Honours System

Lord Dubs Excerpts

Tuesday 26th March 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I understand that the order cannot be renamed. The statute makes it quite clear that it must be known by that name and no other, so we would have to close it and start another. In response to the general issue that has been raised, it is noteworthy that 10 Commonwealth countries, many of them in the Caribbean, continue to nominate people for Orders of the British Empire and other ranks, so I am not sure that the reservations expressed by my noble friend are necessarily widely shared.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, while accepting the point about not using the term “Empire”, I put a further comment to the Minister. Does he accept that one of the criticisms is that there is a hierarchy of honours and that the top honours go to senior people in this country who get them because of their jobs, whereas at the bottom of the scale are the most worthy people who do voluntary work for fellow members of their community? Is it not those people, who work for nothing for their community, who ought to be given pride of place in our honours system?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I agree: no one should get an honour simply for carrying out the job they are paid to do. As I said right at the beginning, the operation of the honours system is independent of government; there is a Main Honours Committee and nine or 10 sub-committees below it, with civil servants and Members of your Lordships’ House on them. I am sure they will take on board the comments made by the noble Lord that there should be a fairer distribution of the ranks of Orders of the British Empire between those who at the moment are the main beneficiaries and others who perhaps get some of the lower orders.

Digital Mapping: Restrictions

Lord Dubs Excerpts

Thursday 31st January 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

Again, I understand the noble Lord’s concern. Access to critical national infrastructure sites is, of course, heavily restricted. Ordnance Survey, as the Government’s national mapping agency, is the only mapping organisation that has right of access to property for the purpose of mapping under the Ordnance Survey Act, passed by your Lordships’ House in 1841. But in view of the concern that the noble Lord has expressed and that of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, I will go back to double-check the information I have been given. Of course, much of this information is already obtainable through satellites and Google street survey. The Soviet Union has mapped the UK since the 1940s. One has to be realistic about the amount of information already available—satellites can identify objects that are 30 centimetres long.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, would the Minister care to comment on the following? I was returning in a taxi from outside London to London. Going up my road, the driver was able to tell me the colour of my front door—he knew exactly what it was. Is that a healthy situation to be in?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I hope it enabled the noble Lord to reach his destination. The geophysical data available helps people in their everyday lives. Noble Lords waiting for a 159 bus can use their iPhones to see when that bus will be coming. Noble Lords who might have forgotten where they parked their car can use their mobile phones to identify it. Noble Lords who go jogging in the morning can see whether they are going faster or slower than other noble Lords on the same circuit. One has to recognise that there are real advantages from having this geophysical data. I would not be concerned if everybody knew the colour of my front door.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill [HL]

Lord Dubs Excerpts

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Friday 7th September 2018 Lords Chamber

The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, spoke about the whole-House by-election in March 2017. It was for a seat previously occupied by a Conservative Peer, so under the Carter convention a Conservative should be elected. The noble Lord argued that the fact that 346 out of 803 voted in the election indicated a lack of enthusiasm among your Lordships for the election. He argued that a turnout of only 43% was very low. However, given that few of your Lordships other than these Benches would naturally have an interest in electing a Conservative, one can assume that among Conservative Peers there was a very high turnout. Even if all 250 Conservative Peers had voted, which was obviously not quite the case, 96 Peers from all other parties would have voted. Perhaps one can assume—

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, I am not an expert in procedure, and I have listened quite hard, but are we not in a Second Reading debate? I thought that was not acceptable.

General Election: Voting Rights

Lord Dubs Excerpts

Tuesday 25th April 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, would it not be more important to give the vote to 16 and 17 year-olds, whose future is in this country, than to people who have left this country, do not pay taxes and seem to have no interest in us?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

Since the last election, the issue has been discussed on several occasions in the other place. Each time that it was put to a vote, the proposition that the noble Lord has just referred to was voted down. We are in line with most mature democracies in having a voting age of 18, which is aligned with the age for jury service. I do not detect a huge public demand to lower it.

Higher Education and Research Bill

Lord Dubs Excerpts

Report: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 13th March 2017 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Dubs]

147: After Clause 84, insert the following new Clause—
“Access to support for students recognised as needing protection
(1) Within six months from the day on which this Act comes into force, the Secretary of State must, by regulations, make provision for financial support for higher education courses to be offered to students with certain immigration statuses.(2) The regulations specified in subsection (1) must include, but need not be restricted to, provision for—(a) persons granted humanitarian protection and their family members; and(b) persons who have been brought to the United Kingdom under the Syrian Vulnerable Persons Relocation Scheme, or any equivalent scheme, and their family members to be eligible for the support set out in subsection (3).(3) The support set out in this subsection is—(a) home fees for a higher education course, if they have been ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom since being granted leave, and(b) student loans for a higher education course, if they have been ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom since being granted leave, and are ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom on the first day of the first academic term of that course.(4) In this section—“home fees” means fees for a higher education course charged to persons considered as “qualifying persons” under regulations made under the Higher Education Act 2004;“student loans” means loans made to students in connection with their undertaking of a higher education course under the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998.”

