Transport: HS2

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Tuesday 26th February 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, I am a long-standing supporter of high-speed rail. I served for several years on the Northern Way Transport Compact and we did a lot of work establishing the case for high-speed rail and setting out the positive cost-benefit ratio that could be achieved for the north of England. My contribution this evening comes from that northern perspective, where connectivity for business and growth matters profoundly, for both the speedy movement of people and the movement and export of freight in an increasingly competitive world.

As several noble Lords have pointed out, we have existing capacity problems, the product of both rising demand and underinvestment. When exploratory work was being done on the case for HS2, my great fear was that debate would become dominated by the route to be chosen between London and Birmingham to the detriment of the production of a wider rail investment plan and the wider benefits to the UK as a whole, which would be glossed over. Therefore, I am glad that the Government have understood the case for HS2, which I think is vital to our country’s economic future. It is not just a matter for the south-east and the Midlands because it will help to rebalance our economy away from overdependence on London and the south-east for tax revenues. That means building an infrastructure which helps Scotland, the north and the Midlands to grow. London currently provides 28% of non-domestic rates income in England with only 15% of our population. That is an unhealthy situation and one that requires a better transport infrastructure to put right.

Critically, HS2 will link northern cities with each other, not just with London and Scotland. The Leeds to Birmingham journey time will be just under one hour versus two hours now, and the journey from Leeds to London will take 82 minutes versus two hours and 12 minutes today. Newcastle will not be connected to the high-speed track in the next phase but when HS2 joins the east coast main line north of Leeds, the journey time from Newcastle to London will be two hours and 18 minutes, as against just under three hours now. There will also be an hour’s saving on the journey time to Birmingham. As a consequence of HS2, there will be greater freight capacity on the system as a whole.

I commend the British Chambers of Commerce, which says that HS2 will create confidence, jobs and prosperity. We cannot go on just patching the system. We need to plan for a full national UK network and, pending that, we need to ensure that we maximise speed north of Leeds and Manchester. The cost, at £33 billion plus rolling stock at £8 billion, should be seen as a 20-year investment. Discussions about cost did not stand in the way of Eurostar or Crossrail. I agree entirely with the comments about the Heathrow connection, but the Government’s vision is right. We can debate the detail of routes, and it is right that we do so, but HS2 remains central to our potential for growth and competitiveness.

Arts and Culture: Economic Regeneration

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Tuesday 29th January 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, for initiating this debate. I also extend my welcome to the Minister in his new role and look forward very much indeed to hearing his response.

I should declare that I am a trustee of Audio Visual Arts North East and a patron or supporter of several of the cultural venues in Newcastle and Gateshead. I spent several years over the past decade helping to build up arts and cultural venues in the north-east. I did it for three main reasons. The first was to widen knowledge and participation, because a more civil, equal and inclusive society is created when learning opportunities, the performing arts, libraries and museums are available to all. There is also evidence that health and well-being can improve as a result.

Secondly, we wanted to make the north-east an attractive venue for tourism and inward investment. I pay tribute to the leadership role of Gateshead, which the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, mentioned. The Sage Gateshead and the Baltic were major contributions to changing the image of Tyneside and the north-east and increasing tourism to the area. Newcastle, of course, played its role with a number of cultural buildings and venues, which were either expanded or newly built in the past decade—for example, Seven Stories, the National Centre for Children’s Books.

Overall, the cultural provision in the north-east of England is very strong. That has an economic value through the multiplier effect. I was interested recently to see that Durham’s Lumiere festival in 2011 brought £4.3 million into the local economy against spending by the county council of £400,000.

Those three principles still stand today; nothing has changed. Of course, that list would apply to all parts of the United Kingdom, not just the north-east. Generally, it would seem that for every £1 of public money invested in a cultural venue, there will be an average return of £4 to the wider economy.

For Newcastle Gateshead this has meant a major expansion in economic benefits. There are more than 2,000 full-time equivalent jobs across the north-east run by the 10 cultural venues in Newcastle Gateshead, with 1,200 full- and part-time jobs in Newcastle Gateshead itself. There have been 3.6 million attendances at cultural venues in Newcastle Gateshead and 900,000 learning and participation opportunities. Helpfully, nearly 900 volunteers are involved in delivering support. I quote those figures because they are impressive and we should recognise the enormous achievement of arts and cultural organisations in the region and congratulate the staff and the boards of those organisations on their achievements. We do not want to lose that, which is a point that I will return to later.

Underpinning all of this is the issue of free access. That is an absolute cornerstone of a civilised society. Free access to museums, galleries and libraries provides opportunities for individuals to develop themselves, to encourage reading, seeing, listening, thinking, learning and taking part. Free access is about ensuring that we actually deliver equal opportunities. Where payment has to be required in the performing arts, schemes that help those on low incomes must continue to be promoted by the Arts Council and all receiving organisations.

The fact that spending cuts would have an effect around now is not a surprise. Several years ago, we knew in Newcastle Gateshead that we had to ensure that the large increase in capacity in the number of existing and new cultural organisations could withstand a reduction in public spending whatever the Government, and that this would inevitably need to be done whoever won the election in 2010. Of course, in the north-east, the collapse of Northern Rock and the loss of so much of its cultural funding support from its high point a few years earlier have not helped. Close working, joint marketing, better procurement and maximising charitable donations can all help even if they cannot solve the impact of all of the cuts.

I pay tribute to Arts Council England because it has managed its funding cuts thoughtfully. Rightly, it demands excellence when it allocates money and it is right to emphasise the interrelationship of libraries, museums and cultural organisations. There is a crucial role now for the Arts Council to ensure that its support is not overconcentrated in London and is distributed across England to develop greater equality of funding and thereby of access. A very small switch in the proportions of Arts Council funding between London and the rest of England could have a major impact on the viability of organisations outside London.

