer received three complaints, this was treated as a management issue, in addition to dealing with the complaints. Such management intervention can result in the identification of groups of officers who serving single do not get into trouble, but in serving in this particular group, fell into behaviour which is totally unacceptable. It can also identify health issues, such as post- traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, depression, alcohol and substance abuse, which can result in behaviour that would not normally occur.
One thematic report on the use of force by the police in Northern Ireland resulted in a dramatic decrease in the incidents -- In the incidents of force used. The factors were unavailable equipment and lack of management, the results when the act -- Recommendations were permitted, and increasing the number of incidents of the use of force can increase in the number of complaints made by police of assault, campaigns made by officers on duty, and a decrease in the level of sickness by officers.
Thematic research can undoubtedly be very valuable in identifying issues which materially affect welfare. My Lords, I endorse the words of the noble Baroness, Baroness Goldie, noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stone, in relation to the requirement in clause 4.3 to notify the Secretary of State in advance of any occasion on which the Commissioner proposes to enter Armed Forces premises, subject to the limitations. My Lords, the perception is enormously important and I do hope the noble Lord, the Minister, will find a better way to take care of national security and protection of life issues currently on the bill.
Now, the exclusion of particular service complaints, matters which were or are the subject of service enquiry criminal investigation, et cetera, very clearly limits the functions of the commission. The creation of this office may generate an expectation that the Commissioner will be unable to deal with individual service complaints. The Commissioner will be at the periphery, however, of the proceedings. Able to adjudicate on whether the service complain should have been omitted and to review a decision by the defence counsel but an appeal cannot be preceded ROTIMI AKINSETE:Proceeded for various reasons.
Determined by the defence It will only have ombudsman power to review the process by which the complete was determined. In terms of delay and maladministration and the ability to refer a matter back for further consideration. Really, no further powers are reported on the Commissioner in the bill, than those held by the ombudsman. The role will be particularly challenging, given the complexity of the delivery of Armed Forces activities across the world. And I think that flexibility and creativity and devising systems and protocols for the operation of the office will be absolutely necessary.
As will the cooperation of those in command, with whom the Commissioner engages. In the exercise of his or her functions. There is a vast range of issues, as the noble Lords have said. The limitations on the powers of the commission must be spelled-out or rejected attempts to raise issues with the new commission will be damaging to the reputation, which the commission will have to build. They should befor assumptions about the ability of the Commissioner to understand the realities of life in the armed services.
For preconceptions that the Minister will be naive or lack understanding of service law. No hostility, no unwritten policy team wine, dine and welcome the Commissioner, but give them little more, but rather general acceptance that the new system will operate for the benefit of all, and for the benefit of the Armed Forces and the security of the country. My Lords, the greatest tool for generating trust by this new Commissioner will be the communications which have enabled. It will be difficult, the Commissioner will need adequate resourcing to be able to meet with, face-to-face, personnel to explain what they can do and explain the limits.
It must be publicised and limited, so that officers and members of the Armed Forces can examine the integrity and the effectiveness of the new system. Decide whether they will use it, or in the most difficult of circumstances, will walk away from the services altogether. Above all, my Lords, if the government really want to make this work, it will be necessary to enhance the powers of the Armed Forces Commissioner.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I rise in support of the builder for your Lordships house today. It is legislation for which today. It is legislation for which the government has a direct mandate, the government has a direct mandate, meeting its manifesto commitment, to introduce independent Armed Forces Commissioner, to improve the well- being and conditions of service for
19:59
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Labour)
-
-
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Labour)
being and conditions of service for those who serve in the Armed Forces, for whom I have the greatest respect. My Lords, join the congratulations of the Baroness Fall her excellent and well informed, therefore wholly relevant speech. She delivered it, my Lords, in a strong voice, with just M&E -- Just , with remarks entertaining your Lordships as well for the highest praise I can have, my Lords, is that in seven minutes before your Lordships house, she has established that we are all waiting to hear her next and many more contributions.
It was an excellent maiden speech. My Lords, I also thank my noble friend, the Minister, for the clarity in his opening speech. It was clear to his all when he was in frontbench in the opposition that he would be an excellent minister. And he has been an excellent minister. He is well respected in all parts of your Lordships house and part of the reason for that is his characteristic openness and willingness to consult with all who have a contribution to make to the work of your Lordships house, and I thank them for that.
For those who have experience already in relation to this legislation. And as I believe this legislation claims to inform the system, the failures of which can manifest for several years. Replacing it with something more proactive to replace the tackling of systemic justices. This is not just welfare, typical as that is, but arresting the satisfaction that is contributed to recruitment crisis in our services, given today's geopolitical context and the breadth of expertise and experience represented in today's proceedings. Your Lordships house need no reminder from me about the importance of reversing the climb in the number and overall resilience of our Armed Forces.
I believe this legislation will, if properly implemented, make a real contribution to affecting a cultural change that will be exactly that. Introducing this bill in the other place, with my honourable friend the Defence Secretary, it was echoed by my noble friend the Minister today, acknowledge the important precedent of the German Armed Forces Commissioner in shaping this The UK Armed Forces Commissioner annual report which will be a regular part of the parliamentary calendar each year. Preparing for the debate, I had the occasion to examine the remit of the commissioner and her most recent annual reports.
Wide-ranging, searching and forensic matters including personnel retention and shortfalls of material, issues related to procurement or explicitly related to welfare, discrimination, equity and injustice. It would be interesting if the Minister anticipates the report of the UK Armed Forces Commissioner to be of similar scope. If the commissioner believes those shortfalls are an effective procurement process impinging on general welfare of service personnel, with this be a matter that lies within the Commissioners jurisdiction? The commissioner suggests that it would be helpful to know if this is something ministers believe should lie within the remit of the UK equivalent.
It may be useful if the Minister could share thoughts on discussions he may have had relating to the profile of the candidate the government have in mind for this post once the legislation receives Royal Assent. Schedule 1 dictates the commissioner must not be a member of the Armed Forces or a civil servant, but informing an idea of the scope, any further clarity to the professional experience ministers believe necessary adequately performs the function of the role would be helpful.
As we heard in subsection 2 and three of clause 1, abolished the service complaints the Ombudsman and replace it with the Armed Forces Commissioner proposing to any of the terrible cases relating to service welfare may have seen in recent years and it is clear the existing system proves inadequate and a more proactive and independent system is necessary. The principal issue with the Service Complaints Ombudsman has been that in common with all Ombudsman has only identified procedural issues and then react rather than engage specific injustices and remedying them with the identification of the inability to investigate the impediment the success of the office in order of my speech.
I think I need it at this speech. I think I need it at this point. To conclude with this remark, you improve... We must investigate specific concerns and wider thematic issues and I turn to a question of the Minister to raise with Lord Stirrup that this is the real Stirrup that this is the real question. One question I had and I was involved in was described in the question and it is what follows from that investigation when the commissioner identifies injustices, what process and supportive spirit because the government understands the diagnostic exercise is all that is required and they improve the welfare of containment personnel feels that they have the power to investigate welfare but to contribute.
It was an excellent maiden speech. My Lords, I also thank my noble friend, the Minister, for the clarity in his opening speech. It was clear to his all when he was in frontbench in the opposition that he would be an excellent minister. And he has been an excellent minister. He is well respected in all parts of your Lordships house and part of the reason for that is his characteristic openness and willingness to consult with all who have a contribution to make to the work of your Lordships house, and I thank them for that.
For those who have experience already in relation to this legislation. And as I believe this legislation claims to inform the system, the failures of which can manifest for several years. Replacing it with something more proactive to replace the tackling of systemic justices. This is not just welfare, typical as that is, but arresting the satisfaction that is contributed to recruitment crisis in our services, given today's geopolitical context and the breadth of expertise and experience represented in today's proceedings. Your Lordships house need no reminder from me about the importance of reversing the climb in the number and overall resilience of our Armed Forces.
I believe this legislation will, if properly implemented, make a real contribution to affecting a cultural change that will be exactly that. Introducing this bill in the other place, with my honourable friend the Defence Secretary, it was echoed by my noble friend the Minister today, acknowledge the important precedent of the German Armed Forces Commissioner in shaping this The UK Armed Forces Commissioner annual report which will be a regular part of the parliamentary calendar each year. Preparing for the debate, I had the occasion to examine the remit of the commissioner and her most recent annual reports.
Wide-ranging, searching and forensic matters including personnel retention and shortfalls of material, issues related to procurement or explicitly related to welfare, discrimination, equity and injustice. It would be interesting if the Minister anticipates the report of the UK Armed Forces Commissioner to be of similar scope. If the commissioner believes those shortfalls are an effective procurement process impinging on general welfare of service personnel, with this be a matter that lies within the Commissioners jurisdiction? The commissioner suggests that it would be helpful to know if this is something ministers believe should lie within the remit of the UK equivalent.
It may be useful if the Minister could share thoughts on discussions he may have had relating to the profile of the candidate the government have in mind for this post once the legislation receives Royal Assent. Schedule 1 dictates the commissioner must not be a member of the Armed Forces or a civil servant, but informing an idea of the scope, any further clarity to the professional experience ministers believe necessary adequately performs the function of the role would be helpful.
As we heard in subsection 2 and three of clause 1, abolished the service complaints the Ombudsman and replace it with the Armed Forces Commissioner proposing to any of the terrible cases relating to service welfare may have seen in recent years and it is clear the existing system proves inadequate and a more proactive and independent system is necessary. The principal issue with the Service Complaints Ombudsman has been that in common with all Ombudsman has only identified procedural issues and then react rather than engage specific injustices and remedying them with the identification of the inability to investigate the impediment the success of the office in order of my speech.
I think I need it at this speech. I think I need it at this point. To conclude with this remark, you improve... We must investigate specific concerns and wider thematic issues and I turn to a question of the Minister to raise with Lord Stirrup that this is the real Stirrup that this is the real question. One question I had and I was involved in was described in the question and it is what follows from that investigation when the commissioner identifies injustices, what process and supportive spirit because the government understands the diagnostic exercise is all that is required and they improve the welfare of containment personnel feels that they have the power to investigate welfare but to contribute.
20:06
Baroness Newlove (Conservative)
-
-
Baroness Newlove (Conservative)
I am pleased to contribute to the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill and I do not have a military background, but I wish to declare I am an honorary colonel for the connect force -- cadet force which I champion young girls and this is why I wanted to take part. The similarities is why I wanted to speak today. In fact, when I came back as victims commissioner in October 23, I was delighted to see as victims commissioner I was welcomed to a superb building of the Ministry of Defence and I look forward to attending the service Committee board.
I first met the judge via Teams who was delighted to welcome me back because I come from the human aspect of individuals and how they feel. The last meeting we had, I'm going to have visit and I declare to a court-martial to witness what is going there, I'm going to Harrogate and I'm going to see the victims support workers and I think it is important especially at this time when the Ministry of Justice has been looking at the Criminal Justice Bill system to put those systems together.
This is a timely necessary step to ensure the welfare of our service personnel and families is at the heart of the defence and the establishment of the Armed Forces Commissioner will not only provide a powerful independent voice for those that serve and the families that support that. I know by cutting their voices at the heart of the role there is nothing more rewarding than those seeking help and guidance from kits, to food, education, homes and support for education, homes and support for spouses in the group.
I know you are feeling heard. Expectations have been discussed and I appreciate it, but I like a good challenge and when I started as victims commissioner was on the back of a cigarette package, but I have more staff and not enough, more funding but not enough, but there is still more and you will be a strong advocate and capable of challenging the system and the trust and support of the Armed Forces. What criteria will government look to use and how will the role differ from previous speakers the complaint Ombudsman.
Families play such a crucial role in our Armed Forces. They are the backbone of our military community and helping those in need. They are central to this bill and that is why in clause 4 many in this debate, I do like a better definition of the founding member because in the Criminal Justice Bill system I have the same argument of who is in the Criminal Justice Bill system and my late husband was a victim and I and his family and I get the connection.
I call the Minister a friend and he is good across the House and there is etiquette, but here we go. If he can give a clear definition of the bill, he will be included. Asking bereaved families to look at the mechanisms in place must be strong for them and deserves a strong advocacy in the commissioner. The commissioner must be accessible. I have been twittering as I have been up since 5:30 and I am a boring myself with my own voice and I apologise.
I think it is important that accessibility, they can have that, and I'm concerned if it is only digital, how will that encourage people to move forward and those deployed abroad, I think it is important we go to digital but we want to throw the computer out of the window when it doesn't work. How will they ensure they can engage with the office? Communication is poor victims, and I know it creates a barrier. If we can get this right it is a necessary barrier for families to feel it is to get there.
There are a lot of measures that can be put in place, but other speakers talk about independence and I can say the victims commissioner is independent. With everyone else speaking to the victims commissioner, I will say I am not stop independence is important, but it depends how you interpret the word and it comes down to the commissioner. Given the Secretary of State will appoint, fund and the actual clause I stand here today and we can now look at the finer detail.
On resources, the proposed budget is 4.5 billion to 5.5 million annually and I know that this is based on the German Armed Forces Commissioner who German Armed Forces Commissioner who has £60 and I know the force commissioner will have in place and if that person needs more staff, are they going to give the resources. A good debate for have. I would like to talk about the culture of our Armed Forces and the message we are seeing and I send my respect to the family of Gunner, a beautiful soul taken early.
-- Gunner Beck. This is an area where everyone is resilient, everyone is staff, we are trained to know better, but we need to look at what resilience means because in virtue that enables people to move through hardship and better outcomes, and no one escapes pain. No one escapes fear. No one escapes suffering. Nevertheless, from pain you can have wisdom, from pain and fear you can get carriage and from suffering you can gain strength. I only know as I stand here today but more importantly I believe we must break out these barriers and I wish this role every success and I look forward to having more clarification as the build progresses.
