Class 4 National Insurance Contributions

Lord Harris of Haringey Excerpts

Wednesday 15th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I am grateful to my noble friend. I think there is something for all the political parties to learn in terms of setting up policy reviews well in advance of the 2020 general election and involving party members and other people, as appropriate, as they develop their policies, rather than leaving things to the last moment. I therefore take heart from what he says. I am sure that we will all learn from what has happened today.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, many of those who are self-employed are also registered for value added tax. I declare an interest as such a person. However, the Government, with effect from 1 April, will introduce a flat rate for limited-cost businesses under the VAT flat rate scheme. This will have an immediate effect for many people in that position of increasing the money they pay to HMRC by a margin of 2% or 3%—in some cases more—of their turnover. Is that consistent with the spirit of the Conservative manifesto?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I assume those measures have already been approved by both Houses of Parliament, if they are going to come into effect next month.

Health and Social Care

Lord Harris of Haringey Excerpts

Thursday 15th December 2016 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

That this House takes note of the case for effective service user representation in health and social care, and of the case for enhancing the independence and capacity of Healthwatch England and of local Healthwatch groups.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, I am sure the whole House will want to begin by placing on record again its condolences to the noble Lord, Lord Prior of Brampton, who would under other circumstances have been replying to the debate. We are sorry he is not here because of both the circumstances and what he would have brought to the debate as a former chair of the CQC.

I begin by declaring some personal history. For 12 years I was director of the Association of Community Health Councils for England and Wales, which was then the statutory body representing the interests of NHS users at national level and supported a network of 200 or more member community health councils. That is what I bring to the debate.

I apologise in advance if my remarks are coloured by that experience, but it is good to start by considering why patient involvement matters. It begins with the interaction between patients and clinicians, or service users and those who are caring for them. The Eurobarometer qualitative study on patient involvement, produced by the European Commission in 2012, summarised this well, saying that better communication is the central idea of patient involvement:

“For patients, this meant practitioners explaining to them the diagnosis and treatment. For practitioners, it meant patients describing symptoms and keeping them updated”.

The objective is a partnership between the clinician and the patient. There is evidence that where such partnerships exist they improve the outcomes of treatment because the patient is more committed to the treatment proposed and understands it better.

Patient involvement is also critical to service design and organisation. Those responsible for a service often have little understanding of what it is like to use the service in question—although, I have to say, they think they do. The reality is different. A senior clinician or senior manager inevitably ends up being treated differently if they suddenly become a service user.

At the risk of boring your Lordships, I mention a personal anecdote, which one or two may have heard before. This point of not knowing what the service is really like was brought home to me rather forcefully almost 30 years ago. After speaking at a conference, I began to feel increasingly unwell. To cut a long story short, shortly afterwards I found myself at my local accident and emergency, being prodded by a junior doctor, who was clearly completely baffled—as, indeed was I—as to what might be wrong with me. He then did what a junior doctor always does under those circumstances: he follows the protocol, which is to say, “So tell me, Mr Harris, what do you do for a living?”. I know that I should under those circumstances have lied in the interest of getting the true personal experience, but what I actually did was say, “Well, in fact, I’m the director of the Association of Community Health Councils”. The junior doctor then went behind the curtain. Of course, it is a fallacy that you cannot hear what is going on on the other side of that curtain. I could hear him phoning the consultant: “I think you should come down, sir. He says he’s the director of the Association of Community Health Councils”.

That, of course, is the experience when any senior clinician or senior manager is taken into a casualty department or tries to use a service. The reality is that services are better if they reflect the needs of the users of that service, which is why putting patients first at the centre of the NHS has been the mantra underpinning every government statement on the NHS since it was founded in 1948. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, who is about to speak, will recall using very similar words during his time as Secretary of State. Incidentally, on the issue of personal experience, I seem to recall seeing all sorts of statements on what various clinicians would like to do to the noble Lord if they ever found him in their care, but fortunately that never happened during his period of brief notoriety in that role.

The most recent iteration of this mantra was probably NHS England’s five-year forward view, which advocated involving communities and citizens,

“directly in decisions about the future of health and care services”.

Since 1974, successive Governments have supported different models of involving the public in shaping services and of representing the voice of service users. First there were community health councils, until they were abolished in 2002 and replaced by patient and public involvement forums, which were in turn replaced by Local Involvements Networks—LINks—in 2008. They in turn bit the dust with the arrival of Healthwatch as part of the Health and Social Care Act 2012.

That Act had a tortuous passage through Parliament. Somewhere along the way, the model intended for Healthwatch at local level was changed. Those changes were given very little parliamentary scrutiny despite my personal best efforts, when I warned that the late changes to the Bill risked weakening the new bodies by starving them of resources and laying them open to conflicts of interest with local councils, which were to be their paymasters. The arrangements for Healthwatch England would inhibit its independence and effectiveness.

I am sorry to say that the concerns I expressed then have been borne out. Healthwatch England remains a sub-committee of a regulator, the CQC, a body that is already overstretched and to which requests for action and, from time to time, criticism may be directed by Healthwatch England or local Healthwatch. For Healthwatch England to be located there compromises its independence and must limit its scope to highlight when the CQC is not being as effective as it should be. Recent changes appear to have made Healthwatch England’s relationship with the CQC even more subservient, with changes to the chair and chief executive being used as an opportunity to make the role even more subordinate to the CQC.

I am grateful to have received in advance of this debate a letter from David Behan, chief executive of CQC, seeking to reassure me of the independence of Healthwatch England from the CQC, but in it he records:

“The National Director for HWE will be line-managed and accountable to myself as the CQC Chief Executive”—

apparently a new distinction. He further states:

“The HWE Chair is already accountable to the CQC Chair”,

and that the strategy of Healthwatch England has to be submitted to the CQC board for endorsement. That hardly sounds like independence.

Healthwatch England is reasonably generously resourced for what it does, with a budget of £4.5 million, but in 2015-16 it could not spend that and used only £3.7 million, a 17.3% underspend. A very small proportion of that goes on developing and supporting local Healthwatch. Nor does local Healthwatch feel that Healthwatch England is there for them and they have little scope to influence it or its work.

Healthwatch England also seems to fail in capturing and articulating the views and concerns of local groups, so much so that a private company, Glenstall IT, has stepped into the void by collating reports and publications of local Healthwatch groups, something you might have expected Healthwatch England to do, and selling the digest back to 2,000 health and social care professionals. The fact that Healthwatch England is not doing the job means that a private company has come in to sell it back to the people funding the system.

What about the resourcing of local Healthwatch groups? In 2013-14, the Department of Health passed over £43.5 million to be included in the local authority block grant to fund local Healthwatch organisations, but the total funding given to local Healthwatch groups in that year amounted to only £33.5 million—£10 million had disappeared along the way. That is before taking into account the cost of the cumbersome arrangements for competitive tendering and commissioning through third parties imposed by those late changes to the Health and Social Care Bill.

While there was £33.5 million in 2013-14, that fell to £31.8 million in 2015-16 and again to £29.9 million in this financial year—a third less in cash terms than the DoH thought was necessary and had handed over three years earlier. I warned the Department of Health that this would happen and that other pressures on local authority budgets would produce this squeeze, yet it acquiesced in allowing the money to go across unring-fenced. Was this a deliberate attempt to hobble patient representation and independent local scrutiny?

There is a big variation in the funding of individual local Healthwatch groups. Bristol provides £400,000, while Manchester only £80,000. Are the needs of the citizens of Manchester for effective patient representation one-fifth of those of the residents of Bristol, whose population is 50,000 less? Some areas have seen big cuts year on year: Barnsley down 25%; Blackpool down 50%; Bradford down 25%; Ealing down 25%; Harrow down 40%; Hounslow down 50%; Leicestershire down 30%. I could go on.

Some of the reductions are of course a consequence of the enormous continuing pressure on local council finances, but how much is it a consequence of local Healthwatch having a role in monitoring local social care provision—the responsibility of the same local authority that fixes their budget and may perhaps not like the criticism that an effective local Healthwatch group might occasionally have to make? Local authorities have a conflict of interest here and I am told of a number of local Healthwatch areas where this has had a deadening effect, particularly on the willingness of paid staff members to criticise those who provide their monthly paycheques.

One example is of a 30% reduction in funding imposed on Oxfordshire Healthwatch by Oxfordshire County Council, which seemed to follow, as night follows day, from criticisms that the local Healthwatch had made of the county council record on social care—precisely the job that Healthwatch was created to do. As one of its board members tells me, “The cut inflicted on us drove us to relinquish our strategically located premises close to the CCG headquarters and move to the cheapest possible accommodation on the edge of a farmyard in remote countryside. We have had to cut back on project work, assistance for voluntary groups and a range of community engagement activities. All this arose because our funding was not independent and ring-fenced, and was routed through a body we had criticised”.