Account must be taken by the Arts Council of the capacity of a region to develop its philanthropic base. So many firms are headquartered in London it is little wonder that levels of sponsorship are so very much higher in London. Nevertheless, more is now being done by the Arts Council to develop the potential for private giving across England through its funding streams and I want to recognise the progress that is being made.

Councils have an enhanced role now through increasing localism. I referred earlier to health and well-being. Now that substantial funds are being redirected from the National Health Service to local councils from April for the promotion of public health through health and well-being boards, the application of that money needs a lot of thought. Well-being is about the whole person and it seems to be right that public health moneys could be used to alleviate cuts in arts, culture, libraries and learning where a benefit in terms of well-being could be the identified. I refer, for example, to neighbourhood libraries, where closure could reduce well-being.

I turn now to the pupil premium. In the north-east of England it is worth more than £100 million additional money in the year from this coming April. I raise this because more than 600,000 children participated in an event at a cultural venue in Newcastle Gateshead in 2011-12. It is reasonable to suggest that some of this growing pupil premium could be used by the schools receiving it to ensure equal opportunities for their children. Children need their horizons expanding and it cannot all be done within the boundaries of the school itself. I am unaware that there are any discussions or initiatives taking place on this matter, but given the scale of the pupil premium now and from April it needs to be.

I want to mention the importance of artist development programmes. I am impressed by the potential here and cite as an example the record of Generator—the leading music development agency in the UK set up 20 years ago with the aim of developing a more sustainable music industry in the north. It was later asked by the Arts Council to assist other fledgling agencies in policy and programme development, governance and funding. It has managed to lever in £4 for every £1 received from the Arts Council, which has enabled it to support new talent, help create 50 new businesses, assist 107 SMEs and a further 173 new SMEs, as part of its business support programme which was completed in December. Generator works with emerging bands and artists; mentoring and showcasing talent; providing key help such as PR, booking agents, sources of funding and securing media exposure. Such a comprehensive and progressive artist development programme fills a gap in the market for effective development of artists at any stage of their careers. There may be potential for replicating it.

In conclusion, we need some clear thinking given the budgetary position of cultural organisations—not just in the north east but across England. I very much hope that all of those involved in current discussions on funding for arts and cultural venues, libraries and museums will think carefully about how each can help. By this I mean councils, venues, the Arts Council, sponsors, universities, colleges, and schools—particularly those in receipt of significant sums from the pupil premium. If you close a venue, you cannot reopen it easily. The loss and the damage could be profound.

Common sense demands that everyone works just a bit harder to find a solution. I want to agree entirely with what the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, said about the need now for people to take a step back and to work out how they can move forward and protect the cultural and artistic venues and libraries which are currently under such very great pressure.

EAC Report: Development Aid

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Monday 22nd October 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, this report is the outcome of many months’ deliberation by the Economic Affairs Committee, during which we heard from many expert witnesses who challenged our perceptions of development aid.

I present the apologies of my noble friend Lord Smith of Clifton, who as a member of the committee hoped very much to speak on this report but is absent because he is recuperating from surgery. I am sure that he would agree with me that this report should be seen as the report of a critical friend. It is about the effective use of public money in helping to drive growth in poor developing countries, in reducing inequalities in income, wealth, health and life expectancy between countries and peoples, and in making the world a safer and more secure place by spreading wealth and opportunity.

The UK is a better place because it gives international aid and wants to give more. I pay tribute to the previous Secretary of State for International Development for his personal commitment to the importance of overseas aid. He had a clear programme to get 11 million children into school, to vaccinate 55 million people against preventable diseases and to stop 250,000 newborn babies dying needlessly, and a plan to promote education and access-to-finance schemes for women and girls.

Aid is morally right for richer countries to give, but it should not lead to fraud, corruption, capital flight or arms purchase. The committee heard worrying evidence that it did. We also heard convincing evidence that development aid can be a driver for growth where it acts as a catalyst for a recipient country’s institutions and its economic and social infrastructure. We heard that aid is not necessarily a driver of growth itself but that it can increase the rate of growth, led by the private sector, by investing in health, skills, internal infrastructure and strong political governance.

Since the report was published earlier this year, three trends are impacting negatively on poor countries. First, the international debt crisis is pushing up the debt repayments of poor countries by about one-third. The Jubilee Debt Campaign has identified that because European demand is lower, income derived by poor countries from exports is reducing. Also, European banks and companies are repatriating money and poor countries are being asked to reschedule debt themselves and thus carry greater burdens. Cutting debt repayment matters because it can be followed by specific, measurable action. We should remember, for example, that in 2001, when Tanzania was granted debt relief, school fees were abolished and school enrolment rose from 50% to 80%.

Secondly, there is a food crisis: 250 million people in Africa are undernourished, and food production in Africa is reported to have dropped by 10% in the past 50 years. I read that more than $33 billion a year is spent on food imports into Africa. Prices are rising and becoming unaffordable and faster agricultural modernisation and expansion seems essential, as the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, pointed out a moment ago.

Can the Minister update the House, either now or later, on whether British multinationals will in future be able to direct profits into tax havens that could cost developing countries significant losses of tax income? What estimates have officials of DfID made of that? Is the estimate of ActionAid correct when it estimates that loss at £4 billion—one-third of our planned development aid budget?