I first met the judge via Teams who was delighted to welcome me back because I come from the human aspect of individuals and how they feel. The last meeting we had, I'm going to have visit and I declare to a court-martial to witness what is going there, I'm going to Harrogate and I'm going to see the victims support workers and I think it is important especially at this time when the Ministry of Justice has been looking at the Criminal Justice Bill system to put those systems together.
This is a timely necessary step to ensure the welfare of our service personnel and families is at the heart of the defence and the establishment of the Armed Forces Commissioner will not only provide a powerful independent voice for those that serve and the families that support that. I know by cutting their voices at the heart of the role there is nothing more rewarding than those seeking help and guidance from kits, to food, education, homes and support for education, homes and support for spouses in the group.
I know you are feeling heard. Expectations have been discussed and I appreciate it, but I like a good challenge and when I started as victims commissioner was on the back of a cigarette package, but I have more staff and not enough, more funding but not enough, but there is still more and you will be a strong advocate and capable of challenging the system and the trust and support of the Armed Forces. What criteria will government look to use and how will the role differ from previous speakers the complaint Ombudsman.
Families play such a crucial role in our Armed Forces. They are the backbone of our military community and helping those in need. They are central to this bill and that is why in clause 4 many in this debate, I do like a better definition of the founding member because in the Criminal Justice Bill system I have the same argument of who is in the Criminal Justice Bill system and my late husband was a victim and I and his family and I get the connection.
I call the Minister a friend and he is good across the House and there is etiquette, but here we go. If he can give a clear definition of the bill, he will be included. Asking bereaved families to look at the mechanisms in place must be strong for them and deserves a strong advocacy in the commissioner. The commissioner must be accessible. I have been twittering as I have been up since 5:30 and I am a boring myself with my own voice and I apologise.
I think it is important that accessibility, they can have that, and I'm concerned if it is only digital, how will that encourage people to move forward and those deployed abroad, I think it is important we go to digital but we want to throw the computer out of the window when it doesn't work. How will they ensure they can engage with the office? Communication is poor victims, and I know it creates a barrier. If we can get this right it is a necessary barrier for families to feel it is to get there.
There are a lot of measures that can be put in place, but other speakers talk about independence and I can say the victims commissioner is independent. With everyone else speaking to the victims commissioner, I will say I am not stop independence is important, but it depends how you interpret the word and it comes down to the commissioner. Given the Secretary of State will appoint, fund and the actual clause I stand here today and we can now look at the finer detail.
On resources, the proposed budget is 4.5 billion to 5.5 million annually and I know that this is based on the German Armed Forces Commissioner who German Armed Forces Commissioner who has £60 and I know the force commissioner will have in place and if that person needs more staff, are they going to give the resources. A good debate for have. I would like to talk about the culture of our Armed Forces and the message we are seeing and I send my respect to the family of Gunner, a beautiful soul taken early.
-- Gunner Beck. This is an area where everyone is resilient, everyone is staff, we are trained to know better, but we need to look at what resilience means because in virtue that enables people to move through hardship and better outcomes, and no one escapes pain. No one escapes fear. No one escapes suffering. Nevertheless, from pain you can have wisdom, from pain and fear you can get carriage and from suffering you can gain strength. I only know as I stand here today but more importantly I believe we must break out these barriers and I wish this role every success and I look forward to having more clarification as the build progresses.
20:13
Lord Browne of Belmont (Democratic Unionist Party)
-
-
Lord Browne of Belmont (Democratic Unionist Party)
I rise to welcome the Armed Forces Commissioner bill. We all know great debt to the brave men and women who have served and continue to service so valiantly in our Armed Forces at home and in combat abroad. In my part of the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland, we will never forget their efforts and in many cases the sacrifice in the height of the troubles. Were it not for the Armed Forces and security personnel, they would have never been in a peace process in Northern Ireland and we would not have the relative peace we enjoy today.
I welcome the bill put forward by the government to give greater support to service personnel and their families. It is important to state it should be important there is no impediment blocking personnel to be treated fairly and equitably in all parts of the United Kingdom and abroad and it is right and just the proposed legislation will treat Northern Ireland service personnel in exactly the same way as in other parts of the United Kingdom. We have heard tonight far too long morale has been falling as recent satisfaction poles really show.
-- polls. Due to poor life balance, unsuitable housing, harassment and bullying, it is proving difficult to recruit and retain personnel. I welcome the appointment of a truly independent commissioner who will not be drawn from the ranks of the military or civil service and being statutory will be able to ensure the rights of all service personnel will be totally upheld. I'm glad to see families are at the heart of the bill as it is often the spouses who provide much-needed support at home and often they need to make sacrifices to keep their families together.
It is as important that the families have the same access to make complaints and can the Minister confirm that bereaved relatives will It is also pleasing to note that reservists will have the same right under this bill. The reserve program in Northern Ireland is immensely popular, with twice as many people per head of population volunteering for the reserve forces as in other parts of the United Kingdom. I have a family member who currently serves in the reserve forces.
My Lords, I do hope the proposed budget of, I understand, around £5 million will prove adequate to allow the implementation of the important safeguards enshrined in this bill and as time proceeds, and as personnel become more familiar with the scheme, I think it will be necessary for that budget should be increased. My Lords, I would not wish to complete my speech without referring to the rights of those who have bravely served our country and are now veterans. As the noble are now veterans.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, has pointed out, would grant the commissioners with similar powers, as the army Commissioner. With -- Or the noble Lord, the Commissioner agreed that Lord, the Commissioner agreed that they deserve similar protection as that of serving members of the Armed Forces? I would like to is another important issue, relating to veterans rights in Northern Ireland. In Great Britain, all the local authorities have quite rightly signed up to the army covenant. Which protects veterans rights, relating to the provision of public and commercial services.
Unfortunately, disappointingly, in Northern Ireland, only five of the 11 local councils have fully chosen to adopt the covenant. And it was extremely disappointing that in February's meeting of Belfast City Council, the Armed Forces covenant was rejected because of a nationalist bloc. Surely the covenant is, as a veteran Commissioner for Northern Ireland, Mr David Johnson stated, it is not about advantage but is simply to prevent a disadvantage. My Lords, I welcome the bill. As I am sure it will ensure the rights of serving personnel and veterans throughout
**** Possible New Speaker ****
this country and abroad will be fully protected. Let me also take this opportunity
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Let me also take this opportunity to congratulate the noble Baroness, lady Kadri, that was a truly
I welcome the bill put forward by the government to give greater support to service personnel and their families. It is important to state it should be important there is no impediment blocking personnel to be treated fairly and equitably in all parts of the United Kingdom and abroad and it is right and just the proposed legislation will treat Northern Ireland service personnel in exactly the same way as in other parts of the United Kingdom. We have heard tonight far too long morale has been falling as recent satisfaction poles really show.
-- polls. Due to poor life balance, unsuitable housing, harassment and bullying, it is proving difficult to recruit and retain personnel. I welcome the appointment of a truly independent commissioner who will not be drawn from the ranks of the military or civil service and being statutory will be able to ensure the rights of all service personnel will be totally upheld. I'm glad to see families are at the heart of the bill as it is often the spouses who provide much-needed support at home and often they need to make sacrifices to keep their families together.
It is as important that the families have the same access to make complaints and can the Minister confirm that bereaved relatives will It is also pleasing to note that reservists will have the same right under this bill. The reserve program in Northern Ireland is immensely popular, with twice as many people per head of population volunteering for the reserve forces as in other parts of the United Kingdom. I have a family member who currently serves in the reserve forces.
My Lords, I do hope the proposed budget of, I understand, around £5 million will prove adequate to allow the implementation of the important safeguards enshrined in this bill and as time proceeds, and as personnel become more familiar with the scheme, I think it will be necessary for that budget should be increased. My Lords, I would not wish to complete my speech without referring to the rights of those who have bravely served our country and are now veterans. As the noble are now veterans.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, has pointed out, would grant the commissioners with similar powers, as the army Commissioner. With -- Or the noble Lord, the Commissioner agreed that Lord, the Commissioner agreed that they deserve similar protection as that of serving members of the Armed Forces? I would like to is another important issue, relating to veterans rights in Northern Ireland. In Great Britain, all the local authorities have quite rightly signed up to the army covenant. Which protects veterans rights, relating to the provision of public and commercial services.
Unfortunately, disappointingly, in Northern Ireland, only five of the 11 local councils have fully chosen to adopt the covenant. And it was extremely disappointing that in February's meeting of Belfast City Council, the Armed Forces covenant was rejected because of a nationalist bloc. Surely the covenant is, as a veteran Commissioner for Northern Ireland, Mr David Johnson stated, it is not about advantage but is simply to prevent a disadvantage. My Lords, I welcome the bill. As I am sure it will ensure the rights of serving personnel and veterans throughout
**** Possible New Speaker ****
this country and abroad will be fully protected. Let me also take this opportunity
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Let me also take this opportunity to congratulate the noble Baroness, lady Kadri, that was a truly
20:18
Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke (Labour)
lady Kadri, that was a truly impressive speech, and it brings something to this House to have someone who is from a family that is so closely associated with the military. Because it does allow us to understand some of the pressures they are under. Not least 10 schools. I went to two schools and I still objected to having to move to the other one. But I refer to my entry in the register of members interests. I was Chair of Anita in homes until it sailed the MoD in January.
And I currently Chair the success of business. Now, something roughly 2 years ago, I attended a meeting arranged by the then Shadow Secretary of State for defence. Now, the Secretary of State for defence. Of which the German Armed Forces Commissioner was present. And I have to say I was very, very impressed. We could see that there was a commitment, not just to the military personnel, but the other personnel who themselves make sacrifices on our behalf. And there was a recognition that the families and the mental health defence forces and the appointment for independent champion serving personnel and their families, was important, and Baroness Newlove really explained that very fully in her very good speech.
And in some of the interaction that I've had with the MoD over the years, it has been very difficult to articulate the need to look after families, especially if the forces person was deployed abroad. There were often many quirks in the sector, particularly around housing. That defied common sense. Now, when the estate was sold in 1996, the MoD retained the maintenance of the homes. For some purpose I have never really found out. Because overall, the state of maintenance is deplorable.
And I've seen houses with kitchens that were Some poor soul is still trying to use them. And if I ever come across Michael Portillo, I will ask him why he did not give the responsibility for maintenance to an intern or some other organisation. -- them asking where I will go on my holidays. From day one, it has always intrigued me, the homes with the asset, and as such, the imperative would be to keep them in good condition. But one day, I saw firsthand the problems caused by maintenance.
A young mother stopped me. I wondered around on my own on a site, taking pictures of housing and she came out and said are you something to do with the houses? And I said, well, sort of. And I have been trying to get someone to look at the bedroom of my 18 month old child because there is black mould on the walls. Now, her husband had had to raise the issue with her commanding officer. A month passed and nothing that happened.
Now, I know, that can cause death of a child. Because it is extremely dangerous, and that is engraved on my memory. And she wanted me to come and see the room. I just couldn't bear to go and see it, because I knew what she was saying was true. And if there were someone else outside the command structure who could expose the danger that family was in, I think it would be very useful. And that, as I heard the German Commissioner speak, that family was in my mind.
I was born and brought up in a council house. And in the constituency some years later. It was around 80% social housing, but that social housing was melt -- Was well maintained and mostly very attractive. Why could the military bases not be like that? Or is it money? Or was it organisation? Years later, I became a diplomat in Australia. And there, a military houses regularly. They . But in Australia, they revere their military personnel. And as we look at the troubled state of the world, will that help us look after the military personnel even better? I think the Armed Forces Commissioner could bring about a fundamental shift in the care of the military and their families.
There is another issue that I want to raise. Together with Lord Forsyth and Lord Bruce, I was appointed by the secretary of -- The Secretary of State for defence, in the Mull of Kintyre review, under the chairmanship of the Scottish judge, Lord Phillips. All three of us were privy councillors. The helicopter crash on the mole on 2 June, 1994, was the worst loss of life for the RAF in peacetime. A chinook helicopter had been refurbished and reconfigured and delivered to the RAF base two days beforehand on 31 May two days beforehand on 31 May 1994.
No voice recorder or accent data recorder had been fitted. There was anxiety among the aircrafts pilots and ground crew for familiarity with the reconfigured helicopter, before the accident happened. The pilots lost their life that day. And 25 major security staff on Northern Ireland also lost their life. Long story short, the pilots were blamed, entertainment shows claimed the pilots were negligent to a great degree, based on no evidence whatsoever. Accident inquiry was held in Paisley with 36 civilian and military witnesses.
The sheriff concluded that he could not determine the cause of the accident, but could not agree with the determination of gross negligence by their military personnel. Now, later, we were told that the air marshals downgraded the evidence from the accident team. Now, I thought of the Armed Forces Commissioner in that context. Because it is vitally important, when something as awful as that happens. That there is independent and partial oversight of the MoD. And the nature of the person appointed will be very significant indeed.
Rigorous and strong and able to see the impact of the decisions on the welfare of all MoD personnel and someone with the gumption to fight. That is what the new Commissioner can do and I applaud it.
And I currently Chair the success of business. Now, something roughly 2 years ago, I attended a meeting arranged by the then Shadow Secretary of State for defence. Now, the Secretary of State for defence. Of which the German Armed Forces Commissioner was present. And I have to say I was very, very impressed. We could see that there was a commitment, not just to the military personnel, but the other personnel who themselves make sacrifices on our behalf. And there was a recognition that the families and the mental health defence forces and the appointment for independent champion serving personnel and their families, was important, and Baroness Newlove really explained that very fully in her very good speech.