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, an amendment on this topic was put before the House in Committee. I have now had it reworded to take account of the Minister’s objections on that occasion. Essentially, the amendment concerns access to student support for higher education for people who are either refugees or have humanitarian status.

In fact, people with refugee status are eligible for this support and they do not have to wait three years to receive it. The anomaly concerns people who have come here under what is called humanitarian protection—mainly, but not all, Syrians who have come under the vulnerable persons scheme—and if they wish to get student support for access to higher education they have to wait three years. That is a pretty long time for people whose education may already have been harmed by what happened in their lives before they got to this country.

In every other respect, those with humanitarian protection have the same rights as those who have refugee status. Refugee status comes under the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees, whereas, as I understand it, humanitarian protection comes under domestic and EU law. But it is only in not having to wait three years if you have refugee status that there is a difference between the two. That is surely an anomaly. To make things even worse, the position in Scotland is better than it is here. I am not sure that this is a day when I should refer to Scotland in glowing terms, but certainly they do better there.

I hope the Government will look at this. I think it requires a statutory instrument to put this right. I am concerned both about people who are already here and are waiting to get access to higher education and about people who will come here in the future. In the year to September 2016, there were nearly 2,000 decisions about Syrian nationals but only three grants of humanitarian protection; virtually all the rest got refugee status. So we are talking about people who are suffering from a couple of anomalies. One is that if they come with humanitarian protection they have difficulty getting access to higher education. If they can only get refugee status, that will all be sorted out.

I am optimistic that the Government will move. I had a meeting with the Home Secretary, at her request, earlier this afternoon. I was left with a feeling of hope and optimism. I did check that it was all right for me to mention the meeting. I hope I am not excessively optimistic about this, but if the Government speak with one voice I hope to hear that voice reflected in what the Minister says in response to the amendment. I beg to move.

[Lord Judd (Lab)]

My Lords, I just want to say how much I appreciate the fact that my noble friend has moved this amendment. He referred to the anomaly. In view of what he says about his meeting with the Home Secretary, I hesitate to make this point, but I disagree with him—I say that it is unworthy rather than an anomaly. He says he hopes the Government will look at it. It seems the Government are looking at it, and I congratulate my noble friend on having got it this far.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for bringing forward this amendment and, with others, I commend him for his tireless campaign on behalf of a group of vulnerable people. This is an important issue and our short debate today, coupled with our debate in Committee, have demonstrated wide support and compassion for those who seek our protection. The UK has a long and proud history of offering sanctuary to those who genuinely need it. The Government take our responsibility in asylum cases very seriously.

Those who come to this country and obtain international protection are able to access student support and home fee status. Uniquely, those who have been granted refugee status and their family members are allowed access to immediate and full support. This includes access to tuition fee loans, living costs support and home fee status at higher education institutions. This is a privilege not extended to others, including UK nationals who have lived overseas for a few years or EEA nationals, all of whom need to have lawfully resided within the EEA for at least three years prior to commencing study.

The requirement for three years’ lawful residence was put before the Supreme Court only two years ago, in the case of Tigere. The Supreme Court upheld as fully justified the Government’s policy of requiring three years’ ordinary residence in the UK prior to starting a course. The Supreme Court also upheld the Government’s case that it was legitimate to target substantial taxpayer subsidy of student loans on those who are likely to remain in this country indefinitely so that the general public benefits of their tertiary education will benefit the country.

Noble Lords have expressed sympathy and compassion for people who have entered the UK under the Syrian vulnerable persons resettlement scheme and the vulnerable children’s resettlement scheme who are currently granted humanitarian protection. The Government share that sympathy and have taken a number of actions to support those on the scheme. The Government are not persuaded of the need to treat persons given humanitarian protection more favourably than UK nationals for the purpose of student support. The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, raised some wider issues, and I confirm that we are looking at them in the round.

UK nationals arriving from overseas must wait three years before accessing student support, regardless of their personal circumstances, and so must nationals of British Overseas Territories. That is not a lack of compassion but a fair, objective and non-discriminatory rule to demonstrate the lasting connection to the UK upheld by the Supreme Court in the Tigere case.