All those trends matter deeply to the amount that we give in aid, which is why the Government’s ambitions to increase the amount we give are right. However, we know from research and from the evidence we heard that only about 50% of aid reaches its target. That is far too low. The other 50% goes in administration and overheads, particularly where money goes through a chain of agencies, in consultancies but also in corruption and fraud.

I move to the issue of fraud and corruption. Some of our witnesses claimed that DfID emphasises quantity, not quality, with poor monitoring. An important consequence of that is a lack of public confidence that money is well spent. Indeed, last year, DfID admitted to the Public Accounts Committee that it did not know how much aid money was lost to fraud and corruption—so much for audit. In 2011-12, the sum identified as fraud and corruption from our direct aid was only £3.1 million, a tiny portion of overall spending.

The Government have created the Independent Commission for Aid Impact. It would be helpful to know what it has achieved since we reported. I understand that it has subcontracted some of its work to KPMG. It would be helpful to know the terms of that. For example, is there an element of payment by results?

A recent National Audit Office report into multilateral aid stated that none of the institutions acting on behalf of DfID had any quantified details of known frauds or losses, although departmental staff were aware of investigations into potential fraud in some cases. That rather suggests that not a lot is done to limit fraud. I hope that the Minister can put my mind at rest and confirm that multilateral aid is indeed subject to proper audit.

As the Government spend more to reach their goal of 0.7% of national income, it is crucial that the public have confidence in our aid programme. Rightly, they want giving aid to be dependent on positive outcomes, improving in-country governance and delivering proper audits on the ground, not supporting Governments who are complicit in terrorism or attacks on civil liberties. The target of 0.7% of gross national income for OECD countries has been a 40-year target. It exists as a statement of the responsibility of rich countries to support poor countries across the world, and I subscribe to it.

I have been concerned, and I have heard much evidence to support that concern, that achieving 0.7% cannot be an end in itself. It should be the consequence of what we do project by project and programme by programme because success can be measured only through positive development outcomes. I have also questioned the speed with which 0.7% is to be reached. The committee’s conclusion in paragraph 95 relates to reaching it by next year, and whether it should be made statutory, which presumably future Governments could change if they wanted to.

In financial terms, there is a planned 37% real-terms increase in aid spending by 2015, which is three years away. I am still uncertain whether it can be done without substantial waste, losing large amounts to overheads and administration and, indirectly, to capital flight and fraud. I hope my doubts are misconceived—I would like them to be. Our committee has stressed throughout that its report is not about cutting aid, nor about freezing it, but about ensuring that the criteria used to define success are not just a proportion of national income. Interestingly, in his reply to our report, the International Development Secretary said:

“0.7% is not a central plank of aid policy”.

I am reassured by that and I hope that means there can be a meeting of minds. I am very happy to spend 0.7%, but the impression has been given that it is indeed the central plank of government policy. I am happy to accept the previous Secretary of State’s clarification. He is right to have added in his response that reaching 0.7% will send a powerful message to other countries, and it is doubly important that we do so given the problems of debt, the loss of tax income and reduction in food supplies that I referred to earlier. All I ask is that reaching 0.7% is done by delivering real outcomes on the ground that are sustainable, drive economic growth and maximise the development impact for each pound spent, which will in turn give the public confidence that their money is being wisely spent.

For that reason, we need to be careful that when we pass money to intermediate agencies, we do so with agreement that money will not go to projects that we would not have agreed to fund ourselves. For example, we are the fifth largest contributor to the World Bank. While our contribution is only around 10% of our total spending on aid, some of that money is going to projects that DfID would not have funded directly itself: there are examples in projects in Iran, China and India. The International Development Secretary promised that there would be a tighter focus on 27 of the poorer countries, and that seems to be right.

The same problem seems to have occurred with the EU, where British aid has been used to support some projects that would not have been supported directly by the UK. I welcome DfID’s intention to go with “what works”, in the words of the previous Secretary of State. Certainly, the bilateral aid review he undertook, resulting in country offices bidding against planned results rather than just for access to funding, will help. In education, might this mean longer contracts to allow for vital institution-building and implementation? Might it mean educational consultants working alongside rather than for an overseas ministry? Might projects be clearly part of a bigger picture rather than one-off without proper follow-up? In building civil society, might it mean focusing on outcomes so that large and prolonged aid programmes do not have a corrosive effect on local political and government systems? In health might this mean following the advice of Professor Sachs of Columbia University, which is quoted at paragraph 108 of our report? It says:

“‘I am not keen on programmes that say, “You are a good Government, you get high governance scores from the World Bank, therefore you are going to be a recipient of budget assistance and we trust you”. I trust nobody.’ Handing over money to central government and expecting it to reach the local level is, unless very carefully designed, ‘a hope too far’. Professor Sachs is instead ‘a big fan of well targeted, well defined programmes that can accomplish well designed and specified purposes’, such as delivery of bed nets or vaccines”.

Health projects like that drive growth because people are well.

In the past 20 years, 18 out of 54 countries have moved from being classed as low income to being classed as middle income. Our job is to help many more low-income countries to move from aid to trade and from low income to middle income.

This is not just about 0.7% or any other number; it is about doing what we can and should do to help poor countries to grow their way out of poverty. It also means the Government reassuring everyone that there is indeed capacity in DfID to spend effectively and, in so doing, to build public support for development aid.

Economy: Growth

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Thursday 21st June 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lady Kramer for initiating this debate. I think it is true that the UK is weathering the debt crisis better than many countries, and we seem to understand why we have so much debt and what needs to be done to reduce it. Our problem is that, in addressing the public deficit and personal debt, growth has stalled. As the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, pointed out, confidence is poor, so people hold cash to protect themselves against instability and uncertainty. As they do that, banks repair balance sheets, businesses hold cash amounting to some £700 billion and individuals reduce their borrowing and try to save more. That is now leading to too much cash doing too little and simply earning low returns in interest. Meanwhile, unemployment is high—particularly youth unemployment—borrowing can be hard even for good business proposals and we continue to build too few homes.