In Manchester, the city council swallowed most of the Healthwatch budget, leaving what has been described to me as, “a puny organisation. They are not very effective and they don’t relate to any of the other patient organisations”. As the King’s Fund put it in its review carried out for the Department of Health:

“Local Healthwatch organisations are very small in comparison to the potential scope of their statutory activities, and the population and services they cover”.

The effectiveness of the input that local Healthwatch can provide is critical at present, as the sustainability and transformation plan process rolls forward throughout the country. According to NHS England, this process is supposed to be about building and strengthening local relationships, and service users should be at the heart of the process.

How has this worked out? Frankly, it is very variable. In some areas—Sheffield, Staffordshire and Bath—there is good involvement, but not in others. In Berkshire, Devon and County Durham, local Healthwatch was neither involved nor consulted. In Liverpool, local Healthwatch complains that the process has not been open or transparent. Its chair says, “We have not yet had the opportunity to review or scrutinise the detail of the plan”. In the East Riding, there has been no involvement. The MP for Tottenham had to ask a Parliamentary Question to find out who was consulted during the development of the STP for North Central London. None of the local Healthwatch groups was part of the transformation board. As one local Healthwatch rep from elsewhere in the country put it, “The STP thing is a nightmare. They think we patient reps are just a box to tick and the patronising attitude from some is breathtaking”.

Local Healthwatch also has the important power to enter and view services, but the King’s Fund study for the Department of Health found that this power was used in a wide variety of ways, with some of the case study sites doing none because they were unclear about what would justify an enter and view visit. Many local Healthwatch groups only carried out visits on a prearranged basis. Some saw it as a routine part of their intelligence gathering, while others felt it was only justified when “serious or multiple concerns are raised”. Clearly, there is no guidance and local Healthwatch organisations are left time and again to reinvent their own wheels.

As one local Healthwatch activist put it to me, “Too many of us do little E&V. What they do is announced and done by employed staff who have a vested interest in not rocking the boat”, because their salaries are paid by those they are inspecting. All this comes at a time, as the CQC admitted recently to the Health Committee, when it is struggling to manage inspections of establishments every other year. Local Healthwatch could provide an enormous resource to supplement and inform inspections by the CQC, but its potential enthusiasm is simply being stifled.

None of this should be taken to imply that the work done by hundreds, maybe thousands, of local Healthwatch volunteers is not valuable. I am aware, of course, of the many dedicated staff supporting them, but the reality is that the Department of Health has set up a deliberately flawed system. In the name of localism there is allowed to be an enormous variation in how local Healthwatch organisations structure their governance, as highlighted in the King’s Fund review. As a result, there is a lack of clarity in who speaks for local service users. Is it the board, is it its members, is it the host organisation, is it the staff or is it the volunteers? As a result, the authority of that voice is undermined. The King’s Fund criticised the lack of transparency of local Healthwatch and, as one volunteer put it, its structure and governance should follow the same pattern everywhere and not be determined on the whim of a local authority or a private host company.

It could be so different. As the King’s Fund review said:

“Some of the challenges that local Healthwatch face could be addressed through greater support, advice and shared learning on how to operate effectively”.

The tragedy is that Healthwatch has enormous potential. It could be a tremendous force for good in enabling health and social care services to be much more effective and user-centred. It should not be a box-ticking exercise or provide a woolly voice, but provide effective scrutiny with real influence and a real ability to involve the public. That is what the vast majority of those engaged in Healthwatch activities want to do but, alas, their ability to fulfil that role has been hampered by the cack-handed way the system was established, by the department’s failure to prevent the erosion of funds and, just possibly, by the fact that too many local and national service managers would prefer a quiet life, without having to respond to an effective user voice. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, I am enormously grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to today’s debate. I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm, for standing in at short notice and speaking from the Front Bench, and to my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe, who at even shorter notice has stood in for our Front Bench, who are also away for reasons of illness and other matters.

This has been an interesting debate, and lots of important points have been made. I particularly welcome the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, that shared decision-making in terms of the individual should happen anyway, irrespective of the structures in place. He outlined—and I do not dispute it—that when he was Secretary of State the Government’s objectives in creating Healthwatch were good, and the intention was to improve the system. It is just a question of how well it has worked subsequently. He asked a very valid question about why the Labour Government abolished community health councils. That is a question that I certainly asked at the time. I am sure that, had he been in his place, my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, who was the Minister at the time, may well have wanted to comment on those matters. The fact that the arrangements that were then put in place were felt not to be working only a few years later suggests that perhaps the model was not absolutely right.

My noble friend Lady Pitkeathley, along with a number of other contributors, talked about the whole point of the involvement of patients being that it challenges the existing power structures and orthodoxy, which therefore produces a backlash. She also made the point, which I agree with, that in the Bill that ultimately became the Health and Social Care Act, the creation of Healthwatch was potentially a ray of hope in terms of how things would progress.

The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, quite rightly reminded us of the role of the voluntary sector and the way in which users can shape the different patient pathways that are available. That too is something that often gets neglected. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, talked very pointedly about the lack of local knowledge about Healthwatch and its role, as well as the suspicion that is growing about the STP process—which could be extremely important, because it is intended to be transformational—in terms of the lack of openness and transparency. It is an important process, which is why it was so vital that health service users and social care service users were fully involved in the process.

My noble friend Lady Warwick of Undercliffe talked about how the role of local Healthwatch could be critical and said that it was one of the few organisations that really has an overview across the health and social care divide. She highlighted the concerns about the changed relationship between Healthwatch England and the CQC. She also reminded us, very importantly, of the potential role of housing associations. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, talked about the value of senior people listening to service users. That is the essence of most of the models that have existed over the years—senior people directly hearing the voices that are there. The noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, also made that point when she talked about challenging the orthodoxy. She made interesting points about how users should influence and shape things.

I was very amused by one element of the speech made by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, because she said it was not the Liberal Democrats who had said that the structure should work through local authorities. In that case, I am beginning to wonder whose idea it was. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, speaking 10 years ago about the previous system, said that LINks may “struggle to be credible as long as they are funded through local government”. Just a few years later, he felt impelled by something or someone—we now know it was not the Liberal Democrats—to say that the new system should be funded through local government, with the consequences that I have described.

The noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm, in her reply, tried to reassure me about the relationship between Healthwatch England and the CQC, and reiterated what I already see as the accountability lines which render independence slightly more difficult. She then told us that the CQC would in future be deciding the funding of Healthwatch England, which seems to put even more into question the way in which that independence would operate. She also talked about local councils’ accountability for how much they allocate to Healthwatch England. This is very important, but the sanction Healthwatch England has available—which I think we have discussed before in your Lordships’ House—is that it can send a letter to the council lead saying it is not good enough. As a former council leader, I know what response I always gave to letters saying that something that my local authority was doing was simply not good enough.

In conclusion, I am grateful to all noble Lords who contributed to the debate. There is a great warmth around the House about what could be achieved by Healthwatch, both locally and nationally, and the message going back to the Department of Health must be that it is important to build on the Healthwatch network. If it really wants to get this right, and deliver what all your Lordships have said they want to happen, then it needs to resource local Healthwatch organisations properly through a freestanding Healthwatch England. I suspect we might then well find that we have a system which genuinely delivers a user voice and influence into the centre of health and social care in this country.

Motion agreed.

Parliament and Central Government: Relocation

Lord Harris of Haringey Excerpts

Tuesday 29th November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen]

I am surprised the noble Baroness says that. That is what we are doing with devolution. We are not interfering. That is the whole point: for it to go out into the communities for them to be in charge of what they want.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, is there not a nasty tone in some of this debate, of people attacking our capital city? Given that the people of London subsidise the rest of the country to the tune of billions of pounds each year perhaps it would make sense if, before we go down the road of automatically deprecating London, we remember that it would be a very satisfactory outcome as far as the people of London were concerned if the principle of devolution were followed and London had full fiscal autonomy.

[Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen]

The noble Lord certainly has a point. London is our capital, but I do not think noble Lords were denigrating it when they were talking about moving things to the north. Our capital is very important, and that is why I think we feel that this is where government should be.

Policing and Crime Bill

Lord Harris of Haringey Excerpts

Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard - part two): House of Lords
Wednesday 9th November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Wheatcroft (Con)]

I support the amendment. I cannot claim to be an expert on sport, but my noble friend Lord Moynihan most certainly is. His sporting legacy to this country is extraordinary, not least the performance of our team in the London Olympics, which was engineered by his work as chairman of the British Olympic Association, but also the extraordinary performance of our team in Rio. At first glance, the amendment appeared to be radical but, having heard the argument, I understand that we are lagging behind on this important front. That is not the right position for this great sporting nation to be in.