Turning to the specific group whose cause the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has championed, I know that the Home Secretary has met him to discuss how we can progress the issue of access to higher education and that she shares my sympathy for the matters presented by the noble Lord. The Government understand the importance of accessing higher education as soon as possible for those on the Syrian vulnerable persons resettlement scheme and the vulnerable children’s resettlement scheme and are looking very carefully at this issue. I hope that the noble Lord will understand that I cannot say more than that today. I know that he will continue to engage with the Home Office on this issue over the coming weeks to resolve some of the complexities in the determination of refugee status to safeguard the UK’s proud history of offering sanctuary to those who genuinely need it.

I was not at the meeting which the noble Lord attended earlier today, but if he came away from that meeting with a spirit of hope and optimism, it is no purpose of mine to do anything to take away from that. In the light of the ongoing discussions that are under way with the Home Office, and against a background of the spirit of hope and optimism mentioned by noble Lords, I hope that the noble Lord might feel that this is not an amendment that should be pressed to a Division at this stage.

[Lord Dubs]

My Lords, I hope I have not gone over the top in my sense of optimism. It is not something I normally do in relation to this Government, and I have had experience to the contrary on other, related issues. However, I take a little bit of comfort from what the Minister said. I took more comfort in my earlier meeting today, but that is not on the record for our debate now. However, the Government speak with one voice, both privately and publicly, and I am hopeful that they will be able to deal before too long with what is an acknowledged anomaly.

It is unfair that if people who have missed out on education and had enormous difficulties in their life want to make some sense of their life, they have to wait three years to access higher education. It is an appallingly long time. What are they supposed to do in those three years—sit at home and watch television? It is a real indictment when these people want to move forward. I accept that other groups are also penalised in this way—they should be looked at in the same way—but if people are going to make a positive contribution to this country, it is right that we should not withhold higher education from them. That way, they can make a much bigger and more positive contribution to this country. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment—but on the understanding that, at intervals, the Government will let us know how they are getting on with looking at this.

Amendment 147 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Dubs]

154: After Clause 86, insert the following new Clause—
“Independent review of the Prevent strategy in higher education institutions
(1) Before the end of the period of three months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must appoint an independent reviewer to—(a) conduct an independent review of the operation and effectiveness of the Prevent strategy in relevant higher education institutions; and (b) submit a report to the Secretary of State on the findings of the review.(2) The report must address, though may not be limited to, the following matters—(a) the operation and effectiveness of the Prevent strategy in higher education institutions;(b) the interaction of Prevent with—(i) other legal duties on higher education institutions; and(ii) the criminal law as it relates to higher education institutions;(c) existing arrangements for the inspection and monitoring of higher education institutions’ compliance with the Prevent duty; and(d) the nature and extent of training provided to staff working in higher education institutions.(3) The independent reviewer may invite evidence from civil society groups and others with expertise in, or experience of, Prevent.(4) An individual must not be appointed to the role of independent reviewer if that individual—(a) has a close association with Her Majesty’s Government; or(b) has concurrent obligations as a Government appointed reviewer.(5) The reviewer must have access to security sensitive information on the same basis as the reviewer appointed under section 36 of the Terrorism Act 2006.(6) In appointing the reviewer, the Secretary of State must have regard to the need to ensure the reviewer has the relevant qualifications, including legal qualifications, to carry out his functions.(7) The Secretary of State, after consultation with the independent reviewer, must provide the reviewer with such staff as are sufficient to ensure that the reviewer is able properly to carry out his functions.(8) The Secretary of State must pay to the reviewer—(a) expenses incurred in carrying out his functions under this section; and(b) such allowances as the Secretary of State determines.(9) The Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament a copy of the report received under subsection (1)(b).(10) In this section, “Prevent” means the Prevent strand of Her Majesty’s Government’s counter-terrorism strategy CONTEST, including the statutory Prevent structure; and “statutory Prevent structure” means the provisions set out at Part 5 of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015.”

[Lord Dubs]

My Lords, this amendment requires the Secretary of State for Education to appoint an independent person to review the Prevent strategy in higher education institutions. Such a review would be intended to cover the operation and effectiveness of the strategy—for example, by looking at the training of staff who have to give effect to the strategy—and at the legal obligations of universities, including human rights protection under the Human Rights Act 1998. It is essential that the reviewer of the strategy who would be appointed under the amendment should be quite independent of government.

I appreciate that this is a controversial issue, certainly as regards higher education and our universities. Many eminent bodies—parliamentary bodies and others—have criticised the strategy because of its implications. For example, the Joint Committee on Human Rights in 2014-15 concluded that,

“because of the importance of freedom of speech and academic freedom in the context of university education, the entire … framework which rests on the new ‘prevent’ duty is not appropriate for application to universities”.