As my noble friend Lady Kramer pointed out, the Government have given leadership through their growth initiatives and in their recent boost last week to high-street lending. We all need to respond to restore confidence and thereby generate jobs. Can more of those with money to spare be persuaded to spend some of it on services, employing, for example, a tradesperson who may be having a tough time getting work? That could make a difference and prevent someone having to cease trading and ending up on state benefits. Can we deliver an urgent boost in housing? We are not building enough new homes; the construction industry has declined by more than 4% in the latest period. There is an acute shortage of most kinds of properties but particularly of affordable, social housing, as the number of people renting rises. I can see no alternative to a major government injection of cash to provide the necessary gap finance to get homes under construction. I hope that the Government will urgently consider addressing this issue because tackling it will drive growth and employment as well as build confidence and homes.

There is also an important point about governance in that I believe there is a direct relationship between local empowerment and local growth. In England, government offices and regional development agencies have disappeared to be replaced by local authorities and local enterprise partnerships. These new structures are bedding in and I am confident that they will build on the successes of the RDAs.

Crucial to this further success is tax-increment financing, which permits borrowing against future business rate income. I agree with the noble Baronesses, Lady Kramer and Lady Valentine, about the importance of tax-increment financing—TIF—in generating growth, because England's major urban areas are suffering from a lack of demand which impacts directly on national performance. Spending and borrowing are being driven down by low confidence, restricting business growth. The recent and welcome moves to increase credit need to be backed by further measures to stimulate demand. Access to borrowing needs to be matched by the ability and confidence to repay that borrowing.

Infrastructure investment creates jobs, confidence and a high-ratio return. With low availability of public finance, TIF is widely recognised as a critical tool in delivering such investment and stimulus. Although the Government have created the means for TIF to operate through the Local Government Finance Bill, they have limited its potential effectiveness with their proposed resets, which make it difficult for local authorities to secure the level of return they need and will in turn reduce their ability to invest. The Government need to be more confident about local government’s ability to manage risk and make robust decisions.

By comparison, Scotland passed a Bill under devolved powers in December 2010 to allow six TIF schemes to run. Scotland looked first at which projects had real merit and then decided what to fund. Although some Scottish schemes are not yet fully resolved, that was a sound principle—to find the growth opportunities and then to allocate the funds. Some £500 million of public finance is now committed, attracting £2.5 billion from the private sector. I feel that England can learn from Scotland on this as it seems to have found a sensible way of proceeding. Many potential TIF proposals in England seek to rebalance the economy by stimulating developing industries such as biotech and high-tech manufacturing, resulting in long-term growth in high-productivity sectors which benefit the national economy. Longer-term pay-back periods may often be necessary to deliver that.

As I understand it, the borrowing by local authorities for enterprise zones announced a little while ago may also be treated more favourably than TIF and will not count against the public expenditure control framework, whereas TIF will. That implies a choice of accounting treatment, which I find confusing. I also wonder whether it would be welcomed by CIPFA.

The Association of British Chambers of Commerce, the British Property Federation, London First, the Centre for Cities, Core Cities, the GLA, the LGA, London Councils, the British Council of Shopping Centres and many individual private sector companies have all called for a much bolder approach to TIF because it is a mechanism that businesses think will help them grow. I very much hope that, during the passage of the Local Government Finance Bill, the Government will be able to respond to the potential that TIF projects offer.

That brings me to transport. I have never understood why the UK does not have a strategic transport plan. We seem to lack an airports plan, a road strategy and a plan for rail. That is not a new problem—it has been the case for too many years. The result is that too much infrastructure investment has been short term in its thinking, with a quick payback period in economic terms. It is not designed to rebalance the UK economy in the longer term. We should remember that private sector investment follows government decisions on infrastructure investment. Thus, HS2, which I support, will define for the private sector, because of its route, where firms should think of investing. It really matters what the Government say and where they think public investment should be placed.

To rebalance the UK economy requires a boldness and confidence about the long-term of transport infrastructure investment benefits to the economy; hence the need for dualling the A1 in Northumberland, improving rolling stock on regional rail services and delivering congestion relief through roads investment rather than having the Highways Agency simply put barriers in the way of development and growth by objecting to developments proposed on the grounds of future road capacity, as happens far too often.

Several parts of the UK suffer from low levels of transport infrastructure investment and their potential for growth is more limited as a result. The Government have the opportunity, two years in, to do something about that and to move from short-term decision-making to a clear long-term strategy which informs their investment and that of the private sector.

Open Public Services White Paper

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Monday 11th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Verma]

I thank the noble Lord for coming in and assisting me, but I will still follow it through with some letters.

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of Newcastle City Council. There is much to commend in this White Paper in principle, insofar as it gives greater power and responsibility to groups of individuals and third sector providers. However, will my noble friend the Minister confirm that it is not just about sell-off to the private sector for profit and that the Government really mean that this is about groups of residents, individuals and third sector organisations? Secondly, will she comment on increasing choice? While theoretically a very good thing which I strongly support, there has to be spare capacity in a public service; otherwise, choice becomes a mirage. Having spare capacity is inherently more expensive when what people want is to have high-quality services available in their immediate neighbourhoods. At a time of declining public resource, ensuring high-quality services within neighbourhoods, close to home in order to minimise the need to travel, is more important than extending, at higher cost to the public purse, the choice in a wider area.