And in some of the interaction that I've had with the MoD over the years, it has been very difficult to articulate the need to look after families, especially if the forces person was deployed abroad. There were often many quirks in the sector, particularly around housing. That defied common sense. Now, when the estate was sold in 1996, the MoD retained the maintenance of the homes. For some purpose I have never really found out. Because overall, the state of maintenance is deplorable.
And I've seen houses with kitchens that were Some poor soul is still trying to use them. And if I ever come across Michael Portillo, I will ask him why he did not give the responsibility for maintenance to an intern or some other organisation. -- them asking where I will go on my holidays. From day one, it has always intrigued me, the homes with the asset, and as such, the imperative would be to keep them in good condition. But one day, I saw firsthand the problems caused by maintenance.
A young mother stopped me. I wondered around on my own on a site, taking pictures of housing and she came out and said are you something to do with the houses? And I said, well, sort of. And I have been trying to get someone to look at the bedroom of my 18 month old child because there is black mould on the walls. Now, her husband had had to raise the issue with her commanding officer. A month passed and nothing that happened.
Now, I know, that can cause death of a child. Because it is extremely dangerous, and that is engraved on my memory. And she wanted me to come and see the room. I just couldn't bear to go and see it, because I knew what she was saying was true. And if there were someone else outside the command structure who could expose the danger that family was in, I think it would be very useful. And that, as I heard the German Commissioner speak, that family was in my mind.
I was born and brought up in a council house. And in the constituency some years later. It was around 80% social housing, but that social housing was melt -- Was well maintained and mostly very attractive. Why could the military bases not be like that? Or is it money? Or was it organisation? Years later, I became a diplomat in Australia. And there, a military houses regularly. They . But in Australia, they revere their military personnel. And as we look at the troubled state of the world, will that help us look after the military personnel even better? I think the Armed Forces Commissioner could bring about a fundamental shift in the care of the military and their families.
There is another issue that I want to raise. Together with Lord Forsyth and Lord Bruce, I was appointed by the secretary of -- The Secretary of State for defence, in the Mull of Kintyre review, under the chairmanship of the Scottish judge, Lord Phillips. All three of us were privy councillors. The helicopter crash on the mole on 2 June, 1994, was the worst loss of life for the RAF in peacetime. A chinook helicopter had been refurbished and reconfigured and delivered to the RAF base two days beforehand on 31 May two days beforehand on 31 May 1994.
No voice recorder or accent data recorder had been fitted. There was anxiety among the aircrafts pilots and ground crew for familiarity with the reconfigured helicopter, before the accident happened. The pilots lost their life that day. And 25 major security staff on Northern Ireland also lost their life. Long story short, the pilots were blamed, entertainment shows claimed the pilots were negligent to a great degree, based on no evidence whatsoever. Accident inquiry was held in Paisley with 36 civilian and military witnesses.
The sheriff concluded that he could not determine the cause of the accident, but could not agree with the determination of gross negligence by their military personnel. Now, later, we were told that the air marshals downgraded the evidence from the accident team. Now, I thought of the Armed Forces Commissioner in that context. Because it is vitally important, when something as awful as that happens. That there is independent and partial oversight of the MoD. And the nature of the person appointed will be very significant indeed.
Rigorous and strong and able to see the impact of the decisions on the welfare of all MoD personnel and someone with the gumption to fight. That is what the new Commissioner can do and I applaud it.
20:26
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
My Lords. I thank the noble Lord for his introduction to this bill. And I rise to offer green, further broad support for the general direction of this bill and creation of an Armed Forces Commissioner. Since I have a large range of portfolios to cover, I would like to draw a couple of parallels with the areas where we have seen similar positions created or proposed. And I think it is worth looking at the parallels of those comparisons. The parallels of those comparisons.
The first of these is, just a few days ago, was in the committee of the Mental Health Bill. Where actually an amendment was put at committee and I think will return at report, to create a mental health commission and that a person to be a champion for some of the most vulnerable people in our society. And I hope the noble Lord might perhaps share that what has been said here with his health colleagues. In a debate, I was drawing a parallel of a nobody existing position which I think is been highly successful.
I have the patient safety commission, which was fought for and won by noble Lady, who has sadly retire from your Lordships house. But the patient safety Commissioner has been really important as a champion for vulnerable people. And I think as the powerful maiden speech of the noble Lady outlined, all military personnel are vulnerable, being in the chain of command and denied those union rights. Those rights that we guarantee one way or another to most of the workers. All military personnel are vulnerable.
But I want a particular focus on something that I think we need to think about, when we think about who the patient safety Commissioner is. Some members of our Armed Forces are more vulnerable than others, particularly by reason of age or gender. Now, I note a number of noble Lords have very much focus on the tragic case that the noble Lord, the Minister committed himself in the tragic case committed himself in the tragic case of Jay Louise Beck, and I really want to point the noble Lord the Minister again, do something I said in the Moses room, where I had just been in a meeting.
At this was in the Armed Forces court-martial amendment to debate. A representative of female personnel said that where they feel they are right now is going back to the attitudes of 2015, particularly in the treatment of FEMA victims of abuses. I have to contact -- Contrast that with the army's statement. When the army said the significant changes in the army, including the introduction, to say they will do zero tolerance to unacceptable sexual behaviours.
I welcome that statement from the army, but it doesn't reflect what I was hearing from certain personnel, people you speak to service personnel and represent them now. And at this point, I really feel like I have to agree with the noble Lady, Baroness Goldie, about the importance of the independent oversight of the appointment of this. Not sure whether the Select Committee is the right procedure. I think we definitely need that. Because this person is going to be such an important role.
And I think the noble Lady's comment about an anonymous whistleblower scheme is also potentially something we should be looking into. Because we know when we're talking about sexual predators, they are often serial abusers, serial sexual predators. And it may be that their first, second or third victim for whatever reason doesn't feel like they can come forward, and it may be that people witness disturbing behaviour, that may be difficult to know whether to report it or not. And an anonymous whistleblower scheme will potentially help some very vulnerable people in our military.
It probably won't surprise the noble Lord, the Minister, to say that the second group of vulnerable people I'm going to focus on are the young people, particularly the under 18's in our military. And I think the noble Lord knows well my views on this. But I think the public may not have as much awareness as they need to have the fact that, for a couple, to pick one year, 2021-22, 23% of British recruits signed up before their 18th birthday. That is 30% when you just take the army on its If you look at the one who is going to serve, you look at one of the children and that is something to think about who that commissioner is.
It is worth focusing on the fact that the UK military focuses on recruitment of economic deprivation and those are disproportionately from deprived areas. I point to disturbing work done by Jonathan Parry from LSE and Christina Easton from Warwick University looking at the issues that arise of socio- economics disadvantage which can have negative effects on decision- making and informs a mental bandwidth tax that affects cognition, control, and perhaps we can think clearly about the aspect being posed by the commissioner.
Socio-economics deprivation is associated with educational informational disadvantage. Three quarters of junior recruits assessed in 2015 had a reading age of 11 or below. With some having a reading age of five. We need a commissioner who is able to help people in this situation. I want to bring a final reflection of the state of geopolitics and there has been a great deal of talk about increasing the size of the military and ensuring we have a commissioner is relevant and the people talking about increasing the size of the military need to look at the demographics.
What we will see on 2014, the 18-year-old population will be 10% smaller than it is now. If you look at figures on health, published in the International Journal of epidemiology, 85% of children born in England 2003-2004 had a chronic health condition by the time they reached 16. It is crucial that we are able to look after vulnerable people in our military and we have the right
**** Possible New Speaker ****
people coming in as commissioner. It is thanks to the Minister and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
It is thanks to the Minister and Lord Coaker and the Armed Forces Lord Coaker and the Armed Forces Parliamentary Trust scheme is what we should take part in and I had the we should take part in and I had the privilege of graduating in the army scheme and then the Navy scheme and just over a year ago I was with the Royal Marines in the Arctic which is Royal Marines in the Arctic which is useful, relevant training for the temperature in the chamber this evening.
The second is because of the late, much lamented Baroness Massey and it was because of her as it the Minister spoke for the opposition in the bill when we spoke about the Army foundation College in Harrogate and I expect that is what Lady Bennett was referring to. As we look at the issue which is systemic and pneumatic, I think the army foundation College is a good example and some of the recent cases over the last 10 years are pretty harrowing.
They have continued for a long time and will continue into the future until someone like the new Armed Forces Commissioner grabs hold of it and does something about it. The German model we are following is a very good one, but it has been around for a very long time and it was set up in 1959 in the wake of what was the devastation created by the German Armed Forces and the need to completely rebuild it from the bottom up.
By contrast, what we are talking about today is the third iteration of our struggle to find something similar from what the Germans have and we only started this in 2008 we are rather late to the party. I do think we are playing catch up. The evidence I would say is if you look at the last key recommendations of the German Armed Forces commissioner in her last report, and you see the areas she is focused on, personnel shortages and operational readiness, ageing equipment, recruitment and retention, bureaucratic challenges, and mental health and welfare.
They are an interesting contrast to the last report of the current commissioner here because the German ones work to some extent looking at the problems of today but in looking at issues of personnel shortages and operational readiness, they are actually looking to the future. If you look at the last commissioner here and what they said in 2022, it is about the system, efficiency in fairness, resolution time, system improvements, and performance metrics and harassment and discrimination. A lot of the effort of the current commissioner has been to get the system working because it is not working.
The Germans have a system and it does work but they have about 70 years to get it going. In going around the army and the navy, he is really impressed by the regimental silver flags and plaques and paintings, and I've never had so many photos taken in my life, there is no understandable fears pride in the past, but I do sometimes wonder if the pride in the past and the retelling of the past do stop us thinking as much as we should about the future.
That is a cultural issue. I have a series of questions for the Minister which I do not expect to be able to answer, and they are the following. Because we are in catch up mode and other noble Lords referred to this, is the funding going to be adequate for the scale of the task? Given how much the current commissioner is focusing on getting the system working let alone dealing with the complaints coming in, I suspect that the Germans have six and the current commissioner here has 26 and we are initially aiming for two or three years but we might need more than that to get traction and to get the basics right.
Leadership is absolutely key and I know the commissioner cannot be a regular, a reserve or a civil servant. Looking at the German commissioner, she is a lawyer, and she was a deputy for 11 years and a very senior one. When she was appointed immediately after stepping down, elected by a large majority, she hit the ground running and she had a strong relationship and knowledge within Parliament
The first of these is, just a few days ago, was in the committee of the Mental Health Bill. Where actually an amendment was put at committee and I think will return at report, to create a mental health commission and that a person to be a champion for some of the most vulnerable people in our society. And I hope the noble Lord might perhaps share that what has been said here with his health colleagues. In a debate, I was drawing a parallel of a nobody existing position which I think is been highly successful.
I have the patient safety commission, which was fought for and won by noble Lady, who has sadly retire from your Lordships house. But the patient safety Commissioner has been really important as a champion for vulnerable people. And I think as the powerful maiden speech of the noble Lady outlined, all military personnel are vulnerable, being in the chain of command and denied those union rights. Those rights that we guarantee one way or another to most of the workers. All military personnel are vulnerable.
But I want a particular focus on something that I think we need to think about, when we think about who the patient safety Commissioner is. Some members of our Armed Forces are more vulnerable than others, particularly by reason of age or gender. Now, I note a number of noble Lords have very much focus on the tragic case that the noble Lord, the Minister committed himself in the tragic case committed himself in the tragic case of Jay Louise Beck, and I really want to point the noble Lord the Minister again, do something I said in the Moses room, where I had just been in a meeting.
At this was in the Armed Forces court-martial amendment to debate. A representative of female personnel said that where they feel they are right now is going back to the attitudes of 2015, particularly in the treatment of FEMA victims of abuses. I have to contact -- Contrast that with the army's statement. When the army said the significant changes in the army, including the introduction, to say they will do zero tolerance to unacceptable sexual behaviours.
I welcome that statement from the army, but it doesn't reflect what I was hearing from certain personnel, people you speak to service personnel and represent them now. And at this point, I really feel like I have to agree with the noble Lady, Baroness Goldie, about the importance of the independent oversight of the appointment of this. Not sure whether the Select Committee is the right procedure. I think we definitely need that. Because this person is going to be such an important role.
And I think the noble Lady's comment about an anonymous whistleblower scheme is also potentially something we should be looking into. Because we know when we're talking about sexual predators, they are often serial abusers, serial sexual predators. And it may be that their first, second or third victim for whatever reason doesn't feel like they can come forward, and it may be that people witness disturbing behaviour, that may be difficult to know whether to report it or not. And an anonymous whistleblower scheme will potentially help some very vulnerable people in our military.
It probably won't surprise the noble Lord, the Minister, to say that the second group of vulnerable people I'm going to focus on are the young people, particularly the under 18's in our military. And I think the noble Lord knows well my views on this. But I think the public may not have as much awareness as they need to have the fact that, for a couple, to pick one year, 2021-22, 23% of British recruits signed up before their 18th birthday. That is 30% when you just take the army on its If you look at the one who is going to serve, you look at one of the children and that is something to think about who that commissioner is.
It is worth focusing on the fact that the UK military focuses on recruitment of economic deprivation and those are disproportionately from deprived areas. I point to disturbing work done by Jonathan Parry from LSE and Christina Easton from Warwick University looking at the issues that arise of socio- economics disadvantage which can have negative effects on decision- making and informs a mental bandwidth tax that affects cognition, control, and perhaps we can think clearly about the aspect being posed by the commissioner.