Government guidance requires higher education providers to entirely mitigate the risk of a speaker drawing an individual into terrorism. That is quite a complicated concept. It came out in a letter from a university in relation to a discussion with the organisers of an event that,

“there is a risk that given the topics to be discussed, it may attract attendees which hold extremist views”.

These are quite far-reaching bits of advice for universities, and it is not totally clear whether they could easily be implemented.

In July 2016, the Home Affairs Select Committee concluded in its look at radicalisation:

“The concerns about Prevent amongst the communities most affected by it must be addressed. Otherwise it will continue to be viewed with suspicion by many, and by some as ‘toxic’”.


David Anderson QC, the former reviewer of terrorist legislation, thought that there should be an independent review, as did Rights Watch (UK), Liberty, the Open Society Justice Initiative and many Members of Parliament across the political spectrum.

It seems to me fairly clear that there is serious concern about how the strategy should operate. I am arguing not that it should be scrapped but that we should know more about it. It has had long enough now for a proper review to take place. The communities most affected are sensitive to this, and the universities are worried about how to implement the strategy. I would have thought that the request in the amendment that the Government should review the policy is a fairly modest and reasonable one and that the time to do it is pretty soon. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken to this amendment and for the measured way in which they have put forward the case. I hope we will all agree we cannot ignore the increasing threat to the UK from terrorism. This is currently assessed as severe, meaning an attack is highly likely. We cannot simply wait for attacks to happen. We cannot stand by and do nothing while vulnerable individuals are targeted for radicalisation and drawn into terrorism, so we must have a strong and robust strategy to prevent this.

Prevent was discussed in Committee, and I am particularly grateful for the input at that stage from the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, who recognised the importance of Prevent in higher education. The Prevent programme is designed to safeguard vulnerable individuals from all forms of radicalisation in a variety of institutions. It is an important safeguard for our domestic students but also for the thousands of international students who choose to study here each year. Setting off to university can be a big transition in the lives of many people, and it is vital that universities safeguard their students during what can sometimes be a very challenging time for vulnerable individuals. The coalition Government introduced a clear legal duty to ensure universities recognise and act on this responsibility.

Preventing people being drawn into terrorism is difficult and challenging work, but Prevent is working and making a positive difference. In 2015, more than 1,000 referrals of vulnerable individuals were made to Channel, which enabled them to access support to try to divert them away from radicalisation. The vast majority of the individuals who choose to participate in Channel leave with no further concerns about their vulnerability to being drawn into terrorism—so as I say, Prevent is working.

Of course, this amendment is aimed at reviewing the operation of Prevent in the higher education sector, but this is already happening. Following consultation with the sector, HEFCE, which I believe to be independent of government, launched its monitoring framework last year and has had 100% engagement. In its report published in January, HEFCE found that the vast majority of institutions are implementing the Prevent duty effectively.

HEFCE has seen higher education providers increasingly improve their awareness of the risks to vulnerable students, and there have been some highly encouraging examples across the sector of how they mitigate these risks in a sensible way. The HEFCE report highlights numerous cases of good practice in the sector, and the steps being taken by institutions, from our oldest institutions through to newer providers. To give just one example, HEFCE found that the University of the West of England hosted a joint consultation with its students’ union on the implementation of the Prevent duty. This included open debate between students and Prevent partners with an opportunity for all students to view and comment on draft policies and procedures. This demonstrated a real understanding of the importance of engaging and collaborating with the student body to effectively implement the duty.

Finally, I know that noble Lords are concerned about the interplay between Prevent and freedom of speech, something the higher education sector rightly holds dear, and which we touched on in an earlier debate. Prevent does not stop lawful debate. In higher education, providers that are subject to the freedom of speech duty are required to have particular regard to this duty when carrying out their Prevent duty. This was explicitly written into the Prevent legislation to underline its importance as a central value of both our higher education system and indeed of our society. HEFCE’s monitoring shows that higher education providers are balancing the need to protect their students and their obligations under Prevent while ensuring that freedom of speech on campus is not undermined.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and those who have taken part in this short debate that the Government are grateful for the opportunity to discuss this vital duty that stops vulnerable individuals being drawn into terrorism. Prevent is being implemented effectively and pragmatically in the higher education sector and we want to maintain this momentum. We know it is both effective and pragmatic from the monitoring that HEFCE does. Against that background, I hope the noble Lord might feel able to withdraw Amendment 154.

[Lord Dubs]

I am grateful to the Minister for his response and to those noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate. I am not quite sure that the HEFCE review the Minister spoke about goes as wide as I would have wished—certainly the amendment would have gone much beyond that—nor am I sufficiently aware of the details of the results to see whether they would meet the concerns that many people have expressed to me. Given that we got something, though, I think we will return to this before too long. I think in the end, the Government will have to do a full and totally independent review of the Prevent strategy in higher education; there is too much at stake, it is too contentious, it is not as easy a situation as the Minister suggested and the concerns are much more widespread. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 154 withdrawn.