[Baroness Verma]

My noble friend should feel reassured first and foremost that it is not about just a sell-off. It is about introducing a much wider and more diverse provision of service so that people are able to enjoy a much more flexible response to their needs rather than, as so often, a stringent delivery of services through local authorities. Often as not, my noble friend will find that within an independent delivery service there is always capacity built in. It is often a prerequisite required of those who deliver services when they buy from the public sector to deliver, because it has to be delivered in their service plans in the first place. So I do not have a worry about capacity.

It is important that we are able to ensure that people who are going to use these services will be able to have a greater say in how those services will be delivered, whether those services meet their needs and, if they do not, how we can have recourse to get those services made better in responding to those needs.

Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Monetary Penalty Notices and Consents for Interceptions) Regulations 2011

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Tuesday 17th May 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, first I thank the Minister for explaining in detail the regulations and their purpose. The main reason for this instrument, and for the stronger wording and stiffer penalties that it provides, appears to be the desire to meet the concerns of the European Commission that the United Kingdom has failed to incorporate properly into national law the European Union's privacy and electronic communications directive. It has been claimed that concerns were prompted by complaints received by the Commission from BT customers after it conducted unannounced, targeted advert trials through a software company that used its technology to intercept and monitor the web activity of BT customers to match adverts to the interests of users.

The Crown Prosecution Service recently decided not to proceed with action against BT and the software company as it did not consider that there was enough evidence to convict. However, last September the Commission referred the United Kingdom to the European Court of Justice, citing concerns that our laws did not adequately protect against intrusion into personal privacy. The concerns were that we had not created a sanction for all unlawful interception, only for intentional interception; that we had not created an independent authority responsible for the supervision of all interception activities; and that we had wrongly made it lawful to intercept a communication where the interceptor had a reasonable belief in the other party's consent to the interception.

On the basis of what the Minister said, the Government acknowledged the first and third points, but not the second on the independent authority. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that. Perhaps she could also say whether the Government regard the provisions in this regulation are likely to bring to an end any proceedings at the European Court of Justice.

The Government proposed amendments to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act last November, and the outcome of the consultation showed strong support among the 39 respondents for the adoption of what were described as “unambiguous measures”, making it clear that users have to grant consent before companies can intrude on their communications, and that it should no longer be sufficient to maintain that including relevant information within the general terms and conditions of privacy policies would allow for a sufficient expression of consent. We note that guidance will be provided by the office of the Interception of Communications Commissioner and we understand the reasons for this statutory instrument. I also take it from the words used by the Minister that the Government are perfectly happy to proceed with this revision of the Act. They do not regard it as an example of what they would describe as unnecessary bureaucracy and regulation, and they do not regard themselves as having to do this simply because the European Commission has told them they ought to do it. I had the impression from what the noble Baroness said that the Government themselves believe that this is the appropriate action to take. I would be grateful if she would confirm what I believe she said in her introductory comments.

I conclude by asking when the guidance will be provided by the office of the Interception of Communications Commissioner. Will she also confirm that the anticipated additional workload and costs on the public purse is effectively nil?

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend for proposing this statutory instrument. I do so because it strengthens the rights of the individual and is therefore most welcome. However, it is not clear why the privacy directive produced in 2003 was not put in place correctly at the time. It is now some eight years since that occurred. If the Minister is in a position to say a little more about why it has taken so long to put this right, that would be welcome.

Two of the three issues raised by the European Commission have now been addressed. Those are, first, the introduction of unintentional as well as intentional interception; and, secondly, the requirement for positive consent by an individual for interception. But a question remains around the role of the independent authority. I would like to be clear about this because the European Commission raised three concerns, the second of which was that:

“The UK had failed to create an independent authority responsible for the supervision of all interception activities as required by Article 28 of the Data Protection Directive”.

The Explanatory Notes to the regulations state simply that:

“The Government has not conceded the alleged defective transposition [from the directive] identified”.

It is not clear to me quite why the Government have not conceded that.

That takes me on to the issue of the Information Commissioner, as distinct from the Interception of Communications Commissioner. The office of the Information Commissioner submitted a lengthy response to the consultation to this RIPA regulation, from which I will quote from paragraph 1.5:

“If personal data is intercepted unlawfully under section 1(1) of RIPA this may also constitute a breach of the first data protection principle. It will be important therefore to draft the legislation in a way which allows the ICO to work with the IoCC once it has been established if an interception is unintentionally unlawful”.

The question is this: is the Office of the Information Commissioner satisfied with the result of the consultation and the statutory instrument?

I have two final points on which I would appreciate guidance from the Minister. First, are we clear on how consent will be given to the monitoring of communications? In other words, how the opt-in is taken by an individual is extremely important. Secondly, how soon might we review this statutory instrument? A year or two from now, will there be a further review to assess whether what we have proposed in meeting the European directive has been achieved?

Licensing Act 2003 (Royal Wedding Licensing Hours) Order 2011

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Tuesday 29th March 2011 Grand Committee

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, the licensing hours order before you today was laid in Parliament on 9 February. The order proposes the relaxation of licensing hours to celebrate the wedding of His Royal Highness Prince William and Miss Catherine Middleton. If made, it will allow licensed premises to stay open from 11 pm on Friday 29 April, the day of the wedding, to 1 am on Saturday 30 April, and from 11 pm on Saturday 30 April to 1 am on Sunday 1 May to sell alcohol for consumption on the premises; to put on regulated entertainment; and to sell hot food and drink in venues where alcohol is also sold for consumption on the premises.

Section 172 of the Licensing Act 2003 gives the Secretary of State the power to make an order relaxing opening hours for licensed premises to mark occasions of,

“exceptional international, national or local significance”.