Socio-economics deprivation is associated with educational informational disadvantage. Three quarters of junior recruits assessed in 2015 had a reading age of 11 or below. With some having a reading age of five. We need a commissioner who is able to help people in this situation. I want to bring a final reflection of the state of geopolitics and there has been a great deal of talk about increasing the size of the military and ensuring we have a commissioner is relevant and the people talking about increasing the size of the military need to look at the demographics.
What we will see on 2014, the 18-year-old population will be 10% smaller than it is now. If you look at figures on health, published in the International Journal of epidemiology, 85% of children born in England 2003-2004 had a chronic health condition by the time they reached 16. It is crucial that we are able to look after vulnerable people in our military and we have the right
**** Possible New Speaker ****
people coming in as commissioner. It is thanks to the Minister and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
It is thanks to the Minister and Lord Coaker and the Armed Forces Lord Coaker and the Armed Forces Parliamentary Trust scheme is what we should take part in and I had the we should take part in and I had the privilege of graduating in the army scheme and then the Navy scheme and just over a year ago I was with the Royal Marines in the Arctic which is Royal Marines in the Arctic which is useful, relevant training for the temperature in the chamber this evening.
The second is because of the late, much lamented Baroness Massey and it was because of her as it the Minister spoke for the opposition in the bill when we spoke about the Army foundation College in Harrogate and I expect that is what Lady Bennett was referring to. As we look at the issue which is systemic and pneumatic, I think the army foundation College is a good example and some of the recent cases over the last 10 years are pretty harrowing.
They have continued for a long time and will continue into the future until someone like the new Armed Forces Commissioner grabs hold of it and does something about it. The German model we are following is a very good one, but it has been around for a very long time and it was set up in 1959 in the wake of what was the devastation created by the German Armed Forces and the need to completely rebuild it from the bottom up.
By contrast, what we are talking about today is the third iteration of our struggle to find something similar from what the Germans have and we only started this in 2008 we are rather late to the party. I do think we are playing catch up. The evidence I would say is if you look at the last key recommendations of the German Armed Forces commissioner in her last report, and you see the areas she is focused on, personnel shortages and operational readiness, ageing equipment, recruitment and retention, bureaucratic challenges, and mental health and welfare.
They are an interesting contrast to the last report of the current commissioner here because the German ones work to some extent looking at the problems of today but in looking at issues of personnel shortages and operational readiness, they are actually looking to the future. If you look at the last commissioner here and what they said in 2022, it is about the system, efficiency in fairness, resolution time, system improvements, and performance metrics and harassment and discrimination. A lot of the effort of the current commissioner has been to get the system working because it is not working.
The Germans have a system and it does work but they have about 70 years to get it going. In going around the army and the navy, he is really impressed by the regimental silver flags and plaques and paintings, and I've never had so many photos taken in my life, there is no understandable fears pride in the past, but I do sometimes wonder if the pride in the past and the retelling of the past do stop us thinking as much as we should about the future.
That is a cultural issue. I have a series of questions for the Minister which I do not expect to be able to answer, and they are the following. Because we are in catch up mode and other noble Lords referred to this, is the funding going to be adequate for the scale of the task? Given how much the current commissioner is focusing on getting the system working let alone dealing with the complaints coming in, I suspect that the Germans have six and the current commissioner here has 26 and we are initially aiming for two or three years but we might need more than that to get traction and to get the basics right.
Leadership is absolutely key and I know the commissioner cannot be a regular, a reserve or a civil servant. Looking at the German commissioner, she is a lawyer, and she was a deputy for 11 years and a very senior one. When she was appointed immediately after stepping down, elected by a large majority, she hit the ground running and she had a strong relationship and knowledge within Parliament
20:39
Lord Russell of Liverpool (Crossbench)
-
-
Lord Russell of Liverpool (Crossbench)
and knowledge within Parliament which is enormously helpful. I hope the thought that will be given to the type of person we are looking for will take that into account and we need somebody and that is what we need somebody and that is what they are doing. The Armed Forces with more history than is good for with more history than is good for it can be quite defensive culturally for understandable reasons and I for understandable reasons and I would like to ask if it would be possible or even necessary for the commissioner to have X members of the armed forces as members of staff or even that one could actually appoint people on secondment into the office.
Denoting it as a sign you are going places and spending a period in the commissioner's office is a big plus and is part of the development. The next question is given the issues around bullying, harassment, discrimination, violence against women and girls, environmental health, it is reasonable to expect the commissioner will have the right level of expertise and ability to deal with this. We discussed this in helpful briefing as given last week and could I appeal to the Minister of Defence to think about the commissioner developing relationships with organisations that do have these expertise so they can access it clearly rather than thinking about where they go for help.
Lastly, I would say on the issue of entry to premises, it is crystal-clear the German Armed Forces Commissioner has carte blanche to go where she wishes, wherever in the world she wishes, with no advance notice being given whatsoever to the Armed Forces. Such is the level of trust. Could we not
**** Possible New Speaker ****
do the same here? The Armed Forces do a remarkable
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The Armed Forces do a remarkable job and given the people of the job and given the people of the United Kingdom are safe and secure in an ever-changing and increasingly in an ever-changing and increasingly dangerous world, we owe then a great
Denoting it as a sign you are going places and spending a period in the commissioner's office is a big plus and is part of the development. The next question is given the issues around bullying, harassment, discrimination, violence against women and girls, environmental health, it is reasonable to expect the commissioner will have the right level of expertise and ability to deal with this. We discussed this in helpful briefing as given last week and could I appeal to the Minister of Defence to think about the commissioner developing relationships with organisations that do have these expertise so they can access it clearly rather than thinking about where they go for help.
Lastly, I would say on the issue of entry to premises, it is crystal-clear the German Armed Forces Commissioner has carte blanche to go where she wishes, wherever in the world she wishes, with no advance notice being given whatsoever to the Armed Forces. Such is the level of trust. Could we not
**** Possible New Speaker ****
do the same here? The Armed Forces do a remarkable
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The Armed Forces do a remarkable job and given the people of the job and given the people of the United Kingdom are safe and secure in an ever-changing and increasingly in an ever-changing and increasingly dangerous world, we owe then a great
20:42
Lord Hay of Ballyore (Democratic Unionist Party)
-
-
Lord Hay of Ballyore (Democratic Unionist Party)
dangerous world, we owe then a great deal of gratitude for their duty, sacrifices of our Armed Forces at home and abroad must never be forgotten. Can I congratulate the Minister in the way he presented the bill to the House this evening and I would hope that the legislation will improve the lives of our Armed Forces personnel and the Armed Forces Commissioner will be an important advocate for service personnel and their families. Regrettably to often, promises made have not matched the reality of experienced by our service communities.
Many service personnel and their families have forgotten and neglected. The bills main provisions will be to establish Armed Forces Commissioner with wide-ranging powers to carry out their role independently of their role independently of government. I do welcome the Armed Forces Commissioner will be on a strategy basis reporting directly to Parliament and I wanted to touch on an issue that has been briefly an issue that has been briefly touched on. Across the United Kingdom there are around 2.5 million veterans.
It is vital they are simply not left behind. Our veterans should enjoy our strongest possible support as should serving members of our Armed Forces. I ask the question to the Minister if we are making provisions on ace gadgetry basis for serving members of the Armed Forces, why are we not making the same standards of provisions for Veterans Commissioners across this United Kingdom and given them to carry out their role independently from government. To have a commissioner on a statutory basis for serving members of their Armed Forces, why it cannot be the same for veterans.
If this was to happen, it would be a huge step forward for the government in how they value our veterans community. Given the quality of community. Given the quality of treatment they very much deserve. Without the bravery and long lasting commitment of our security personnel, the Reign of Terror in Northern Ireland will have left to the deaths of many more innocent victims. And possibly in Northern Ireland we have more victims, then any other part of the United Kingdom, with many thousands who Kingdom, with many thousands who served in the Armed Forces.
I do welcome the recent appointment of the new Veterans Commissioners for Northern Ireland, David Johnson, and I wish him well. In his new role. He is also someone that has served the Armed Forces with distinction. This is a part-time appointment. The two days a week with staff from the Northern Ireland office. I say to the House it is not possible for the Veterans Commissioners in Northern Ireland on a part-time basis to be responsible for looking after the interests of thousands of veterans interests of thousands of veterans If the government is serious about looking after our veteran community, this should be a fully funded post with a full-time appointment, for the needs of veterans in Northern Ireland.
My Lords, the importance of this bill before the House, the legislation will give independence to the Armed Forces Commissioner. Which I believe, my Lords, is very vitally important. My Lords, there is a case to be made about the veterans commission to have the same independence from government. And I can only speak for Northern Ireland. can only speak for Northern Ireland. For example, the staff from the Northern Ireland veterans commission is appointed by the Northern Ireland for, as is the Commissioner.
The Commissioners for veterans and Northern Ireland need to seek independent and challenging and holding the government to account without fear of oversight from the Northern Ireland. -- Northern Ireland office. If it is OK to have someone serving personnel, why cannot the same case not be made by government for veterans. Yes, the creation of an Armed Forces commission is certainly a positive step forward for the government. Surely, the government, my Lords, should do the same for our veterans. My Lords, all veterans across these islands should be able to have equally the same quality of service.
We must work together to provide the services and protections that are needed for Armed Forces services and personnel, for now and the future. But I want to say to the House, when it comes to our veterans and Northern Ireland. repeated again, it is not possible for a veterans Commissioner, for all the needs of veterans and Northern Ireland, to do the job that they need to do. And it needs that independence from government. It especially from the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Northern Ireland to do what it needs to do. -- Northern Ireland office. My Lord, I welcome this bill. Can
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lord, I welcome this bill. Can add my congratulations to the noble
Many service personnel and their families have forgotten and neglected. The bills main provisions will be to establish Armed Forces Commissioner with wide-ranging powers to carry out their role independently of their role independently of government. I do welcome the Armed Forces Commissioner will be on a strategy basis reporting directly to Parliament and I wanted to touch on an issue that has been briefly an issue that has been briefly touched on. Across the United Kingdom there are around 2.5 million veterans.
It is vital they are simply not left behind. Our veterans should enjoy our strongest possible support as should serving members of our Armed Forces. I ask the question to the Minister if we are making provisions on ace gadgetry basis for serving members of the Armed Forces, why are we not making the same standards of provisions for Veterans Commissioners across this United Kingdom and given them to carry out their role independently from government. To have a commissioner on a statutory basis for serving members of their Armed Forces, why it cannot be the same for veterans.
If this was to happen, it would be a huge step forward for the government in how they value our veterans community. Given the quality of community. Given the quality of treatment they very much deserve. Without the bravery and long lasting commitment of our security personnel, the Reign of Terror in Northern Ireland will have left to the deaths of many more innocent victims. And possibly in Northern Ireland we have more victims, then any other part of the United Kingdom, with many thousands who Kingdom, with many thousands who served in the Armed Forces.
I do welcome the recent appointment of the new Veterans Commissioners for Northern Ireland, David Johnson, and I wish him well. In his new role. He is also someone that has served the Armed Forces with distinction. This is a part-time appointment. The two days a week with staff from the Northern Ireland office. I say to the House it is not possible for the Veterans Commissioners in Northern Ireland on a part-time basis to be responsible for looking after the interests of thousands of veterans interests of thousands of veterans If the government is serious about looking after our veteran community, this should be a fully funded post with a full-time appointment, for the needs of veterans in Northern Ireland.
My Lords, the importance of this bill before the House, the legislation will give independence to the Armed Forces Commissioner. Which I believe, my Lords, is very vitally important. My Lords, there is a case to be made about the veterans commission to have the same independence from government. And I can only speak for Northern Ireland. can only speak for Northern Ireland. For example, the staff from the Northern Ireland veterans commission is appointed by the Northern Ireland for, as is the Commissioner.
The Commissioners for veterans and Northern Ireland need to seek independent and challenging and holding the government to account without fear of oversight from the Northern Ireland. -- Northern Ireland office. If it is OK to have someone serving personnel, why cannot the same case not be made by government for veterans. Yes, the creation of an Armed Forces commission is certainly a positive step forward for the government. Surely, the government, my Lords, should do the same for our veterans. My Lords, all veterans across these islands should be able to have equally the same quality of service.
We must work together to provide the services and protections that are needed for Armed Forces services and personnel, for now and the future. But I want to say to the House, when it comes to our veterans and Northern Ireland. repeated again, it is not possible for a veterans Commissioner, for all the needs of veterans and Northern Ireland, to do the job that they need to do. And it needs that independence from government. It especially from the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Northern Ireland to do what it needs to do. -- Northern Ireland office. My Lord, I welcome this bill. Can
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lord, I welcome this bill. Can add my congratulations to the noble
20:48
Lord Beamish (Labour)
-
-
Lord Beamish (Labour)
add my congratulations to the noble Lady for her maiden speech for supper look forward to many more contributions. My Lords, I have been involved in this for over 20 years. I was a member of the House of Commons defence committee. The Minister in the Ministry of Defence. And also I think I have sat on every single Armed Forces Bill over the last 20 years. And I think it is worth reading the conclusion for the House of Commons defence committee, reporting the duty of care from 2005.
Actually, the anniversary of this week 20 years ago. It says, " We recommend an independent military complex commission be established. It would have the authority and capability to make recommendations, which would be binding on the Armed Forces. It would also have a research capacity that would enable it to examine trends it had identified. It would be for the commission itself to identify whether it could undertake an investigation. But we expect it to take account of the seriousness of allegations. The commission would allegations.