Beyond that, I fear that by not taking strong action against the use of drugs in sport, we are sending the wrong message to our youngsters, who look on sport as a career opportunity and wonderful thing, and to those who play sport as their great heroes. If people are banned from sport for a year or two and then come back, that seems to be acceptable. A prison sentence would be in a different league. That would send a message to our youngsters that this is something that they should not tolerate, and certainly not toy with. That is a very important message for this House to send. I support the amendment.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, support the amendment. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, I do not claim to be an expert in or have anything much to do with sport under most circumstances, but the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, is extremely important. This is about the confidence of the public and the importance to them of feeling that the sporting events they watch or participate in are genuine and not distorted in the way described. It therefore sends a powerful signal and if it indeed brings us back into line with other countries around the world, it is an extremely important thing for us to be doing.

My question—the noble Lord may have answered it in his remarks but if so I did not catch it—is: how broad are the sporting activities which the amendment covers? He talked about international sporting events, and we all have memories of what happened in the recent Olympics, in particular with the Russian team. However, as I understand it, the amendment covers all competitive organised sporting events where they are subject to a governing body. I should be grateful for that clarification and the extent to which it extends right the way through, because the governing bodies of the sports of which I have some knowledge are increasingly seeking not only to arrange the high-profile events but to encourage more people to participate at a lower level in local, regional or county events. It may be less likely that performance-enhancing drugs are used in those environments. However, I assume that this legislation is intended to pick up on those issues as well. It would be helpful if we had that clarity because it is important for people to have confidence in all sporting activities in this country, not just those at the highest level.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

I sometimes wonder about the priorities of this House and of government in considering these sorts of issues. I think most of those who know me recognise that I am fairly hawkish on counterterrorism, but the number of people in this country who have died as a consequence of terrorist acts since 2005 is less than the number of people who die in a single year because of drunk-driving between the limits that are currently against the law and those proposed by the noble Baroness.

Let us go back over all the legislation since the current limit was introduced—the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, took us back to what it was like in those times when we were all much younger—and consider how many pieces of legislation, full Bills, have been brought forward by the Home Office to deal with the threat from terrorism. It is usually about one a year, sometimes more—full Bills containing lots of new offences. Yet there is clear evidence that these new limits would reduce the number of deaths, they are fairly straightforward to administer and yet we keep waiting and putting off the decision. That seems to me an issue that we should all address, and we should be conscious that sometimes we have double standards. I will continue to argue for stronger counterterrorism, but it is rather striking that we do not resolve something like this, which would make a real difference, and would stop the wrecking not only of the lives of the families of those who have died but also of the lives of those who cause the deaths.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, Amendment 214C, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, and supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and my noble friend Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, reduces the legal alcohol limits in England and Wales to match the limits introduced by the Scottish Government on 5 December 2014.

My noble friend Lord Harris made a particularly powerful point in respect of deaths caused through drink-driving. I am very supportive of this amendment, as I think we need tough laws on drinking and driving that are effectively enforced.

I also think that it would be quite good to have the same limit across the whole of Great Britain, and ideally the whole of the United Kingdom. This would make it much easier to understand for everyone concerned. I am also not against having a lower limit for commercial drivers and novices.

There is clear evidence that a reduction in the drink-drive limits would save lives. No one has said that is not the case. We have the highest limits in Europe. Only Malta has the same drink-drive limit we have in this country. The limit introduced by the Scottish Government is the same one that is in force in Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Slovenia and Switzerland. So the case is powerful. In none of these countries is there a problem with the limit being effective.

The second amendment in the group, again in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, and my noble friend Lord Brooke, seeks to create a lower limit for novice and professional drivers. Again, I think that this is something we should consider. Many countries have this. That is certainly the case in many of the countries I read out, including Ireland and North Ireland. I think that it is important, if you are a professional or a novice driver, to have a lower limit.

I passed my driving test 36 years ago. I remember getting my first car—you are let loose and you are in there on your own. If you think about it, you are not very experienced at that point. Therefore it would be a good to enforce a lower limit. The fact is that our limits are comparatively high. I hope the Minister will respond to the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge. It is very good, and I hope that we will get a positive response from the Government. If not, I hope that the noble Baroness will bring it back on Report. I assure her that if she wants to test the opinion of the House at that point, we will support her.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

Since we are having open season during this intervention in the Minister’s speech, could we also deal with why other countries’ records are worse although they have tighter limits? This debate is not about behaviour in France, or in Estonia, and I do not want to get into a pre-Brexit rant about the behaviour of foreigners, or anything like that. If those countries felt that the problem was so bad that they needed to take even tougher measures, that is a matter for them. We are talking about proposals that would save lives in this country at the present time. That is what these amendments are about.

[Earl Attlee]

I hope the Minister will finish by saying that when we get the statistics from Scotland she will study them carefully and possibly review the policy. But claiming that lowering the limit will reduce fatalities is an assertion, and it is not necessarily the case. We need to wait for the evidence, particularly relating to fatalities caused by those people who are far over the limit. I do hope the Minister will say something useful about how she will take full account of the statistics we will shortly get from Scotland.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, we are in Committee and we can do what we like. The noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, put the argument very clearly in relation to the number of deaths that occur as a result of people who have more drink in their blood than the limit she is proposing but less than the current limit. If those deaths could be prevented that would be a net gain.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I understand the argument but the difficulty is that those offences could just be caused by people making a stupid mistake and I am not sure that lowering the limit would solve the problem.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen]

I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Berridge for explaining the purpose of her amendment. The Government are mindful that forced religious marriage may be a deliberate attempt to avoid financial consequences in the event of the break-up of the marriage. The existing position is that the financial orders provided for in the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 are available only where a marriage is capable of legal recognition in England and Wales and where it is being brought to an end—or where judicial separation is ordered. However, where a marriage is not capable of legal recognition, parties have the same recourse to the court as unmarried cohabiting couples on the breakdown of the relationship. This applies to the division of any property and to financial provision for any children the couple have.

For those in a marriage that has no legal validity, the pressure from families and communities to stay together is no less strong because of the fact that the marriage has no legal consequences. It does not make it any easier for an individual to escape an abusive relationship, and we share my noble friend’s concern that it leaves women in particular vulnerable to hardship when the relationship breaks up, since there is no recourse to the court for the financial orders available to divorcing couples. The Government take this issue very seriously, and it is central to the independent sharia law review launched by the current Prime Minister in May this year. The Government will wish to consider the issue further in light of the findings from the review.

None the less, the law governing marriage, divorce and matrimonial property is complex, nuanced and finely balanced, reflecting as it does the wide range of personal circumstances in which people find themselves. The amendment would introduce a disparity with unmarried cohabitants and with those who are in unregistered marriages that are not forced. There is no evidence at this stage that the amendment—

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

I understand the point the Minister is making about consent, difficult precedents, cohabitation and so on. But we are talking about a specific circumstance here, which is about coercion. These are not proper arrangements, because somebody has been forced into marriage against their will. That is the context we are talking about. We are not talking about a sort of touchy-feely cohabitation relationship which then breaks down, but about somebody who has been forced into an arrangement of this sort, which is totally inappropriate and wrong in law.

[Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen]

I was not suggesting that, just that there are difficulties—other reasons why it could be more difficult to bring in. That is not to say that we are not keen to look further at this issue. However, because we want to consider the findings of the sharia law review, I ask my noble friend to withdraw her amendment so that we have a chance to do that.

Electoral Fraud

Lord Harris of Haringey Excerpts

Monday 12th September 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen]

As I said in answer to my noble friend Lord Cormack, we have no plans for that. In fact, the Australian system has not been absolutely perfect. There are still quite a lot of people who do not vote. It is not failsafe.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister talked about the integrity of the voting system, and that is obviously something that we all want to see. Why, then, are the Government pressing ahead with boundary changes on an electoral register which they know is out of date given that so many extra people registered in time to participate in the European referendum? Would it not be better for the integrity of the voting system to use a register which is more current than the one they have chosen to use?

Bank of England and Financial Services Bill [HL]

Lord Harris of Haringey Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd May 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

My Lords, this amendment gives the Treasury a power to provide financial assistance to bodies for the purpose of taking action against illegal money lending. It also gives the FCA an obligation to raise a levy, which will apply to consumer credit firms, in order to fund this financial assistance.

Loan sharks prey on some of the most vulnerable people in society, cause untold misery to their victims and have a damaging impact on the communities in which they operate. As well as lending money illegally at high levels of interest without FCA authorisation, loan sharks frequently use blackmail, as well as violence, to intimidate their victims into repaying legally unenforceable debts.

Loan sharks are currently investigated and prosecuted by the England and Wales illegal money lending teams and the Scottish Illegal Money Lending Unit. The cost of the teams is around £4.7 million. While the FCA will consult on precisely how the levy will be apportioned and collected in its annual fees consultation, the cost of the new levy to individual firms in the £200 billion consumer credit market is anticipated to be small.