A licensing hours order overrides existing opening hours in licensed premises and can be used for a period of up to four days. An order may be applied to all licensed premises in England and Wales, or restricted to one or more specific areas. Scotland and Northern Ireland are subject to different legislation. The wedding of His Royal Highness Prince William and Miss Catherine Middleton is a day of national celebration and, as such, the Government believe that a small relaxation of licensing hours in England and Wales is appropriate.

It is likely that many premises will wish to open later over the royal wedding weekend to take advantage of the celebrations and the long weekend. The Government do not have detailed statistics on closing times in pubs and other licensed premises—apart from 24-hour licences—but understand that around 67 per cent are currently shut by midnight on a Saturday. Licensed premises may currently use a temporary event notice to extend their opening hours for a limited period at a cost of £21. However, TENs are subject to certain annual limits—for example, only 12 may be given for a single premises each calendar year—and they may be refused by the licensing authority if the police object on crime and disorder grounds. A small relaxation of licensing hours will benefit premises that would otherwise have used a TEN to open late and will allow people to celebrate the royal wedding in pubs, clubs and other licensed venues, such as community halls.

In January this year the Government consulted on a proposal to relax licensing hours until 1am on Saturday 30 April and Sunday 1 May for the sale of alcohol for consumption on the premises and for regulated entertainment, which includes live and recorded music and dancing. The off trade was excluded from the proposal on the basis that anyone wishing to celebrate at home could buy alcohol in advance or at any time during normal opening hours. It was estimated that this small extension of licensing hours would save businesses in England and Wales between £240,000 and £280,000.

The consultation period was limited to two weeks but this was necessary to ensure that the order was made in good time for the wedding and businesses had sufficient time to plan. There were 712 responses to the consultation from a variety of interest groups and trade associations. A summary of the consultation can be found on the Home Office website. Although there was some support for an order, many of those who responded were concerned about a possible increase in crime and disorder and therefore in policing costs.

The Government take very seriously the concerns expressed by respondents to the consultation, but it was clear from the press response to the consultation that many people in this country want to celebrate the royal wedding and will welcome these proposals. The order will have no permanent effect on licensing hours and will mean that venues will open for just one or two hours later on the specified days. We anticipate that any additional policing costs will be very limited because the majority of licensed premises that will take advantage of the order would have opened late anyway using a TEN. We would expect any small extra costs to be met from existing police budgets.

Some respondents to the consultation suggested that the order should also include late-night refreshment —the sale of hot food and drink after 11pm—so that restaurants, pubs and other venues could continue to serve food until 1am. The Government accepted that suggestion but did not believe that the order should apply to takeaway establishments, which in most cases already have authorisation to stay open late.

I hope that noble Lords will agree with the Government that that this minor extension of licensing hours to celebrate the wedding of His Royal Highness Prince William and Miss Catherine Middleton is an appropriate use of the powers conferred on the Home Secretary by Section 172 of the Licensing Act.

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for this draft order. It has my full support. It has been an interesting exercise to go through the consultation; the majority of people who responded to it are against the measure, which shows us that it is not always the case that those who respond to consultations reflect the majority view. I am sure that when she made her decision the Secretary of State took account of the majority view in the population as a whole that it is right to extend the licensing hours as is proposed.

However, I ask for one piece of clarification. In the consultation, a specific request was made that we should be absolutely clear what “regulated entertainment” meant and that a lot of publicity should be given to the fact that live music and dancing would be part and parcel of this order, to avoid any confusion. In the draft order as published, it is not clear to someone who is not familiar with the law whether live music and dancing are part of that or not. I think that it is clear that they are, but I hope that the Minister will explain that that is the case and the general public will have the right, in the extended licensing hours, to have live music and dancing.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Baroness for her helpful explanation. We welcome and support this order. I accept that the royal wedding is an exceptional occasion and merits a small relaxation of licensing hours. Like the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, I note that the majority of respondents to the consultation seem to be opposed to it. I agree with him that people who consult do not always reflect the views of the general public or of Parliament. I am glad the Government have decided to press ahead with these proposals.

A couple of points were raised when this was debated in the other place. Perhaps the Minister could reflect on those. First, I understand that the order only applies to 29 and 30 April. Was consideration given to extending the order over the bank holiday weekend for a three-day period? Secondly, has any thought been given to the provision in the Licensing Act 2003 that allows certain areas to apply different hours on different days during the period covered? In other words, could local authorities be given further discretion at a local level? Finally, in the Explanatory Memorandum it is estimated that the additional policing of the order will cost between £45,000 and £170,000. Presumably there will be additional costs to local authorities. Has her department considered those costs? These are points of detail on which I would welcome a response, but overall we welcome this order.

Equality Act 2010 (Public Authorities and Consequential and Supplementary Amendments) Order 2011

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Tuesday 29th March 2011 Grand Committee

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, I am delighted to be leading this debate, and to have this opportunity to explain the Government’s approach to this legislation.

The main purpose of this order is to add a number of additional public bodies to the lists in Schedule 19 to the Equality Act 2010, so as to make those bodies subject to the public sector equality duty. Schedule 1 to the order sets out those public bodies we propose to add to Part 1 of Schedule 19, covering general public authorities; Schedule 2 adds a new Part 4 to Schedule 19, relating to cross-border Welsh authorities.

Any organisation performing a public function is subject to the equality duty in respect of that function, but listing bodies in Schedule 19 serves two useful purposes. First, it makes absolutely clear that the body named is subject to the general equality duty, and in regard to which of its functions—in some cases this will not be all of them. Secondly, it enables the Secretary of State to impose specific duties on those bodies, to enable the better performance of the general duty. Only bodies listed in Schedule 19 can be made subject to the specific duties.