The commission would have the ability to consider past cases. The primary goal of the commission would be to resolve complaints made to it. If the commission decided to pursue a complaint, it would have the right of access to all documentation to service personnel in order to enable it to establish whether the correct procedures followed, have been followed, and whether the matter requires criminal investigation. The Commissioner should report annually to Parliament, it would recommend the commission be established in such a way as to ensure that both compliance and public of its independence from the Armed Forces, we believe the commission would help the MoD identify lessons that need to be learned.
We also believe that true independence scrutiny mechanism would contributed bolstering the public confidence in the services." One could argue it has taken us 20 years to get to that point. Because its response to that report, the government noted that recommendation. It was actually recommendation. It was actually forced to bring in the independent,, complains Commissioner, following Instants in 2006. It was quite clear from early on, Susan Atkinson, the first Commissioner, didn't have the powers or abilities to make real change.
So, we then, I think it was under the 2015 act, but I think Lord Lancaster might have been involved Lancaster might have been involved in this, we got the Armed Forces ombudsman which did have powers to investigate. Again, had got to change things and make the real change needed. I think it is worth looking again at the report in 2019. One which I was not involved in. Entitled fairness without fear, the work of the service complains Commissioner, whether it gives a litany of failures.
Not because of the lack of dedication a behalf of the staff, but cuts in staff, the negative attitude that still existed towards the institution. And the delay in implementing recommendations. And that has actually been quite clear, because over the last few years, the slow drumbeat of scandals that we have drumbeat of scandals that we have had has not really gone down. We had obviously the issues around the reports referred to earlier run, we had another excellent report in 2019, women in the Armed Forces, which I also serve on.
It was absolutely appalling, the way in which women were treated, still being treated in the Armed Forces. We have at the issue around the red We have at the issue around the red arrows. We have had women being abused in terms of the submarine service. So, have we failed over the last 20 years, yes we have. And this, I think, is an opportunity to possibly change, but I do think we are hanging a lot on this bill. Somehow by just changing the name and changing slightly, things will improve.
I am not sure they will stop I think in terms of scrutiny of this bill, I think the Minister should take on board some changes. Because I'm concerned, for example, about the length of the Commissioner, for example. Because it says in the bill that he or she will be there for five years and could be extended for possibly another two years. I want to perhaps probe why that is. I know it was a suggestion of one of the past ombudsman, that she thought the length of term...
But you have got to the knowledge, I think that is important. The other thing is the actual independence of the actual Commissioner themselves. Because it don't have to rely on the finance from the MoD. I would like some mechanism set up whereby this body is not under the remit of the MoD, if it is going to be completely independent. Because we have seen, time and time again, organisations, referred to for example by the Veterans Commission, having to fight for the resources.
I think there are models where we can setup, whereby it falls outside the MoD and the budget is not in danger of being rated when it can be. -- Raided. Another thing is it would also be a mechanism by which the recommendations are implemented. Lord Stirrup said, needs to lead to reaction to those actual reports. So I think, as this bill goes through, I think I will just want my noble friends, I am minded to put some amendments down, which I think you need to strengthen this bill.
Because I think the intentions are good. I think if we are going to actually believe the German model, which I studied up on previous occasions, I am not sure of changing the title and changing what we have got is going to do that. So, yes, I welcome it, but I think there was a lot more work to be done yet.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My congratulations to the noble Baroness for her excellent maiden
Actually, the anniversary of this week 20 years ago. It says, " We recommend an independent military complex commission be established. It would have the authority and capability to make recommendations, which would be binding on the Armed Forces. It would also have a research capacity that would enable it to examine trends it had identified. It would be for the commission itself to identify whether it could undertake an investigation. But we expect it to take account of the seriousness of allegations. The commission would allegations.
The commission would have the ability to consider past cases. The primary goal of the commission would be to resolve complaints made to it. If the commission decided to pursue a complaint, it would have the right of access to all documentation to service personnel in order to enable it to establish whether the correct procedures followed, have been followed, and whether the matter requires criminal investigation. The Commissioner should report annually to Parliament, it would recommend the commission be established in such a way as to ensure that both compliance and public of its independence from the Armed Forces, we believe the commission would help the MoD identify lessons that need to be learned.
We also believe that true independence scrutiny mechanism would contributed bolstering the public confidence in the services." One could argue it has taken us 20 years to get to that point. Because its response to that report, the government noted that recommendation. It was actually recommendation. It was actually forced to bring in the independent,, complains Commissioner, following Instants in 2006. It was quite clear from early on, Susan Atkinson, the first Commissioner, didn't have the powers or abilities to make real change.
So, we then, I think it was under the 2015 act, but I think Lord Lancaster might have been involved Lancaster might have been involved in this, we got the Armed Forces ombudsman which did have powers to investigate. Again, had got to change things and make the real change needed. I think it is worth looking again at the report in 2019. One which I was not involved in. Entitled fairness without fear, the work of the service complains Commissioner, whether it gives a litany of failures.
Not because of the lack of dedication a behalf of the staff, but cuts in staff, the negative attitude that still existed towards the institution. And the delay in implementing recommendations. And that has actually been quite clear, because over the last few years, the slow drumbeat of scandals that we have drumbeat of scandals that we have had has not really gone down. We had obviously the issues around the reports referred to earlier run, we had another excellent report in 2019, women in the Armed Forces, which I also serve on.
It was absolutely appalling, the way in which women were treated, still being treated in the Armed Forces. We have at the issue around the red We have at the issue around the red arrows. We have had women being abused in terms of the submarine service. So, have we failed over the last 20 years, yes we have. And this, I think, is an opportunity to possibly change, but I do think we are hanging a lot on this bill. Somehow by just changing the name and changing slightly, things will improve.
I am not sure they will stop I think in terms of scrutiny of this bill, I think the Minister should take on board some changes. Because I'm concerned, for example, about the length of the Commissioner, for example. Because it says in the bill that he or she will be there for five years and could be extended for possibly another two years. I want to perhaps probe why that is. I know it was a suggestion of one of the past ombudsman, that she thought the length of term...
But you have got to the knowledge, I think that is important. The other thing is the actual independence of the actual Commissioner themselves. Because it don't have to rely on the finance from the MoD. I would like some mechanism set up whereby this body is not under the remit of the MoD, if it is going to be completely independent. Because we have seen, time and time again, organisations, referred to for example by the Veterans Commission, having to fight for the resources.
I think there are models where we can setup, whereby it falls outside the MoD and the budget is not in danger of being rated when it can be. -- Raided. Another thing is it would also be a mechanism by which the recommendations are implemented. Lord Stirrup said, needs to lead to reaction to those actual reports. So I think, as this bill goes through, I think I will just want my noble friends, I am minded to put some amendments down, which I think you need to strengthen this bill.
Because I think the intentions are good. I think if we are going to actually believe the German model, which I studied up on previous occasions, I am not sure of changing the title and changing what we have got is going to do that. So, yes, I welcome it, but I think there was a lot more work to be done yet.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My congratulations to the noble Baroness for her excellent maiden
20:55
Lord Colgrain (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Colgrain (Conservative)
Baroness for her excellent maiden speech. And we are fiercely very fortunate to have her in your logic chamber. -- We are obviously. My Lords, I will not sustain you very long in this refrigerator of a chamber, and I would like to thank the Minster for his excellent introductory remarks and also to thank him for his briefing that he undertook last week at the MoD. At that briefing, I asked him a question regarding reservists and the extent to which, and when, reservists will fall within the commissioners you remit.
I tried to make the point that the moment of deployment for reservists is not as clear-cut as it is for regulars. Given both their particular domestic circumstances. I've regarding their relationships with their employers. Regarding the definition of their employment date, it cannot always be readily ascertained. Full, the particular general service welfare matters and subsequent service law may need to be viewed from a slightly different perspective. Now, my Lords, I was delighted to hear the Minister is a reservist.
And the Minister indicated last week, that as a result he had an inkling to the point I was trying to make. I had the impression that as a consequence, he might have said something in the introduction that, to this debate, that would clarify the situation, regarding reservists. And the Minister did indeed use an all-encompassing expression, which included the word reservists, but really no more than that. It -- And as I have looked through the bill, I may have got this wrong.
I haven't found either a to the point I was making, nor indeed, even find the word reservists. Now, I hesitate to talk too much about reserves, given that in front of me, is my noble friends Lord Lancaster who knows much more about reserves than I ever will do. But he can in a sense, unbeknownst to me, encapsulating part of the worry I have got. By making a reference to both the pensions issue in the past, and the pay issue in the past. And I find myself thinking that there is a sort of overview problem, perhaps associated with this bill and reservists in particular.
And I wonder if there is means whereby the Minister might agree to get together with me, perhaps Lord Lancaster, and anybody else who has a particular reservist interest, to see if we can do the equivalent to stress testing certain circumstances whereby reservists might have slightly different or might find themselves having this bill applied to them in a slightly different way to regulars. And see whether that might not be a worthwhile starting point.
I tried to make the point that the moment of deployment for reservists is not as clear-cut as it is for regulars. Given both their particular domestic circumstances. I've regarding their relationships with their employers. Regarding the definition of their employment date, it cannot always be readily ascertained. Full, the particular general service welfare matters and subsequent service law may need to be viewed from a slightly different perspective. Now, my Lords, I was delighted to hear the Minister is a reservist.
And the Minister indicated last week, that as a result he had an inkling to the point I was trying to make. I had the impression that as a consequence, he might have said something in the introduction that, to this debate, that would clarify the situation, regarding reservists. And the Minister did indeed use an all-encompassing expression, which included the word reservists, but really no more than that. It -- And as I have looked through the bill, I may have got this wrong.
I haven't found either a to the point I was making, nor indeed, even find the word reservists. Now, I hesitate to talk too much about reserves, given that in front of me, is my noble friends Lord Lancaster who knows much more about reserves than I ever will do. But he can in a sense, unbeknownst to me, encapsulating part of the worry I have got. By making a reference to both the pensions issue in the past, and the pay issue in the past. And I find myself thinking that there is a sort of overview problem, perhaps associated with this bill and reservists in particular.
And I wonder if there is means whereby the Minister might agree to get together with me, perhaps Lord Lancaster, and anybody else who has a particular reservist interest, to see if we can do the equivalent to stress testing certain circumstances whereby reservists might have slightly different or might find themselves having this bill applied to them in a slightly different way to regulars. And see whether that might not be a worthwhile starting point.
20:58
Baroness Smith of Newnham (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Baroness Smith of Newnham (Liberal Democrat)
My Lords, it has been a long and interesting debate. This is the only contribution from the Liberal Democrat benches. So, I will crave your Lordships interests, sorry, indulgence, if I appear to go slightly back to the start of the debate, to express these benches support for, thanks to, and tribute to his Majesty's Armed Forces. As a country, we owed the Armed Forces a considerable debt of gratitude. And I think it is something we don't say often.
And I think we don't say sufficiently often to the public. So, it is very important, I think, that this debate is happening now, in the context of the geological challenges that we are facing on a daily basis. And if we are thinking about the welfare of the Armed Forces and the recruitment and retention, then this bill may play a small part in that. I think the noble Lord Lancaster is right, that we need to be very clear that we shouldn't put too much emphasis on one bill.
To rectify many of the issues associated with the Armed Forces. But this manifesto commitment from the government is a welcome one. And the Liberal Democrats in the other place and here welcomed the bill and wish it well. We inevitably have some questions and would like to raise this evening, but also will erase some amendments at committee stage. The bill is obviously intended to promote the welfare of service personnel and their family members. Which is very welcome.
It is very potent and clearly does go beyond the scope of the current ombudsman. the scope of the current ombudsman. As the noble Lord Russell of Liverpool was talking about. How much further does it go from the existing role? In theory, it would appear to be helpful in terms of going beyond the service complaints, to a wider remit for service personnel and their families to bring cases. But like other noble Lord, I would like to press the Minister on how the government envisages defining a family.
Because it can be understood in a variety of ways, and in particular, questions about kinship carers, but also, the families of deceased members. And here I think there is perhaps a slight gap in the draft legislation or legislation as it is currently The Minister was very clear it is about current service personnel but if someone is killed in action with their family members, relevant family members be able to have recourse to the Armed Forces Commissioner? Under the proposals envisaged? Or would it be a separate arrangement for them? I think it would be helpful if we could understand that a little bit more.
Like other noble Lords I would like to raise the question of the independence of the Commissioner. But also the independence of the improvements process. How is His Majesty government envisaging going about engaging in the recruitment of the Commissioner? Is it going to be an open call? I am assuming they are not going to recruit Capita to engage in the recruitment of the Commissioner. But how else might they do it? I was wondering whether the noble Lord, Lord Russell was in fact thinking the -- there might be a role if the adjournment Commissioner comes as a former MP.
Where there may be could be a role if the hereditary Peers bill passes unamended, perhaps a former member of your Lordships house might be able to put themselves forward to be a commissioner? I think it would be hell to understand the legislation says -- it would be helpful to understand, the legislation says it would not be a civil servant or service personnel. But it does not say it cannot be retired civil servant. All former service personnel.
-- Or former service personnel. The Minister is not into that. What provisions if it could be a retired general say, what provisions can be put in place to ensure people serving personnel would not feel inhibited in cases. The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie talked about having provisions for whistleblowing. If the independent commissioner did have a services background, they would inevitably have connections to the services. In many ways very useful. They will understand the cases that are being brought to them.
But if somebody is a very junior member of the Armed Forces, they might feel inhibited about bringing places -- bringing cases. I think understanding how independent the Commissioner will be is very important. That also goes to the Budget for the Commissioner. A figure of 4.5 to five A figure of 4.5 to £5 million has been talked about. How fixed is that figure? How far is the scope for the Commissioner to be put forward the proposals to say this is not going to be enough for the role I have been asked to undertake.