It is absolutely right that industry meets the modest costs of funding the teams—all participants in the consumer credit market benefit from their enforcement work. The teams ensure that the consumer credit market remains legitimate and credible by keeping illegal money lenders out of it. The amendment will ensure that the funding that the illegal money lending teams need to continue their crucial work is put on a sustainable, long-term footing. I beg to move.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of the National Trading Standards board and welcome this government amendment to put the funding of the illegal money lending teams on a stable footing. As the Minister said, the teams do an enormous amount of extremely important and valuable work. A recent prosecution dealt with an individual who was charging those unfortunates whom he was offering allegedly to help interest rates of 400,000% per annum. Figures I have for England and Wales show that the work of the illegal money lending teams has led to the writing-off of debts in excess of £55 million. So the work is value for money and extremely important. It is quite right that the funding of these teams should now be put on a long-term, sustainable footing and it is entirely proper that the legitimate part of the lending industry should make sure that those who operate illegally and prey on people who are in a state of considerable distress are dealt with appropriately.

[Lord Sharkey]

My Lords, this is a very good amendment and we support it. Until now, funding for action against illegal money lending has come mostly from BIS with occasional help from the Treasury reserve. As Harriet Baldwin noted in the Commons committee, this funding was constantly being questioned in spending reviews and she rightly saw the need to protect it from the depredations of Chief Secretaries. This amendment does that by changing the funding mechanism to a levy on consumer credit firms. These firms benefit from being within a robustly enforced perimeter and we welcome this change. We welcome the move to provide sustainable and stable funding for the fight against illegal money lending.

Housing and Planning Bill

Lord Harris of Haringey Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, I put this in a separate amendment because I wanted it set out and because it is the fundamental thing that people outside the system are going to complain about with regard to private provision of the processing of planning applications. The potential for conflicts of interest is high. The Government say they will produce regulations to stop that and make sure it does not happen. We will see how they do that.

There is a perception of conflicts of interest in a system that, as was said earlier, is already believed by many people to be utterly biased towards large developers and against ordinary people—rightly or wrongly, there is a widespread belief that that is the case. If, instead of being processed by local government officials, planning applications are processed by private companies, people will look for the links between those private companies and developers putting in applications and, whatever safeguards the Government put in, they will find them. They will find family relationships, school relationships, board memberships and so on—all manner of relationships. It is a huge can of worms.

If the Government are going ahead with these pilots, this is a fundamental issue that they have to tackle and do their very best to get right. I doubt they can get it right but it is at the heart of this proposal. I beg to move.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for putting this unexpected discussion before the Committee. I am conscious that there are 11 more groups, which, in the course of a normal Thursday, would need to be discussed in the next hour and seven minutes. Perhaps I can abuse the fact that I am now standing up to say that it would be very helpful if we could have a statement from the Government Chief Whip in, say, 15 minutes, explaining his intentions for the remainder of Committee. It is clearly unreasonable—to the Minister and the shadow Ministers—to be continuing in this way, making such slow albeit quite proper progress, because these are important issues. It would be extremely helpful if we had a statement from the Government Chief Whip about the Government’s intentions for dealing with the Bill because, frankly, this is not a sensible way for legislation to be properly scrutinised by your Lordships’ House.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

My Lords, why can we not simply convert the first day of Report into a Committee day and have a proper debate on the day we come back?

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

That the House do now resume.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, given that the Government Chief Whip has not yet arrived in the Chamber to explain what the intention is—although we may be about to get a message from him—to expedite matters, in order to see exactly what the Government’s intentions are, I beg to move that the House do now resume.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

My Lords, I argue that the House should not resume. Discussions are ongoing with the Chief Whip as we speak. I suggest to the House that we continue. The Chief Whip will come into the Chamber as soon as he is able to update us on progress on the Bill.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

On the basis of that assurance that the Government Chief Whip will be joining us in about 10 minutes, I will not press my Motion to a vote at this stage.

Motion withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

That the House do now resume.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, the Government Chief Whip briefly appeared in the Chamber. I now see that the Leader and Deputy Leader of the House are here. I am minded to move that the House do now resume, unless we are about to get a Statement.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Harris, continues, for the benefit of the House I should like to inform your Lordships that the Chief Whip will be making a brief Statement at 7 pm on the subject of the progress of the Bill.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

I am sure that this will be helpful. It is clearly progress and we all want to get on with this. But it would be useful for the House to know what the intention of the Government is as far as the progress of this Bill is concerned. So, unless we are going to be given more information, I will again put a Motion that the House do now resume.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

It may be helpful for the noble Lord to know that is has been agreed with the usual channels to have the Statement at 7 pm.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, I am sure that that is the case, but I am not a member of the usual channels. There are Members sitting in this Committee who are interested in this Bill or in particular clauses or aspects of it. We have a right to know the intention in terms of the remaining groups on this Bill. That is why I therefore move that the House do now resume.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, perhaps I might speak as the Minister who is on the Bill. We have spent many weeks on it. The one thing that we do not do is the job of the usual channels. With respect to the noble Lord, I ask him to respect this convention and allow the Chief Whip to make a Statement at 7 pm. In the mean time, could we please get on with this Bill because we all want to go home?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, for the convenience of the House I shall now seek, representing the opposition Chief Whip, discussions with the government Chief Whip and the noble Lord, Lord Newby, as soon as I have left the Chamber. I hope that my noble friends will allow us to continue business until that is concluded.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, if it helps the House, given the assurance from my noble friend that these discussions will take place and that we will get a report, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion that the House will be now resumed—but I may come back to it if there is no sign of progress.

Motion withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, I intend to make myself extremely popular by not speaking to this amendment, other than to say that I am extremely supportive of the amendments in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Goss Moor—and to say that my speech is available by email if anyone would like to read it later.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, I want to speak to this group of amendments because I think they are very important. Earlier on in the Committee today, I specifically raised the importance, in terms of planning, of looking at the concept of what is the community that you are trying to create—and making sure that the community is sustainable and has all the benefits you would hope for.

Over the past 20 or 30 years there has been enormous progress in understanding what makes a community work. It is not simply the number of homes. It is not simply the mix of homes. It is also what else is there. That is the place-making function. This is the content of Amendment 103, moved by my noble friend: it has focused on the series of expectations about the role that the new town development corporation—or whatever else—might use in trying to create a community.

The issue is not simply identifying the possibilities for development and putting up more new homes. That would be the route to some of the urban disasters that we have seen over the past 30 or 40 years. It is about creating a place. It is about creating an environment in which people can live and have a sense of community. The content contained in the amendment refers specifically to the vibrant cultural and artistic development of the community. It talks about protecting the natural and historic environment and the importance of high quality and inclusive design. This is about creating places in which people actually want to live. That should be fundamental to the whole planning process, and writing those into the legislation—the Local Government, Planning and Land Act, and the New Towns Act 1981 —is exactly the right way forward for the Bill. However, my concern is that they have not been included in the Bill up to now. I hope that the Minister—she is now nodding, so perhaps that is a good sign—will be able to tell us that the Government accept the principles behind my noble friend’s amendment.

On the point that has just been made by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, about the importance of consulting and involving communities, communities live and thrive only if they have the support of the people who are going to live there. That is why consultation and involvement in that process are such a critical part of making sure that those communities and places are indeed viable. That is my understanding of the intention of these amendments, and I hope that the Minister is going to tell us that the Government wholeheartedly embrace that and are going to accept them.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

My Lords, the amendments are indeed very timely. On Amendment 103, I say at the outset that I wholeheartedly endorse the importance of creating sustainable, well-designed places and I agree that, as the Budget announcement makes clear, statutory delivery vehicles can have an important role to play in achieving that. However, I echo what my honourable friend from the other place said: I am wary of creating new definitions and prescribing a long list of objectives for new town development corporations and urban development corporations, however worthy those objectives are in principle.

The NPPF already provides a clear view of what sustainable development means in practice, and to a very large extent it incorporates the objectives set out in the amendment. However, I accept that there is a case for change, and I am happy to look further at the objectives of the new town development corporations and how they could be extended, with a view to introducing an amendment that reflects this debate on Report. I hope that in light of this undertaking the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, on behalf of his colleagues, will withdraw his amendment.

I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Taylor, for Amendments 103A and 103B. The Government are committed to updating the New Towns Act 1981 so that we can better support local areas that want to bring forward new garden towns and villages. I emphasise that our focus is on locally led new garden towns and villages, and we will back proposals that have been developed locally with local support. We will absolutely not impose new towns and villages on communities.

The amendments set out one of the key changes that need to be made to the New Towns Act 1981, which is sound in its fundamentals but is showing its age. I am supportive of a modernised process that is consistent across both types of delivery vehicle, and therefore ask noble Lords not to move these amendments with a view to the Government producing similar amendments, which we will table on Report. I hope that I have reassured noble Lords.