Charities: Government Grants

Lord Dubs Excerpts

Wednesday 10th February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

Part of the process that we are trying to ensure is that these grants are properly audited and that we know exactly where the money goes. Regarding the salaries that charities pay to their senior employees, that is obviously a matter for the charities, but I am sure that they will be noting the considerable public scrutiny that they are under—and rightly so.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, will the Minister accept that there is a world of difference between money going from government to a charity for project work and money that the charity earns by its own fundraising? Surely the fundraised money should be used for purposes not covered by what the Minister said, and charities should be free to spend their money for advocacy as they think fit.

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

That is exactly right and that is what they will continue to be able to do.

General Elections: Peers’ Exclusion from Voting

Lord Dubs Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, is a Conservative and has taken very Conservative views on the reform of this House. I would have hoped that he would therefore agree with the statement of Lord Campbell, as Lord Chief Justice in 1858, that by,

“an ancient, immemorial law of England … Peers sat in their own right in their own House, and had no privilege whatsoever to vote for Members to sit in the other House of Parliament”.—[Official Report, 5/7/1858; col. 928.]

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, I cannot believe that the Minister is saying things that he actually believes. Will he concede that this House passed a Bill to give us the right to vote in elections which was blocked by some dissident Whips or other people at the far end for no good reason, and that it is offensive that, when the voters of Britain have a chance to express their views, we are not allowed to? Surely, it is time for the Minister to say that if he had a chance and was Minister for long enough, he would do it.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and I would very much like to introduce a more rational and modern approach to the second Chamber, but we will have to do that in an overall way. There are many anomalies in our voting system. The position in which citizens of the Irish Republic and the Commonwealth can vote in British parliamentary elections is also quite extraordinary, but has a long tradition behind it.

Recall of MPs Bill

Lord Dubs Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2015 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Dubs]

10: After Clause 5, insert the following new Clause—
“Election courts: recall
Within 2 years of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament a report assessing the merits and feasibility of granting election courts the discretion of initiating a recall petition process.”

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, we debated an amendment in Committee to deal with this matter. Put simply, the problem is this: if the Bill becomes law, we will have two different systems running in parallel. We will have the system as envisaged in the Bill and a separate, older system, which is the election court. As I said in the previous discussion, it is possible for an election court to punish a Member of Parliament, deprive him or her of their seat and not allow them to stand for a number of years in any by-election for a lesser offence than that covered by the Bill. Clause 1(11) states:

“The loss by an MP of his or her seat under this Act as a result of a recall petition does not prevent him or her standing in the resulting by-election”.

That is very clear, yet the election court has the power—and used it in the case of Phil Woolas in 2010—to prevent a Member of Parliament standing in any by-election for a number of years. That seems to me, at the very least, inconsistent and potentially unfair. After all, under this Bill an MP could be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of up to a year, yet he would still be subject to the Bill and would be able to stand at the by-election. In the case of Phil Woolas and the election court, he was not sentenced to imprisonment but he lost his seat. I am not talking about the merits or demerits of what he did; I am talking about what the election court did to him, which was at variance with the purpose of the Bill.

Therefore, the amendment is very simple. It is much milder than the amendment we debated in Committee, so I hope that the Government will find it fairly easy to accept. It says:

“Within 2 years … the Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament a report assessing the merits and feasibility of granting election courts the discretion of initiating a recall petition process”.

We are not making a dramatic change; we are saying that, if the Government are so minded, they can take steps to ensure that in future an election court can say, “No, we don’t want to do what we did to Phil Woolas. We want to subject him to the provisions of this particular Bill”. It seems a very reasonable and mild amendment, and the Government can surely say yes to it. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, behind this issue are some large questions about the role of election courts and the seriousness of electoral offences such as electoral fraud. The role of election courts is to assess whether electoral fraud has taken place and to determine whether it has had a material impact on the outcome of an election. I know that what happened to Phil Woolas preoccupies a number of noble Lords on the Labour Benches. I went back and looked at that sad history and I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, suggested in Committee that he be acquitted on appeal. He was indeed acquitted of one of the three offences but the other two were affirmed.

Electoral fraud is a serious business. I can think of other potential occasions where we could find ourselves with contested results of elections. We had a contested issue in east London in local elections where the severity of what is pled or what might perhaps have happened is not—as I think is being suggested here—something less serious than other potential misconduct. I understand the noble Lord’s intentions in tabling his amendment but I am not persuaded that, after two years, a particular fact will have come to light which would necessarily cause the Government of the day to reappraise the role of election courts, which is what this is really about.