And I think there is also a question of scope. The noble Lady Baroness Liddell was talking about two very different types of case. The very broad issue of accommodation I want to come back to in a moment but also the very specific case about the RAF fatalities. Would something like that be within the scope of the Commissioner? Over the Commissioner not be able to look at that case because presumably there would be a formal inquiry into situations like that? So it would be useful to know how far there are going to be clear lines of demarcation between legal inquiries, legal investigations and what the Commissioner might do.
And finally Armed Forces accommodation. If we are concerned about the welfare of our Armed Forces, retention and in particular as the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster said, retention is about families. Having brought the homes back into public ownership is His Majesty government actually going to invest in ensuring the homes and the maintenance of it for purpose? So one key aspect of welfare is not going to be taking up the majority of the commissions time? Because it is surely that the government makes a clear case it is going to deal with accommodation issues? While we are about it.
Might the government think about looking into the Decent Homes Standard for Armed Forces accommodation? If it is right for renters in the civilian life then surely we should be demanding at least as much for our Armed Forces personnel and their families? My very final question would be is there any scope for looking at questions of frivolous and vexatious cases? Because clearly we want the Commissioner to be able to look at important, relevant cases. But just occasionally cases might be put forward that are frivolous and vexatious.
Will there be some sort of screening process to make sure the Commissioner is able to focus on meaningful cases and not to get caught up with anything that might be unnecessary -- unnecessarily bureaucratic. We wish this bill well and we will bring forward perhaps a few amendments at Committee stage. We look forward to the Minister's response.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I first begin by congratulating the noble Baroness,
And I think we don't say sufficiently often to the public. So, it is very important, I think, that this debate is happening now, in the context of the geological challenges that we are facing on a daily basis. And if we are thinking about the welfare of the Armed Forces and the recruitment and retention, then this bill may play a small part in that. I think the noble Lord Lancaster is right, that we need to be very clear that we shouldn't put too much emphasis on one bill.
To rectify many of the issues associated with the Armed Forces. But this manifesto commitment from the government is a welcome one. And the Liberal Democrats in the other place and here welcomed the bill and wish it well. We inevitably have some questions and would like to raise this evening, but also will erase some amendments at committee stage. The bill is obviously intended to promote the welfare of service personnel and their family members. Which is very welcome.
It is very potent and clearly does go beyond the scope of the current ombudsman. the scope of the current ombudsman. As the noble Lord Russell of Liverpool was talking about. How much further does it go from the existing role? In theory, it would appear to be helpful in terms of going beyond the service complaints, to a wider remit for service personnel and their families to bring cases. But like other noble Lord, I would like to press the Minister on how the government envisages defining a family.
Because it can be understood in a variety of ways, and in particular, questions about kinship carers, but also, the families of deceased members. And here I think there is perhaps a slight gap in the draft legislation or legislation as it is currently The Minister was very clear it is about current service personnel but if someone is killed in action with their family members, relevant family members be able to have recourse to the Armed Forces Commissioner? Under the proposals envisaged? Or would it be a separate arrangement for them? I think it would be helpful if we could understand that a little bit more.
Like other noble Lords I would like to raise the question of the independence of the Commissioner. But also the independence of the improvements process. How is His Majesty government envisaging going about engaging in the recruitment of the Commissioner? Is it going to be an open call? I am assuming they are not going to recruit Capita to engage in the recruitment of the Commissioner. But how else might they do it? I was wondering whether the noble Lord, Lord Russell was in fact thinking the -- there might be a role if the adjournment Commissioner comes as a former MP.
Where there may be could be a role if the hereditary Peers bill passes unamended, perhaps a former member of your Lordships house might be able to put themselves forward to be a commissioner? I think it would be hell to understand the legislation says -- it would be helpful to understand, the legislation says it would not be a civil servant or service personnel. But it does not say it cannot be retired civil servant. All former service personnel.
-- Or former service personnel. The Minister is not into that. What provisions if it could be a retired general say, what provisions can be put in place to ensure people serving personnel would not feel inhibited in cases. The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie talked about having provisions for whistleblowing. If the independent commissioner did have a services background, they would inevitably have connections to the services. In many ways very useful. They will understand the cases that are being brought to them.
But if somebody is a very junior member of the Armed Forces, they might feel inhibited about bringing places -- bringing cases. I think understanding how independent the Commissioner will be is very important. That also goes to the Budget for the Commissioner. A figure of 4.5 to five A figure of 4.5 to £5 million has been talked about. How fixed is that figure? How far is the scope for the Commissioner to be put forward the proposals to say this is not going to be enough for the role I have been asked to undertake.
And I think there is also a question of scope. The noble Lady Baroness Liddell was talking about two very different types of case. The very broad issue of accommodation I want to come back to in a moment but also the very specific case about the RAF fatalities. Would something like that be within the scope of the Commissioner? Over the Commissioner not be able to look at that case because presumably there would be a formal inquiry into situations like that? So it would be useful to know how far there are going to be clear lines of demarcation between legal inquiries, legal investigations and what the Commissioner might do.
And finally Armed Forces accommodation. If we are concerned about the welfare of our Armed Forces, retention and in particular as the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster said, retention is about families. Having brought the homes back into public ownership is His Majesty government actually going to invest in ensuring the homes and the maintenance of it for purpose? So one key aspect of welfare is not going to be taking up the majority of the commissions time? Because it is surely that the government makes a clear case it is going to deal with accommodation issues? While we are about it.
Might the government think about looking into the Decent Homes Standard for Armed Forces accommodation? If it is right for renters in the civilian life then surely we should be demanding at least as much for our Armed Forces personnel and their families? My very final question would be is there any scope for looking at questions of frivolous and vexatious cases? Because clearly we want the Commissioner to be able to look at important, relevant cases. But just occasionally cases might be put forward that are frivolous and vexatious.
Will there be some sort of screening process to make sure the Commissioner is able to focus on meaningful cases and not to get caught up with anything that might be unnecessary -- unnecessarily bureaucratic. We wish this bill well and we will bring forward perhaps a few amendments at Committee stage. We look forward to the Minister's response.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I first begin by congratulating the noble Baroness,
21:07
The Earl of Courtown (Conservative)
-
-
The Earl of Courtown (Conservative)
congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Carbery on her excellent Maiden speech. And in particular her relevance to the subject and the background that is coming from an army family. My Lords, I should also reiterate the statement from my noble friend, Baroness Goldie. We on these benches will approach this bill is critical friends. -- As critical friends. We have heard many excellent speeches from around the House and I am sure the noble Lord, the Minister as is his usual custom will pay particular attention to the concerns that have been made with guarded concerns because generally the whole house is in support of this bill.
My Lords, all noble Lords wish to see the highest standards of welfare for our Armed Forces personnel. We owe them a constant debt of gratitude and least we as parliamentary -- parliamentarians can do is ensure they are treated with the respect they deserve. As has been noted by many noble Lords including my noble friend Baroness Newlove, morale in the Armed Forces is not where we would like it to be. More must be done to make certain there are legitimate concerns which are effectively addressed.
If implemented correctly this new Commissioner should pave the way for greater oversight and transparency. However as we have heard success depends upon the data. My noble friend, Baroness Goldie has eloquently and clearly set out the opposition's position. I will not well on the points she has made so as not to detain the House much longer. But there are three issues I would like to focus on. The Commissioner as noble Lords have highlighted, will need independent resources and power.
And as was mentioned by the noble Lord, the Minister in his opening remarks the independence from the Ministry of Defence is crucial. Effective oversight of the service complaints system and service welfare matters only occurs if there is no intervention from vested interests. However this does not mean it should be entirely independent from Parliament. Just as the Commissioner will hold the Ministry of Defence on the Armed Forces to account, Parliament must be able to hold the Commissioner to account. As drafted however there is no scope for this in the bill.
This is an important omission giving the policy it is founded on the example as other noble Lords have said, the German Parliamentary Commissioner for the Armed Forces. Despite this my Lords, the Commissioner we are presented within this bill is noticeably different from the German Commissioner. The German Parliamentary Commissioner selected and nominations are made by the Defence Committee of parliamentary groups. The individual who receives the most votes is duly elected. The remit of the German Commissioner is established in article 4, 40 5B of Germany's basic law which states the Parliament Commissioner for the Armed Forces shall be appointed to safeguard basic rights and as axillary organ to the Bundesliga.
In exercising Parliamentary oversight. To do that the Commissioner may take action based upon their own initiative and discretion or at the direction of the Bundestag or the Defence Committee. The German Parliamentary Commissioner is therefore entirely independent of the Armed Forces but also ensures the German parliament exercises high degree of oversight guaranteeing the account ability of the Armed Forces. The German model therefore has a greater degree of parliamentary involvement than the model presented in this bill.
It would not be unique to make this Commissioner closer to Parliament. There is precedent in the Parliamentary and Health Services Ombudsman. Can I therefore ask the noble Lord, the Minister why the government has taken the decision and what are the reasons for not including a stronger role for Parliament? The second point I would like to raise my Lords, is that of resource. We know the Commissioner will cost more than the current ombudsman. The Explanatory Notes have mentioned an estimate cost of between 4.5 and 5.5 million.
Compared to the current cost of approximately 1.8 million. Will that extra cost be funded by the Ministry of Defence? Or will it come from a separate pot of funding. I know the noble Lord the Minister noted my question and will be aware and able to answer it in due course. Thirdly there are a number of vague reasons in this bill. New section 3401 a states the Commissioner will investigate general service welfare matters. But what that includes is not overly clear.
When the noble Lord the Minister rises for his closing remarks if he could offer greater clarity on the type of issues that could be investigated, that could be a benefit to the whole house. As other noble Lords have mentioned on all sides of the House it is also unclear what is meant by the relevant family members. We know this will be left to secondary legislation and during the passage of the bill in the other place the Minister for the Armed Forces said, the bill does not give an exact definition of family members.
That will be included in the secondary legislation that will be published between the House of Commons and the House of Lords stages. I am happy to be corrected by the noble Lord, the Minister but it does not appear this draft definition has yet been published by the Ministry of Defence. Can the noble Lord, the Minister tell the House when this draft might appear? As we enter Committee stage I think it would be useful to have some indication for the government of their intentions.
By addressing the issues that have been raised by noble Lords today, hopefully implementation will be efficient and effective. As the bill progresses the opposition will continue in the con -- the constructive manner that has been outlined today. We will not shy away from challenge for the government when necessary as is the duty of the opposition. But we will push for clarification and changes we believe are needed to ensure our forces receive treatment they deserve. My Lords, their sacrifices are an example to us all.
We owe them
**** Possible New Speaker ****
nothing less than our best. My Lords, can I start by thanking everyone for their contribution. And
My Lords, all noble Lords wish to see the highest standards of welfare for our Armed Forces personnel. We owe them a constant debt of gratitude and least we as parliamentary -- parliamentarians can do is ensure they are treated with the respect they deserve. As has been noted by many noble Lords including my noble friend Baroness Newlove, morale in the Armed Forces is not where we would like it to be. More must be done to make certain there are legitimate concerns which are effectively addressed.
If implemented correctly this new Commissioner should pave the way for greater oversight and transparency. However as we have heard success depends upon the data. My noble friend, Baroness Goldie has eloquently and clearly set out the opposition's position. I will not well on the points she has made so as not to detain the House much longer. But there are three issues I would like to focus on. The Commissioner as noble Lords have highlighted, will need independent resources and power.
And as was mentioned by the noble Lord, the Minister in his opening remarks the independence from the Ministry of Defence is crucial. Effective oversight of the service complaints system and service welfare matters only occurs if there is no intervention from vested interests. However this does not mean it should be entirely independent from Parliament. Just as the Commissioner will hold the Ministry of Defence on the Armed Forces to account, Parliament must be able to hold the Commissioner to account. As drafted however there is no scope for this in the bill.
This is an important omission giving the policy it is founded on the example as other noble Lords have said, the German Parliamentary Commissioner for the Armed Forces. Despite this my Lords, the Commissioner we are presented within this bill is noticeably different from the German Commissioner. The German Parliamentary Commissioner selected and nominations are made by the Defence Committee of parliamentary groups. The individual who receives the most votes is duly elected. The remit of the German Commissioner is established in article 4, 40 5B of Germany's basic law which states the Parliament Commissioner for the Armed Forces shall be appointed to safeguard basic rights and as axillary organ to the Bundesliga.
In exercising Parliamentary oversight. To do that the Commissioner may take action based upon their own initiative and discretion or at the direction of the Bundestag or the Defence Committee. The German Parliamentary Commissioner is therefore entirely independent of the Armed Forces but also ensures the German parliament exercises high degree of oversight guaranteeing the account ability of the Armed Forces. The German model therefore has a greater degree of parliamentary involvement than the model presented in this bill.
It would not be unique to make this Commissioner closer to Parliament. There is precedent in the Parliamentary and Health Services Ombudsman. Can I therefore ask the noble Lord, the Minister why the government has taken the decision and what are the reasons for not including a stronger role for Parliament? The second point I would like to raise my Lords, is that of resource. We know the Commissioner will cost more than the current ombudsman. The Explanatory Notes have mentioned an estimate cost of between 4.5 and 5.5 million.
Compared to the current cost of approximately 1.8 million. Will that extra cost be funded by the Ministry of Defence? Or will it come from a separate pot of funding. I know the noble Lord the Minister noted my question and will be aware and able to answer it in due course. Thirdly there are a number of vague reasons in this bill. New section 3401 a states the Commissioner will investigate general service welfare matters. But what that includes is not overly clear.