--- Later in debate ---

Schedule 19 agreed.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, I see the Chief Whip hovering and unless he is coming to the Dispatch Box now, I will beg to move that the House do now resume.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)]

My Lords, I have had discussions in the usual channels, and we are going to be able to make quite a considerable amount of headway very quickly indeed. If noble Lords will bear with me, I said I would make a statement at 7 pm or thereabouts. I am willing to do so, but I know that the next group of amendments to be debated will be brief. I am also assured that the subsequent group will not be moved. There are then two groups of government amendments. I have agreed with those who have tabled the last group of amendments—which we will not reach—that they can be brought back on Report and debated under Committee rules. That is a practical solution, and I hope that noble Lords will agree it is a sensible way forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I have been a cause of trouble on the Bill, in that I was very keen that we finished exactly at 7 pm. That seems to me now to be ridiculous. Everybody wants to finish at 7 pm. In the last hour we have wasted a quarter of an hour arguing about whether we finish at 7 pm or 7.15 pm. My very strong view is that we should now continue to the end of the Bill, which we will do very shortly.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, I think I have moved that the House do now resume. Can I just clarify before I decide whether to press that to a vote whether we have now heard the Chief Whip’s Statement or whether he intends to make his Statement at the conclusion of the next group? Have we now got a procedure for going forward or has he now amended it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord True]

My Lords, I will not give the House a heart attack, but would the noble Lord consider before Report that surplus land in London might also go to boroughs, as well as to the mayor?

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, will be surprised at this, but I support his amendment. If you believe in the concept of a strong mayor—whether a strong Mayor of London or a strong mayor in combined authorities—what is proposed in these amendments is absolutely right. If you believe in a localist agenda, which I understand that the Government purport to do, this is the right approach. This should be how decisions about surplus land should be made.

On the basis of the comments I have made during the course of today’s Committee, it is important that there is the opportunity for people to make places. The people best placed to do that in this instance will be the mayors; the Mayor of London and the mayors of combined authorities. This is an opportunity. If it is the case—and I believe that my interventions in the last hour perhaps helped facilitate the discussions that may have led to an agreement—that the Government are going to accept the principles behind this, then I, for one, will be delighted.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Lord Bridges of Headley) (Con)]

My Lords, I, too, will try to be relatively brief. It is very good to be here at last; good things come to those who wait. The noble Lord has just raised some important points about these amendments. Let me turn directly to Clause 183, which requires Ministers of the Crown, in developing proposals for the disposal of their interests in land, to engage on an ongoing basis with each local authority in whose area the land is situated and other public authorities specified in regulations.

Clause 183 was inspired by local authorities which have experienced varying levels of engagement from central government, ranging from excellent to none at all. The aim is to ensure consistency in the way the Government engage with them. Amendments 105 to 109 would undo that common approach by making separate provision for the way authorities in London engage with each other. Amendment 108 could create particular confusion by requiring authorities in London to have regard to two sets of guidance, one published by the Secretary of State and the other by the mayor.

Turning briefly to Amendment 106, Clause 183 provides for the Minister for the Cabinet Office to issue statutory guidance on how the duty to engage is to be complied with. The clause is framed in this way to allow for flexibility. The duty to engage is new and we want to be able to monitor how it works in practice so that the detailed requirements can be fine-tuned if necessary. However, I agree that the regulations and guidance will need to take account of the role of the mayor in London. The mayor has a fundamental role in housing, planning and regeneration in London and has wide powers to acquire land, including by compulsion, and to develop or dispose of land as appropriate to a given scheme. Noble Lords will know much about that.

In view of that important role, I can reassure the noble Lord and the noble Baroness that we will specify the Mayor of London in regulations made under this clause, so that Ministers and public bodies, when developing proposals for the disposal of land in London, will need to engage with the Mayor of London.

Clause 184 is a transparency measure. It aims to incentivise bodies to release land in a timely manner, and where they have good reasons for not doing so, ensures that these are made transparent. Reports are not intended to be provided to a particular body, but made available publicly so that bodies can be held to account in respect of their use of surplus land. Reports will be readily accessible by the Mayor of London and there is no need for the express provision sought by Amendment 110. However, it will be important to ensure that the mayor is made aware of any reports under Clause 184 which include land in London. We will therefore undertake to consult the mayor when drawing up regulations under subsection (9) to ensure that the mayor’s views on how they should be published are taken into account.

Turning to mayoral combined authorities, I am unconvinced that the amendment would be helpful, as it would add to bureaucracy and reduce efficiency by requiring authorities to provide information to the mayoral combined authority or requiring the mayoral combined authority to request information from local authorities in its area. Individual local authorities will take decisions as to which land is surplus and will have this information readily to hand. Requiring individual authorities to report is the simplest and most straightforward approach.

Amendments 112 and 113 would insert two new, almost identical clauses which would prevent a relevant public body from disposing of any surplus land without first giving a mayoral combined authority, or the Mayor of London respectively, the right of first refusal to acquire that property, either at best consideration or at a sum that is less than best consideration by consent of the Secretary of State. Here, I point out that the mayor already has significant powers in relation to land. The mayor can acquire land, including compulsorily with the consent of the Secretary of State, and can develop and dispose of land and property. Where large, strategic opportunities arise, the mayor is empowered to designate a mayoral development area, which then triggers the establishment of a mayoral development corporation. For smaller opportunities, the London Land Commission has been established to play a strategic role in brokering agreements between land-owning bodies and government departments to facilitate development.

I am concerned that the amendments would add time and complexity to the disposal process without guaranteeing the best disposal routes. While there will be instances in which the mayoral combined authority or Mayor of London will be an appropriate disposal route for sites, they will not always be so. Schemes such as large urban extensions or garden cities require authorities to work with a number of developers and other partners, often over a number of years. In such instances it would not be appropriate for authorities to offer land to a mayoral combined authority or the Mayor of London, or for the mayoral combined authority or Mayor of London to dictate what the disposal route should be. Moreover, the proposed process would add considerable time and complexity to the disposal process.

Amendments 114 and 115 would amend Clause 185 to devolve the power to order disposal to the Mayor of London for relevant public authorities in Greater London. The bodies to which the power applies are not limited to local authorities but include a range of authorities with public functions, which span the whole country. How authorities with a national focus use their land must be judged in the wider context, taking account of their strategic need for land now and in the future. It would be inappropriate for the Mayor of London, with functions concentrated within the boundaries of Greater London, to make a judgment on whether a given piece of land within London is surplus to requirements. Devolving the power could risk undermining the ability of such bodies to carry out their functions properly. Government Ministers have the strategic overview necessary to identify where local directions to dispose of land may have a broader impact nationally.

Finally, Clause 183 already provides for regulations to be made setting out how relevant public authorities should engage with other relevant public authorities when taking forward plans to dispose of land. Clause 184 would require authorities to publish details of land that has been declared surplus for two years or more, or six months in the case of residential land. The Government are also consulting on updating the transparency code to require local authorities to record details of their land and property assets on the Government’s electronic property information management system. Given these new measures, which will improve engagement and increase transparency, it is unclear what Amendments 117 and 118 would add.

I hope I have dealt in some detail with some of the points raised by the noble Lord and noble Baroness, that I have been able to give some reassurance in the area in which it was sought, and that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Tope, decides whether or not to withdraw his amendment, can we have a little more clarity as to why the Government believe that Amendments 112 and 113 would add significantly to the time taken to dispose of assets? This is simply giving the Mayor of London or the mayor of a combined authority an opportunity to consider whether to acquire or to refuse to acquire, whereas the route that the Minister described required the creation of a mayoral development corporation. That seems to be a much longer, more drawn-out process than the one in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Tope.

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

I would be happy to discuss this with the noble Lord privately to explain our views. We believe it would add unnecessary bureaucracy, time and complexity, but I am happy to discuss this further with him.

Deregulation Bill

Lord Harris of Haringey Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2015 Lords Chamber

London is a leader in this area. I believe that it should be left to get on with it. If the rest of the nation wants to follow the requirements in the six or so pages of the relevant schedule detailing how this issue should be resolved, let it get on with it, but my amendments would relieve London of the necessity of doing so. I beg to move.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, for bringing this amendment back. I did not have the benefit of attending the meeting that she had with the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, but presumably his explanations of why the Government were doing this crazy thing were not sufficiently compelling to persuade the noble Baroness not to bring back the amendment.

The Minister has to answer some very simple questions if he is to persuade anyone that this is a good idea. The first is: what is the problem that the Government are trying to solve? What is wrong with the scheme under the London Local Authorities Act 2007? What is failing in that scheme? What is the evidence that that is not working or that people are being unnecessarily penalised for a first-time offence? It looks as if the Government have brought forward a Deregulation Bill and have decided not to deregulate something in London but to complicate the regulatory process by introducing extra stages, processes and bureaucracy. If I thought I understood anything about what this Government were trying to do, it was that they believed in simplifying red tape and eliminating wasteful form filling and processes. However, the Government’s proposal makes this area more complicated, not less. The Minister needs to explain why that is the case and why this is an additional regulation Bill rather than a Deregulation Bill.