Schedule 19 to the Act, as it currently stands, lists broad categories of public bodies which are subject to the equality duty, including central government departments, local authorities, the Armed Forces, and the key health, education, policing and transport bodies. In total, around 27,000 public bodies are covered by these categories. This order adds a number of additional bodies to that schedule. I would like to explain briefly how we arrived at this final list.

The Government’s broad criteria for listing bodies for the equality duty were set out in our consultation document in August 2010. Our intention is to list public bodies which deliver public services, are responsible for regulating or inspecting the delivery of those services, or otherwise influence the way in which those services are delivered. The consultation included a draft list for comments. The Government’s broad criteria met with general approval. However, a number of respondees, and particularly the Equality and Human Rights Commission, suggested additions to that draft list.

My officials and lawyers have considered every one of those suggestions, and met with the EHRC to discuss them in detail. As a result of those discussions, a number of bodies have been added to the final list. I will quickly run through those bodies: the General Medical Council; the General Dental Council; the General Chiropractic Council; the Nursing and Midwifery Council; the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service; the Homes and Communities Agency; the Higher Education Funding Council for England; the Student Loans Company; the Legal Services Board; the Judicial Appointments Commission; and the NHS Business Services Authority.

Where we did not accept the recommendations of the EHRC or other respondees to our consultation, one of a number of reasons applied. First, in some cases they suggested bodies which are in fact already covered by the broad criteria in Schedule 19. For example, Ofsted and the Charity Commission for England and Wales were suggested, but these are technically non-ministerial government departments, and so fall under the listing for all government departments. Secondly, some bodies were suggested whose influence on equality outcomes we doubted—for example, the Inland Waterways Association. Thirdly, and most importantly, some bodies were suggested which we could not say with confidence perform public functions as defined in the Human Rights Act 1998. This is a necessary criterion for bodies to be listed. While there is no absolute definition as to what constitutes a public function for the purposes of the Human Rights Act, in the case of YL v Birmingham City Council in 2007 the House of Lords adopted a narrow approach when addressing this question.

On this basis, my legal advice was that I could not confidently say that certain bodies met the necessary criteria. These include some museums and heritage organisations; some research and advisory organisations, particularly ones where Ministers make the final decisions; and some trade promotion organisations, such as the British Wool Marketing Board. These types of organisation have therefore not been listed. My officials explained to the EHRC which of these reasons applied to which organisations, and I would be happy to discuss individual cases, although I am obviously keen that we do not get bogged down in lengthy debate about each and every organisation this evening.

I must stress that we will keep the list under review. We plan to add certain additional bodies to it through primary legislation, such as we are doing with GP consortia in the Health and Social Care Bill, and it would be possible to make another order such as this at some point in the future. If there are convincing legal arguments that a particular body not listed exercises public functions and has a significant impact on equality issues, I would be happy to consider them.

Moving on, the order also makes a small number of consequential and supplementary amendments to the Equality Act 2010 and other legislation. The purpose and effect of these amendments are explained in detail in the Explanatory Memorandum for the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. In summary, though, the overall purpose of the consequential amendments is to ensure that the amended legislation is up to date and works correctly in relation to the Act. There are four such amendments in Articles 3 to 5 of the order. The first is to Schedule 26 to the Act itself, which deals with amendments to other legislation. This amendment simply ensures that the definition of “disabled person” in the Housing (Scotland) Act 2006 refers to the Act instead of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, which has been repealed.

The second amendment is to Schedule 27 to the Act, which sets out repeals and revocations of other legislation. This amendment adds two new Parts to the legislation, reflecting repeals and revocations of other legislation that are consequential on the repeal of the race duty under the Race Relations Act 1976, which will happen when the new equality duty comes into force.

The third amendment is to the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. This amendment removes redundant cross-references. The fourth is to the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. This amendment requires school adjudicators, when taking decisions, to have regard to the obligations owed by local authorities and school governing bodies under Section 149 of the Act in relation to all the protected characteristics under the Act—not just race, as is the present position.

The overall purpose of the three supplementary amendments in Articles 6 and 7 of the order is to correct inadvertent omissions or drafting errors and ensure that the Act’s provisions work as intended. The first amendment is to paragraph 20(1)(b) of Schedule 8 to the Act. This amendment puts right an incorrect technical reference relating to cases where a reasonable lack of knowledge of a person’s disability would mean that the duty to make reasonable adjustments did not apply.

The second amendment is to paragraph 14(4) of Schedule 17 to the Act. The Act misdescribes the arrangements for appeals to be made in respect of exclusions of disabled schoolchildren. This amendment corrects the wording in relation to appeal arrangements for exclusions to reflect the actual arrangements in England and Wales respectively where the pupil, the parent or both may bring an appeal, depending on the pupil’s age.

The third amendment is to Section 27(1) of the Equality Act 2006. This provides that the Equality and Human Rights Commission can make arrangements for the provision of conciliation services in respect of proceedings under Section 116 of the Act about disabled pupils in schools. This was the previous position, which was intended to be carried over into the Act. I commend the draft order to the Committee.

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, I welcome the order introduced by my noble friend. It clarifies the responsibilities of public bodies in successfully delivering the equality duty. It may well be that more will need to be added to the 27,000 now listed, but that can be done with new orders.

I have a general query about the distinction now being drawn between the general duty and the specific duties. The general duty will come into effect very shortly, on 5 April. In terms of the specific duties, though, a second consultation has been undertaken with a closing date of 21 April.