I am also concerned that granting election courts the discretion to initiate a recall petition risks sending a confused message about the seriousness of electoral fraud as such. At present, there is a public expectation that those who commit offences that breach electoral law should face the appropriate penalty and that the appropriate penalty is set. Those offences are particularly relevant to the MP’s democratic mandate, and they are intended to affect the MP’s democratic mandate because, thankfully in this country, we have a very low level of electoral misconduct during campaigns and of electoral fraud; but we are conscious that the potential is always there. In the event that fraud has been committed by a sitting MP, his or her constituents might be confused if they were asked to sign a recall petition, knowing that an election court had already identified proven wrongdoing on the MP’s part.

The Government do not consider that this Bill should be a vehicle for the election court’s functions to be adapted, or for the consequences of established electoral offences to be altered; that is a different and other serious set of issues. There is also a risk that an MP, having been subjected to a recall petition by the election court, could then be prosecuted and sentenced in the criminal courts for an offence of which the election court had found him or her guilty. If the MP had held on to his or her seat following the first recall petition and were then sentenced to a period of imprisonment of 12 months or less, this could trigger another recall petition under the first recall condition.

There are some complicated issues here, but I end where I started. Election fraud or an election offence during a campaign that materially affects the outcome of that election are serious offences. That is the role of election courts. However, the Government are not persuaded that we should now downgrade the severity of that offence.

[Lord Dubs]

My Lords, I am disappointed in the Minister’s reply because he has not really faced the point that we were seeking to make in this amendment—and I thank noble Lords who gave their support to it. What happens now, under the Government’s present Bill, is that a Member of Parliament can be sentenced to six or nine months’ imprisonment, yet he would still be subject to the recall procedure and he could stand again. It seems to me that a sentence of six to nine months’ imprisonment is pretty serious, yet the Government, in their wisdom, have a Bill that says, “Yes, but you can be subject to the recall procedure and you might well be re-elected”. Indeed, in our history, Members of Parliament who have been refused their seats have stood again and have got re-elected—so that is up to the voters. The whole point of this amendment is that we must trust the local voters to make the right decision, and they can decide one way or the other.

On the subject of severity, I do not have all the details of the Phil Woolas case in front of me, and I do not think that I said in Committee that he had been acquitted. What I am saying is that the electoral court proceedings lost him his seat, but there was no further sanction in terms of imprisonment. Imprisonment is serious, yet under the Bill an MP can be imprisoned and can still be subject to the recall procedure. So the position is entirely inconsistent; it does not make any sense. The amendment simply proposes that the Secretary of State assess the merits and feasibility of granting election courts this discretion. If it is too difficult, the feasibility study would say, “No: it is too difficult”, for the reasons the Minister gave. We are asking only for the Government to have a more detailed look at this than the Minister suggested in reply.

We have been debating for quite a long time and there are further amendments to come. Part of me is tempted to test the opinion of the House. I will not do that, but I wish that the Government could be a little more flexible. Frankly, they have lost the argument. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 10 withdrawn.

Deregulation Bill

Lord Dubs Excerpts

Thursday 5th February 2015 Lords Chamber

It is, in the noble Lord’s phrase, a “safety net” to make sure that we are not still discussing this issue at the end of the next Parliament but are taking action at the start of it. I therefore urge my noble friend to accept this amendment, which will be good for the UK’s creative industries, good for regional television news and, above all, good for the viewers.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

I rise to give my wholehearted support to this amendment and very much endorse the views that have been expressed so far. We had a pretty good debate on this in Committee, where there was a universal feeling from all sides of the House that this change had to take place. We were held up because the Minister said that there was going to be a review. Looking at what the Minister said on that occasion and at the wording of this amendment, I would have thought that this amendment very closely reflects what the Minister had in mind when he spoke to us. That was certainly the intention in the drafting of this amendment. I do not know what the Minister is going to say, but I would have thought that he would have a job not to accept it. All we have done is save him and his officials a lot of work in drafting an amendment. He has it there on a plate, and all he has to do is to say, “Yes, that’s good”. That might happen. It has happened before, if not very often. It is a challenge to him.

Of course, we all want to support our creative industries. Although times have been bad for television, and television advertising has gone through a difficult phase, at the moment it is doing a little better—ITV and Channel 4 have certainly been doing better, I believe. However, that is not necessarily a permanent state of affairs, and it is very likely, with increased competition, the new electronic media and so on, that companies such as ITV will find it tough. It is even tougher if they have to compete where there is no level playing field. To put it this way, they are not able to negotiate or compete at all; they simply have constraints imposed upon them. We have a situation where the commercial public service broadcasters subsidise the pay TV platforms. It is absolutely preposterous. Although it is alleged that the Labour Party is not in favour of business and competition, we are, and this is one example of how we are. It is very clear that this is a constraint on competition, and an outdated constraint as well—one, as the noble Lord, Lord Black, said, appropriate to a “bygone age”. We have all moved forward a great deal.