The Minister needs to explain another thing. I thought the Government believed that localism was another important principle, but the London local authorities have come together and developed a scheme which is working well—unless the Minister can produce evidence at this 11th hour of a whole series of problems of which nobody else was aware. However, we now have an example of the heavy-handed bureaucracy of the Department for Communities and Local Government, and the Minister’s right honourable friend Eric Pickles saying, “I want to put the dead hand of central government authority on to London local authorities”. How does this square with the Government’s policy on localism? I suspect that this measure was dreamt up for reasons of simplicity without anyone looking at the details, and now nobody is prepared to admit that they got it wrong. However, the reality is that it imposes additional regulation, goes against the principle of localism and we will end up with more bureaucracy and problems to solve a problem which does not exist.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I apologise to the House for not having been able to take part in previous discussions on this matter, but I speak as leader of a London local authority and I consider that it is my responsibility to draw the House’s attention to the way this measure is perceived by a leader of a London authority. I am also by training a historian of Byzantium. I think that very few Byzantine emperors would have devised such a system for their capital city.

On the previous amendment, the Minister on the Front Bench argued very strongly against increasing bureaucracy and extra red tape. He also argued that London needed to be deregulated. However, I anticipate that, just a few minutes later, the Minister now on the Front Bench—my noble friend Lord De Mauley—will tell us the opposite of that and, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, suggested, will tell us that we need more complication and further regulation. I simply do not see the logic of that and I do not know of another leader of a London authority who shares the Minister’s view.

We heard the representations made by London authorities on a previous amendment. It is important to realise that this is not some bone-headed resistance from a bureaucratic body. People who are talking to government, or who wish to talk to government and advise them, have authority and the responsibility of satisfying the people of London on a day-to-day basis that their streets can be kept clean and be competently administered. I believe that they are clean and competently administered in most cases. We have a non-criminal system that was recently established with general consent and which I do not believe needs to be tampered with. If the Government really believe in deregulation and devolution, there is no rationale whatever in changing the London system.

My authority is a keen promoter of recycling. We pass all the Pickles tests. We do weekly collections and even collect from side alleys. We do not have bin snoopers but we do have the opportunity to impose a light-handed touch of regulation. In five years as leader I have not had a single call, letter or email complaining about this system. There is no evidence base that I am aware of to justify imposing a more complex system on London.

I suspect that at this stage the Government are not prepared to change their mind. That is a pity in the light of the arguments in the record that I have read and those that I have heard. Of course, it would be perfectly possible to proceed with two parallel systems. In fact, it would be interesting to see whether the Government’s more bureaucratic system outside London was more effective than the less bureaucratic system inside London. That could be a sensible way to test public policy. Even at this late stage, I urge my noble friend to consider whether the Government could not leave London well alone. That would not stop anything that is planned for the rest of the country in terms of decriminalisation. That is the considered view of experienced people in London based on their experience of doing the difficult job of trying to administer London and at the same time reduce staffing in local authorities and not take on extra bureaucrats to implement ever more complex systems. I hope that my noble friend will reflect on that when he comes to reply.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, can the Minister explain how much of a nuisance the regulatory burden is in London?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I am trying to get there.

In our view, legislation should not provide for people to be issued with, or threatened with, financial penalties the first time they make a mistake. That is why we want local authorities to give householders a written warning. The requirements on people are not always obvious, particularly when they move to an area where a different collection system applies. It is right that people should find out what they have done wrong and should have the opportunity to rectify mistakes before they are asked to pay a penalty. People in London have as much right to this opportunity as anyone else in England.

Based on what we have heard from local authorities, we do not believe that this will add significant burdens compared with how the current arrangements operate. We know that many authorities already communicate well with their residents and seek to educate them if they are having difficulties with collection requirements, but if we do not amend the London Local Authorities Act, this legislation would still allow someone making a mistake for the first time in London, but not elsewhere in England, to be penalised. We do not believe that that is fair or right.

I am aware that some noble Lords consider that the system we propose is bureaucratic. Indeed, my noble friend described it as byzantine. She used the words “long and protracted” and mentioned our five-page schedule. Let me explain why I do not believe that we are introducing significantly more bureaucracy compared with the current London system.

London Councils produced a 22-page guidance document in December 2013 on the current system operating under the London Local Authorities Act. According to this, London authorities issue householders with a penalty charge notice. I quote from the guidance:

“Depending on each local authority’s policy, a verbal or written warning may be given before escalating”,

to a penalty charge notice. The householder then has 28 days to make representations to the London authority. If representations are made, the authority then has 56 days to make a decision. If it rejects the representations, a notice of rejection must be served. The householder may then appeal to an adjudicator before being required to pay the penalty. All that is under the current system in London.

Under our proposed system, London local authorities will first issue a householder with a written warning. The next time a householder makes a mistake they may issue a notice of intent. The final notice can then be issued after 28 days, taking account of any representations made. The householder may then appeal to an adjudicator before being required to pay the penalty. Is our proposed system really adding bureaucracy, compared with the current system?

As well as reducing the regulatory burden on householders, our proposals seek to ensure that the level of penalties is proportionate. Given the broad agreement that making a mistake related to household waste collection should not be a criminal offence, it would not seem appropriate for the penalty to be higher than for a criminal activity. The penalty under the London system for a breach of the rules about presentation of waste is currently set at £110, yet a shoplifter committing a first offence may be issued with a £90 penalty notice for disorder. Under our proposals, councils in London would be able to set the penalty between £60 and £80.

We believe that this range is proportionate, but understand that some noble Lords consider that it will not act as a deterrent. We should remember that for many people in London, as elsewhere, an £80 financial penalty is certainly significant. For people who consider that £80 is insignificant, I ask whether they really consider £110 such a radically different amount that they will treat it as a significant penalty. We believe that £60 to £80 is the right level and that householders in London have as much right to be treated fairly and proportionately as anyone else in England.

Also, I suggest that it would not be right for a “harm to local amenity” test to apply everywhere in England except London. Under the Environmental Protection Act, we propose that householders should be issued with a fixed penalty only if their behaviour actually causes problems in their local neighbourhood. They could receive a penalty for leaving bin bags on the street for days on end, but not for leaving a bin lid open. If we kept the London system as it is, we would be in the anomalous position where the legislation allows local authorities to issue penalties to householders who make any sort of mistake in this area if they live in London, but not if they live anywhere else in England.

We intend to work with local government to produce advice to help local authorities implement the test with confidence. My officials are of course also happy and available to talk to representatives from London Councils and others about the practicalities of operating this system if that would be useful.

This clause and schedule, as they stand, will introduce a proportionate approach, providing appropriate safeguards for householders throughout England, including London. I therefore ask my noble friend to withdraw her amendment.

Public Services: Economic and Climatic Challenges

Lord Harris of Haringey Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, this is turning out to be an extremely wide-ranging debate, as some of us thought it might be. I started by pitying the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, on the range of issues that he would have to address in his reply, but I am beginning to realise that he may be able to pick and choose to such an extent that he can stick to whatever brief he was provided with at the outset. The debate is so wide-ranging that I should probably declare a number of interests: my co-chairmanship of the All-Party Group on Policing and my role in the All-Party Group on Homeland Security; my chairmanship of the National Trading Standards Board; and my chairmanship of the advisory board on the City Security and Resilience Networks.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, for his barnstorming introduction to this debate, highlighting the sheer range of issues where our resilience is under question and for which the Government must either have some responsibility or be taking some responsibility. This debate is about the fundamental duty of the nation state to its citizens: to protect their security and secure their well-being.

I was also grateful to my noble friend Lord Rooker for picking up an issue that I raised in the House yesterday about the Thames barrier. When it was first opened 30 years ago, the barrier was raised twice in its first four years. In the latest four years, it has been raised 24 times, which is 12 times the frequency and far more than ever originally envisaged. Yet the Government are happy to agree to reschedule its replacement from 2035 to 2070. I am sure that your Lordships will be reassured that the Front Bench opposite has this matter in hand. The noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, will himself visit to see that the Thames barrier is in fact resilient until 2070. We are all reassured by that news and look forward to him reporting back as to what state he finds the Thames barrier in when he gets there. However, resilience has to be an essential component of the state’s duty to its citizens. How well can society cope with and recover from adverse events? A breach of the Thames barrier would be a pretty adverse, if not catastrophic, event.

I am a member of the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy. One of our tasks on that committee is to consider the extent to which the national security strategy addresses all of the issues that it should, and whether the Government have in place appropriate responses to threats to the nation’s security and well-being. Much of this inevitably relates to our international standing. The extent to which the United Kingdom can deal effectively with economic changes is a potential consequence of that international standing and, highly contentious though it may be, the relationship of this country with Europe is of critical importance. Our Government’s willingness to give up their ability to influence events and policies across Europe by their constant hostility to all things European, their willingness to alienate our European partners and their happiness to foster uncertainty about our future relationship with the European Union is inevitably damaging to our national interest. I am sure that the Minister will want to defend the Government’s position on all those matters.