The specific duty relates to what information public bodies are required to gather and to publish. We do not want to over-bureaucratise public bodies, but some of the changes that are being proposed need to be looked at very closely because, as I understand it, the key differences in the new draft regulations from those published following the previous consultation are the removal of the requirements on public bodies to publish the details of the engagement that they have undertaken when determining their policies and equality objectives; the equality analysis that they have undertaken in reaching their policy decisions, and the information they have considered when undertaking such analysis.

As I understand it, it is expected that there will be challenge from the public to public bodies and that that challenge will be the key means of holding public bodies to account for their performance on equality, and that mechanisms are being developed to support organisations and individuals to effectively challenge public bodies to ensure that they publish the right information and deliver the right results.

I do not understand how the public will be enabled to challenge unless the public are clear what engagement a public body has undertaken when determining policies and equality objectives; what equality analysis it has undertaken in reaching its policy decisions; and what information it has considered when undertaking such analysis. In other words, will the public have the information they need to be able to challenge public bodies effectively?

I hope in the course of the consultation that is now being undertaken and in the next stages of the specific duties being finalised, that there will be greater clarity produced as to what it is the public will have a right to expect to enable them to challenge the equality duty being delivered by those public bodies.

[Lord Waddington]

My Lords, I rise not to oppose these regulations, but to put down a few markers and raise one or two questions. I am glad that my noble friend is at the Dispatch Box, not only because I have a great admiration for her, but because I can be sure that she will pass on my concerns. There may not be many to hear them today, but I can rely on her to see that others hear about them.

The point about these regulations, so far as I am concerned, is that they herald very much more significant regulations and developments which are in the offing, namely, the commencement of Section 149 of the Equality Act and the implementation of the Equality Act draft specific duties regulations. In my view the coalition should be congratulated on scrapping the provisions in the Equality Act, which placed a duty on all public bodies at all times to take account of the inequalities of outcome that result from socioeconomic disadvantage. In promoting equality of opportunity, one is trying to extend the freedom of people to make the most of their talents: promoting equality of outcome means allowing the state to try by rules, regulations and bureaucratic means to iron out differences in performance so that endeavour and achievement are not rewarded. I would have thought that that is the last thing that one could possibly want in a free society. The Home Secretary was entirely right to point out in a speech that while people expect fairness, there should be no seeking a world where everyone gets the same out of life regardless of what they put in. Most people were really pleased to hear her say that the Government are moving away from equality of outcome to equality of opportunity.

The question is: how does what the Home Secretary has said fit in with what is in store for us? And, how much mischief by local authorities and public authorities will be encouraged by the implementation of Section 149 and the Equality Act’s specific duties regulations?

I accept that much has been done in the most recent version of the specific duties regulations to reduce bureaucracy, but the regulations will still require public authorities to publish equality objectives which are specific and measurable—and that means, in plain English, targets. They will require them to gather information to show that they are complying with those targets. That sounds to me very much more like equality of outcome as an approach than the one that the Secretary of State says that she now espouses.

Millennium Development Goals

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Thursday 7th October 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, we should be much reassured by the fact that, despite the difficult financial position faced by the Government, their commitment to raise spending on overseas aid from 0.5 per cent of our annual economic output to 0.7 per cent by 2013 has remained a firm promise—indeed, it is to be enshrined in law. That is welcome, and demonstrates that while charity may begin at home, it only begins there. However, this is not just about charity. A world divided between the wealthy and the very poor is inherently unstable, particularly as the world continues to shrink because of the speed and availability of communication.

I shall talk specifically about the role and importance of women in reaching the challenging millennium goals that world leaders have set. A few years ago, I visited a housing project in Khayelitsha, one of Cape Town's townships. There, I realised that if you wanted homes built, it was the women’s housing co-operative that would build them. If you wanted a crèche, it is women who would create it and run it. If you wanted bed-and-breakfasts, the businesses would be run by women; and if you wanted a self-help saving scheme to provide microfunding, it was women who would organise it.

That is why we need to concentrate far more on strategies which help the lives of women directly, particularly in health, maternity and schooling, which will in turn drive higher growth through greater equality. The millennium goal furthest away from being met relates to the mortality rates of women who die in pregnancy and childbirth. This impacts directly on the existing children of those mothers and their life chances. Half a million women die every year in this way, and half of them are in sub-Saharan Africa. The new strategies recently announced to increase substantially the number of lives saved are at the heart of what we need to do. For example, in under half of developing countries does a skilled health worker attend a birth. Addressing this specific issue could make such a difference. Two-thirds of the billion people who live on less than one dollar a day are women, and those women own only 1 per cent of the land they live on. Yet gender inequality discourages economic growth because when women earn money, they spend more of it on their families. Research by Goldman Sachs and by the World Bank has confirmed that if more women could earn their own income, the income per head in many developing countries could rise by a fifth.

I have two final points. Let us remember that economic growth requires clean water. As an example of what can be done if we concentrate aid, we should look to new technologies, such as encouraging the use of solar power to pump fresh water from deep underground wells. Finally, I congratulate the BBC World Service Trust on the excellence of its work in developing countries, to which it broadcasts information to help people in the face, for example, of natural disasters. I give a particular accolade to “Afghan Woman’s Hour” to which six million Afghan women tune in every week. These women say that the stories they hear inspire them to take action to improve their own living conditions. At New York, Ban Ki-Moon reminded us that:

“Meeting the goals is everyone’s business. Falling short would multiply the dangers of our world—from instability to epidemic diseases and environmental degradation”.

He said that,

“achieving the goals will put us on a fast track to a world that is more stable, more just and more secure”.

He is surely right.