The Government have sort of announced a review, which I very much hope will be fully compatible with the amendment that we have put forward. After all, it has taken nearly six months from the Minister saying there was going to be a review to getting here today, and we still have not had much sign of it, so it is a fairly slow process. We are anxious to make progress and do not want the general election to be an excuse for delaying things. We believe that an amendment such as the one we have down would enable progress to be made in the review, so that the election does not delay things and so that, whichever party or combination of parties triumphs in the election, there will be a seamless move forward.

In moving the amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked a number of questions, which I do not want to repeat. However, it would be useful to learn a little more about the timing of the review: when it will start and how long it is likely to take. What we do not want is for this issue to be put into the long grass. There is always a fear that when Ministers announce a review, it is a way of saying, “Let’s get this out of the way. We can deal with it some time in the future”. Let us not look at it that way. The benefit of this amendment is that there is no need for further primary legislation—it can just happen.

It is very unusual for Back-Benchers in either House of Parliament to say, “Don’t worry about legislation, just take the powers and do it”, but here is a case where we are doing it, because we believe there is widespread agreement on the anomaly that we want to deal with and that waiting for further primary legislation would simply delay things. We do not want to delay things. We think we should move forward, and move forward quickly.

[Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)]

I rise to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and declare an interest as a producer at the BBC. The pay TV platforms already pay to transmit the digital channels from ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5, so what can their objection be to adding the main channels of ITV1, Channel 4 and Channel 5? They say that the transmission fees would represent a double tax for consumers, but in the case of the commercial PSBs at least this is obviously untrue. Viewers do not pay to watch the commercial PSBs, but they have a news and current affairs obligation, which costs ITV, for example, at least £100 million a year. All that could benefit from the extra revenue provided by the new fees, which is what we have seen happen to channels in America.

There have also been scare stories from Virgin Media saying that full-blooded commercial negotiation could led to blackouts, with PSBs removing their channels from the platforms. This may have happened in the US, but it is not being threatened by the PSBs in this country, and it is clearly an absurd allegation as the commercial PSBs are legally committed to put their main channels on the digital platforms as part of their licence agreements. I agree, of course, with noble Lords who want the Minister to elucidate the timeframe and the terms of the review. When it is completed, the recommendations should not be put on the back burner.

The introduction of retransmission fees will allow PSBs to maximise investment in UK-produced programmes, so that we can build on the world-beating programmes that we all enjoy so very much.

Recall of MPs Bill

Lord Dubs Excerpts

Wednesday 14th January 2015 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Dubs]

33: After Clause 4, insert the following new Clause—
“Further recall condition: illegal practices in parliamentary elections
(1) It shall be a further recall condition under this Act that on consideration by an election court of a parliamentary election petition it is shown that illegal practices committed in reference to the election of an MP for the purpose of promoting or procuring the election of that MP have so extensively prevailed that they may be reasonably supposed to have affected the result.
(2) Where an election court finds that the condition under subsection (1) has been met, it must notify the Speaker of its decision.
(3) Where the Speaker receives a notification under subsection (2), he must follow the procedure set out in section 5, as though the second recall condition had been met in relation the MP against whom the election court made the decision.
(4) Subsection (1) shall not apply if the election court finds that the illegal practices amount to corrupt practice.
(5) If subsection (1) applies, and the election court finds that the illegal practices do not amount to corrupt practice, the election of the candidate shall not be void.”

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, this is of course a probing amendment, although I would very much like to see it incorporated in the Bill in the fullness of time. However, for this evening’s purpose it is simply to give us a chance to debate the matter.

As the Bill stands, Members of Parliament may be penalised in ways that are described in the Bill. However, the amendment also refers to the work of the election court. We have an anomalous situation, because a Member of Parliament may be penalised by the election court for a lesser offence than might apply under the Bill, and yet the punishment would be more severe without any recourse to voters. That is pretty onerous, it is unfair, and we should put it right. The purpose of the amendment is to bring at least a large element of the work of the electoral court—particularly its conclusions—within the ambit of the Bill.

As I said, a Member of Parliament may be penalised by an election court for a lesser wrongdoing, but the penalty may be much more severe. Indeed, the Member of Parliament may be penalised to the point of losing his or her seat and not being allowed to stand again in the resulting by-election or any election in that constituency for a number of years. The most recent instance was after the 2010 election, when Phil Woolas had to appear for a transgression to do with the way his election campaign was run. The election court dismissed him. He lost his seat as a result and he was not able to stand again. I am not saying that what he did was right or wrong. That is not the purpose of the debate. The purpose of the debate is to say that the election court had a power which is much more than is contained in the Bill. I want to bring that part of the work of the election court within the ambit of the Bill.