What is not clear is whether the Government have engaged in any serious consideration of the consequences of the endless concessions being made to the Eurosceptic tail of the Conservative wing of this coalition. Later this afternoon, your Lordships will debate the implications of the ill thought through opt-out of the EU police and criminal justice measures. Even though there is clear evidence that these measures are necessary to enable our police to tackle cross-border crime and protect our citizens, Eurosceptics are in practice undermining the security of the nation which they claim to be protecting.

This is part of a pattern: a blindness to national security and national resilience, and a worrying insouciance in all sorts of areas. For example, there is increasing foreign ownership of essential parts of our critical national infrastructure. Indeed, there is no evidence of any serious debate about what should or should not be red-lined. What is the level of our dependence on foreign powers in respect of our ports, our airports, our water, our telecoms or our energy? Do the Government care about any of those? What would they be prepared to see under foreign ownership, or is there something somewhere which the Government are not prepared to see sold to foreign Governments or foreign companies?

Let us talk about energy. Is our energy infrastructure sufficiently resilient against, for example, an electromagnetic pulse, whether delivered as a result of a solar flare or a deliberate attack? An intentional attack launched using a Scud missile from a small ship offshore, which could then be scuttled to make attribution difficult, and with that missile detonating a small nuclear device 25 miles above our land, would trigger an electromagnetic pulse over an area with a 100-mile radius. This would have the effect, irrespective of any other consequences, of disabling electronic equipment and destroying the cores of generators and transformers in the electricity grid.

Exceptional solar activity can produce similar effects. In March 1989, the Quebec hydropower network was disrupted by solar flares, causing a voltage collapse, a failure of transmission lines and a nine-hour blackout. That same solar storm led to a transformer failure in New Jersey and 200 less severe incidents across the United States. Effects like that happen on average every seven years, in line with sunspot activity, with much larger impacts resulting from more occasional massive solar storms such as those in 1859 or 1921. Arguably, if we do the maths, one is due. Where is the planning to combat this and to protect our electricity grid against those sorts of electromagnetic pulse interventions?

Is our energy infrastructure sufficiently resilient against a cyberattack? The Wall Street Journal recently reported senior US intelligence concerns about both Russian and Chinese attempts to map and put in place arrangements to control the US electricity grid. The Chinese, apparently operating from what is described as,

“a rather unimposing building in Shanghai”,

have been equipped to do just that. The former Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano, has said that a cyberattack on the US power network is,

“a matter of when and not if”.

What are the Government doing to protect the control systems of our energy supply and other utilities against attack or disruption?

More generally, where is our Government’s response to safeguard the country’s longer-term energy supplies, for example in response to Russian moves over oil pipelines and the increasing fragility of the Middle East? Closer to home, how concerned are we, or should we be, about foreign ownership of energy infrastructure in this country or about foreign powers controlling nuclear waste on UK soil?

This vulnerability on energy is a reminder that, only a few years ago, MI5 was warning that Britain was only four meals away from anarchy. This may be why, as the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, reported from today’s Daily Telegraph, investment in water cannon is seen as so urgent. That is how quickly MI5 assessed that Britain could be reduced to large-scale disorder, including looting and rioting, in the event of serious disruption to the critical national infrastructure and, in particular, the food distribution network. We had widespread rioting and looting only a couple of years ago, of course, without disruption of the food supply network. These are matters that should be addressed properly by Government. I am not sure that the solution is water cannon, although we will have an opportunity to debate that in this Chamber in a week or two.

More fundamentally—this relates to the remarks made by the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley—how secure is Britain’s food supply? Other countries are buying up farmland around the world to safeguard their food supplies. Have our Government considered the consequences of this? Are we considering the same? If not, what is being done to safeguard our position and the security of our food supplies?

Are we ready for other forms of threat to the food supply, such as volcanic eruptions with severe effusions of poisonous gases? Have the Government considered the implications for food security of something like the 1783 Laki eruption in Iceland that pumped 14 cubic kilometres—think of the scale of that—of basalt lava and vast clouds of hydrofluoric acid and sulphur dioxide into the air, leading to a drop in global temperatures, crop failures in Europe, droughts in India and the deaths of 6 million people? The 2010 eruption that disrupted flights for six days was as nothing as compared to that. So what contingency plans are in place for a major volcanic eruption with that degree of impact on our food supplies, air travel and everything else?

And are we doing enough to protect food quality? We had the horsemeat scandal, which the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, referred to. That was not, on that occasion, a major risk to public health, but it was a wake-up call for concerns about the food supply chain and the need for adequate monitoring. Yet local authority trading standards have already faced a 20% reduction, with much larger cuts in the pipeline in many parts of the country. Where is concern about protecting the interests of the citizen there?

Of course, all local authority services have been cut and much of that has a consequence on society and its resilience. Moving from food to the other end of the digestive cycle, if I may, one in seven public toilets have closed in the past three years as a result of cuts in government grants. In some large cities, such as Liverpool, there are no public facilities at all. The consequences for the elderly, in particular, are severe. Many of them may choose to stay at home rather than risk being caught short. It is hardly a vision of a resilient society if old people feel that they cannot go out because of the cutbacks imposed by this Government.

Regulatory and other services have been cut. Regulatory services have been cut as part of a drive to reduce the burdens on business. Is this really protecting the citizen?

What about the police service? Morale is at an all-time low, police numbers have been cut around the country and neighbourhood policing is disappearing. Ministers are contributing almost gleefully in a collapse in public trust. Why, for example, were Government Ministers so silent following the inquest verdict into the shooting of Mark Duggan? Where were the Home Office Ministers on radio and television saying that the verdict of a jury who had heard months of evidence in that case should be respected and that the police sometimes have to make difficult decisions—that may, with the wonderful benefit of hindsight, turn out to be wrong—to protect the lives of bystanders? Is it really in the public interest to run down our police leaders and our police service, as this Government have done? Where is the resilience in that? Our police will be the first responders when things go wrong and we need them to maintain public order, to intervene to save lives and to protect the public.

Is this not a Government who have forgotten what being a Government is supposed to be about? A Government should protect its citizens and put the resilience of our society first. That is what is missing. There is no coherence in what the Government are doing. There is no overall strategy as far as many of these issues are concerned.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, some debates are more difficult to sum up than others, but this one is simply impossible. Let me start by thanking the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds for everything he has done as a Member of this House and for the many contributions he has made. I hope that he will not be losing touch with his diocese entirely, which I know well, having walked across substantial parts of it, and having canvassed in such different areas as the Gipton and Harehills estates in Leeds and the Duchy estate in Harrogate—to take two extreme ends of the social spectrum. Only those who have walked over the Yorkshire Dales know quite how extraordinary are the boundaries between the different dioceses of West and North Yorkshire: Bradford, Wakefield, Leeds and Ripon. I know that the retirement of the right reverend Prelate is partly an adjustment of the boundaries of those dioceses, which will relate more to the 21st century than to the early 20th century when they were drawn up.

Let me start by talking about the Government’s response to issues of resilience. I stress that it is not just about this Government’s response because we have inherited a lot from our predecessors. I hope that we have improved upon it, although as has been said, we are all conscious that Governments tend to think about the period between now and the next election. However, good government apparatus needs always to think about the long term. The Civil Contingencies Secretariat of the Cabinet Office, with the horizon-scanning that various members of the Cabinet Office undertake, always tries to look 15, 20 and 30 years ahead. That did not start with this Government; it is something that any Government should be doing.

When this Government came into office, I was struck by the list in the national security strategy—a document produced mainly by the Ministry of Defence—of what were thought to be the major threats to Britain. What was most striking was how few of the threats identified were primarily military. The first was international terrorism affecting the UK, with hostile attacks against UK cyberspace listed as the second of the really serious threats. It cited a major accident or natural hazard such as flooding affecting three or more regions or an influenza pandemic as the third threat, and an international crisis between other states which might draw in the UK and its allies, as well as non-state actors, as the fourth. Under tier 2 were listed the risk of major instability, insurgency or civil war overseas that might create a surge of terrorists or asylum seekers, a significant increase in the level of organised crime affecting the UK, and severe disruption to information received, transmitted or collected by satellite either as the result of deliberate attack by another state or through the impact of space weather. So the Government do try to think ahead, but the idea that any Government could ever be entirely coherent in their response to every possible contingency is asking for the moon, and possibly even for the sun as well. As I struggle to come to terms with the many different things that the Cabinet Office does, and which I find I am responsible for reporting on to this House, I have to say that this Government are doing a fairly good job.

On two occasions I have been briefed on the question of cyberdefences and the threat of cyberattack. I told my wife that when she visits Beijing in a few weeks, she is certainly not taking any phone other than one she might buy to go there and come away with. Again, the Government are well prepared for many of the risks that we face in this new world: the government structure is in place.