When the noble Lord the Minister rises for his closing remarks if he could offer greater clarity on the type of issues that could be investigated, that could be a benefit to the whole house. As other noble Lords have mentioned on all sides of the House it is also unclear what is meant by the relevant family members. We know this will be left to secondary legislation and during the passage of the bill in the other place the Minister for the Armed Forces said, the bill does not give an exact definition of family members.
That will be included in the secondary legislation that will be published between the House of Commons and the House of Lords stages. I am happy to be corrected by the noble Lord, the Minister but it does not appear this draft definition has yet been published by the Ministry of Defence. Can the noble Lord, the Minister tell the House when this draft might appear? As we enter Committee stage I think it would be useful to have some indication for the government of their intentions.
By addressing the issues that have been raised by noble Lords today, hopefully implementation will be efficient and effective. As the bill progresses the opposition will continue in the con -- the constructive manner that has been outlined today. We will not shy away from challenge for the government when necessary as is the duty of the opposition. But we will push for clarification and changes we believe are needed to ensure our forces receive treatment they deserve. My Lords, their sacrifices are an example to us all.
We owe them
**** Possible New Speaker ****
nothing less than our best. My Lords, can I start by thanking everyone for their contribution. And
21:14
Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)
-
-
Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)
everyone for their contribution. And for the general welcome support across the chamber for the intention of the bill in the establishment of the Armed Forces Commissioner. And also the very constructive comments and indeed challenge to the government which is essentially about how we might improve the way which the Commissioner will work. For that on behalf of the government I am very grateful. It would be remiss of me not to start by congratulating my honourable friend, my noble friend Baroness Carbery for her outstanding Maiden speech.
I hope she will be able to show a recording of it to her four-year-old grandson. I suspect he is properly in bed by now but who knows? It was great. Can I also say to her, without try to upset her, her father who she referred to as a soldier would be immensely proud of seeing his daughter in the chamber and to see her giving a speech like that. I think she said if I wrote it down correctly, he was an inspiration for her.
I think my noble friend, the noble Baroness was an inspiration to us all in the chamber. Listening to her story. So we look forward to her contributions in the future. Can I also say there are politicians which straddle party politics and they were one of those who were all look to. She was quite right to remind us of the pivotal role he played. As a Labour politician he was a politician that straddled that party political bridge and all of us who take a particular interest in national security matters and foreign policy matters, we all look to for inspiration and she was quite right to remind us of that.
We very grateful to her contribute and look Can I also just say before coming on to individual contributions, there are debates about what this should mean what that should mean, but just to pick out four points, for no overloads -- noble lords who made it, they asked the question, what difference is this going to make? Because that's the fundamental question. As many noble lords pointed out, there has been report after report into some of these matters.
Into sexism and racism. The noble Earl said what sorts of things will the Commissioner look at. Sexism, racism, misogyny, bullying, all of the inappropriate behaviours we could list. Lord Beamish pointed out there have been many reports on these matters. The phrase he used was the drumbeat of reports that have taken place. There isn't a single member in this chamber who does not hate some of the things we have read about. The question is, why will the commissioner make a difference and bring about the change that we all want.
I think that goes to the heart of it and while -- as we develop the bill there will be arguments and debates about what that means, what this means, what should happen there, but I think the fundamental point all the time is what difference it will make. I believe as many have pointed out, that placing something on a statutory basis, with an independent person choosing which reports they can undertake with that status of the UK parliament giving that individual that responsibility, I think offers us the best chance of ensuring we can move forward with respect to this.
I think we can do that. A number of noble lords raised the issue of independence. That is our intention for that to stand alone, that's why it is separated from the military, it can't be a serving military person or civil servant, it's to create that separation of power, of responsibility, to try to ensure that we can deliver the objectives that we all want. I think Baroness Goldie for her introductory remarks, the Defence Select Committee will be able to offer an opinion.
Can look at the individual. They will not be able to say it can't happen or block it in any way, but the defence committee of our parliament saying what they think about a particular individual will carry and influence -- and influence and will carry weight in determining what should or should not happen. I think that's the correct way forward and allows the Ministry of Defence to take a view of that before making a decision. The noble Baroness will also know that we are ensuring the successful candidate will have to undertake vetting.
I think she asked whether that will be the case. That will be the case, which I think is important. A number of noble lords have announced the issue of National Security full top that is not determined on the face of the bill, but the Secretary of State will have the power to secondary legislation to determine a list if they should want to of sites that they think should be something that should be excluded from the ability of the Commissioner to visit because of National Security considerations.
Lord Stewart mentioned about who would know that. That would be, I would have to say, one of the things you would expect advice from the military to the Secretary of State about sites that would perhaps be inappropriate for National Security reasons for the Commissioner to visit. There is an attempt through secondary legislation power to give the Secretary of State an opportunity to protect National Security sites from the Commissioner. The noble Lord and noble Baroness asked about family members and a number of other noble lords.
That will be in draft legislation and it will be published before Committee stage of this parliament. I shall try to ensure, because I have... The boot has been on the other foot with me, before Committee stage, if committee starts at 2 o'clock that everybody gets here 1:59. I will try to ensure everybody gets it in time to be able to assess it, look at it and use it for the debates. The noble Baroness asked about the difference, and I think the noble Earl answered the question.
The differences -- difference is that the German Commissioner sits on the Bundestag. You can argue taking it out of that increases the independence and separation of the government. You can look at it the other way, and say if you included in the Bundestag, that ensures parliament has more of a say. But you can also argue it from the point of view that by taking it out of it, you increase the independence of the particular person or individual who has that authority.
That is the choice that you have to make. In no particular order, because there were a huge number of questions that came up, some of which will have to be done at committee. Just to confirm that the Commissioner cannot make unannounced visits outside of the UK. Just to be clear about that. They can make visits, but they can't make any unannounced visits to sites outside of the UK. The noble Lord talked about the difference, and again, I think the whole issue around it is the ability to take general thematic issues into account and that is the main difference.
The existing Service Complaints Ombudsman has made the point that she is felt constrained by the fact that she can look at the individual complaints, but the ability to take a more general thematic approach has been denied to her and she felt that has been a really -- a very real problem. Going back to Baroness Goldie to show that I do listen and look at these. This would be more for committee. She raised the issue of secondary legislation, in particular she referred to sections, I'm going to read this because I will have to read it to make sure it is accurate.
We can confirm that sections 3658 A to B and five do not provide or support secondary legislation. New sections 365A 365AA 365AA2 365AA2B don't set out further functions for the Commissioner to support insubordinate legislation, i.e. Is not a delegated power, it is ensuring that the functions are those set out in the bill and can also include other functions conferred by other legislation were that legislation were to be in place. There were a couple of other examples of that which I will read to her in committee, but I will did not want her to think I was ignoring her question.
The Bishop of Norwich raised the whole issue of cultural change. I think building confidence in the new person is absolutely in the new person is absolutely fundamental to it. He mentioned the role of forces chaplains. And I think we all pay tribute to the work that they do and we know how important they would be. Of course we would expect the Commissioner to work with forces chaplains in the development of their work but also an understanding with the general service welfare issues are.
I think forces chaplains would be an important source of evidence for that and to take that forward. Can I congratulate Viscount Stansgate's on the engagement of his daughter to a group captain. He raised the important point about confidence that others raised. There will be a comprehensive communications programme. He mentioned the importance of making sure everyone was aware of the work of the Commissioner. Of course that is really important and there will be significant contributions done to ensure that that is taken forward.
The noble Viscount asked about the authority of the Commissioner. I go back to the point, I don't believe you can actually give much more authority to somebody than the British Parliament statutorily empowering an individual to take on such a role and I think that's really important. The resources a number of noble lords mentioned, the current resource for the Ombudsman is 1.8 million pounds, so it's almost a tripling potentially of the resources available to the new Commissioner.
I think that's a significant increase. Can I thank Lord Lancaster for the work he does with reserves. I'm very happy... Yes, of course.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I just wanted to add a bit of clarity between this conversation between regulars, veterans and between regulars, veterans and reserves. As Major General Lancaster, I'm head of the part-time volunteer reserve and subject to military law when wearing the uniform and what we imagine reserves to be. Where we get confused is to be. Where we get confused is veterans. When a regular leaves service, they do not become a service, they do not become a veteran. They join the regular reserve and have a reserve liability reserve and have a reserve liability and can be called back if we need them in divisions in the field, and subsequently join a recall reserve and still potentially have a liability.
I think the bill covers that, we call it a strategic reserve. What the bill does not cover and make clear is when a member of the strategic reserve could potentially make a claim and is it at any time, or when they are subject to military law. And that's what needs to be clarified.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
As I understand it it's when someone is subject to service law. I think the way forward with respect think the way forward with respect to this without getting into detail is someone mentioned the possibility is someone mentioned the possibility of a meeting, let's set up a meeting between ourselves to go through in detail some of this prior to committee where we can take some of committee where we can take some of that forward. My understanding is whether it's a regular or reserve, whether it's a regular or reserve, it's within scope if that individual is subject to service law.
But let's is subject to service law. But let's take some of this forward in due course. Can I just say in a polite point that it does not mention the word regulars in the bill either. Which is why when we talked about regulars or reserves, we went to individuals who were subject to service law as a way of an all- encompassing type of use of the phrase within the bill to help. Let's take this meeting forward. Can I also say specifically, one specific question that Lord Lancaster made, let me read this answer so I don't get it wrong.
The Ministry of Defence does not agree with the judgment of the employment tribunal in the matter of Milroy. An appeal has been lodged with the employment appeals Tribunal. I hope that is helpful to him. He may have known that, but I didn't. It's helpful that is on the record, so I hope that helps the noble Lord. With respect to Gibraltar, there are ongoing discussions. When I was in the noble Baroness's place, I always used to ask about Gibraltar isn't in scope of the bill.
It's the normal legislative process, but these discussions take place with the First Minister in Gibraltar in order to see how we apply the appropriate legislation from here to there should they wish to do so. Can I say to the noble Baroness, thank you for her remarks about the establishment of a Commissioner. Important remarks about what we do with respect to the younger generation. I think it's an important general point. She also talked about... She will know that the -- veterans are not within scope of the bill, but nonetheless, as Lord Brown and Lord Hay made, she made important point about veterans, those of been put on the record and certainly I will make sure that the certainly I will make sure that the points they have made our sent onto the Northern Ireland Office so they are aware of the comments made.
It doesn't particularly answer the specifics, I am not pretending otherwise to the noble lords or her, but I hope she realises I've taken it seriously and will ensure they are passed on to the Northern Can I thank the noble Baroness Owen for the comments and point she has made. And the thematic footing that is available to the Commissioner. I think that is the whole point of it. And again the ability of the Commissioner to then present their reports to Parliament and for that to be discussed I think is particularly important.
Can I thank Lord Brown as well for his comments and I am glad he has recovered. My noble friend Lord Brown. I am glad he has recovered. You mentioned the need for a wide-ranging debate on the adult report. The importance of the candidate and the person we have is crucial. It is crucial to that. It will office you require a strong determined individual to do that. But he is right you have pointed, pointed that out. I thank him for pointed that out.
I thank him for his support and his remarks as well. Again Lord Brown... The importance of families I think we can recognise that and for the first time to give the ability of families to make a complaint to the commission and for that to be taken forward is quite right to have pointed that out. Can I confirm bereaved are included. I think it is a really important point. That was made clear in the common stage. Just to say again, bereaved and the noble Baroness raised that point as well.
Bereaved are included in the scope of the bill. Can I thank my noble friend Baroness Liddell as well for her contribution. And again the highlights she made of the importance of the person that is appointed is crucial. As the Baroness Bennett and the point of need for cultural change, which is at the heart of everything here. And the way we can address that. There were the continuing debate but as I said to her -- there will be continuing debate but as I said to her, the Commissioner if they choose to do so to use individual significance, individual complaints and then if they feel that is indicative of the more general welfare problem they of course then can use those as individual examples.
To generate their desire, their intention or their decision to investigate something more generally as a consequence of that. Can I thank Lord Russell as well for reminding me of the Armed Forces scheme and our time together on that. Of course he is right to have bring the questions you raised. Of course we need someone with experience. I think I am right in saying and if I am wrong I will correct it at committee but although the Commissioner cannot be current serving military or a civil servant, there is nothing for people who may decide to recruit who have had that experience.
So if they are not serving any more than maybe someone who was serving but is now retired, it may be they could be recruited. If I am wrong in that I will correct that. It will be the developing relationship of the organisations the noble Lord mentioned which are absolute fundamental. You would expect that is good practice. The whole entry will debate this committee, the ability to enter premises, when that is appropriate and when it is not. It will be a matter for debate committee.
What we are trying to strike a balance between national security, the ability of the Commissioner to go somewhere unannounced where they think it would be advantageous to do that. But also being fair to the operations and the operational activity in the base and so on. It is that base which is needed. Can I thank Lord Hague for his contrition as well. The points he made. My noble friend Lord Beamish and his massive experience is really welcome. We will discuss these matters.
We regard five years as an appropriate term of office and it is a decision we have come to but I look forward to discussing that in more detail. I thought the most important thing is I said at the beginning, the point he made was the point of reports. We have to get over that. We just have reports after report. I thank Baroness Smith again for her contribution and for as I have said we will define a family in regulations before committee.
Of course accommodation is something that will be looked at and can be looked at and it is something that is really important. I have said to Lord -- I have said noble Lord I will take this issue. I think I have covered many of the points, if I have not covered everything point I thank the noble Lord for the points he has made. The money does come from the MOD by the way. That is how it is funded.