In the amendment, I distinguish between illegal and corrupt practices. As I understand it, there is no statutory definition of an illegal practice so we have to be careful about being too precise, but there is a range of illegal practices which might be the subject of decisions by the election court. I will not go through them all now but they are, for example, to do with election expenses in excess of the maximum permissible; paying election expenses otherwise than through the election agent; paying them out of time; or failing to make the return or declarations as to the expenses. Other examples could include disturbing a meeting, making a false statement concerning the personal character or conduct of a candidate, and so on. There is a whole list. They may or may not be serious. How serious they are will depend on the particular circumstances and the way the practice actually happened. In other words, a very minor failure in the accuracy of the return may not be too serious, but a large failure is serious. It depends on the circumstances.

The aim of this amendment is to bring these things within the scope of the Bill. We all know that the judiciary—and for this purpose I refer to those on the election court as the judiciary—does not like being put in the position of having to unseat an elected politician. At least, I believe that is what it thinks. I certainly hope that is what it thinks. If we accept this amendment, a decision by the election court could be used via the Speaker to trigger the petition which—if it received 10% of signatures—could then lead to a by-election. That is a fairly clear-cut way of doing it. The enormous benefit is that in the end, the decision is by the voters. If enough of the voters want a by-election, there will be one; then when they have a by-election, the voters can decide whether or not to chuck the former MP out. It seems to me that this is a much better method than the way the election court works at the moment.

As I said, this is a probing amendment. The Minister may find all sorts of technical points that prevent him from accepting it. That may well be. I had the enormous help of the Public Bill Office in drafting the amendment, but even so, it is quite difficult. A few more weeks of work might have improved the wording. However, the principle is clear. I hope the Minister will give it a sympathetic ear and will say it is worth considering at the next stage of the Bill. I beg to move.

[Lord Soley (Lab)]

The election court is outside the ambit of this Bill, but my noble friend makes the case for including it. I make a brief point in support of my noble friend’s comments. I believe that my recollection is right that Phil Woolas won his case on appeal, but by that time it was too late. In effect, we had a court taking a decision which resulted in the electorate not being able to select a person who they might well otherwise have selected.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his probing amendment and the debate that we have had on it. As he said, his amendment would introduce a further recall trigger where an election court finds a person or persons guilty of illegal practices in respect of a parliamentary election. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, rightly asked what consideration has, and could be, given to this suggestion.

Under the Representation of the People Act 1983 the result of an election can be challenged by any eligible person by lodging a petition with the relevant election court. The election court will first consider whether the MP was fairly returned. If the court, upon hearing the evidence, finds the candidate or other persons guilty of corrupt or illegal practices, it will produce a report. Any report produced will state the names of all persons who have been proved at the trial to have been guilty of corrupt or illegal practices, and it will be laid before the Director of Public Prosecutions.

A candidate or other person reported as guilty of corrupt or illegal practice shall not be able to: register as an elector or vote in any local government or parliamentary election held in the United Kingdom; be elected as an MP; or hold any elective office. In the case of a person reported as guilty of a corrupt practice—for example, personation—these incapacities will apply for five years. A person found guilty of an illegal practice—for example, double voting—will be subjected to these incapacities for three years. The incapacities will apply from the date of the report, and the person must vacate any elected seat held.

Under the noble Lord’s amendment, if an election court found that illegal practices by a person or persons had resulted in the election of an MP, but the MP was not found guilty of any offence, this would automatically trigger a recall petition. However, under Section 167 of the Representation of the People Act 1983, an MP would automatically be guilty if his agents were found to have engaged in corrupt or illegal practices during the election, and would therefore have to vacate his seat.

If the noble Lord believes that an MP should not automatically be found guilty because of the actions of others in securing his seat, that would require an amendment to the Representation of the People Act. I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lord, but it is the Government’s view that the system and penalties that we currently have in place under that Act are sufficient. For that reason, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment. I am most grateful for the comments that have been made. Although I cannot promise to bring anything more back, this has been a very interesting debate.

[Lord Dubs]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said. I did, in fact, try to distinguish between illegal and corrupt practices to indicate that there was a degree of severity under the term “corrupt” that would apply less to “illegal”. He has merged the two. I am sorry that he will not look at my proposal in a lot of detail. I genuinely believe that there is an issue here, but unless the Minister can be persuaded to think further, I shall have to call a halt—tonight, at any rate—and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 33 withdrawn.