Of course, the Cabinet Office works in collaboration with the DCLG, Defra, DECC and a number of other departments, and in co-operation with local government because many local issues, particularly flooding or other weather events, are dealt with much better in the first instance by local responders at local level.

Incidentally, I am struck that no one has mentioned national or global population increase as a long-term source of insecurity. It evidently is a matter of concern to our population. It is certainly a source of potential problems if there is climate change in other parts of the world or, perhaps, due to the declining effectiveness of antibiotics in controlling disease, which is a problem with which the Government are already actively engaged.

I will make what is perhaps the party point that very few of these threats—indeed, almost none of them—can be dealt with by national action alone. National security requires international co-operation, both European and global. The defence of national sovereignty, about which some newspapers in particular seem to go on at great length, does not fit in well with protection against external, regional and global threats.

The noble Lord, Lord Harris, asked whether or not foreign ownership of key national assets is itself a potential source of national insecurity or threat. That is a very large question, which perhaps he would like to promote an entire debate on. All I will say is that it is very odd that the anti-European right does not focus on that issue when it is talking about the defence of national sovereignty.

The right reverend Prelate asked about UK policy on climate change. Again, UK policy on climate change has to contribute to European and global policy on climate change. We are engaged in an active negotiation within the European Union about how we and the other 27 member states adjust to climate change. The discovery of shale gas in the United States has not made that any easier because the higher price of energy in Europe compared to the United States is clearly a very major issue here.

I say in passing to the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, who doubts that we should depend so much on renewable energy from wind, if you walk around Yorkshire, you are always conscious that there is an awful lot of unused hydropower available. I have just had to keep my head very low in an argument within Saltaire village about whether or not you could put in an Archimedean screw on our weir, which we are now doing, which will provide a small amount of local hydropower. There are about 100 other weirs on the River Aire and if one were to harness all those weirs that we used to use in the 18th and 19th centuries for power in Yorkshire, we would provide a small additional contribution to renewable energy from land-based fresh water, which incidentally would be most effective at the point where wind power was likely to be least effective.

While I am on the international theme, I will quote the Peer Review Report from the European Commission, OECD and UNISDR on the United Kingdom’s resilience:

“Since the Civil Contingencies Act (CCA) was enacted in 2004, the UK has continued to increase the resilience of society to disasters. Sophisticated mechanisms have been put in place to coordinate the actions of various levels of government and its agencies at national and local levels … In many respects, the UK resilience approach shows state-of-the-art innovations, including: large use of science to support policy … attention to business-continuity issues and full partnerships with the private sector … flexible institutional mechanisms and partnerships focused on delivery through voluntary approaches … professional and dedicated co-workers in the field of DRR”—

disaster risk reduction—

“throughout the country … national commitment to continue improving policy-making and pushing further implementation”.

Again, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, that of course none of that started in 2010 but we are continuing to pay active attention to this extremely important issue.

It is not only the Government; there is a role for Parliament and for society as a whole in all of this. We talk about government resilience but of course there is also economic resilience and social resilience. There is a role for Parliament in promoting public awareness of challenges to resilience and of the need for the public as well as government nationally and locally to play a part in response. I suggest that Parliament could do more, through debates and committee activities, to scrutinise government on these long-term threats.

The noble Lords, Lord Touhig and Lord Brooke, talked about local communities, local government and the involvement of the public and charities. The revival of local government is one of the things that this Government have begun to make some progress on, although I have to say that we have been frustratingly slow in doing it. Clearly the city deals and getting people back into local engagement are part of the way in which we have to improve social and political resilience. I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, on the extent to which charities should be as dependent on government funding as many became in the 13 years of the Labour Government. I have occasionally been shocked in Yorkshire by just how intensely overdependent some charities are on government funding. It is an unnatural dependence. That is a question that we will need to discuss with the charity sector.

In many ways, civil society more broadly has become too passive in Britain. I am a fan of the big society partly because it says, “Government cannot do everything for you. You have to help to do some of these things yourselves”. I remember the shock that my wife and I had when, during a very heavy snow storm some winters ago, one of the many young people who have stayed in our house in London over the years—because it is too large for us and we are away at the weekends—said, “Why haven’t they cleared the paths?”. We both turned on him and said, “Why haven’t you cleared the paths?”. This is part of the problem that we have across too much of our society. We need to get people back into the sense that they share in citizenship and in their local and national community. I will flag up a number of government programmes which help with that. The national citizenship service scheme pilots, as they still remain, have done a very encouraging amount to show to some young people from the deprived sectors of our society that they can, and would be happy to, help and work with others in building local community initiatives. I have also watched the arrival of the apprenticeship programme and have seen in Leeds and Bradford the extent to which young people who thought they were never going to work, have got themselves back into work and are finding that it is an enormously valued part of their life within the community.

The noble Lord, Lord Maxton, remarked how we have a coherent and cohesive society and have never had a revolution. As he spoke, I thought of what my father told me many times. When he was a sergeant in the Gordon Highlanders in 1919 during the miners’ strike and was sent off with a platoon to guard a Nottinghamshire mine, he was sure that the Sherwood Foresters were probably there guarding a mine in the Scottish lowlands—I think we got pretty close to it in 1919. The question of social cohesion and social resilience is one which we cannot neglect in Britain at present. A topic for another debate would certainly be whether the growth of the extreme inequalities which we see in our society, as well as the increasing ethnic diversity, weakens social resilience.

The ageing population, to which a number of references were made, also raises considerable problems. For example, I would say to the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, that it tends to make society more resistant to change and innovation. As we have seen, it also increases the pressure on all Governments to spend more on the old and less on the young.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

I am sorry to interrupt, and I know it is a timed debate, but did the noble Lord imply that increasing ethnic diversity would reduce society’s resilience? If so, could he explain the point?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I merely said that it is a risk. It is a risk that we have seen over the past 20 or 30 years. On the whole, we have managed the diversity of British society extremely well, but it is not something—I say this again from my experience in West Yorkshire—that can be entirely ignored. It is one that we all have to be aware of. My noble friend Lady Eaton, a former leader of Bradford council, is actively engaged in Near Neighbours, which works across West Yorkshire in bringing those different communities together. We have to work on these things.

Animal disease was mentioned. Defra and the veterinary agency are dealing with scanning surveillance capability on the threat of animal disease. I assure the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, that a large number of scientists in universities, in government laboratories and in the private sector are working together on this.

The noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, and others spoke about spending on flood defences. The noble Baroness was absolutely right: spending overall is going up, which is partly because, under partnership arrangements, private providers are increasing their contribution as the Government have squeezed the rate of their contribution. Those who say that there has been a reduction and those who say that there has been an increase are therefore both right depending on whose figures you take. We are all conscious that flood defences are a highly emotive issue. I would contradict those noble Lords who suggested that the Government are not thinking about the future of peatlands and tree-planting in the uplands. We had a Question on peatlands from my noble friend Lord Greaves the other day. These are matters where the Government, local authorities and water companies are working together.

I am conscious that time is running out. I have mentioned the flood mitigation measures which are already under way; clearly, more needs to be done. I was looking up what an earth bund was this morning— perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, already knows what that is—but experiments are under way to prevent heavy rainwater on saturated land going immediately downstream by holding it in artificially created water meadows. The Government are experimenting as far as they can in all this.

Critical National Infrastructure: Ownership

Lord Harris of Haringey Excerpts

Monday 22nd July 2013 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what proportion of the United Kingdom’s critical national infrastructure is owned by foreign-owned companies; and what assessment they have made of the benefits and disbenefits of that level of ownership.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, although detailed ownership figures are not held, much of the UK’s infrastructure is foreign owned. More broadly, as a nation the UK has a pipeline of more than £310 billion of potential infrastructure projects over the next five to 10 years. Investment will need to come from a variety of sources, foreign as well as domestic. The UK welcomes all investors, irrespective of nationality, particularly those bringing additional capital into the UK, provided that they meet our corporate governance standards and do not represent an unacceptable national security risk.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, I note that the Minister does not know what proportion of our national infrastructure is owned by foreign interests, but he does acknowledge that most of it is. Our ports are owned by Dubai, the BT network is controlled by the Chinese and London’s electricity is supplied by the French. Does he not think that it is about time that the Government started to take our national sovereignty, and our freedom of manoeuvre, seriously?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

There are several points there. To say that the BT network is controlled by the Chinese is, to say the least, a considerable exaggeration. The issue of the dependence on the supply of equipment from China is a rather different one, and that, as noble Lords will know, is the subject of a recent ISC report. British sovereignty has traditionally and in recent years been debated much more in terms of threat to English common law, and the existential threat which Brussels and the European courts are thought to provide to Britain, than in terms of the threat from foreign investment. I should welcome the noble Lord banging on about one rather than the other—it would make a nice change.