General welfare matters again, I have raised all those sorts of things that can be raised there. Just to conclude I think it is a really important discussion we have had this evening. What I really do not want is in two years, three years, four years, five years for whoever is in this position or whatever government is in place, for us to be discussing once again the establishment of some other structure, some of the process, some other procedure to deal with some of these which we are confronted with.
It is an acceptable to read some of the things we continue to read. -- An acceptable to read some of the things we continue to read. We have to find a way of changing these and making a difference. I believe that is what the vast majority of those in the Armed Forces want to achieve. We have to find a way of dealing with that. And we have to find a way of this Parliament finding a structure that really deals with it. So we do not have further reports.
And with that I beg to move.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is this bill be now read a second time. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I beg to move the other
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I beg to move the other motion standing in my name on the order paper.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is this motion be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
contents have it. My Lords, I beg to move the House do now adjourn.
I hope she will be able to show a recording of it to her four-year-old grandson. I suspect he is properly in bed by now but who knows? It was great. Can I also say to her, without try to upset her, her father who she referred to as a soldier would be immensely proud of seeing his daughter in the chamber and to see her giving a speech like that. I think she said if I wrote it down correctly, he was an inspiration for her.
I think my noble friend, the noble Baroness was an inspiration to us all in the chamber. Listening to her story. So we look forward to her contributions in the future. Can I also say there are politicians which straddle party politics and they were one of those who were all look to. She was quite right to remind us of the pivotal role he played. As a Labour politician he was a politician that straddled that party political bridge and all of us who take a particular interest in national security matters and foreign policy matters, we all look to for inspiration and she was quite right to remind us of that.
We very grateful to her contribute and look Can I also just say before coming on to individual contributions, there are debates about what this should mean what that should mean, but just to pick out four points, for no overloads -- noble lords who made it, they asked the question, what difference is this going to make? Because that's the fundamental question. As many noble lords pointed out, there has been report after report into some of these matters.
Into sexism and racism. The noble Earl said what sorts of things will the Commissioner look at. Sexism, racism, misogyny, bullying, all of the inappropriate behaviours we could list. Lord Beamish pointed out there have been many reports on these matters. The phrase he used was the drumbeat of reports that have taken place. There isn't a single member in this chamber who does not hate some of the things we have read about. The question is, why will the commissioner make a difference and bring about the change that we all want.
I think that goes to the heart of it and while -- as we develop the bill there will be arguments and debates about what that means, what this means, what should happen there, but I think the fundamental point all the time is what difference it will make. I believe as many have pointed out, that placing something on a statutory basis, with an independent person choosing which reports they can undertake with that status of the UK parliament giving that individual that responsibility, I think offers us the best chance of ensuring we can move forward with respect to this.
I think we can do that. A number of noble lords raised the issue of independence. That is our intention for that to stand alone, that's why it is separated from the military, it can't be a serving military person or civil servant, it's to create that separation of power, of responsibility, to try to ensure that we can deliver the objectives that we all want. I think Baroness Goldie for her introductory remarks, the Defence Select Committee will be able to offer an opinion.
Can look at the individual. They will not be able to say it can't happen or block it in any way, but the defence committee of our parliament saying what they think about a particular individual will carry and influence -- and influence and will carry weight in determining what should or should not happen. I think that's the correct way forward and allows the Ministry of Defence to take a view of that before making a decision. The noble Baroness will also know that we are ensuring the successful candidate will have to undertake vetting.
I think she asked whether that will be the case. That will be the case, which I think is important. A number of noble lords have announced the issue of National Security full top that is not determined on the face of the bill, but the Secretary of State will have the power to secondary legislation to determine a list if they should want to of sites that they think should be something that should be excluded from the ability of the Commissioner to visit because of National Security considerations.
Lord Stewart mentioned about who would know that. That would be, I would have to say, one of the things you would expect advice from the military to the Secretary of State about sites that would perhaps be inappropriate for National Security reasons for the Commissioner to visit. There is an attempt through secondary legislation power to give the Secretary of State an opportunity to protect National Security sites from the Commissioner. The noble Lord and noble Baroness asked about family members and a number of other noble lords.
That will be in draft legislation and it will be published before Committee stage of this parliament. I shall try to ensure, because I have... The boot has been on the other foot with me, before Committee stage, if committee starts at 2 o'clock that everybody gets here 1:59. I will try to ensure everybody gets it in time to be able to assess it, look at it and use it for the debates. The noble Baroness asked about the difference, and I think the noble Earl answered the question.
The differences -- difference is that the German Commissioner sits on the Bundestag. You can argue taking it out of that increases the independence and separation of the government. You can look at it the other way, and say if you included in the Bundestag, that ensures parliament has more of a say. But you can also argue it from the point of view that by taking it out of it, you increase the independence of the particular person or individual who has that authority.
That is the choice that you have to make. In no particular order, because there were a huge number of questions that came up, some of which will have to be done at committee. Just to confirm that the Commissioner cannot make unannounced visits outside of the UK. Just to be clear about that. They can make visits, but they can't make any unannounced visits to sites outside of the UK. The noble Lord talked about the difference, and again, I think the whole issue around it is the ability to take general thematic issues into account and that is the main difference.
The existing Service Complaints Ombudsman has made the point that she is felt constrained by the fact that she can look at the individual complaints, but the ability to take a more general thematic approach has been denied to her and she felt that has been a really -- a very real problem. Going back to Baroness Goldie to show that I do listen and look at these. This would be more for committee. She raised the issue of secondary legislation, in particular she referred to sections, I'm going to read this because I will have to read it to make sure it is accurate.
We can confirm that sections 3658 A to B and five do not provide or support secondary legislation. New sections 365A 365AA 365AA2 365AA2B don't set out further functions for the Commissioner to support insubordinate legislation, i.e. Is not a delegated power, it is ensuring that the functions are those set out in the bill and can also include other functions conferred by other legislation were that legislation were to be in place. There were a couple of other examples of that which I will read to her in committee, but I will did not want her to think I was ignoring her question.
The Bishop of Norwich raised the whole issue of cultural change. I think building confidence in the new person is absolutely in the new person is absolutely fundamental to it. He mentioned the role of forces chaplains. And I think we all pay tribute to the work that they do and we know how important they would be. Of course we would expect the Commissioner to work with forces chaplains in the development of their work but also an understanding with the general service welfare issues are.
I think forces chaplains would be an important source of evidence for that and to take that forward. Can I congratulate Viscount Stansgate's on the engagement of his daughter to a group captain. He raised the important point about confidence that others raised. There will be a comprehensive communications programme. He mentioned the importance of making sure everyone was aware of the work of the Commissioner. Of course that is really important and there will be significant contributions done to ensure that that is taken forward.
The noble Viscount asked about the authority of the Commissioner. I go back to the point, I don't believe you can actually give much more authority to somebody than the British Parliament statutorily empowering an individual to take on such a role and I think that's really important. The resources a number of noble lords mentioned, the current resource for the Ombudsman is 1.8 million pounds, so it's almost a tripling potentially of the resources available to the new Commissioner.
I think that's a significant increase. Can I thank Lord Lancaster for the work he does with reserves. I'm very happy... Yes, of course.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I just wanted to add a bit of clarity between this conversation between regulars, veterans and between regulars, veterans and reserves. As Major General Lancaster, I'm head of the part-time volunteer reserve and subject to military law when wearing the uniform and what we imagine reserves to be. Where we get confused is to be. Where we get confused is veterans. When a regular leaves service, they do not become a service, they do not become a veteran. They join the regular reserve and have a reserve liability reserve and have a reserve liability and can be called back if we need them in divisions in the field, and subsequently join a recall reserve and still potentially have a liability.
I think the bill covers that, we call it a strategic reserve. What the bill does not cover and make clear is when a member of the strategic reserve could potentially make a claim and is it at any time, or when they are subject to military law. And that's what needs to be clarified.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
As I understand it it's when someone is subject to service law. I think the way forward with respect think the way forward with respect to this without getting into detail is someone mentioned the possibility is someone mentioned the possibility of a meeting, let's set up a meeting between ourselves to go through in detail some of this prior to committee where we can take some of committee where we can take some of that forward. My understanding is whether it's a regular or reserve, whether it's a regular or reserve, it's within scope if that individual is subject to service law.
But let's is subject to service law. But let's take some of this forward in due course. Can I just say in a polite point that it does not mention the word regulars in the bill either. Which is why when we talked about regulars or reserves, we went to individuals who were subject to service law as a way of an all- encompassing type of use of the phrase within the bill to help. Let's take this meeting forward. Can I also say specifically, one specific question that Lord Lancaster made, let me read this answer so I don't get it wrong.
The Ministry of Defence does not agree with the judgment of the employment tribunal in the matter of Milroy. An appeal has been lodged with the employment appeals Tribunal. I hope that is helpful to him. He may have known that, but I didn't. It's helpful that is on the record, so I hope that helps the noble Lord. With respect to Gibraltar, there are ongoing discussions. When I was in the noble Baroness's place, I always used to ask about Gibraltar isn't in scope of the bill.
It's the normal legislative process, but these discussions take place with the First Minister in Gibraltar in order to see how we apply the appropriate legislation from here to there should they wish to do so. Can I say to the noble Baroness, thank you for her remarks about the establishment of a Commissioner. Important remarks about what we do with respect to the younger generation. I think it's an important general point. She also talked about... She will know that the -- veterans are not within scope of the bill, but nonetheless, as Lord Brown and Lord Hay made, she made important point about veterans, those of been put on the record and certainly I will make sure that the certainly I will make sure that the points they have made our sent onto the Northern Ireland Office so they are aware of the comments made.
It doesn't particularly answer the specifics, I am not pretending otherwise to the noble lords or her, but I hope she realises I've taken it seriously and will ensure they are passed on to the Northern Can I thank the noble Baroness Owen for the comments and point she has made. And the thematic footing that is available to the Commissioner. I think that is the whole point of it. And again the ability of the Commissioner to then present their reports to Parliament and for that to be discussed I think is particularly important.
Can I thank Lord Brown as well for his comments and I am glad he has recovered. My noble friend Lord Brown. I am glad he has recovered. You mentioned the need for a wide-ranging debate on the adult report. The importance of the candidate and the person we have is crucial. It is crucial to that. It will office you require a strong determined individual to do that. But he is right you have pointed, pointed that out. I thank him for pointed that out.
I thank him for his support and his remarks as well. Again Lord Brown... The importance of families I think we can recognise that and for the first time to give the ability of families to make a complaint to the commission and for that to be taken forward is quite right to have pointed that out. Can I confirm bereaved are included. I think it is a really important point. That was made clear in the common stage. Just to say again, bereaved and the noble Baroness raised that point as well.
Bereaved are included in the scope of the bill. Can I thank my noble friend Baroness Liddell as well for her contribution. And again the highlights she made of the importance of the person that is appointed is crucial. As the Baroness Bennett and the point of need for cultural change, which is at the heart of everything here. And the way we can address that. There were the continuing debate but as I said to her -- there will be continuing debate but as I said to her, the Commissioner if they choose to do so to use individual significance, individual complaints and then if they feel that is indicative of the more general welfare problem they of course then can use those as individual examples.
To generate their desire, their intention or their decision to investigate something more generally as a consequence of that. Can I thank Lord Russell as well for reminding me of the Armed Forces scheme and our time together on that. Of course he is right to have bring the questions you raised. Of course we need someone with experience. I think I am right in saying and if I am wrong I will correct it at committee but although the Commissioner cannot be current serving military or a civil servant, there is nothing for people who may decide to recruit who have had that experience.
So if they are not serving any more than maybe someone who was serving but is now retired, it may be they could be recruited. If I am wrong in that I will correct that. It will be the developing relationship of the organisations the noble Lord mentioned which are absolute fundamental. You would expect that is good practice. The whole entry will debate this committee, the ability to enter premises, when that is appropriate and when it is not. It will be a matter for debate committee.
What we are trying to strike a balance between national security, the ability of the Commissioner to go somewhere unannounced where they think it would be advantageous to do that. But also being fair to the operations and the operational activity in the base and so on. It is that base which is needed. Can I thank Lord Hague for his contrition as well. The points he made. My noble friend Lord Beamish and his massive experience is really welcome. We will discuss these matters.
We regard five years as an appropriate term of office and it is a decision we have come to but I look forward to discussing that in more detail. I thought the most important thing is I said at the beginning, the point he made was the point of reports. We have to get over that. We just have reports after report. I thank Baroness Smith again for her contribution and for as I have said we will define a family in regulations before committee.
Of course accommodation is something that will be looked at and can be looked at and it is something that is really important. I have said to Lord -- I have said noble Lord I will take this issue. I think I have covered many of the points, if I have not covered everything point I thank the noble Lord for the points he has made. The money does come from the MOD by the way. That is how it is funded.
General welfare matters again, I have raised all those sorts of things that can be raised there. Just to conclude I think it is a really important discussion we have had this evening. What I really do not want is in two years, three years, four years, five years for whoever is in this position or whatever government is in place, for us to be discussing once again the establishment of some other structure, some of the process, some other procedure to deal with some of these which we are confronted with.
It is an acceptable to read some of the things we continue to read. -- An acceptable to read some of the things we continue to read. We have to find a way of changing these and making a difference. I believe that is what the vast majority of those in the Armed Forces want to achieve. We have to find a way of dealing with that. And we have to find a way of this Parliament finding a structure that really deals with it. So we do not have further reports.
And with that I beg to move.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is this bill be now read a second time. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I beg to move the other
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I beg to move the other motion standing in my name on the order paper.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is this motion be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
contents have it. My Lords, I beg to move the House do now adjourn.